Well-meaning individuals, convinced of their own moral righteousness, can drive contentious debates into entrenched "echo chambers," according to a University of Alberta study that traces how passionate discussions about critical issues descend into shouting matches and, eventually, silence.
A team led by Alberta School of Business professor Trish Reay and PhD candidate Lei Emma Jing looked at echo chambers by examining the discourse surrounding harm reduction in addiction services — specifically, the controversy around supervised consumption sites.
The findings offer a fresh perspective on how moral emotions, rather than just misinformation, can escalate divisions and lead to groups sealing themselves off from opposing viewpoints.
"We explored the idea of dual echo chambers," explains Reay. "People always think the other person is in an echo chamber, but they have to realize they are in one too."
The research, based on an in-depth analysis of archival materials like newspaper accounts and numerous interviews with individuals on both sides of the harm reduction debate, identified three distinct phases in the journey toward an echo chamber.
Division and hostility lead to silence
The first phase is where the emotional divide forms. Reay says it is here where people become emotionally invested in their chosen stance. For harm reduction, this pits a "health care view" — which sees addiction as a disease and advocates for saving lives through measures like safe injection sites — against a "community view," which is held most often by those nearby who see first-hand the negative impacts of the site, or those believing in personal responsibility and traditional treatment.
"At this point, people really begin to dig in," says Reay. "This is the place when you really think you're right and the other side is wrong, and you can't convince them through a conversation."
In phase two, simply digging in gives way to heightened hostility and blame. This phase sees a significant increase in anger.
"It is here where anger increases belief that people are absolutely right and those who oppose them are absolutely wrong," says Reay.
In this phase, language becomes increasingly charged and filled with emotion, and a belief that the other side is morally wrong becomes central.
"We could see word choices made by particular spokespeople and interviewees became filled with emotion and even outright anger and hate. And these strengthen over time," notes Reay.
The final stage is marked by disdain and disgust, leading both sides to stop talking.
"This is where people essentially stop reading or watching anything about the other side. 'I'm going to only read the stories I like, that fit with my beliefs,'" says Reay.
"This is the ultimate echo chamber."
Unlike popular notions of echo chambers being spaces where people are trapped by algorithms or powerful actors, this study highlights an "institutional perspective" — where individuals encapsulate themselves. Reay explains this means they actively withdraw from engagement with opposing views, creating walls around their like-minded groups.
This escalation, she says, is fuelled not just by facts, but by how strongly people feel about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a position.
While "attention-getting events" — like a rise in overdose deaths — highlight an issue, "magnet events" — like the election of a government supporting or opposing a controversial policy — are key. These magnet events attract intense emotional responses, reinforcing the belief that the other side is not just mistaken, but morally flawed.
Getting beyond echo chambers
The research offers practical insights into how to potentially combat echo chambers. The key, according to Reay, is to "demoralize" the issue by framing controversial topics in pragmatic, non-moral ways.
For example, she says discussing harm reduction in terms of cost-saving or public health outcomes rather than moral judgments can temper emotions and open pathways for conversation.
She suggests that workplaces, classrooms and individuals can make conscious efforts to encourage evidence-based discussion, recognize escalating emotions and create neutral spaces for dialogue before deep-seated moral divisions take hold.
And though it's difficult to intervene in phase three, cooling-down periods can offer opportunities to find small, common-ground solutions.
"There are chances to perhaps come back and say, 'All these things happened, but we need a path forward, and can we make some small changes that would work out for both sides?'"
