Political polarization is rooted in emotion and identity, not just disagreement about facts or policy.

Presenting counterfactual evidence to people with extreme views often backfires.

Community and meaningful social engagement are two of the strongest protective factors against radicalization.

Co-authored by Asia Eaton, Ph.D., and Pasha Dashtgard, Ph.D.

The United States is deeply divided. Americans are more politically polarized than at any point in recent history, not only disagreeing about policy but ascribing negative traits to those on the other side of the aisle. Psychological science tells us this level of division has serious consequences for mental health, democratic functioning, and the risk of political violence (Piazza, 2023). Highly polarized societies create conditions for radicalization to violent and supremacist ideologies (Smith et al., 2020). But what can be done to reduce polarization? Below we offer insights and evidence-based action steps for understanding polarization and radicalization, and bridging political divides.

3 Insights From Psychology

1. The Problem Is Affective Polarization, Not Ideological Disagreement

When most people think about political polarization, they imagine two sides differing on issues like abortion, immigration, and gun policy. But research draws an important distinction between ideological polarization (divergence in policy views) and affective polarization (negative emotions directed at political out-groups). Evidence increasingly shows that affective polarization, or the tendency to view political opponents negatively, is the more urgent problem (Iyengar et al., 2019).

This stems from the fact that political party membership has become a powerful social identity. For some Americans, a Democrat or Republican label carries the same psychological weight as a religious affiliation or ethnic identity. And decades of research find that deriving one's self-concept from group memberships motivates in-group favoritism and out-group derogation (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In that context, we’re not just disagreeing with each other, we are sorting ourselves into fundamentally different groups, with a different vision of what life is like in America, who ought to be protected, and who is a threat. When opponents are perceived not just as policy rivals but as existential threats, the prospect of dialogue collapses.

2. Facts Don't Change Minds the Way We Think They Do

One of the most well-replicated and counterintuitive findings in social psychology is that presenting people with facts contradicting their beliefs often does not change those beliefs. In fact, it can actually strengthen them. This phenomenon, sometimes called the backfire effect (Swire-Thompson, DeGutis, & Lazer, 2020), reflects “motivated reasoning,” or the tendency to evaluate evidence in service of protecting our existing beliefs and identities (Celniker & Ditto, 2024).

Greater intelligence or cognitive sophistication also doesn't necessarily lead to better-calibrated beliefs. In fact, studies suggest that higher cognitive ability may simply provide people with more sophisticated tools to rationalize their pre-existing positions........

© Psychology Today