When engaging in a political discussion, talking about what you oppose instead of what you support may make others more open to your views, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.
"In an era of deepening political polarization, our research offers a counterintuitive insight into how we can better communicate across ideological lines: Talk about what you oppose, not what you support," said lead author Rhia Catapano, PhD, of the University of Toronto.
In a series of experiments involving more than 10,000 participants, the researchers examined how the way people talk about their opinions—specifically, whether they say what they support or what they oppose—can influence how others respond. The research was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
In one experiment, participants were randomly assigned either to communicate their views or receive someone else's opinion on hot-button issues like abortion and gun control. All participants, regardless of their status as a sender or receiver of information, were told they were matched with another participant who did not share their views on the topic assigned (when in reality they weren't matched with anyone).
Messages were then carefully framed for the senders to express either support or opposition to a particular stance. For example, in the case of abortion, a support-framed message might say, "I support allowing abortions" while an opposition-framed message might be, "I oppose abortion bans."
Senders were asked to rate how effective they thought the message would be at swaying their imaginary receiver. Receivers were asked to respond to messages from imaginary senders, indicating how closely the message aligned with their own values and whether they were willing to reconsider their own views.
Senders thought others would be more open to messages framed in terms of support. But surprisingly, those on the receiving end were more open to messages framed in terms of opposition.
In another experiment, researchers recruited Reddit users and created a simulated Reddit experience in which participants could choose which post to read and engage in a productive conversation. Once again, participants were more likely to select opposition-framed messages than support-framed messages.
What Catapano found most interesting was how small the change was between supportive and oppositional framing.
"All of the actual arguments were the same for both framings. In one case, people read a full three-paragraph essay of arguments. Just changing the wording of the first sentence from, 'I support X' to 'I oppose Y' – where Y represented the other side of the issue – was enough to impact receptiveness," she said. "How receptive people are to messages is affected not only by the actual arguments being advanced by the opposition, but something as small as one word in how they preface their arguments."
"This research shows that even subtle shifts in how we talk about our beliefs—support versus oppose—can make a meaningful difference in how others respond," she said. "It's a small change with potentially big implications for bridging divides."
Article: " Talking About What We Support Versus Oppose Affects Others' Openness to Our Views ," by Rhia Catapano, PhD, University of Toronto, and Zakary Tormala, PhD, Stanford University. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, published online Dec. 15, 2025.
