How Different Discussion Formats Shape Political Disagreement Between Citizens: Comparing Low and High Cue Interactions

Over the past decade, political interactions have increasingly moved to text-based online environments. This shift has raised widespread concern that the low richness of online communication, i.e., the lack of nonverbal and interpersonal cues, undermines productive political discourse. We tested this by organizing 473 dyadic discussions between 946 Danish citizens with opposing political views, randomly assigning them to discuss contentious issues of immigration and unemployment benefits either in (1) a low-cue text-based chat or (2) a high-cue face-to-face video interaction. We examined how these conversations differed along three dimensions: (a) the tone of discussion, (b) perceptions of discussion partners, and (c) willingness to engage in political discussion. Our results challenge the assumption that low-cue text-based discussions are inherently detrimental to productive political discourse. We find no evidence that text-based discussions increase hostility. In fact, hostile language was virtually absent across both formats, and exploratory analyses indicate that participants held less hostile views toward political out-groups after the discussion, regardless of format. Rather than low-cue interactions undermining political discourse, we find that high-cue interactions make it a more positive experience: participants in high-cue discussions evaluated their partners more positively, felt greater social closeness, and expressed more willingness to engage in similar discussions again. Exploratory analyses further showed that face-to-face discussants enjoyed the conversation more and reported greater learning. These findings show that productive discussions across political differences are possible even in low-cue environments, while suggesting that richer, high-cue formats hold greater potential for more positive experiences in interactions across political differences.