Wired for Division: the Science of Political Hatred

As the current Presidential election unfolds in the US, have you ever wondered why political debates get so heated? Or why it’s easier to rally against an opponent than for a cause?

Unsurprisingly, the answer lies in our minds. Here, recent studies are reshaping how we understand the science of the mind during political and social behavior.

Indeed, recent research now turns conventional wisdom about political behavior upside down. Professor Richard Petty at Ohio State University has uncovered a fascinating twist in the political landscape: a recent study from his lab reports that political independents actually exhibit more negativity towards opposing views than partisans do.

This revelation may challenge our assumptions about political polarization and offer new insights into the complex world of political psychology.

Shattering Preconceptions

For years, we’ve operated under the assumption that partisan individuals are the ones most susceptible to in-group/out-group effects. Studies by Van Bavel and Pereira (2022) and in my lab (Ramsøy et al., 2012) confirmed this, showing that those with strong political affiliations tend to show significant bias towards their in-group and hostility towards the out-group.

But Petty’s findings flip this narrative. Independents, long thought to be the more neutral players in the political arena, may harbor more negative sentiments toward opposing views than their partisan counterparts.

This isn’t just counterintuitive—it’s a game-changer for understanding political behavior.

The Neuroscience of Negativity

So what’s happening in our brains during these political face-offs? As a neuroscientist, I find this question particularly intriguing. The scholarly field of social neuroscience suggests that negativity and antagonism can heavily influence our decisions, often in ways we’re unaware of.

My research has shown that the differentiation between like and dislike occurs almost instantaneously in the brain—we’re talking milliseconds here. It takes a flip of a switch—something like 200–400 milliseconds—for political affiliation to come into play.

This suggests a deep-rooted neuropsychological heuristic at play, likely shaped by millions of years of evolution.

The Biology of Bias

Diving deeper into the neurobiological and neurochemical mechanisms behind this group behavior, we find two key players: oxytocin and vasopressin. While both are involved in social bonding and attachment, their roles in empathy and group dynamics are more nuanced than previously thought.

Oxytocin and vasopressin are hormones that play key roles in social behavior. They are produced in the hypothalamus and released into the bloodstream from the posterior pituitary gland. Oxytocin is often called the “bonding hormone” because it helps form attachments and reduces stress. Vasopressin, linked to social bonding and empathy, seems especially important for those with positive early life experiences. Both hormones also act directly in the brain, influencing complex social behaviors like empathy and group dynamics.

Oxytocin, often dubbed the “love hormone,” facilitates bonding between mothers and children and between romantic partners. It’s also known to inhibit stress responses and promote feelings of security and well-being.

However, its effects on empathy are surprisingly mixed. Some studies show no effect, while others suggest it enhances empathy and emotional processing. The variability might be due to individual differences.

On the other hand, Vasopressin seems to play a more specific role in enhancing empathy, particularly in individuals who received higher levels of paternal warmth in early life. This suggests that our capacity for empathy isn’t just about brain chemistry — it’s also shaped by our early experiences.

The Empathic Brain

Both hormones interact with brain regions like the amygdala (often involved in emotional processing) and the prefrontal cortex (often related to more “rational” choice, planning, and consideration).

The prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, and amygdala are brain regions involved in processing social and emotional information. These areas play crucial roles in decision-making, emotional regulation, and memory, underlying how negative political messages can strongly influence voter behavior.

These areas are activated during experiences of maternal and romantic love, as well as social group behaviors, thereby highlighting the complex interplay between biology and emotion.

Interestingly, when it comes to in-group/out-group differentiation — a crucial factor in political behavior — the roles of oxytocin and vasopressin are still not fully understood. While oxytocin has been associated with increased trust and cooperation within one’s in-group, its effects on out-group attitudes are less clear.

This complexity in our neurobiological makeup underscores why political behavior, especially among independents, might not always align with our expectations. The interplay between these hormones, our early life experiences, and our current social environment creates a unique cocktail of influences on our political attitudes and behaviors.

Why Negativity Wins

In any case, the observed negativity bias can be understood through the lens of prospect theory, which suggests that negative experiences weigh more heavily on us than positive ones.

This graph illustrates the core of prospect theory: losses weigh more heavily on us than gains of the same magnitude. This insight is crucial for understanding the emotional intensity behind political behaviors, especially the negativity observed in independent voters. While gains are appreciated, losses are felt more acutely, driving stronger reactions and decisions.

For independents, this could mean that their aversion to opposing views might be the primary driver of their political choices rather than allegiance to any particular ideology.

Bridging the Divide: Reducing Negativity

The implications of these findings are profound, especially as we approach another heated US election cycle. For those of us in the fields of political and science communication, this is not just a wake-up call — it should also be a call to action.

Petty’s research illuminates a crucial insight: regarding effective communication, reducing negativity should take precedence over amplifying positive messages. This is particularly vital in our current climate of political polarization.

The strategy is counterintuitive but powerful: start by acknowledging opposing views before asserting your own position. This approach does more than mitigate extreme polarization—it actively dismantles the barriers that prevent constructive dialogue.

By focusing on addressing, acknowledging, and reducing negative reactions first, we create a more receptive environment for subsequent positive messages. This is not about sugarcoating disagreements but about creating a foundation of mutual respect and understanding. When people feel their views are acknowledged, they’re more likely to engage in meaningful discourse rather than defensive argumentation.

This means rethinking traditional approaches for political strategists, campaign managers, and anyone engaged in public discourse. Instead of leading with passionate appeals to one’s base or sharp critiques of opponents, the most effective strategy might be demonstrating a genuine understanding of diverse viewpoints.

This approach doesn’t just apply to political communication. In science communication, acknowledging public concerns or skepticism before presenting scientific evidence can significantly enhance message effectiveness. It’s about building bridges of understanding, not walls of division.

#PoliticalNeuroscience #ProspectTheory #PoliticalBehavior #BridgingDivides #Oxytocin #Vasopressin #SocialFraming #IngroupOutgroup