What the psychology of conflict zones can teach us about incivility

Incivility is surging across the United States, seeping into workplaces and online spaces (Civility Index, Society for Human Resource Management, 2024 [PDF, 4.3MB]opens in new window; Vogels, E. A., The State of Online Harassment, Pew Research Center, 2021)opens in new window.

Whether it’s name-calling on social media, threats toward local officials, or fighting words from political leaders, incivility is more than just a nuisance. It silences people, especially those on the receiving end, and can lead to an atmosphere of fear. Rewarding incivility can also lead more people to act uncivilly—even if they don’t want to, said Ravi Iyer, PhD, a social psychologist who is managing director of the Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making at the University of Southern California.

“America structurally encourages an ‘us versus them’ mentality with the two-party system” because it encourages rivalry, said Kurt Gray, PhD, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and author of Outraged: Why We Fight About Morality and Politics and How to Find Common Groundopens in new window.

“It becomes easy to demonize the other side because we’re self-segregated into neighborhoods and social media bubbles where we hardly have meaningful interactions with them,” he said.

If unaddressed, incivility can fester, said Eran Halperin, PhD, a professor of psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who studies and applies research on intergroup conflict. “Time is very, very important here. One thing we know about hostile relations is that the longer they remain, the potential for hatred becomes higher,” he said.

Researchers who focus on psychological healing within conflict zones and other fractured societies say lessons from international peacebuilding can be applied in the United States. These science-backed methods help challenge misconceptions about the “other side” and promote civility through a focus on shared values and increased connection.

Here’s what psychological research says about how incivility starts and what can be done to address it.

The U.S. political divide mirrors international conflicts in several ways, said Linda Tropp, PhD, a professor of social psychology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who studies intergroup relations and peacebuilding. Polarization, demonization of the “other,” information echo chambers, and political violence echo patterns seen in other fractured societies. That has led many in the peacebuilding field to believe that lessons from abroad can be applied here.

At a fundamental level, incivility can arise when basic psychological needs aren’t met, Tropp said. We want to feel heard and that our lived experiences matter. We crave certainty so we can navigate our social environments successfully.

“When there are people in our social circles who appear to threaten our worldview or way of life, we don’t like that feeling of vulnerability,” she said. “A common response is to withdraw and distance or to become louder and more aggressive in response.”

[Related: Restoring civility online]

That hostility toward the “other side,” such as those with different political views, is often based on misconceptions.

One study found that partisans—people who identify strongly with a political party—dislike each other equally, regardless of party. But each party thinks the other’s prejudice toward them is about twice as strong as it really is (Moore-Berg, S. L., et al., PNAS, Vol. 117, No. 26, 2020opens in new window). In another study, both sides show a “partisan trade-off bias.” When weighing their own party’s views, people see the negative trade-offs of various policies (such as gun control and voting rights) as unfortunate and unintended. But when the other side makes policy trade-offs, those compromises are seen as deliberately harmful (Goya-Tocchetto, D., et al., Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 98, 2022opens in new window).

“We have this destruction narrative in U.S. politics, where we believe that the other side is motivated to burn it all down and wants to hurt others,” Gray said. “That’s a misconception, but if you think the other side hates you, it’s easier for you to hate them.”

That excludes outliers such as extremists and some members of the political elite, Gray said. Actual threats of violence and intimidation can harm the political process. A recent sharp rise in threats toward local officials could even prevent leaders from running for local office (Bauer, J., & Glickman, J., Promoting Community Civility to Reduce Local Political Violence, National League of Cities, 2024opens in new window).

Most of the time, members of the general public don’t aim to harm their political opponents. When given the theoretical chance to help their own party or harm the opposing one, people generally choose the former. But if they feel their partisan identity is under threat, the calculus changes. People were more likely to choose to publish a news story criticizing the other party—rather than one praising their own—when they believed their own group identity was under attack (Amira, K., et al., Political Behavior, Vol. 43, 2021opens in new window).

This plays out in real world scenarios such as when leaders convince partisans that their votes are under threat, mobilizing anxious and often hostile throngs to crowd polling places. According to a 2024 survey, one in three poll workers had experienced threats of violence, and 92% of local election officials have had to increase security for voters, election workers, and election infrastructure (Edlin, R., & Norden, L., Poll of Election Officials Finds Concerns About Safety, Political Interference, Brennan Center for Justice, 2024opens in new window).

When it comes to the emotions fueling the often intense conflict between average Democrats and Republicans, Halperin’s lab has made a surprising discovery.

“Most people think that hate and hostility are the main emotional vehicles in U.S. politics,” he said. “But our findings suggest that it’s mainly about disappointment.”

Halperin said this reflects a shared identity that sets the U.S. conflict apart from others, such as the one between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Despite differing values, Americans expect to be working toward a larger common purpose (Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2024opens in new window). Instead, they feel disappointed because their political rivals aren’t acting in the prosocial way they expected.

Throughout U.S. history, a disproportionate focus on differences has paved the way for a society rife with incivility, said Fathali Moghaddam, PhD, a professor of psychology at Georgetown University who studies peace, conflict, and intergroup relations. That includes teaching schoolchildren how they differ from one another and encouraging a lop-sided focus on differences rather than similarities.

“Our [nation’s] slogan has been that we should celebrate differences,” he said. “That has laid the ground for a situation where incivility and lack of respect for others has arisen.”

In his most recent book, Moghaddam probes the empirical evidence in favor of multiculturalism, which he finds to be weak. While a focus on diversity tends to benefit the elites of various marginalized groups, it may do less to help others. His theory of omniculturalism proposes an alternative: Shift the focus—in schools, communities, and political forums—to commonalities (The Psychology of Multiculturalism, Assimilation, and Omniculturalism, Springer, 2024opens in new window).

At school, that means emphasizing the biological and psychological similarities between people from different backgrounds, at least until adolescence begins. To resolve political differences, psychology’s common ingroup identity model offers a framework for shifting from “us versus them” to a more inclusive “we” (Gaertner, S. L., et al., International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 20, No. 3–4, 1996opens in new window).

“In practice, especially in politics, we need to begin focusing on our common objectives and challenges. Celebrating difference will not get us to dealing with nuclear proliferation and climate change,” Moghaddam said.

Finding common policy goals can bring unlikely allies together. Our political parties used to do this quite successfully. In the 1970s, U.S. Senators George McGovern, a Democrat, and Bob Dole, a Republican, worked together on major legislative breakthroughs. They reworked the Food Stamp Program and collaborated on agricultural reform and veterans’ services. Despite differences in political ideology, they shared a history of military service and connected on a personal level, including during regular lunch meetings.

In a more recent example, Van Jones, a progressive activist, partnered with Jared Kushner, whose father served time in prison, to tackle their shared goal of criminal justice reform. In 2018, that work helped pass the First Step Act, which changed sentencing laws and aimed to smooth the transition between prison and society.

But promoting civility also requires finding shared values in day-to-day life. The gold standard approach used by international peacebuilders: intergroup contact. Bring people together under equal conditions to interact and work cooperatively toward common goals over a sustained period of time (Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 5, 2006opens in new window). The strategy has improved empathy, reduced prejudice, and increased support for peace processes among opposing groups in many settings, including Israeli Jews and Palestinians and Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

It has also worked in the United States. Led by cross-cultural organizers Paula Green, PhD, a psychologist, and Ben Fink, PhD, the Hands Across the Hills programopens in new window united 25 people from rural Massachusetts and Eastern Kentucky for three weekends of dialogue and culture exchange between 2017 and 2019. After sharing meals, music, hopes, and fears, the communities began to see one another as neighbors and friends.

“It was profoundly transformational,” said psychologist Barbara Tint, PhD, a professor emerita in the conflict resolution program at Portland State University and the University of Oregon Law School. “What happened is that they were able to humanize each other. They were able to see the threads that unite us across differences.”

While organized intergroup contact can take substantial resources and planning to implement, the spirit of the approach can guide daily interactions in our schools, workplaces, and communities.

“Whether it’s the rotary club or the soccer field, healing is always through relationship. How can we use these connections to open the door to understanding new perspectives?” Tint said.

Research supports a shift toward personal narratives as a way to foster connection. When Gray and his colleagues asked U.S. adults what kind of information would increase their respect of political opponents, people said they wanted facts. But in practice, talking about experiences was more effective (PNAS, Vol. 118, No. 6, 2021opens in new window).

“It turns out that what bridges divides better is telling stories, especially personal experiences of harm or suffering,” he said.

Tint observed the same during her work on the Portland Diaspora Dialogue Project, a 5-year program that brought together African refugees from groups historically in conflict. The challenges they faced as newcomers to the United States motivated them to connect despite their differences (Diasporas in Dialogue: Conflict Transformation and Reconciliation in Worldwide Refugee Communities, Wiley-Blackwell, 2017opens in new window).

Gray suggests three simple steps: Before talking about politics, bond with a person about something else. Then, invite them to share their beliefs. Finally, validate what they say (even if you don’t agree) by thanking them and confirming you understood.

“If you’re having these conversations, you need to acknowledge that people are not monsters—that there are reasonable points on both sides of the spectrum,” Gray said. He points to work by psychologist Richard Petty, PhD, of The Ohio State University, who uses messages that present both sides of an issue to encourage openness toward people with different values (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 48, No. 8, 2022opens in new window).

When words are particularly hateful, disengaging can be a better choice, Tint said. That might include racist or transphobic policies promoted by political leaders.

“When people are at risk, we’re really in a threat state, and the desire to sit and listen to the other is no longer the most appropriate thing,” she said.

Keep in mind that the “other side” is probably more diverse and dynamic than they seem, Halperin said. In a series of studies, he found that highlighting changes over time in an opposing group’s policies or public opinion is linked to reduced hate and emotional polarization. The method is effective because it suggests that the opponent’s attitudes and behaviors are more malleable than we might think, he said (in Psychological Intergroup Interventions, Routledge, 2023opens in new window).

Similarly, emphasizing criticism within the outgroup—for example, exposing Democrats to internal disagreement among Republicans—can help instill hope for change.

“If there are people in the outgroup expressing criticism, not everyone is the same. That gives the sense that change over time is a possibility,” Halperin said.

At the community level, small acts of civility are one way to spark change, Tropp said. She suggests a 30-day challenge with one civic act per day, such as a brief, friendly interaction with a stranger. The “Belonging Begins with Usopens in new window” campaign offers tips for improving connection in communities and the YMCA’s 21-day equity challenge (PDF, 116KB)opens in new window provides guidelines for a similar initiative.

“I fear for the future if we continue along this current path,” she said. “But I also see incredible opportunity if we can reckon with our discomfort and realize that people whom we initially perceive as different from us typically don’t confirm our worst fears.”