Why debates on divisive issues get stuck—and stay that way

In politics, opposing parties are often stuck in a stalemate on contentious issues. Emotionally charged topics such as abortion, gun control, or cannabis use cause people to dig in their heels and refuse to compromise. What drives this rigidity—and why does it matter? The real-world consequences are serious. When uncompromising attitudes become the norm, the refusal to negotiate shapes laws, fuels gridlock, and leaves citizens caught in the middle of polarized debates. 

The psychology of closure 

To understand what fuels a lack of compromise, Esade Associate Professor Namrata Goyal, together with Krishna Savani (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) and Michael W. Morris (Columbia Business School), conducted five studies to investigate whether a ‘Need for Closure’ (NFC)—the desire for definite and unambiguous answers and static judgments (which stems from a discomfort with uncertainty) makes people more resistant to compromise.  

These studies, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, assessed people’s views on several highly emotive practices that have become politicized, from hunting and marijuana use to abortion and euthanasia. The paper notes, “participants who scored higher on NFC were more likely to refuse to compromise on politicized practices.” Put simply, people who are uncomfortable with uncertainty prefer clear rules, and once they adopt a rule, they are unlikely to compromise—even when circumstances change. 

Under time pressure and an urgent need for resolution, people prefer rigid rules and dismiss intermediate solutions

The second study went a step further by showing a causal effect. When people were placed under time pressure, their discomfort with uncertainty increased, along with their need for closure. Faced with a ticking clock, participants were more likely to reject middle-ground solutions. For example, when Goyal exposed both pro-life and pro-choice individuals to time pressure, both groups became less flexible on abortion, suggesting that rigidity was driven not by ideology but by situational pressure. In short, when certainty feels urgent, people cling to rules rather than engage with nuance. 

Goyal also examined how moral values affect this pattern. Those who prioritized so-called ‘binding’ moral foundations, such as loyalty, authority, and purity, showed the strongest link between closure and refusal to compromise. For these individuals, holding firm to shared group values—such as those of a political party—can matter more than finding middle ground. When someone with a high need for closure identifies strongly with a group, they are especially likely to conform to its norms, reinforcing group loyalty while making compromise less acceptable. 

In the final two studies, the research demonstrated how need for closure makes people more resistant to compromise. These studies showed that NFC  drives people toward deontological reasoning—rule-based, black-and-white thinking, rather than utilitarian reasoning. Rule-based thinking treats certain actions—such as euthanasia—as always wrong, leaving little room to consider context or exceptions. By contrast, utilitarian reasoning focuses on outcomes and circumstances, allowing people to reconsider their position when new information or broader context is taken into account.  

“Participants with a higher need for closure tended to reject compromise on issues like hunting, euthanasia, marijuana use, and gun ownership, viewing these practices as beyond weighing pros and cons,” says Goyal.  

Why closure leads to rigidity 

When people are used to clear, fixed answers, compromise can feel morally unacceptable. Rules provide stability and remove uncertainty, giving those with a high need for closure the sense of certainty they rely on to feel comfortable. 

Individuals often perceive compromise as morally unacceptable, when seeking for absolute certainty

The effects of this mindset are visible in politics today. Many debates reach a deadlock because black-and-white black-and-white thinking  leaves little room for negotiation. On issues such as abortion, gun rights, or euthanasia, progress becomes difficult when compromise is dismissed from the outset.   

Survey data illustrate this rigidity. More than 12% of Republicans say abortion should be illegal “in all circumstances” and 15% of Democrats oppose the death penalty “in all cases.” And many are unwilling to budge. 

These figures show that rigid thinking isn’t confined to one single political party. Uncompromising attitudes are driven less by political affiliation than by mindset, in which certain values are treated as absolute and non-negotiable. When these values are reinforced both personally and collectively, for example when individual beliefs align closely with a party’s stance, positions become more entrenched and compromise increasingly unlikely.  

This rule-based reasoning connects closely to Goyal’s other research on moral absolutism, which finds that understanding morality as absolute rather than relative fuels support for outright bans on behaviors deemed to be wrong no matter what the circumstances. 

Softening rigid thinking 

If the need for closure drives political intransigence, what can be done about it? Goyal’s research suggests that context matters. Under time pressure, people’s views solidify. But in settings where there’s more time to reflect, or when issues are framed to allow nuance, individuals may learn how to weigh up the pros and cons. 

Of course, not every issue should be open to compromise. As the paper itself flags, some issues—particularly those involving fundamental rights—should not be negotiated. But it is important to understand the psychological roots of rigid thinking. This helps to explain why stalemates happen and why even proposed practical solutions are often rejected and fail to gain traction. 

There is hope. Taking on board the role of the need for closure in political polarization is the first step toward creating a climate for more constructive dialogue. When we see that resistance to compromise is not only about ideology but also about personal psychology, we can design processes that encourage greater flexibility of thought. Solutions could lie in longer deliberation periods, reframed questions, and bringing in broader perspectives, which could help unstick political stalemates. 

As Goyal notes, “On the scientific side, the research sheds light on the psychological processes that drive people to reject compromise on divisive political issues, helping us better understand polarization. On the practical side, it suggests ways to ease intergroup conflict—for example, by encouraging more flexible, less black-and-white thinking and by reducing the need for closure, policymakers may be able to soften views that people normally treat as rigid and non-negotiable.” 

In a time when polarization seems to be halting progress in political arenas, such insights are invaluable. They remind us that beneath the surface of political conflict lies a human need for certainty. And if we want to move beyond stalemates, we need to address that need, not ignore it.