Constructive disagreement is crucial to solving pressing societal problems, yet often devolves into destructive interpersonal conflict. What shapes the trajectory of conflictual conversations? Here, we focus on conversational receptiveness—the use of language to behaviorally demonstrate one’s thoughtful engagement with opposing views—and its transmission between disagreeing parties in dialogue. We use a multidisciplinary and multimethod approach (collective N = 15,611) to test whether and how conversational receptiveness shapes disagreeing counterpart behavior and evaluations of each other, thereby improving conflict outcomes. We first report the development of an updated algorithm for measuring receptiveness in text (Study 1). Using the updated algorithm, we find that conversational receptiveness enacted by one party predicts receptiveness by the other among students in online class forums (Study 2) and government leaders in the laboratory (Study 3). In three pre-registered, well-powered experiments, we find that training one individual in this technique also increased its use by a political opponent (Study 4) and that a single use of receptiveness improved interpersonal (and intergroup) evaluations (Study 4, Study 4 Replication, and Study 5). This transmission is distinct from mimicry or emotion contagion and is driven by a deeper shift in linguistic style, which we term indirect accommodation. Together, we find that conversational receptiveness is effective not only for shifting behavior during a focal disagreement, but also for shifting subsequent interpersonal and intergroup evaluations, providing disagreeing parties with a path around destructive conflict spirals. Broadly, our research emphasizes the importance of studying how linguistic behavior shapes conflict dynamics.