EXPLORING THE POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT OF OPPOSING IDEAS THROUGH INTELLECTUAL DISPOSITIONS

Abstract

This thesis investigates the relationship between Intellectual Humility (IH) and Actively Open-minded Thinking (AOT) as predictors of positive engagement with opposing arguments. Through two comprehensive studies, it seeks to elucidate how these intellectual dispositions facilitate the important components of a constructive dialogue across ideological divides. Participants were exposed to politically agreeing and opposing arguments, with their positive engagement levels—measured through time commitment, comprehension, willingness to discuss, and evaluation of arguments and persuaders—assessed. The findings revealed that while AOT generally predicted less seeking and worse evaluation of opposing views, it was associated with more cognitive effort in comprehending them. In contrast, IH consistently predicted higher positive engagement regardless of argument position, emphasizing the value of actively seeking and appreciating disconfirming evidence. Notably, IH as defined by Zachry et al (2018), which includes the appreciation of disconfirming evidence, emerged as a more effective predictor of positive engagement than limitation-owning IH (Haggard et al., 2018). The results underscore the potential of intellectual dispositions to mitigate polarization and foster more constructive public discourse.