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 (Stanovich et al., 2013). Given our tendency to scrutinize ideas that contradict our preexisting worldview more stringently (Ditto, 2009), this suggests that presenting facts attempting to debunk our political beliefs will not be very persuasive. This has significant implications for public health communicators, educators, and anyone trying to counter misinformation; purely factual approaches to changing hearts and minds can be counterproductive.

3. Inoculation Is More Effective Against Propaganda Than Refutation

Given that direct refutation often fails, researchers have developed an alternative approach to preventing radicalization based on inoculation theory. Originally developed in the context of attitude change research (McGuire, 1964), inoculation theory says that exposing people to weakened forms of persuasive attacks should build cognitive and emotional resistance ahead of time, like a vaccine.

Applied to the prevention of radicalization, this means teaching people how propaganda works (e.g., the rhetorical techniques, the emotional manipulation) before they are exposed to it. Research finds that the practical technique of "prebunking" propaganda reduces endorsement by triggering a sense of indignation at being manipulated (Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019). When people feel someone is trying to trick them, they resist. This intervention has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing endorsement of scientific racism (Hughes, et al., 2021), vaccine hesitancy (Piltch-Loeb, et al., 2022), and Islamophobic and radical-Islamist disinformation (Lewandowsky & Yesilada, 2021).

1. Lead With Curiosity, Not Persuasion

Another important finding from research on reducing polarization is that positive interactions between opposing groups can reduce prejudice. However, the quality and nature of that contact matters enormously (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Entering cross-partisan conversations with the goal of persuading or teaching others tends to trigger defensiveness in the other party. Conversely, approaching dialogue with genuine curiosity creates the conditions for openness. This means asking questions like "What's the story or experience that led you to believe that?" rather than "Why do you think that?" Having people reflect on the origins of their beliefs, particularly if those beliefs are hostile, disrupts the process of using anecdotal experiences to make generalizations about whole groups of people.

2. Teach the Mechanics of Manipulation Before Encountering It

Parents, educators, faith leaders, and community organizations are on the frontlines of radicalization prevention, but often without the knowledge or tools to act effectively. A public health approach to preventing extremism recommends equipping the trusted adults in young people's lives with media literacy skills and knowledge of how radicalization works (Dashtgard, et al., 2022a; Dashtgard, et al., 2022b; Dashtgard, et al., 2021).

Prebunking interventions that rely on inoculation, or brief educational experiences that expose people to propaganda techniques before they encounter them, are effective in reducing susceptibility to misinformation across age groups and political affiliations (Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019). Schools, libraries, and community organizations can integrate this kind of media literacy into existing programs. The goal in these interventions is not to tell people what to believe, but to teach them how to recognize when someone is trying to manipulate their beliefs (Hughes, et al., 2021).

3. Invest in Community Connection as Prevention

Because polarization and radicalization are social and relational phenomena, effective prevention is also relational. Research shows that people with strong social ties and a sense of belonging are less vulnerable to recruitment into extremist communities (Kruglanski et al., 2014). This means that investing in civil society, including neighborhood organizations, faith communities, and civic clubs, is an evidence-based strategy for reducing radicalization. Participation in these kinds of organizations exposes people to diverse perspectives in low-threat contexts, builds cross-cutting social identities, and fosters the kind of trust that acts as a buffer against dehumanizing political rhetoric (Putnam, 2000).

Polarization is rooted in the basic human needs for identity, belonging, significance, and safety. The research is clear: attempts to bridge divides through facts alone are insufficient. What works is meeting people at the level of their experience, understanding the relational pathways into and out of extremism, and investing in the community structures that make belonging possible without requiring an enemy.

Celniker, J. B., & Ditto, P. H. (2024). Of preferences and priors: Motivated reasoning in partisans’ evaluations of scientific evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 127(5), 986–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000417

Dashtgard, P., Bates, L., Pressman, E., Russell, W., Gebbia-Richards, D., Hughes, B., & Miller-Idriss, C. (2021). Empowered to intervene: An impact report on the SPLC/PERIL guide to youth radicalization. Southern Poverty Law Center & Polarization and extremism Research Innovation Lab. https://www.splcenter.org/peril-assessments-impact

Dashtgard, P., Russell, W., White, K., Pressman, E., Thorne, S. R., Hughes, B., & Miller-Idriss, C. (2022). Building resilient and inclusive communities of knowledge. Lumina Foundation. https://perilresearch.com/resource/brick-building-resilient-inclusive-communities-of-knowledge/

Dashtgard, P., Hughes, B., Miller-Idriss, C., Pressman, E., Russell, W., Thorne, S., White, K., Bates, L., & Flanagan, A. (2022). Building networks and addressing harm: A community guide to online youth radicalization - resources for trusted adults, mentors and community leaders. Southern Poverty Law Center.https://www.splcenter.org/peril-community-guide

Ditto, P. H. (2009). Passion, reason, and necessity: A quantity-of-processing view of motivated reasoning. In T. Bayne & J. Fernández (Eds.), Delusion and self-deception: Affective and motivational influences on belief formation (pp. 23–53). Psychology Press.

Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034

Hughes, B., Braddock, K., Miller-Idriss, C., Goldberg, B., Criezis,M., Dashtgard, P., & White, K. (2021). Inoculating againstpersuasion by scientific racism propaganda: The moderatingroles of propaganda form and subtlety. PsyArxiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ecqn4

Kruglanski, A. W., Gelfand, M. J., Bélanger, J. J., Sheveland, A., Hetiarachchi, M., & Gunaratna, R. (2014). The psychology of radicalization and deradicalization: How significance quest impacts violent extremism. Political Psychology, 35(S1), 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12163

Lewandowsky, S., & Yesilada, M. (2021). Inoculating against the spread of Islamophobic and radical-Islamist disinformation. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 6(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00323-z

McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191–229). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60052-0

Mindbridge Podcast Episode 13: Polarization and Bridging Divides. (2026). https://mindbridgecenter.substack.com/podcast

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

Piazza, J. A. (2023). Political Polarization and Political Violence. Security Studies, 32(3), 476–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2023.2225780

Piltch-Loeb, R., Su, M., Hughes, B., Testa, M., Goldberg, B., Braddock, K., ... & Savoia, E. (2022). Testing the efficacy of attitudinal inoculation videos to enhance COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: quasi-experimental intervention trial. JMIR public health and surveillance, 8(6), e34615. doi:10.2196/34615

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990

Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019). Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Communications, 5, Article 65. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0279-9

Smith, L. G. E., Blackwood, L., & Thomas, E. F. (2020). The need to refocus on the group as the site of radicalization. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 327–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619885870

Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413480174

Swire-Thompson, B., DeGutis, J., & Lazer, D. (2020). Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(3), 286-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.

By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

© Psychology Today