Sherman, D. K., Nelson, L. D., and Ross, L. D. (2003). “Naive realism and affirmative action: Adversaries are more similar than they think.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(4), 275-289.
Studies supporters and opponents of affirmative action and finds that each side overestimates the extremity of the other’s views. Two interventions are compared. In the authors’ words, “hearing the other side explicate their own position did nothing to attenuate the false polarization effect,” while hearing them acknowledge arguments from the opposing side that they found at least somewhat persuasive “significantly decreased” it (p. 287).
The empirical basis for acknowledgment rounds in BioConomy governance practice: before a contested decision, each speaker names the strongest point they heard from another lens. The finding also suggests why restating positions at length rarely moves a divided room.