Can online conversations with a marginalized outgroup member improve majority group members’ attitudes about that outgroup? While the intergroup contact literature provides insights about the effects of extended interactions between groups, less is known about how relatively short and casual conversations may play out in highly polarized settings, or how conversation topic can affect outcomes. In an experiment in India, I pair Hindus and Muslims for five days of conversations on WhatsApp, a popular messaging platform. I investigate how chatting with a Muslim about randomly assigned discussion prompts affects Hindus’ perceptions of Muslims and approval for mainstream religious nationalist statements. I find that intergroup conversations greatly reduce prejudice against Muslims and support for religious nationalism. Intergroup conversations about non-political issues are especially effective at reducing prejudice, while conversations about politics substantially decrease support for religious nationalism. I further show that political conversations and non-political conversations affect attitudes through distinct mechanisms.
AhlerD. J.SoodG. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 964–981. https://doi.org/10.1086/697253
2.
AliM. (2020). “The rise of a Hindu vigilante in the age of WhatsApp and Modi.” Published on April 14, 2020 on wired.com.
3.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
4.
AndersonE.JaffrelotC. (2018). Hindu nationalism and the ‘saffronisation of the public sphere’: An interview with Christophe Jaffrelot. Contemporary South Asia, 26(4), 468–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/09584935.2018.1545009
5.
AsimovicN.NaglerJ.BonneauR.TuckerJ. A. (2021). Testing the effects of Facebook usage in an ethnically polarized setting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(25), Article e2022819118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022819118
BailC. A.ArgyleL. P.BrownT. W.BumpusJ. P.ChenH.Fallin HunzakerM. B.LeeJ.MannM.MerhoutF.VolfovskyA. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
8.
BanerjeeA.BertrandM.DattaS.MullainathanS. (2009). Labor market discrimination in Delhi: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(1), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2008.09.002
9.
BarnhardtS. (2009). Near and dear? Evaluating the impact of neighbor diversity on interreligious attitudes. Working paper.
10.
BoasT. C.ChristensonD. P.GlickD. M. (2018). Recruiting large online samples in the United States and India: Facebook, Mechanical Turk, and Qualtrics. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.28
11.
BoisjolyJ.DuncanG. J.KremerM.LevyD. M.EcclesJ. (2006). Empathy or antipathy? The impact of diversity. The American Economic Review, 96(5), 1890–1905. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.5.1890
12.
BroockmanD.KallaJ. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science, 352(6282), 220–224. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9713
13.
CamargoB.StinebricknerR.ToddS. (2010). Interracial friendships in college. Journal of Labor Economics, 28(4), 861–892. https://doi.org/10.1086/653831
14.
ChauchardS.GarimellaK. (2022). What circulates on partisan WhatsApp in India? Insights from an unusual dataset. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, 2. https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2022.006
15.
CondraL. N.LinardiS. (2019). Casual contact and ethnic bias: Experimental evidence from Afghanistan. The Journal of Politics, 81(3), 1028–1042. https://doi.org/10.1086/703380
16.
EnosR. D. (2014). Causal effect of intergroup contact on exclusionary attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(10), 3699–3704. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317670111
17.
GaikwadN.NellisG. (2017). The majority-minority divide in attitudes toward internal migration: Evidence from Mumbai. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 456–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12276
18.
Ghassem-FachandiP. (2012). Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu nationalism and Anti-Muslim violence in India. Princeton University Press.
19.
GuptaC. (2009). Hindu women, Muslim men: Love jihad and conversions. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(51), 13–15.
20.
GurinP.BirenR.NagdaA.ZunigaX. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. Russell Sage Foundation.
21.
JaffrelotC.GayerL. (2012). Muslims in Indian cities: Trajectories of marginalisation. Columbia University Press.
22.
KasaraK. (2013). Separate and suspicious: Local social and political context and ethnic tolerance in Kenya. The Journal of Politics, 75(4), 921–936. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381613000777
23.
LevenduskyM. S.SteculaD. A. (2021). We need to talk: How cross-party dialogue reduces affective polarization. Elements in Experimental Political Science Cambridge University Press.
24.
LoweM. (2021). Types of contact: A field experiment on collaborative and adversarial caste integration. The American Economic Review, 111(6), 1807–1844. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191780
25.
MajumdarR. (2026). Replication data for: Reducing prejudice and support for religious nationalism through conversations on WhatsApp. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WYXEXN
26.
MaozI. (2000). An experiment in peace: Reconciliation-aimed workshops of Jewish-Israeli and Palestinian youth. Journal of Peace Research, 37(6), 721–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343300037006004
MousaS. (2020a). Building social cohesion between Christians and Muslims through soccer in post-ISIS Iraq. Science, 369(6505), 866–870. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb3153
29.
MousaS. (2020b). Contact in the classroom: Can virtual exchanges build tolerance?Working paper.
30.
MutzD. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055402004264
31.
NagdaB. (R.) A. (2006). Breaking barriers, crossing borders, building bridges: Communication processes in intergroup dialogues. Journal of Social Issues, 62(3), 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00473.x
32.
PaluckE. L. (2010). Is it better not to talk? Group polarization, extended contact, and perspective taking in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1170–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210379868
33.
PaluckE. L.GreenS.GreenD. (2018). The contact hypothesis Re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504
37.
RobinsonA. L. (2017). Ethnic diversity, segregation and ethnocentric trust in Africa. British Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123417000540
38.
RossiterE. (2020). The consequences of interparty conversation on outparty affect and stereotypes. Working paper.
39.
SaguyT.DovidioJ. F. (2013). Insecure status relations shape preferences for the content of intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(8), 1030–1042. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213487078
40.
SahaP.MathewB.GarimellaK.MukherjeeA. (2021). “Short is the road that leads from fear to hate”: Fear speech in Indian WhatsApp groups. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 (pp. 1110–1121). ACM.
41.
SantoroE.BroockmanD. E. (2022). The promise and pitfalls of cross-partisan conversations for reducing affective polarization: Evidence from randomized experiments. Science Advances, 8(25), eabn5515. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn5515
42.
ScaccoA.WarrenS. S. (2018). Can social contact reduce prejudice and discrimination? Evidence from a field experiment in Nigeria. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055418000151
43.
SharmaA. (2016) Communal riots up 17% in 2015 under NDA. Published on February 25, 2016 in The Economic Times.
44.
SircarN. (2020). The politics of vishwas: Political mobilization in the 2019 national election. Contemporary South Asia, 28(2), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/09584935.2020.1765988
45.
SpaterJ. (2022). Exposure and preferences: Evidence from Indian slums. American Journal of Political Science, 66(2), 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12570
46.
SusewindR. (2017). Muslims in Indian cities: Degrees of segregation and the elusive ghetto. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49(6), 1286–1307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x17696071
47.
TrawalterS.RichesonJ. A. (2008). Let’s talk about race, baby! when Whites’ and Blacks’ interracial contact experiences diverge. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1214–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.013
48.
VaishnavM. (2019). Religious nationalism and India’s future. In The BJP in power: Indian democracy and religious nationalism (pp. 5–21). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
49.
VarshneyA. (2002). Ethnic conflict and civic life: Hindus and Muslims in India. Yale University Press.
VarshneyA.WilkinsonS. (2006). Varshney-Wilkinson Dataset on Hindu-Muslim Violence in India, 1950-1995, Version 2. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-02-17. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04342.v1
52.
WeissC. M. (2020). Sharing spaces: Segregation, integration, and intergroup relations. APSA Comparative Politics Newsletter, Spring2020.
53.
WeissC. M. (2021). Diversity in health care institutions reduces Israeli patients’ prejudice toward Arabs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(14), Article e2022634118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022634118
