Do Political Conversations Persuade or Polarize? Evidence From a Real-Time Randomized Experiment

Political conversations across lines of disagreement are central to democracy. While some individuals approach them as opportunities to learn, others treat them as battles to be won. Theory suggests these contrasting motivations may shape how individuals process information and respond to disagreement, yet their consequences for attitude dynamics during conversations remain unclear. We fill this gap through an experiment ( N = 466) that manipulates motivation in real-time video conversations between pairs of Israeli citizens holding opposing views on Israel–U.S. relations. We financially incentivized some participants to win the debate, others to learn their partner’s perspective, while a control group received no incentive. We find consistent evidence that a winning-oriented mindset reduces the likelihood of persuasion, while a learning-oriented mindset increases it. Notably, there is no evidence that motivation polarizes attitudes. Our findings suggest that a winning-oriented mindset undermines mutual understanding, whereas learning-based dialogue can help bridge political divides.