What Psychology Can Teach Us About Polarization and Democratic Backsliding
By Pablo Lorenzo Esteve
It feels lately like we´re moving backwards. Back towards an era of conflict, hatred, and uncertainty. Indeed, according to the World Peace Index, in 2023 the average level of global peacefulness deteriorated for the ninth consecutive year. In addition, the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report indicated that only extreme weather events surpassed the spread of AI-generated false information and polarization as the risk most likely to present a ‘material crisis’ on a global scale in 2024. But why is this? Of course, there are many factors to consider, but psychology may hold some of the answers, and the consequences for the wellbeing of our democracies must be held dearly in mind, particularly in 2024 during which more than 2 billion voters around the world will head to the polls.
Understanding the Basis of Polarization
Polarization can be broadly defined as people´s shift into increasingly mutually opposing groups. Its impacts are wide-ranging and essentially revolve around the reduction in tolerance towards the ‘other’ group. This ‘other’ is perceived to be dangerous, and exists in complete antithesis to what is ‘correct’ and to what ‘I’ and ‘we’ are supposed to believe in for the health and survival of our society. Polarization is also a systemic pathology of the democratic system. Effects include the pervasiveness of confrontation over cooperation, an entrenchment of positions, distrust in government and among citizens, and support for political violence and other antidemocratic behaviors.
Polarization reinforces itself and is one of, if not the most, significant factors fuelling the current wave of democratic backsliding taking place around the world. Explanations of this process in political science tend to center upon specific characteristics of populist/authoritarian movements as drivers of polarization, but I argue that a multidisciplinary understanding of the underlying psychological processes taking place in individuals and society is equally important. These scientific mechanics apply to all polarizing movements, independent of political leaning or ideology.
In social psychology and sociology, a key area of study is group formation. According to the research of Stanford neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky, people have the inherent tendency to divide the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’ valence categories. Evolutionarily speaking, this makes sense. Banding together and joining forces to work towards ensuring access to limited resources essentially means that the group as a whole is more likely to survive in the face of challenges — either natural or from other humans — and pass on the genes linked to pro-group behaviors.
In addition to thinking of ‘us’ and ‘them’, the human mind also attributes different qualities to in-groups (us), and out-groups (them). In simple terms, the brain is essentially attributing labels of ‘good and bad’ to ‘us and them’ respectively. We favor in-group members, and view them as better, more unique. This can help us to understand the seed of discord in democracies today.
Mental Biases and the Polarization of Democracies
The creation of in-groups and out-groups within an individual´s mind is a dynamic process, and occurs on a spectrum from mild othering to complete dehumanization (pseudospeciation). The shift from seeing ‘others’ as ‘slightly more distant from us’ to ‘an enemy’ or a ‘threat’ is the quintessential nature of polarization. It is a collective natural instinct that kicks in, particularly when we feel threatened. Current global instability provides fertile ground for a breakdown of unity under larger groups, such as the state, and a reversal into smaller, more proximate groups.
Lately, it is easy to see the different ways in which society is becoming more polarized, again, using ideas from psychology. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias go hand in hand. In simplest terms, cognitive dissonance means that we experience mental ‘pain’ when we hear an argument that is logical but requires a large rewiring of our previously held assumptions. We therefore reject it, illogically, even feeling angry about it. Confirmation bias exemplifies our brain´s attempt to create a single coherent reality, to use less energy rewiring itself, and to help us work collectively. We try to explain new phenomena using previously held assumptions, and this explains why some people perceive different causes for the same event and usually align them with their ideologies and beliefs.
Media also plays a key role in current polarization. Discourse is validated when a group has conviction in it. The more we are convinced about something, the truer it feels. Conviction reinforcing mechanisms can be a key means through which to evaluate electoral behavior in upcoming elections. They can be analyzed to determine whether a population is becoming more or less polarized. Conviction reinforces cognitive consistency and reduces cognitive dissonance, meaning that people see the world in increasingly one-sided, ‘polar’ ways.
For example, ‘anchoring’ is a cognitive bias in which people tend to form opinions on an issue based strongly upon the first piece of information (the ‘anchor’) they´re presented with. Malign actors can flood the media landscape in the hope that the first interaction with an issue leads the individual to have a predetermined reaction towards it in the future. We therefore have to ponder when digesting information online: why are we being served this information in particular? Who benefits from sharing this point of view?
Analyzing online information with such a perspective can be particularly hard when in ‘echo chambers’. We often consciously or unconsciously read or view sources that align with our views and isolate alternative opinions. Algorithms contribute to reinforcing existing perceptions by recommending material we´ve historically engaged with more. Particularly dangerous is the “Illusory Truth Effect”, in which information is believed to be truer due to repeated exposure to it. When convictions are reinforced, it becomes harder to find common ground with others. Overall, a lack of routinely checking one’s own perspective leads to increased intolerance and polarization.
How To Set About Combating Polarization?
Whilst human nature is in part driving polarization, so can it also work to counter it with a bit of reasoning. Groups are bound to each other by perceptions of kin, tribe, clan, and our inner mental categorizations of ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’. But these are just in our minds, and we frequently perceive our groups to be smaller than what they could and should be, and we forget that we are stronger together. But why should we be inclusive, rather than advancing our own groups’ interest in a zero-sum system?
The “Wisdom of the Crowd” phenomenon is the idea that the collective judgment of a diverse group of individuals can be more accurate and insightful than the judgment of any single person, even an expert. It assumes the errors and biases of individuals tend to cancel each other out when aggregated. Therefore, our democracies should not be an exercise in which we live under a ‘tyranny of the majority’. Leaders should be inclusive in their governance, attempting to reconcile differences and rule for the common good. Democracies are supposed to be reconciliatory exercises, and should not seek to merely naturalize the differences between us. They should work towards the reduction of intra-state conflict. Though dystopian-sounding, this is actually a logical approach.
Reduction of Conflict Through Concession
We all share the hope to live in a future where there is peace and security, and polarization is an immense risk to the fulfillment of this aim. Understanding that polarization and conflict arise from mutually reinforcing perceptions of the ‘other’ as ‘hazardous’ and in ‘opposition to us’ (due to the outgroup derogation effect) is the key to understanding that our most valuable asset in dismantling the polarizing process is to dismantle these expectations of others. This means being tolerant in the face of intolerance, and not fighting perceived evil with evil. By acting hatefully towards others, even those who we perceive as intolerant, we simply reinforce their confirmation bias of ‘us’ and fuel polarization. Showing compassion and understanding is the best way to dismantle ‘their’ negative assumptions of ‘us’ and build common ground.
Social change starts within ourselves. Be honest when expected to lie, be helpful when expected to be selfish, be patient when expected to stress. Be a reconciliatory presence, not a divisive one. To this end, the key is to identify and not give power to those who seek to shift democracy towards division rather than unity. For not only is this possible, but rather, a duty. When the opposite happens, it makes minorities become more resentful, leading to increased polarization and subsequent conflicts.
In healthy democracies, both sides will have to concede and ‘lose’ something, but will ultimately both gain more in having been able to establish an agreement with the ‘other’. This mutual concession seeds partnership in the future, provides a common goal to strive towards, and unites. This is the exercise of peaceful diplomacy. In a world with no higher authority to impose sentences, middle ground is the asset needed to reduce conflict and violence.
Just like with our bodily health, we don’t fall ill just when we don’t engage in damaging behaviors. Prevention of pathologies also needs engagement in an active lifestyle and eating as nutritiously as we can. Similarly, democracies don’t work just when problems are prevented, more has to be done for them to succeed. A democracy of negotiation, humility, and concession is the only acceptable outcome for both sides that can lead to the ultimate common goal of coexistence and a just peace.
We have to think slowly, hear our emotions, know where they want to guide us, and then ask ourselves if this is the best direction to take in the long term. A politician’s duty is to find common ground and cancel out the noise of emotion and impulse, with the aim of minimizing conflict rather than fuelling it. By embracing compromise, we will end up with richer, more robust democracies.
Pablo Lorenzo Esteve is a 2023–24 European Horizons Transatlantic Fellow and undergraduate student in Geography and Politics at the University of Galway, Ireland. His personal and academic interests have strongly centered on advocacy, social activism, and youth involvement in politics. He volunteers as a Young European Ambassador for EUNeighboursEast and as a Climate Ambassador for the Government of Ireland.
