CURIOSITY AS A DEPOLARIZATION STRATEGY: POLITICAL DISCOURSE, GROUP IDENTITY, AND THE ETHICS OF LISTENING IN CONTEMPORARY DEMOCRACY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61166/ld.v1i4.33Keywords:
curiosity, political polarization, civil discourse, group identity, deliberative democracy.Abstract
This article aims to analyze the role of curiosity as a psychological and ethical strategy in overcoming political polarization and enhancing the quality of democratic discourse. This study employs a qualitative method with a literature review approach, analyzing recent empirical findings from political psychology—specifically the research of Todd Kashdan and colleagues—as well as theoretical reflections on public discourse and the ethics of listening. The results of the study indicate that the primary barrier in cross-partisan political conversation is not merely differences in viewpoints, but rather misunderstandings regarding the level of intellectual openness within one’s own group (in-group misperception). Curiosity is proven to be positively associated with openness, intellectual humility, and reduced social distance between political groups. Furthermore, simple psychological interventions that correct perceptions of internal group norms are capable of increasing curiosity and the quality of political interaction. This article concludes that curiosity and the practice of empathetic listening are essential foundations for depolarization and the strengthening of discourse ethics in contemporary democracy.
References
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.
Epley, N. (2014). Mindwise: Why We Misunderstand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want. New York: Knopf.
Fishkin, J. S. (2018). Democracy When the People Are Thinking: Revitalizing Our Politics Through Public Deliberation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kashdan, T. B., & Silvia, P. J. (2009). Curiosity and interest: The benefits of thriving on novelty and challenge. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(5), 367–374.
Kashdan, T. B., McKnight, P. E., Kelso, K., Craig, L., & Gross, M. (2025). Enhancing curiosity with a wise intervention to improve political conversations and relationships. Scientific Reports, 15, Article 40272.
Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Medina, J. (2013). The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paresky, P. (2025). Why Political Conversations Go Wrong—and How to Fix Them. Psychology Today.
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations.
Hudallah (2017), Perlawanan Kyai Indramayu terhadap Penjajah Jepang Tahun 1944
