Have you ever wondered why political debates can get so heated? Or why it seems like people are becoming more divided in their views? As political discussions intensify globally, understanding the psychological forces at play has become increasingly crucial. Welcome to the fascinating world of political psychology, where we explore how our minds shape our political beliefs and behaviors. 

At the heart of this field lies a concept known as group polarization. In the context of politics, group polarization refers to the psychological tendency for political views to shift from moderate positions toward more extreme stances. This phenomenon helps explain why we often see people becoming more entrenched in their political beliefs over time, rather than finding middle ground. 

Let’s dive deeper into the psychological mechanisms that drive group polarization in the political realm. By understanding these processes, we can gain valuable insights into our own thinking and the dynamics of political discourse in today’s world. 

How Group Polarization Works 

Have you ever served on a jury? Group polarization is a dominant factor in these settings. Jurors often start with moderate views, but through group discussions, they begin to adopt more extreme stances. Eventually, all jurors must pick a side to determine the defendant’s fate.  

In political contexts, the same effect is magnified by media influence, cognitive biases, and psychological dynamics. Although the United States was founded without political parties, political groups eventually grew in power and size. Today’s politics are fueled by strong psychological attachment, sometimes leading to polarized identities. Let’s examine this in more depth. 

Confirmation Bias 

Until the early 1990s, the Democratic and Republican parties held many overlapping policy agendas, which fostered diverse opinions. Today, our political climate is more complex than ever, with a stark contrast of policies between the two major parties. Factors contributing to this shift include: 

  • The rise of partisan news channels like MSNBC and Fox News in the mid-1990s. 
  • The rise of social media platforms (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) in the mid-2000s that amplify polarized content.  

While personalizing your social media feed can help you find relevant information, it may also reinforce existing beliefs and limit exposure to diverse perspectives, thus contributing to confirmation bias.  

This selective exposure can create echo chambers in which people exclude multiple viewpoints and adopt more extreme versions of previously existing beliefs (also called informative influence). According to Pew Research, demographic shifts and socioeconomic factors have also contributed to evolving political divides since the 2000s. 

Cognitive Dissonance 

Cognitive dissonance can arise when someone’s preferred party supports a policy that conflicts with their personal beliefs. In political contexts, examples of cognitive dissonance include: 

  • Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs): Some supporters of the Iraq War continued to believe in the presence of WMDs, interpreting the absence of evidence as a need for more thorough inspections. 
  • Brexit: Brexit advocates maintained their commitment to leaving the European Union, even as economic concerns were raised. 
  • Healthcare: People may favor affordable healthcare but feel conflicted about the trade-offs, like potential tax increases, required to support it. 

These conflicts can occur across the political spectrum as individuals navigate their personal beliefs and party loyalties. Individuals sometimes resolve conflicting viewpoints by aligning with broader party narratives, which can further drive polarization.  

The Groupthink Phenomenon 

Would you dismiss an opinion that you don’t find offensive just because someone suggested it? While cognitive dissonance involves internal inconsistency (changing one’s own beliefs to fit a party’s agenda), groupthink results from external pressures. When under the influence of groupthink (or normative influence), individuals suppress dissenting views to maintain harmony within the group, even if they privately disagree.  

Topics such as senators voting along party lines, economic concerns and social issues often reflect party identity, contributing to partisanship where individuals may oppose the opposing party more than they actively support their own. 

The Desire to Belong 

Social identity theory describes how individuals derive part of their self-concept from group membership, affecting their attitudes and behaviors. While someone may align with a party to foster ingroup favoritism, they may also foster outgroup hostility to maintain that favoritism.  

According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Americans might not be as ideologically polarized as they seem; however, they’re often divided by misunderstandings, misconceptions, peer pressure, or fear of judgment. Other times, voters feel emotionally polarized, meaning they dislike the opposing party regardless of its policies. 

Broaden Your Perspective With a BA in Psychology 

While political polarization can feel increasingly complex, your educational journey doesn’t have to be. The University of Texas Permian Basin offers a flexible, 100% online Bachelor of Arts in Psychology that provides a comprehensive study of how individuals think, behave, and interact within groups, leading to a more nuanced understanding of social dynamics, including politics. 

This degree is highly versatile and can open doors to roles in: 

  • Neuropsychology 
  • Advertising and marketing  
  • Social science research 
  • Human resources 

You can also apply your knowledge to fields like public relations and politics. With a foundation in psychology, you can help bridge divides and foster better understanding in today’s polarized world—even in everyday interactions. Applications are accepted year-round, so you can join our virtual classroom and pursue your passions on your own terms.