Political polarization in the United States has drawn attention from researchers, policymakers, and civic groups seeking methods to reduce hostility across party lines. A recent study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on September 23, 2025, found that common strategies to alleviate partisan animosity yield only limited and short-lived improvements.
No Easy Solution: A Study Investigated the Barriers to Reducing Polarization and Political Hatred in the United States
Meta-analysis and experiments show that most interventions yield only modest improvements that fade within weeks.
Background: Evaluating the Solutions
Researchers from Dartmouth College and the University of Pennsylvania pursued the investigation through the Polarization Research Lab. Their analysis combined a meta-review of previous studies with two new large-scale experiments. The central aim was to evaluate whether practical interventions can reduce hostility between Democrats and Republicans.
The meta-analysis synthesized 25 studies that tested 77 interventions. These included correcting misperceptions about political opponents, promoting civil discourse, organizing structured conversations, and broadcasting public service announcements. The aim was to understand patterns across seemingly disparate attempts at bridging partisan gaps.
Original experiments were designed. The first involved about 3500 respondents and examined whether stacking different interventions together increased impact. Another engaged more than 5000 participants to test booster-style repetition over time. Both were structured to measure whether these strategies offered more powerful effects against animosity.
Findings: How and Why Remedies Fall Short
Results point to a challenging reality. Specifically, although interventions can produce short-term improvements, the effects quickly fade. Hostility toward the other party is deeply embedded in contemporary political culture, and temporary nudges rarely translate into lasting reconciliation. The following are the salient findings of the investigation:
• Modest and Temporary Gains
Interventions improved feelings toward the opposing party by only 5.3 percent on average. By comparison, partisan animosity increased by 7 percent between the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections. 75 percent of the improvement disappeared within one week, and nearly all benefits vanished within two weeks.
• Stacking Treatments Ineffective
An experiment with about 3500 participants tested whether multiple strategies, like civility appeals and misperception corrections, could amplify results. Results showed no significant enhancement compared to single interventions. Combining multiple approaches did not lead to stronger or longer-lasting reductions in hostility.
• Booster Strategies Fall Short
Another experiment with more than 5000 respondents assessed the effectiveness of repeating interventions across time. Results indicated no meaningful extension of effects. Improvements faded at the same rate as with one-time treatments. This suggests repetition alone does not sustain reduced animosity.
• Superficial Interventions Weak
Low-cost methods such as public service announcements, quick misbelief corrections, and civility reminders were least effective. These strategies offered minimal and short-lived improvements. Although they are relatively easy to deploy, their limited impact means they cannot address the depth of contemporary partisan hostility.
• Dialogue Shows Promise
Structured and respectful conversations produced stronger improvements. Dialogue-based interventions are resource-intensive and difficult to scale for national implementation. Its promise remains constrained by logistical and practical challenges without significant investments and long-term commitment.
Takeaways: Lessons for a Divided Nation
The study concludes that partisan hatred cannot be significantly reduced through superficial efforts alone. Political elites, media ecosystems, and digital platforms currently thrive on divisiveness and outrage. Structural reforms are required to alter these incentives, alongside civic education initiatives that embed respect and dialogue into democratic culture.
Nevertheless, based on the results, simple fixes cannot resolve the deep divisions shaping American political life. While interventions can briefly improve attitudes, their rapid decay shows that partisan animosity is reinforced by powerful cultural and institutional dynamics that outpace individual-level corrections or temporary reminders.
One implication is the inadequacy of relying solely on low-cost public campaigns. Messages promoting civility or correcting falsehoods are easy to distribute, but their fleeting effects make them insufficient. More resource-intensive interventions, like dialogue programs, provide stronger benefits yet face scalability limits without significant national infrastructure.
The findings essentially highlight the need for systemic change in both top-down and bottom-up forms. From the top, political and media elites must face altered incentives that reduce rewards for outrage and division. From the bottom, citizens require civic education that fosters critical thinking, dialogue, and respect for opposing views.
Hence, based on the above, political hatred is not merely a matter of individual misperception or poor manners. It is a structural challenge requiring long-term civic investment, institutional reforms, and cultural shifts. Without such comprehensive strategies, fleeting interventions will remain inadequate in reversing entrenched partisan hostility.
FURTHER READING AND REFERENCE
- Holliday, D. E., Lelkes, Y., and Westwood, S. J. 2025. “Why Depolarization is Hard: Evaluating Attempts to Decrease Partisan Animosity in America.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 122(39). DOI: 1073/pnas.2508827122