Fig 1.
Difference in CIC forecasts vs experience.
Note. Difference in what participants (n = 120) forecasted about the CIC beforehand, compared to what they actually experienced during the CIC. Variables were measured on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. For example, “I believe this interaction would be enjoyable” and “This interaction was enjoyable”. For exact wording of questions and additional statistics, see Table S2 in S1 Appendix. ***p < .001, a Sample size is n = 106, b Sample size n = 105.
Fig 2.
Proportion of disposition for pre-CIC and post-CIC forecasted/experienced variables.
Note. Chi-square analysis of each variable (n = 120) was significant for a difference in the proportion of disposition. Looking at the graph a larger proportion of responses look to be in the positive disposition post-CIC. Pairwise analysis of the negative vs positive proportion (noted by Bonferroni adjusted p-value asterisks) and the neutral vs positive proportion confirmed the omnibus test, such that a larger portion of positive disposition compared to either negative or neutral disposition was the direction of change. *p < .05 with Bonferroni correction. **p < .01 with Bonferroni correction, ***p < .001 with Bonferroni correction, a Sample size is n = 106, b Sample size n = 105, c Sample size n = 119.
Fig 3.
Strength of conversation partner liking: Condition by partner.
Note. Shown here is liking of conversation partner, reported on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Driving the interaction of condition by partner (n = 122) is the difference in liking of conversation partner for the public condition, such that participants liked their attitudinal ingroup member from the initial conversation more than their CIC partner. * p < .05 for the main effect of partner (i.e., ingroup vs CIC-partner). **p < .01 for the simple comparison of ingroup partner vs CIC-partner in the public condition.
Fig 4.
Coder-rated conflict time courses of conversations.
Note. a. Mean time courses of coder-rated conflict are shown for both the public and private conditions. The gray shaded regions show timepoints where the difference between conditions is significant. These regions are mostly confined to the latter half of conversations, with the first major region beginning at 484 seconds. Colored shaded areas represent +- 1 SE across conversations. b. Top 5 and bottom 5 conversations’ time courses as ranked by coder-rated conflict. Both public and private conditions are represented within each grouping, showing that while public conversations may have more conflict on average, conflict within any individual conversation is still highly variable.
Table 1.
Topics discussed during CIC for the experiment.
Table 2.
Attitudinal distribution of participants.
Fig 5.
Flow of the experimental Zoom paradigm.
Note. a. Flow of the study b. the ingroup conversation consisted of two simultaneous 10-minute conversations with two participants of the same attitude on the issue c. the CICs consisted of two 15-minute conversations with a participant of the opposing attitude on the issue (c.1) the public condition included all four of the participants from the ingroup conversation, with pro 2 and con 2 silently listening while pro 1 and con 1 discussed the issue, after which pro 2 and con 2 had a 15-minute CIC while pro 1 and con 1 silently listened (c.2) in the private condition two simultaneous CICs occurred in separate breakout rooms with one participant from each side of the issue.