‘But I don’t know if I want to talk to you’: strategies to foster conversational receptiveness across the United States’ political divide

References

• Angels, B. (2019). Red/blue workshops moderator guide. Braver Angels.
   Google Scholar
• Barge, J. K., & Andreas, D. C. (2013). Communities, conflict, and the design of dialogic conversations. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 609–634). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Baron, H., Blair, R., Choi, D. D., Gamboa, L., Gottlieb, J., Robinson, A. L., Rosenzweig, S. C., Turnbull, M. M., & West, E. A. (2021). Can Americans depolarize? Assessing the effects of reciprocal group reflection on partisan polarization. http://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3×7z8
   Google Scholar
• Black, L. W., & Wiederhold, A. (2014). Discursive strategies of civil disagreement in public dialogue groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42(3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2014.911938
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bordone, R. C. (2018). Building conflict resilience: It’s not just about problem-solving. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2018(1), 65–74.
   Google Scholar
• Braithwaite, D. O., Allen, J., & Moore, J. (2017). Data conferencing. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 1, 425–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0057.
   Google Scholar
• Brett, J. M. (2017). Culture and negotiation strategy. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(4), 587–590. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-11-2015-0230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. (2012). The power of being heard: The benefits of ‘perspective giving’ in the context of intergroup conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 855–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carcasson, M., & Sprain, L. (2016). Beyond problem-solving: Reconceptualizing the work of public deliberation as deliberative inquiry. Communication Theory, 26(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carothers, T. (2019). The long path of polarization in the United States. In T. Carothers & A. O’Donohue (Eds.), Democracies divided: The global challenge of political polarization (pp. 65–92). Brookings Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Carothers, T., & O’Donohue, A. (eds.). (2019). Democracies divided: The global challenge of political polarization. Brookings Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Chung-Mei Lensen, K., Chesler, M., & Brown, N. (2012). Practice note: Responding to civic conflict: Developing intergroup dialogue co-facilitators. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 29(4), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21047
   Google Scholar
• Cleven, E., Bush, R., & Saul, J. A. (2018). Living with no: Political polarization and transformative dialogue. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2018(1), 53–64.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. R. (2018). Developing communities of dialogue. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 20(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.132.
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, J. T., Modri, S. A., & Motyl, M. (2013). Bleeding-heart liberals and hard-hearted conservatives: Subtle political dehumanization through differential attributions of human nature and human uniqueness traits. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1(1), 86–104. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v1i1.184
   Google Scholar
• Dorjee, T., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2020). Understanding intergroup conflict complexity: An application of the socioecological framework and the Integrative Identity Negotiation Theory. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 13(3), 244–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gino, F., Minson, J. A., & Huizinga, J. (2020). Braver Angels: A grassroots effort to depolarize American politics (Harvard Business School case study report #9-920-054). https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/920054-PDF-ENG?Ntt=Braver+Angels&itemFindingMethod=Search
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gower, K., Cornelius, L., Rawls, R., & Walker, B. B. (2020). Reflective structured dialogue: A qualitative thematic analysis. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 37(3), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21271
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath, R. G., & Borda, J. L. (2021). Reclaiming civility: Towards discursive opening in dialogue and deliberation. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 17(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.976.
   Google Scholar
• Heath, S. M. (2021). What I need to unify right now. Braver Angels, July 18. https://braverangels.org/what-i-need-to-unify-right-now/?link_id=7&can_id=12e58921c83ec35d7095944eead8277f&source=email-get-to-know-a-legend-of-democracy&email_referrer=email_1241309___subject_1640428&email_subject=beyond-red-blue
   Google Scholar
• Herzig, M., & Chasin, L. (2006). Fostering dialogue across divides: A nuts and bolts guide from the Public Conversations Project. Public Conversations Project. https://www.intergroupresources.com/rc/Fostering%20Dialogue%20Across%20Divides.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J., Kuhne, P., & Peek, C. J. (2019). (October). Participant-identified effects of Better Angels experiences. Unpublished paper by Better Angels organization.
   Google Scholar
• Karpowitz, C. F., Raphael, C., & Hammond IV, A. S. (2009). Deliberative democracy and inequality: Two cheers for enclave deliberation among the disempowered. Politics & Society, 37(4), 576–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329209349226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirivel, J. C. (2014). The art of positive communication: Theory and practice. Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Morrell, M. E. (2018). Listening and deliberation. In A. Bachtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, & M. E. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (pp. 237–250). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Muradova, L. (2021). Seeing the other side? Perspective-taking and reflective political judgements in interpersonal deliberation. Political Studies, 69(3), 644–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720916605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, J., & Hyun, S. S. (2021). Influence of airline cabin crew members’ rapport-building behaviors and empathy toward colleagues on team performance, organizational atmosphere, and irregularity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6417. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126417
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprain, L., & Black, L. W. (2018). Deliberative moments: Understanding deliberation as interactional accomplishment. Western Journal of Communication, 82(3), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2017.1347275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stains, R. (2012). Reflection for connection: Deepening dialogue through reflective processes. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 30(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21053
   Google Scholar
• Wang, C. S., Tai, K., Ku, G., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). Perspective-taking increases willingness to engage in intergroup contact. PLoS One, 9(1), e85681. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085681
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, B. R., Horstman, H. K., & Kearney, C. C. (2020). Reducing political polarization through narrative writing. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 48(4), 459–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2020.1789195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, B. R., & Villamil, A. (2017). A test of imagined contact as a means to improve cross-partisan feelings and reduce attribution of malevolence and acceptance of political violence. Communication Monographs, 84(4), 447–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1336779
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe, A. W. (2018). Dialogue and deliberation as agonistic resistance: Designing interactional processes to reconstitute collective identities. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 14(2), https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.307
   Google Scholar
• Yeomans, M., Minson, J., Collins, H., Chen, F., & Gino, F. (2020). Conversational receptiveness: Improving engagement with opposing views. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar