De-escalating Conflict Through the Social Meaning of Disagreement

Abstract: Disagreement shows up everywhere, from dinner tables to offices. While societies and organizations depend on people working through opposing views, those conversations often go off the rails. The problem is not just that people want different outcomes, but also what disagreement comes to signal. When people encounter opposing views, they tend to assume their own position reflects the facts and see the other side as biased or irrational. These interpretations can inflate perceived differences and justify avoidance or attack, undermining cooperation and voice. The papers in this symposium examine how the social meaning of disagreement forms and how it can be shifted. Sah, Sezer, & Thio show that people often stay silent not because they lack concerns, but because they worry about relational damage, particularly implying distrust. Leaders’ intellectual humility can reduce this concern, increase voice and improve satisfaction and commitment. Apalkova, Wald, & Risen examine when disagreements unfold as debate versus dialogue. Across studies, participants were more likely to engage in dialogue when they perceived shared goals and values with a disagreeing counterpart. Kafka & Larrick show that high-quality self-disclosure can humanize a disagreeing other and increase openness to their views. The symposium concludes with work on scalable interventions: Feldman & Rogers show that shared sports fandom can soften partisan dislike, and Tulan and colleagues find that entertainment media depicting cross-party cooperation can reduce animosity. Across papers, a common theme emerges: disagreement becomes damaging not simply because of opposing views, but because of the social meanings attached to them.

Keywords: conflict, disagreement, social meaning, intervention, polarization