"Is 'Incomprehensible' Really True? A New Tool to Measure Willingness to Communicate Unveils the Truth Behind 'Individual Differences'"

"How far can we tolerate" rather than "Do we want to engage in dialogue"—WEDO visualizes the "boundary of division"

Every time a divisive topic trends on social media, we observe two types of people.
Those who fearlessly engage in discussions, and those who choose to distance themselves, opting for "non-engagement" through muting or blocking.

A common explanation is that "political or social topics are contentious" or "these themes easily ignite controversy," pointing to the "topic side" of the problem. However, a study introduced by Phys.org in January 2026 from the University of Basel focuses on a deeper layer. In conclusion,whether the door to dialogue opens depends more on "individual differences" than on the contentiousness of the theme. Phys.org

1) The main focus of the study is "WEDO"—measuring the willingness to engage as a "range"

The research team developed a measurement tool called **WEDO (Willingness to engage with differently minded others)**. The aim is not a simple binary choice of "agree/disagree" or "engage/not engage."

In real life, people often behave like this.

• They can talk if the opinion is slightly different

• Opposing views are exhausting

• Even within the same camp, they want to avoid extreme individuals

In other words, we unconsciously adjust our range of acceptable dialogue based on the "degree of difference" of the other party. WEDO organizes this into a "measurable form" through virtual scenarios.

The procedure is as follows. Participants first indicate their stance on topics like sustainability or immigration on a graded scale. Then, assuming they are "forming a discussion group," they specifythe "range of opinions" they would allow to join. They can exclude extremely divergent positions and include moderately different ones—such choices become possible. Phys.org

The strength of this design is that it treats dialogue not as "like/dislike," but as a continuous measure of"how much difference can be accepted".

2) Four studies: Validation not only with students but also with US and UK samples

The study was conducted with samples from the University of Basel, as well as samples from the US and UK, and was examined in a total of four studies.Phys.org

The importance here is that the design allows for a certain breadth against the common skepticism on social media that "it's a psychological experiment with university students, so it might not reflect reality" (of course, as will be discussed later, limitations remain).

3) Results: What distinguished open-minded individuals was "thinking style" rather than "contentiousness"

The message from the study is clear.

• Those more open to dialogue tend to think analytically and have a strong "desire to delve deeper"

• People with strong black-and-white thinking or those who rely on intuition (gut feeling) are more reluctant to engage in dialogue Phys.org

And there's another "unexpected result" that deserves a headline. Initially, researchers assumed that more contentious themes would be avoided in dialogue, but at least in one study,there was a tendency for more contentious themes to increase the willingness to engage with others' opinions. Phys.org

It's important not to misunderstand this as meaning "political discussions aren't contentious" or "contentious themes are fine." The point is thatthe "heat" of a topic doesn't uniformly destroy dialogue; it can become a "motivation for learning" or a "trigger for avoidance" depending on individual perception.

4) SNS reactions: Quiet spread, but it resonates with those it touches

So, how was this research itself received on social media?

On Phys.org, "0 shares"—at least initially, it wasn't widely spread

The article page on Phys.org displays the number of shares, and at the time of posting, it showed **"0 shares"**. At least according to Phys.org's counter, there was little evidence of initial buzz. Phys.org

This "quietness" might not just be because the research theme is unassuming. Despite the importance of dialogue and division, in the timeline of spreading competition, it often loses to emotionally strong materials like "anger," "condemnation," or "victorious satisfaction." In other words, the value of research and the strength of its spread on social media tend to be on separate axes.

On the other hand, on LinkedIn, it was connected to "year-end family meeting clichés" and discussed in detail

It's not that there was zero spread. For example, on LinkedIn, a political psychology group account introduced the WEDO research by relating it to "clichés" of family gatherings during the year-end and New Year holidays (such as activist relatives or conspiracy theory-like in-laws). The post summarized key points, stating that people who don't rely too much on emotions or intuition, who can think with nuance, and who have a tolerance for negative emotions like awkwardness, are easier to engage in dialogue. LinkedIn

The characteristic of SNS reactions visible here is that the response is divided by whether it can be "translated into one's own life scene" rather than "the content of the research itself."

When the big topic of political division is translated into family dining tables, workplaces, or community management, a reason to "read" suddenly emerges.

5) Practical questions posed by this research

The interest of WEDO lies in measuring the "entry point" of whether people are willing to join the circle of dialogue, rather than "techniques for persuading people." The practical insights that can be derived from this are significant.

• The enemy of dialogue is not just the topic: Even with the same theme, there are people with wide acceptance ranges and those with narrow ones (thus, simply "banning topics" doesn't solve the issue) Phys.org

• Short-text, instant-response environments tend to strengthen intuitive modes: When the space for analytical thinking is reduced, it becomes easier to fall into black-and-white thinking (there is room to consider this as a design issue) Phys.org

• For some, contentious themes can become a "motivation for learning": Depending on the purpose of the setting (whether to become friends or deepen understanding), the entry point for dialogue can change Phys.org
  
  

6) Limitations and the future: WEDO as a light illuminating "up to the door"

Of course, there are limitations. Since WEDO measures preferences in virtual scenarios, it does not directly replicate the emotional outbursts, accumulated relationships, power differences, or presence of personal attacks that occur in real conversations.

The research team also notes that there are "homework" questions remaining, such as why dialogue willingness sometimes increases with contentious themes, what contexts promote political discussions, and what roles other personality traits and stereotypes play. Phys.org

In other words, while WEDO is a powerful step in measuring the "willingness to open the door to dialogue," different skills and environments are needed to "speak effectively beyond the door." This is why it has value as a foundation for treating division not as a "matter of willpower" but as a "design issue."