Using “Balanced Pragmatism” in Political Discussions Increases Cross-Partisan Respect

Abstract

Synthesizing research on wisdom and a real-world practitioner intervention, we develop/test a strategy for presenting political views that fosters cross-partisan respect. This strategy—balanced pragmatism—combines two aspects of “wise reasoning:” balancing multiple interests and seeking pragmatic solutions. Studies 1-3 (N = 1187) demonstrate that participants respected out-group political elites more when they used balanced pragmatism vs. other forms of messaging. Studies 4-6 (N = 671) extend the usefulness of balanced pragmatism to everyday political disagreements: cross-partisan comments about divisive issues (i.e., guns and immigration) generated more respect when they used balanced pragmatism vs. logical analysis. Strikingly, people were as willing to discuss politics with disagreeing opponents who used balanced pragmatism as they were agreeing ingroup members. Mediation analyses suggest that balanced pragmatism improves cross-partisan respect by making opponents seem more moral, authentic, and rational. Results highlight connections between political/moral psychology and wisdom research, and the fruitfulness of scientist-practitioner collaborations.