Do civil dialogue interventions on U.S. college campuses have any impact? A field experiment examining different types of interventions

Abstract Interpersonal discussion and deliberation are key components of a democratic society, but the American public has become more and more polarized along partisan lines. These stark differences—and often hateful perceptions of out-groups—can result in the public prioritizing party affiliation over democracy, disincentivizing compromise, and becoming less tolerant of opposing viewpoints. At the same time, Americans are increasingly skeptical of the role that college campuses play in developing young adults into citizens. College campuses have become, in many ways, microcosms of the larger polarization divide taking place in the U.S. This study aims to address the trend of polarization on college campuses by examining the effects of discourse-based interventions. We also look at how psychological factors—like intellectual humility and open-minded cognition—may play a role in how these interventions impact future political discussion and participation among college students. Recruiting participants from a large mid-Atlantic university resulted in a total sample size of 606 participants divided across three conditions: a longer, moderated discussion ( n = 99); a shorter impromptu conversation ( n = 326); and a control condition with no intervention ( n = 181). Results demonstrate that the civil dialogue interventions utilized in the study, especially the UDelEngage model, has a significant positive effect on participants’ IH and likelihood to participate and discuss politics with opponents compared to control conditions. The above findings emphasize the vital essence of structured interventions in inculcating civil discourse and enhancing depolarization in higher education institutions.