Happy Midterm Season to Alabama and beyond! Wouldn't it be nice if we could all cast our ballots and then all sides could group-hug at the end? That's not reality, though, as we all know-- A recent Gallup Poll found that 80% of Americans feel the nation is deeply divided on values and morals, which are often expressed through political speech and activism. It's one thing to disagree with someone on Facebook that you haven't talked to in years, but what do we do when that disagreement is sitting next to us while we watch political ads in our homes? How do we interact with parents, siblings, friends or maybe even life partners that we disagree with politically? We've likely all been there, with at least a few people we care about deeply, and it's one of the hardest parts of election seasons such as these.
Dr. Cynthia Peacock teaches and researches political communication and news and social media use. Her recent work investigates the contexts in which people express and avoid expressing their political opinions, and the ways in which opinion diversity and disagreement take place in online and offline discussions. She joins Lacey to discuss what her research reveals about how we overcome-- or DON'T overcome-- our political differences with our loved ones.
TRANSCRIPTION:
Lacey: (Intro) For Alabama Public Radio, I'm Lacey Alexander. This is Simplified. It's a show where we take the complex and make it easier to understand. Hot button topics, buzzwords, and current events, all made more digestible through interviews with experts, your questions answered and your confusion remedied. I'm not afraid to ask dumb questions, and neither should you be. It's how we take the world around us and make it simpler. Happy midterm season to Alabama and beyond. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all cast our ballots and then all sides could just group hug at the end? That's not reality, though, as we all know, a recent Gallup poll found that 80% of Americans feel the nation is deeply divided on values and morals, things that are often expressed through political speech and activism. It's one thing to disagree with someone on your social media that you haven't talked to in years, but what do we do when that disagreement is sitting next to us while we watch political ads in our homes. Dr. Cynthia Peacock teaches and researches political communication and news and social media use. Her recent work investigates the contexts in which people express and avoid expressing their political opinions. She joins us to discuss what her research reveals about how we overcome or don't overcome our political differences with our loved ones.
Lacey (Interviewing): When we use the term political expression, Dr. Peacock, what all do you think that covers? What definition would you give me for that term if I was sitting with you and Reese Pfeiffer right now?
Dr. Cynthia Peacock: Well, political expression is at its simplest form how people communicate their political beliefs, values, and preferences to other folks. So that could be talking about politics, so conversations. It could be social media posts, or likes, or shares, or comments. And then there are also other symbolic ways that we express ourselves politically. You can think about clothes people wear, sort of identity signals that we have. It could be a yard sign or a bumper sticker. So political expression really encompasses a whole lot of different ways of expressing ourselves politically. But at its most basic, it's just communicating our political beliefs to others.
Lacey: We used to hear that it's awkward or maybe even a little rude to discuss politics in a social setting. There are workplace policies now about discussing politics in certain workplaces, but I feel like if I know you decently well, I know your political beliefs, or I can find them Out so culturally, what's changed? Are we growing bolder out of frustration? I imagine social media has a lot to do with it.
Dr. Cynthia Peacock: Yeah, well, you've hit on something that is kind of a a pet peeve of mine, which is this cultural expectation that we not talk about difficult issues, and I think that's really a problem for us because a democracy is made up of people with different experiences and beliefs, and we need to be able to interact with one another. So I think the adage of "don't you know talk about religion or politics" is not very good because where does that leave us? It leaves us not feeling competent or able or willing to have conversations that potentially could be really useful. So I would say I totally agree with your perspective that we we a lot of times get told not to talk about difficult issues, but I don't think that does us any favors in our ability to talk about difficult issues with each other. Now, you also asked, have we become more bold or more outspoken? And I think there's really not a good answer for that because obviously technology has changed in a way that makes expressing our opinions easier. In a way you can. It's easy to make a political post, say something on social media, or a comment, or even liking something, following things. Those are ways to express, but it that's not the same thing, and doesn't exactly take the place of having political conversations, which could be online, but a lot of face-to-face things. So I think that I wouldn't say that people have become bolder in that way. It's just technology affords us an easier way to express ourselves politically, and when you're, you know, expressing yourself with your phone in your hand from the comfort of your home, then people are not facing some of those social pressures of expressing an opinion when you're face to face with other folks who may not agree with you.
Lacey: Does your research suggest that most Americans communicate with people they differ from, or do you find in your research that? Most Americans are avoiding conversations on the other side of the aisle. Or third option is it a little bit more complicated than that?
Dr. Cynthia Peacock: Well, in true academic form, it's a little bit more complicated than that. Most people report having interactions with folks with whom they disagree politically. So we call that cross-cutting exposure, which just means that you are in your daily life being exposed to ideas or people with that you don't share the same political positions as. And so again, social media, well, really the internet overall, but social media especially makes that more possible. We hear a lot about echo chambers of people being in groups that everyone believes sort of the same thing, and we've kind of curated these online spaces to reflect back to us things that we already think. But the research actually shows that people who are online and who are active on social media are exposed to more diverse opinions than people who are not. So we may be curating to some extent, but that does not keep us from encountering things that we don't always agree with. So we are going to encounter that, but we do, as as we all know, live in a very highly politicized moment in time, where you know everything has political connotations and implications. So that really has sort of raised the temperature on having political conversations. Where I know for a lot of my students, especially with young folks, they don't want to have these conversations with people that they don't agree with because they're scary and there are real social implications for engaging in political disagreement. So I guess the the short answer is we are exposed to some political difference, generally speaking, people tend to be less likely to engage in conversations with those they don't agree with.
Lacey: The differences in politics that I put up with is different when it comes to my family. Does that make sense?
Dr. Cynthia Peacock: That makes a lot of sense.
Lacey: I disagree really heavily with some of my relatives, but if there was a non-relative that we had the same level of disagreement, I probably wouldn't like hang out with them. Is that common, or am I just weird?
Dr. Cynthia Peacock: Many people have the same experience, and family relationships are a different type of relationship. Generally speaking, those are, you know, we're born into those. They are not chosen relationships much of the time, we have usually a longer history, some shared experiences, some expectations about you know hierarchy and power and positions and a general feeling of emotional obligation. So you may disagree with a relative's politics without wanting to lose everything else that relationship provides, but when you're talking about meeting someone new, a new friend, or for a lot of people, like on a dating app, you get to choose that, right? And these political differences can carry more weight because there's less shared history to sort of counterbalance all of those things. So you are definitely not in the minority there. Those family relationships are a different type of relationship that may mean that political difference can feel more hurtful depending on the type of political difference, because you know you are so invested in that family relationship. But it also means a lot of times that people give a bit more grace, meaning they are willing to more willing to avoid it or overlook things because that relationship means a lot more.
Lacey: Dr. Peacock, you're also researching couples that disagree politically. Talk about that research a little bit. How are they staying healthy? Are they staying healthy? Have you witnessed any deaths?
Dr. Cynthia Peacock: Shout out to my co-author and colleague Josh Peterson, who studies interpersonal relationships. He and I set off on this project together several years ago to really ask the question about whether or not people can disagree politically and have harmonious romantic relationships, you know most people are going to couple with someone with whom they agree with on the important things, right? And politics tends to be one of those things, but people don't stay the same, right? And especially if we're thinking about long-term relationships, and over years or decades, then we imagine that people can change, and they don't always change together. So that's what we're sort of moving towards next: is looking at you know the. Over time, differences in relationships. But when we did our first study looking at politically dissimilar romantic relationships, we were interested in, of course, the role of communication and how that might have different outcomes. So Dr. Peterson was interested in these relational outcomes, like relationship satisfaction or how happy someone is in their relationship, and I was interested in how this political difference might play out in terms of political engagement and participation, voting, volunteering, donating money, etc. And so we found that communication does make a big difference there. So the couples who were disagreeing but were having a lot of fights and arguments, especially those arguments that were getting nasty and heated. We're less happy in their relationships. That showed us that the way you communicate about your difference does matter within a relationship and how happy you are. We have to think about what you get and what you give, and you know, not that determining whether or not to stay in a relationship is that simple of an equation. It is a bit of an equation, right? And so, I I think with the example of yeah, we don't agree about this thing, but my life is a way that I like it. I like the way he treats me. I like who this person is in 100 different ways, just not this one way, right? And so we can imagine, you know, that to an extent. Now, when we see that sort of, you know, run into a barrier, is when those differences start to link to, you know, moral or ethical differences of like we disagree about some things, but I can't be in love with someone who believes this thing that I find you know terrifying or dangerous or hateful or things like that. But I will say, politically dissimilar couples are definitely in the minority. So when we gather data and we're, you know, asking folks to fill out surveys and answer questions about their attitudes and experiences, we had to leave our survey open for so much longer just to get enough people in politically dissimilar relationships that we could analyze our data. Recent estimates are at about maybe six, between three and 6% of the American population is in a politically dissimilar relationship, depending on how you measure that. So, with the research that I started with Josh Peterson, he and I asked people, you know, do you see yourself as more similar or more different politically from your partner? And so we use that, and then that's how we could even start the survey to get people into those groups. And then we go in and ask a lot of more detailed questions.
Lacey: You also look into how men and women express political views differently. Can you give us a glimpse into that research? What have you found that surprised you, if anything?
Dr. Cynthia Peacock: Sure. And that research done with Emily Van Dune and Talia Stroud, we were looking primarily at online expression. So research shows us that women tend to be report less political interests, fewer political conversations, less political expression generally. Although you know the the times they are changing, but we were interested in whether that was reflected in online news comment sections, and so we thought that you know the affordances of a comment section might sort of level the engagement between men and women, and we did find some differences there. We found that women were less likely to comment on national and international political issues, but they were more likely than men to comment on local political issues, and that really reflects back to us kind of gender socialization, where women are more associated with what we call the private sphere, so like the home, the home life, the the the close community, etc., and men are more related to the public sphere or national politics, international politics, and things like that. So that was an interesting finding. I have to say that was a few years ago. So I would be curious to know whether that's the same way. And then we also looked at how men and women not just comment, but whether or not they read the comments and why why some people read and don't. Comment and why some people comment and maybe don't even necessarily read, and we found some gender differences there. Women like to more than men like to be in the comment section to sort of take the pulse of public opinion and see what people are saying and thinking about. And men were less likely to do that. Men were more likely to comment and also say that they were commenting as a type of corrective action, like someone said something wrong. I need to go in here and fix this thing. And so there, it just really, you know, is almost humorous the way it reflected back these sort of gender socialization norms that we've experienced in person for so long, but they were happening still in comment sections.
Lacey: You kind of alluded to this a little bit in the beginning, but do you have an opinion underline underscore opinion on how often we should communicate with people we disagree with politically? Can those conversations ever be helpful and healthy?
Dr. Cynthia Peacock: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, obviously, there's no sort of universal or ideal frequency of political, you know, expression or communication. I think really what communication scholars have to add to this conversation is that the quality of the conversations, the relationships, the context, the purpose, all of that matters so much, right? So it's not like you know, talk you know, an apple a day keeps the doctor away situation where you have to talk politics once a day, but really thinking about what your goals are. And earlier you mentioned boundaries, and I think that's realistic about we don't you know what do we owe and what do we owe ourselves, because sometimes a conversation is productive because it helps us understand someone else. We unfortunately our our politics in the United States tends to be centered more around debate than dialog. So a lot of times we think a political conversation has to be you know a debate where I'm trying to win right or change someone's mind or you know convince them that my perspective is the right one, and that hasn't gotten us very far, especially in respect to relationships and understanding one another. So shifting the goals to understanding, right? To ask someone why they think the things that they do, to hear stories from people about their own experiences, that that has a real opportunity to sort of tamper the, you know, the heated polarization that we're facing. So I wouldn't say it's really a frequency question, but it's more about you know it's not a quantity, it's a quality question of like what opportunities do you have you know to have yourself both feel heard and give yourself the opportunity to hear someone else.
Lacey: And that is a perfect segue into our first audience question, which is from Megan. Assuming the conversation has to occur, what would you say are some good tactics to uncover common ground on issues that you and the other person disagree on?
Dr. Cynthia Peacock: What a great question, and it's so smart because it it already starts from a place of knowing that we do best when we start on common ground, and we can get. I want to give a shout out to Crossroads Civic Engagement Center and all the wonderful work that they did there. And one of the smart things that they have people do when they're talking across lines of difference is ask questions. Right. So understanding why someone thinks something or what value is associated with it. What we find is that people, regardless of their political identity, tend to share the same values as far as like we want fairness, we want you know kindness, we want justice. All of these things. It's just when we get into political issues, we start defining those in different ways and have different ideas about when we see fairness or when we see justice, what that looks like. Usually, we can agree on values. So, if you can start at that place, that's a really good idea. I think also we sometimes hear what we want to hear, and you know humans were sort of imperfect creatures. So reflecting back what you heard before responding, asking whether you understand what their position is is a really good move there. Because especially with hot button issues, it can be really easy for us to not hear or interpret what someone is trying to communicate to us.
Lacey: Let's go to Molly's question. At family gatherings, I am often the outlier on politics, meaning everyone discusses what they think freely around me, knowing I'd be on my own if I spoke up and disagreed. Any tips on how to handle being the political black sheep?
Dr. Cynthia Peacock: Oh my goodness! I think so many people will identify with that, and I think this is it. It's really a personal decision about whether and how and how much you want to represent the minority opinion, particularly when you're around your family. Especially as the holidays approach, I think a lot of us will find ourselves in these situations, and I think recognizing that being outnumbered does make speaking up feel really risky, right? Especially if you think it's important, or there's no one else there that has the same opinion that you do. So, what do they want from it, right? Is the goal to express an opinion that you think is important, or that you want to understand them, or you just want to have a nice Thanksgiving dinner. We don't owe everyone a debate, right? We don't have to do that. So you get to make the decision in the moment. And if you feel like protecting your sanity or relationship that does not make you a bad citizen or a bad person, but if you feel like saying something, you know that sort of you know at the heart of democratic life or democracy is to be able to freely express yourself.
Lacey: This is from Andrew. I've seen families get broken up over political disagreements. How does it escalate to that point? And also, why do you think there are so many differences between generations on how you view politics?
Dr. Cynthia Peacock: My colleague, Dr. Leah LeFebvre and I are right now studying politically strained relationships, and I think that's what Andrew is talking about. And that strain can be all the way from, you know, feeling hurt and wanting to avoid that, all the way to not associating with a family member anymore because of these political differences. So, disagreements about politics sometimes and many times become judgments about Character or morality, and so when people understand a political position as you know a reflection of whether someone is a good person or if they care about others, that holds a lot of importance, right? Now it's more than a political disagreement; it's a moral disagreement or a disagreement about what is right or what it means to be a good person, because now there's still hurt involved there, and now there's avoidance, and now you know we have the repercussions of whether someone feels like they can't be themselves around a family member or can't say the things that they want to. That's not good for a relationship either. So avoiding conflict sometimes feels like preserving the relationship, but in the long run doesn't necessarily do that. What sort of differences can we stomach and put up with to preserve the family relationship? And where are there places that we're just not willing? You know, it changes the way we think about a person in a way that we don't want to be around them anymore. The next question you asked me was about generations. The younger generations, no matter what you know year we tap into, tend to differ from their older cohorts. And so, you know, different generations we're we're encountering different historical events, different economic conditions, different you know technology is shifting, social norms shift, media environment shift, and so we just are politically socialized in different environments. I think generation is one difference, but there are just so many differences.
Lacey: Let's go to Gil's question. Gill asks, "How much of a role does she think religion plays into how we express our politics? Are people bolder because they feel their faith backs them up?" And just speaking as Lacey, I think this is an interesting question for Alabama specifically.
Dr. Cynthia Peacock: I think that's a great question, and I think it gets at the most important intersection between religion and politics, and that is moral framework, right? So, if we think about religion as providing a moral framework, a sense of identity, a community, a language for understanding issues, it's very similar, right? And so, when political views are connected deeply to religious convictions, then people may see those views and expressing those views and enacting those views as a moral obligation rather than a preference. So I, I mean, I would definitely hesitate to say that this is all religions and all members of all religions, obviously. But there's a pretty big intersection there of politics and religion, sort of growing out of our thoughts about what is right and what is wrong. We also can think about like religious communities, right? If you're very religious and you. This community, it is likely that these are, you know, reinforcing the same ideas. You know, signaling which positions are accepted or expected, and I think there's there's a good overlap there. And I do appreciate the suggestion that people feel bolder because of their their faith backs them up, but I don't know necessarily that it's bolder, but it feels more tied to their sense of identity and their own, you know, moral identity as well.
Lacey: As the midterms draw closer and closer, we are, I believe, a week away tomorrow. What advice do you have for those that are simply burnt out from political discussion? Should they power through for the greater good, or would you say this burnout is normal and should be catered to?
Dr. Cynthia Peacock: I think that political burnout is totally understandable, especially leading up to an election. We're experiencing this sort of constant stream of information and conflict and outrage and pressure and all of these things. And I, I think that we have to consider whether disengaging from it's a spectrum, right? We could turn everything off and not watch anything and not talk to anyone. That's one choice, but there's a whole gray area in between doing everything and doing nothing. So it's okay to take a break from political conversations. It's okay to not, you know, be at the forefront of every current moment, every event, every political event that's happening. So I think it's you know it's up to the individual about how much they want to give. Especially if you are in the business of talking with people with whom you disagree, trying to change their mind about things, you might need to have breaks to help you sort of preserve the energy you need for meaningful engagement. I think, especially in a social media environment, there's a sort of imagined pressure to comment on every issue, respond every post, debate, you know, everything. But that's not a requirement. It doesn't make you a bad citizen if you don't do all of those things, right? So, for most of us who are politically involved, you can contribute in many ways that that fit your capacity. So voting, volunteering, helping in your community, having a few meaningful conversations. You don't have to be constantly engaged to be a good citizen.
Lacey: Last question from me, Dr. Peacock: Does your research suggest that these divides will get better or worse in the near future?
Dr. Cynthia Peacock: The unfortunate reality is that we are so polarized in our country as far as like aligning our ideologies and our identities and our beliefs many times for many folks with a political party, and then the representations, both from our political representatives and from the most popular media, do not suggest that we can have moments of agreement and rational conversations. And so, I am very hopeful that when I hear people say they're so tired of that that they really mean it, right? So I'm a little bit hopeful that we stop looking to screens to show us what our political life can and should be, and start looking to the people around us in our community to see maybe what it really is.
Lacey (outro): You've been listening to Simplified. Special thanks to our expert guest, Dr. Cynthia Peacock. Email me at simplified at apr.org. This show is a production of Alabama Public Radio, a service of the University of Alabama.
Local support for Simplified is provided by The University of Alabama Online.
