How Conversations with People Who Think Differently Can Make a Difference

The ARD talk show “What Unites Germany” features conversations among people from a wide variety of backgrounds. As part of the project, the HBI is conducting research to determine how these discussions influence the participants’ attitudes. The initial findings are now available.

By Jan-Hinrik Schmidt and Fenja De Silva-Schmidt

A large majority of citizens view the growing polarization of opinions in society as a problem, as the MIDEM Polarization Barometer 2025 recently demonstrated. At the same time, there is strong evidence that this concern is primarily based on the perception of “communicative polarization” (Nils Kumkar). We perceive society as divided because we see how opinions align along opposing poles in politics and the media, especially on social media. Without opportunities to exchange different views, worldviews, and values with others beyond our immediate social circle, we can quickly get the impression that we, as a society, are no longer capable of constructive debate.

The Experiment: Two Days of Dialogue in Front of the Camera

For the two-day “What Unites Germany” experiment, ARD invited 84 people to engage in open discussion in front of the camera, transcending differences in age, background, and political views. The goal of this dialogue project was to bring the participants together as a symbolic representation of Germany’s diverse population of 84 million. The event and its broadcast (in German only) on ARD channels are intended to help people understand different perspectives. The HBI, which has studied for years—particularly through its involvement in the “Research Institute Social Cohesion“—how media and communication influence social interaction, is providing scientific support for the initiative.

A Unique Opportunity for Research

At the heart of this research project is a three-part survey of 84 participants. The survey aims to shed light on their expectations and evaluations and determine if the unique discussion format changes their attitudes toward dialogue and perceptions of coexistence in the short or long term. To this end, participants completed a questionnaire before the first discussion and immediately after the two-day event. A total of 83 questionnaires from Saturday and 77 from Sunday were included in the analysis. A third and final survey is planned after the summer break. The interim results are not representative of the general population and should not be generalized beyond the context of the discussion group.

The Debates Worked!

Before the discussion session, the prevailing view was that public debates are becoming increasingly polarized (83% somewhat or strongly agreed) and that constructive conversations between people with differing views are rare (85% somewhat or strongly agreed). Nearly half of the participants (49%) believed that society was divided into irreconcilable factions. At the same time, two-thirds of the participants (63%) expressed a desire to learn about other perspectives, and nearly 45% stated that they wanted to build bridges between different viewpoints.

In the follow-up survey, respondents gave very positive feedback. All respondents agreed that they had met interesting people and that the discussion created an opportunity for different groups to listen to each other. Nearly all agreed that they were able to contribute their opinions to the dialogue (94%) and that the discussion was open and free of prejudice (92%).

These findings suggest that it is possible to bring people from different backgrounds together for conversation and constructive debate within a supportive framework and with a few basic rules for interaction.

Minor but Generally Positive Short-Term Changes

The survey includes a unique identifier that links each questionnaire to a specific individual while preserving the respondents’ anonymity. This makes it possible to identify changes in both the average across all respondents and at the individual level. Thus, it is possible to examine dialogue-related attitudes more closely between the first and second surveys. The third survey will provide further opportunities for comparison, such as regarding perceptions of social polarization. The analysis shows that, for most participants (between 50% and 68%, depending on the statement), there has been no change. They rated the statements on a four-point scale (strongly agree, agree, somewhat agree, or strongly disagree) in the same way before and after the discussion round. However, there are certainly interesting shifts in individual attitudes:

• “I have no trouble changing my mind when I hear convincing counterarguments”: After the discussion, 19 people became more aligned with the original opinion, while eight became more aligned with the opposing opinion.
• “When people have a different opinion than I do, I prefer to avoid lengthy discussions”: Twenty-one people across all age groups moved more toward agreement, while 14 moved more toward disagreement. The latter group tended to be people over 50.
• “When people with differing opinions clash, someone needs to make a clear decision one way or the other”: Twenty-two people leaned toward agreement, primarily those under 50, while seven people leaned toward disagreement.
• “Part of democracy is accepting all opinions, no matter how strange or controversial they may be”: Fourteen people leaned more toward agreement and eight people leaned more toward disagreement.

These responses were given while the participants were still under the influence of the lively, unmoderated discussions. They demonstrate that some participants are more open to other viewpoints, which may influence how they form their own opinions. At the same time, some participants clearly left the session feeling that lengthy discussions with people holding different views are exhausting, especially when they do not lead to a conclusion or decision. However, it remains to be seen whether these shifts in attitude will endure. This will only become clear after the final survey in September.

Contact

Project team at the Leibniz Institute for Media Research: PD Dr. Jan-Hinrik Schmidt, Milena Braun, Yana Novitskaya

Image: hr/ARD/Silviu Guiman