Political polarisation: Are you part of the problem?

Have you ever had that awkward experience? That moment when someone says something about current affairs that you disagree with. The silence that emerges, the sense of discomfort and wondering how to respond. Do you tell them they're wrong? Do you lecture them and hope they'll see common sense? Or do you simply change the subject and mentally file away the topic as one to not broach with that person?

Type 'how to talk about politics' into Google and the first suggested search is '…without fighting'. These negative experiences with political talk seem counter to what an ideal democracy should be: a context where a diversity of political opinions, discourses and disagreements thrive and lead to productive solutions. So, what is it that makes talking about politics so difficult? Most people would probably answer this question by saying: 'other people'. But have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, you're part of the problem?

We pose this as a question not only to every person who has ever had a political conversation but also political psychologists and those who research in this area. Turning the lens on ourselves, and our groups, we consider how political polarisation is not only perpetuated through those intense online interactions with keyboard warriors, but also through more subtle interactions with like-minded others, where you not only share and bond over similar opinions, but also end up perpetuating further distance, and difference, from other political opinions and the people who hold them.

The Polarisation Paradox

There is a paradox here that is worth considering. In her book Hearing the Other Side, political psychologist Dianne Mutz shows that there is a tension between deliberative democracy and participatory democracy. Getting people to talk more with those who hold different political views (what Mutz refers to as 'cross-cutting exposure') can actually discourage political participation.

The argument is that exposure to diverse opinions can make people more ambivalent about their own political views, making participation less straightforward. As Mutz herself explains 'The kind of network that encourages an open and tolerant society is not necessarily the same kind that provides an enthusiastically participative citizenry' (p.125).

Is real political polarisation actually the problem here, or is there something more fundamental going on? According to political scientists, the extent to which political polarisation is a reality is often exaggerated. This is captured by the idea of 'false polarisation'; people tend to overestimate how 'extreme' the average person in their (political) group is and view themselves as more moderate than the people 'out there'. In other words, we return to the answer provided at the beginning: other people are the problem.

Yet this is, to some extent, also a false notion. By turning the lens on ourselves and focusing on the contexts within which we tend to have most of our political conversations, we can understand why we tend to think others are more extreme in their views than us. We need to look at what we are doing when we're interacting with like-minded others.

Misrepresenting others – where's the harm?

Image

Talking with like-minded others – be it sharing stories, personal disclosures, gossiping about others, etc. – is important. It helps us define who we are and our place in the world. Indeed, gossiping is considered one of the oldest ways in which we are able to create communicative ties with our local community (Dunbar, 1996). Of course, it is still handy in today's world to gossip about others in order to develop collegiate work relationships (Alshehre, 2017) and maintain friendships (Watson, 2012).

However, when it comes to talking to like-minded others, we tend to gossip about those who are perceived as different (Dong et al., 2023) which can result in 'us' talking about 'them' in ways which are problematic. In a political context, there is not always a comfortable middle ground which can be adopted when discussing such issues with like-minded others.

For morally polarising issues, it seems entirely reasonable to frame those with whom we disagree as profoundly wrong. With this in mind, should we as a society even care about mispresenting the views of others that we consider to be on the wrong side of the moral argument?

In a word, yes! Misrepresenting the contrasting opinions of others with those who are like-minded risks being both self-limiting and corrosive to political dialogue (Gillespie, 2008). An essential aspect to consider here is the intention of such a misrepresentation – is it the result of a genuine misunderstanding? An act of self-deception? Or a bad-faith misrepresentation aimed at solidifying in-group opinion?

If it is the latter, then how a group of like-minded individuals represent the views of those with whom they disagree can negatively impact the individual. This can create a group dynamic in which members feel they must obfuscate any opinion that invalidates the collective consensus (Tang et al., 2021). Such an environment prioritises silence over a plurality of opinions, as allowing group members to freely voice incisive criticism by others risks threatening group bonds (Havey, 2021).

Even in a best-case scenario, simplistic misrepresentations of the prevailing counterargument lack nuance and perspective. It's a Disneyesque version of reality in which there are only 'good people' and 'bad people'. Take the example of research (Obradovic & Draper, 2022) on group discussions after the Brexit vote in the UK.

The aim of the study was to put groups of like-minded people, who voted the same on the referendum, together, and ask them to engage with the perspective of the other. Our aim was to examine how that dialogue unfolded and moved as the group discussed why others voted differently, what their motivations might have been and what influenced their vote choice.

What we found is that often, when we talk about the political views of others, we move from discussing what these opinions are to who holds them. We found examples of attempts to 'naturalise' differences by mentioning generational differences between Leave and Remain voters. One participant even mentioned that younger generations 'naturally think' differently from older ones.

By making these kinds of claims, we are anchoring political opinions in essential, and non-changeable characteristics of certain groups. This can become dangerous – it pigeonholes people by making the point that they can only ever think one way and cannot change, but more importantly, it allows us to feel better about avoiding having that conversation. If our differences are inevitable and unchangeable, what is the point of dialogue?

In other words, the more we represent political differences as inherently rooted in differences between people rather than positions that can be taken up (and dropped), the less likely we are to see the value of dialogue. How we talk and represent the views of those with whom we disagree to like-minded others is important because it has implications for how we engage with those 'other' people in both political and non-political spaces'. As we shall discover, the space in which political discourse occurs has a remarkable impact on the outcomes.

Discursive spaces and political disputes

Imagine a café which, beneath its colourful and welcoming veneer, actively attempts to create a polarising atmosphere for everyone in the space. Notes are shared with customers which contain half-truths or wilful misrepresentations of all the customers' views to create disputes and division. Whilst likely such a place would attract some custom (if only for the novelty!), it could hardly be considered a space in which human relations are valued, and sincere discourse is observed. Take this café online and what do you have? Social media spaces, be that Twitter/X, Facebook, Reddit or Telegram.

These platforms offer a context for communication which does not enable what we would consider important for genuine dialogue – listening, empathy, or consideration for how the other person will receive our opinion. Moreover, it is not merely unconducive to good faith communication but actively encourages dialogue which is inherently polarising.

To offer some balance here, it is important to acknowledge that social media has been instrumental in raising awareness to instigate positive political changes, be it the Black Lives Matter or the Me-Too movement (Ince et al., 2017; Peters & Besley, 2019). Furthermore, simply encouraging everyone to disengage from social media entirely reduces news consumption and risks creating a politically uninformed public (Alcott et al., 2020). That said, the current model of operation for social media platforms is to increase user engagement by incentivising discourse which is inherently polarising. Field studies show that extreme partisan information creates higher levels of engagement on polarising political issues (Weismueller et al., 2023).

On Twitter/X, social bots are deployed to replicate human behaviour to expose users to inflammatory oppositional views (Ferrara et al., 2016). Recent research (Sabadini et al., 2021) highlights how online discursive spaces tend to heighten polarisation when compared with real-world environments. Another equally troublesome feature is allowing users to filter out any views which contrast with their own (Nasim et al., 2022). We can create news feeds in which any contrasting view, no matter how well-considered or genuinely thought-provoking, will be hidden from us.

It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that longitudinal studies (e.g. Fridman et al., 2021) show an increase in online polarising political discourse when compared with real-world spaces. But does how we talk about those with whom we disagree in real-world spaces impact our online interactions? In this regard, Marková's (2000) assertion that 'every individual lives in the world of others' words' seems especially insightful. If we discuss those we disagree with as entirely without merit in real-world discussions with a receptive audience, online interactions with perceived 'political opponents' are likely to be fraught with negative assumptions.

So, given the ubiquity of social media and the polarising climate – what can we do to affect change and create spaces for good-faith dialogue on political issues?

Communication and divisions: Where next?

It is likely you talk about politics either with like-minded others, or in safe spaces, and we suggest you start there. Begin to challenge the misconception that differences are large, irreconcilable and at the core, natural. Build up your levels of comfort with disagreement. Learn how to approach a disagreement as an opportunity to learn, rather than a stepping-stone to a fight. Adopt a 'understanding mindset' rather than a 'winning mindset' (Goldsworthy et al., 2021). Approaching a disagreement with a level of curiosity, rather than defensiveness, can also limit the bias we bring (Kahan et al., 2017).

Secondly, think slowly, rather than fast, about your own political opinions. You can practice this by thinking through your beliefs in a mechanistic way; are you able to explain your beliefs or positioning on a policy issue (say immigration) in a step-by-step manner? Research has shown that, when asked to explain how different policies might lead to specific outcomes, people don't do very well (Fernbach et al., 2013). Knowing that there is an 'illusion of understanding may help you become less certain and perhaps more open-minded to exploring your own assumptions.

Thirdly, recognise that a level of disagreement in your political discussions is a 'feature not a bug'. In a recent innovative study (English, 2022; English & Mahendran, 2021), individuals were paired together to engage in direct conversation based on shared core political positions.

The dialogue was interrupted by a researcher-led 'polarising rupture', to explore how this impacted on discourse. The subsequent dialogue showed that a manageable level of disagreement can be a positive force. Indications of disagreement allowed strangers to feel they could engage in meaningful political conversation with one another, as both were invested in discussing the contentious issue.

Alongside this influencing factor, the core political positions that both re-adopted when in dialogue with one another seemed to, in some cases, create a context for the pairs to sustain dialogue on controversial issues, as opposed to changing the topic or leaving the space (though it's important to acknowledge that this was during one-to-one direct dialogue within a controlled online environment with a moderator present).

Alongside embracing the ability to disagree agreeably, the language we use when talking about those with whom we might disagree is also important. Could it be that you are falling into the trap of anchoring a specific political position to a personality or a social identity, creating a potential barrier to dialogue at both the interpersonal and inter-group level?

Whilst you need not go as far as 'hate the sin, love the sinner', vocalising to others why someone with opposing views has legitimate motivations is to recognise their equality as a political actor. Such an act has been shown to reduce hostility to the out-group (Eschert & Simon, 2019). It is also a recognition that, on a fundamental level, we are all in this together.

In our collective attempts to imagine a changed political landscape, our dialogue with one another is key to offering a window for understanding each other. In doing so, the dialogue moves from conversation to 'help people understand different views within the context of the values and experiences from which they arise' (Israel, 2020).

Finally, in an attempt to achieve dialogue at a broader societal stage, we also need to consider how we talk about 'political talk'. How are identity categories, personality traits or other more social, cultural and individual dimensions drawn on in the discussion of politics by our leaders? How do they create oppositional binaries through their rhetoric that positions people against each other?

As academics and stakeholders, we can develop dialogue-orientated toolkits that avoid falling into these traps of essentialising differences, which can then be used by policymakers. To this end, the Horizon-Europe/Innovate UK-funded OppAttune project – which we and several other contributors to this special issue are involved in – is developing an Attunement model with partner organisations from across Europe.

This model will offer a range of toolkits to empower citizens to develop a democratic capacity for engaging in public dialogue with those with whom they disagree. This then offers the potential for policy-makers, media influencers and engaged activists to create spaces that will enable dialogue which recognises that political differences and disagreement are not inherently dysfunctional or to be avoided. It's a small step towards a time when those 'awkward moments of disagreement' can become a starting point for meaningful dialogue that fosters understanding.

We'll end with our recommendations:

• For conflict avoiders: Try to become comfortable with disagreement – consensus is not always possible.
• For conflict-seekers: Approach an anticipated dispute as an opportunity to learn as well as inform.
• For us all: Think slow, not fast about your own political opinions – why do you believe what you do?
• For researchers/practitioners and policy-makers: There is an imperative to develop public-facing toolkits that limit the anchoring of the political in the personal.

Sandra Obradović is a senior lecturer in the School of Psychology and Counselling at the Open University, and a researcher at the Electoral Psychology Observatory, London School of Economics.

Anthony English is a post-doctoral research fellow on the Horizon-Europe/Innovate UK-funded OppAttune project with the Open University, and is a visiting researcher at Lancaster University.

Key sources

Aiken, S. F., and Casey, J. (2011) Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men. Argumentation, 25, 87–105. 
Alshehre, R. A. M. (2017) Positive Effects of Gossiping at Work. Open Journal of Medical Psychology, 6, 126-132. 
Dong, Y., Li, W., and Kou, Y. (2023) Physical Attractiveness of Potential Competitors Influences Women's Gossip: Effects of Romantic Jealousy and Self‑Esteem. Evolutionary Psychological Science.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1996). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Harvard University Press. 
English, A. (2022) The I-Positions Between Us: Exploring how Politically Polarised Citizens Sustain Dialogue Discussing the UK's Global Relationships, PhD Thesis, Open University, Milton Keynes
English, A., and Mahendran, K. (2021) Sustaining Dialogue in Polarised Political Contexts: Moving beyond Shared-Identity to Dialogical Position Exchanges. International Review of Theoretical Psychologies. 2 (1).
Eschert, S., and Simon, B. (2019) Respect and political disagreement: Can intergroup respect reduce the biased evaluation of outgroup arguments? PLoS ONE, 14(3): e0211556. 
Fernbach, P. M., Rogers, T., Fox, C. R., and Sloman, S. A. (2013). Political extremism is supported by an illusion of understanding. Psychological science, 24(6), 939-946.
Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F., and Flammini, A. (2016) The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, 66 (1), 96-104.
Fridman, A., Gershon, R., and Gneezy, A. (2021) COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: A longitudinal study. PLoS ONE, 16 (4), e0250123. 
Gillespie, A. (2008) Social representations, alternative representations, and semantic barriers. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38 (4), 375-391.
Goldsworthy, A., Osborne, L., & Chesterfield, A. (2021). Poles Apart: Why People Turn Against Each Other, and How to Bring Them Together. Random House.
Havey, N. (2021) The New Right: Conservative Student Political Repertoires and Intragroup Conflict. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29 (134).
Ince, J., Rojas, F., and Davis, C. A. (2017) The social media response to Black Lives Matter: How Twitter users interact with Black Lives Matter through hashtag use. Ethical and Racial Studies, 40 (11).
Israel, T. (2020). Beyond your bubble: How to connect across the political divide, skills and strategies for conversations that work. American Psychological Association.
Kahan, D. M., Landrum, A., Carpenter, K., Helft, L., and Jamieson, K. H. (2017) Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing. Advances in Political Psychology, 38 (1), 179-199. 
Marková, I. (2000) Amédée or How to get rid of it: Social representations from a dialogical perspective. Culture & Psychology, 6 (4), 419-460.
Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Nasim, M., Weber, D., South, T., Tuke, J., Bean, N., Falzon, L., and Mitchell, L. (2022) Are we always in strife? A longitudinal study of the echo chamber effect in the Australian Twittersphere. arXiv, 1-22. 
Obradović, S., and Draper, H. (2022) Dialogue with difference: Meta-representations in political dialogue and their role in constructing the 'other'. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 10 (1), 218–235.
Peters, M. A., and Besley, T. (2019) Critical Philosophy of the Postdigital. Postdigital Science and Education, 1, 29–42. 
Sabadini, C., Rinaldi, M., and Guazzini, A. (2021) Compliance and conversion in small groups: online vs. offline polarisation effects. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 17 (2), 159-179. 
Tang, T., Ghorbani, A., and Chorus, C. G. (2021) Hiding opinions by minimizing disclosed information: an obfuscation-based opinion dynamics model. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 46 (4), 315-341. 
Watson, D. C. (2012) Gender Differences in Gossip and Friendship. Sex Roles, DOI 10.1007/s11199-012-0160-4. 
Weismueller, J., Gruner, R. L., Harrigan, P., Coussement, K., and Wang, S. (2023) Information sharing and political polarisation on social media: The role of falsehood and partisanship. Information Systems Journal, 1-40.