The Psychology of Political Polarization

PNAS Nexus, 2024

Polarization poses a critical threat to the stability of nations around the world, as it impacts climate change, populism, democracy, and global health. This perspective examines the conceptual understanding, measurement challenges, and potential interventions for polarization. Our analysis highlights the distinction and interactions between the individual and collective levels of polarization, conceptually, methodologically, and in terms of interventions. We conclude by pointing out future directions for understanding polarization and highlighting the interrelations between polarization and other social phenomena.

2018

Political Psychology and Polarisation: A Conceptual Approach, 2023

This study, mostly in a theoretical way and through a descriptive textual analysis, aims to give insights into the digital divide within the context of political and media psychology. The article creates new concepts and theories, and relates them to the conflicts on online platforms and tries to present the socio-cultural background that reinforces online polarisation based on new media and communication theories. The article discusses cultural psychology as the main motive for digital polarisation and touches upon online behaviour patterns that are considered as the driving force of rigid politicisation. Starting from this point of view, this conceptual study attempts to answer how the digital divide plays a role as a root cause or intervening factor in conflict and resolution issues and state-society relations. This work then aims to shed valuable light on the dynamics of peace and political psychology in reducing digital polarization and how terms related to socio-cultural psychology like contact theory may increase intimacy and reduce prejudices towards the other which are most likely caused by the echo chambers created on the online platforms. Therefore, this theoretical research, uncovering the potential of peace psychology and drawing upon the relevant existing literature, has important implications for reducing political polarization, the digital divide in other words, on online media platforms which will also help overcome conflicts and discriminations in daily political lives.

The Politics of Emotional Shockwaves, 2021

Political polarization is a major source of conflict in democratic societies, and there is evidence that it is on the rise. Polarization has been most actively studied by political scientists, but it also raises psychological questions about the underlying mechanisms, historical questions about causes, and normative questions about whether and when polarization is problematic. This chapter will touch on all of these issues, but through a specific lens: the role of emotions. By focusing on emotions, we can better understand the psychological bases of our political divisions. I will begin with a characterization of polarization, reviewing research on its increase over time. I then turn to three different ways emotions contribute: affective outlook, ideology, and identity. I will argue that the first two factors are explanatorily inadequate on their own; identity plays a pivotal role. I will conclude with some speculation about causes of polarization, some of its consequences, and an assessment of whether it should be a matter of serious concern.

2019

Political polarization is on the rise in America. Although social psychologists frequently study the intergroup underpinnings of polarization, they have traditionally had less to say about macro societal processes that contribute to its rise and fall. Recent cross-disciplinary work on the contemporary political and media landscape provides these complementary insights. In this paper, we consider the evidence for and implications of political polarization, distinguishing between ideological, affective, and false polarization. We review three key societal-level factors contributing to these polarization phenomena: the role of political elites, partisan media, and social media dynamics. We argue that institutional polarization processes (elites, media and social media) contribute to people’s misperceptions of division among the electorate, which in turn can contribute to a self-perpetuating cycle fueling animosity (affective polarization) and actual ideological polarization over time.

Construal level and identity salience interact to predict political polarization.When partisan identity is salient, high level construal leads to greater polarization.When national identity is salient, high level construal leads to less polarization.Construal level theory posits that that when people are thinking abstractly (vs. concretely) they rely more on their core and consistent attitudes and values. However, past research has been mixed on whether abstract thinking causes liberals and conservatives to become more or less polarized. In the current research, we examine how identity salience moderates the effect of construal level on political polarization. Results from two studies suggest that identity salience (political vs. national) plays a key role in predicting how construal level affects attitude polarization. When people's political identity was made salient, liberals and conservatives were more polarized about political issues when thinking abstractly (vs. concretely). Conversely, when national identity was salient, liberals and conservatives were less polarized when in an abstract (vs. concrete) mindset. Broadly, this research highlights the importance identity salience has in understanding the role abstract (vs. concrete) thinking has on people's attitudes and values.

This article accounts for two puzzling paradoxes. The first paradox is the simultaneous absence and presence of attitude polarization, the fact that global attitude polarization is relatively rare, even though pundits describe it as common. The second paradox is the simultaneous presence and absence of social polarization, the fact that while individuals experienced attitude homogeneity in their interpersonal networks, their networks are characterized by attitude heterogeneity. These paradoxes give rise to numerous scholarly arguments. By deploying a formal model of interpersonal influence over attitudes in a context where individuals hold simultaneous positions on multiple issues we show why these arguments are not mutually exclusive and how they meaningfully refer to the same social setting. It follows that the results from this model provide a single parsimonious account for both paradoxes. The framework we develop may be generalized to a wider array of problems, including classic problems in collective action.

Frontiers in Psychology, 2023

Purpose: Could the curse of knowledge influence how antagonized we are towards political outgroups? Do we assume others know what we know but still disagree with us? This research investigates how the curse of knowledge may affect us politically, i.e., be a cause of political polarization. Background: Research on the curse of knowledge has shown that even when people are incentivized to act as if others do not know what they know, they are still influenced by the knowledge they have. Methods: This study consists of five studies consisting of both experimental and non-experimental and within- and between-subjects survey designs. Each study collected samples of 152–1,048. Results: Partisans on both sides overestimate the extent to which stories from their news sources were familiar to contrapartisans. Introducing novel, unknown facts to support their political opinion made participants rate political outgroup members more negatively. In an experimental design, there was no difference in judging an opponent who did not know the same issue-relevant facts and someone who did know the same facts. However, when asked to compare those who know to those who do not, participants judged those who do not know more favorably, and their ratings of all issue-opponents were closer to those issue-opponents who shared the same knowledge. In a debiasing experiment, those who received an epistemological treatment judged someone who disagreed more favorably. Conclusion: This research provides evidence that the curse of knowledge may be a contributing cause of affective political polarization.