Beyond polarization: In the Trump era, is there a space to share?
A conversation with the social psychologist Demis Glasford about the relationship between psychology, journalism and fake news
We live in polarized times. Europe is in trouble, divided from the inside and soon to lose the U.K. after the Brexit vote. The United States is even more divided than it was before after the presidential campaign and Donald Trump’s electoral victory. In a recent article on the World Economic Forum, the neuroscientist Kris De Meyer used Leon Festinger’s 1957 cognitive dissonance theory to describe the present and the rise of political differences: “How did their positions shift so decidedly? Enter ‘cognitive dissonance.’ … It has become shorthand for the inconsistencies we perceive in other people’s views — but rarely in our own.”
“People are not neutral and enter in a group change the way in which you approach the information,” said Demis Glasford, social psychologist and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
“People are not neutral and enter in a group change the way in which you approach the information”
Glasford is studying the intersection between psychology and journalism. One of the main questions for him is: could we talk about journalism as a neutral science? We have to think about two critical theories.
Motivated reasoning — The motivation you have would influence the way you engage with information. We can see this in the news environment: people don’t have a lot of time, so they use journalism as a kind of proxy for certain things.
Cognitive dissonance — When your beliefs are inconsistent, they make you uncomfortable. You don’t want to engage with something that is contrary to your behavior.
In politics, these two psychological theories have a central role in our conduct. Assuming that you are liberal, part of you would support Trump a little if he says that the government is going to give universal health care. At the same time, you can’t support Trump because of your beliefs and your political vision.
“Glasford is trying to understand if there is a place where share, talk and discuss between people that are politically poles apart”
Which is the point here? Glasford is trying to understand if there is a place where people who are politically poles apart can share opinions, talk and discuss. At the same time, he is trying to understand if journalism could have a central role in activating positive behaviors, putting aside the divisions. “It’s really important to preserve that space of striving for objectivity and striving for cooperation,” Glasford says. Clearly it’s not a simple goal because you have to work with the liberals and conservatives who are deeply divided as the social psychologist Jonathan Hyde shows.
Comedy could be a solution. In this polarized news environment and with the spread of fake news across social media, Glasford thinks that comedy could help. “Comedy is a way to preserve a space for cooperation and for objectivity,” he says.
This week in the Trumposphere. Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University, says that in the last 30 years of his career, he can’t remember anything like the present relationship between journalists and the White House. Here is the Poynter podcast. In January, Jay Rosen wrote on his blog, PressThink, to send interns to cover the Trump White House.
DemisGlasford is a social psychologist at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. He focuses on community and minority interactions, injustice and unexpected behavioral outcomes. He takes an interdisciplinary approach, connecting social psychology, political psychology, economics, political science, media studies and international relations.
Thanks to Diane Nottle for the editing
