Hajoon “HJ” Yun
Dr. Parrish
ISM II
9 Sep 25
According to the National Institute of Health (NIH), not enough research has been conducted to find out the core roots behind polarization in politics. The lack of research is alarming because, “the key challenges of the 21st century…demand cooperation between both sides of the political aisle” (Van Baar, FeldmanHall). In current studies, researchers have focused on two main approaches to uncover the psychological roots of political polarization: cognitive traits within humans and contextual external influences that spread polarized attitudes.
Cognitive traits refer to how humans react to certain political information. Many cognitive researchers claim that a person’s psychological needs may contribute to particular political views (Van Baar, FeldmanHall). An old theory used to hold that conservative leaning individuals have a need for closure and organized structure in society, contributing to their resistance to change. These strong emotions may be attributed to the need for social desirability and the need to belong. Low cognitive flexibility has been associated with a stronger hold on a person’s political identity.
The digital era has sped up the rate of information processing in humans. The rapid rate in which we process information is making it increasingly difficult for researchers to track brain activity and correlate the activity to increased partisan polarization. With the rise of social media, echo chambers have become more and more common. The algorithms behind social media platforms are trained to generate content that users are most comfortable with. With politics, many users press “like” to information and perspectives that they most agree with. These likes instruct the algorithm to churn out similar content, creating a cycle of echo chambers. The worst case scenario would be if a user continues to like content that is misleading, the algorithm will continue to generate content that is misleading. Currently, with the withdrawal of human fact checkers from major social media platforms, such as Meta, it is getting increasingly difficult to moderate misleading and false information.
While this academic paper does not propose any solutions, it does highlight the lack of research within the psychological field when it comes to finding the roots of political polarization. Within the preexisting studies, only two methods have been used to study the psychological roots of polarization: the intrinsic and extrinsic forces that affect one’s political ideology. A mix of these two approaches can help paint the full picture for political polarization. A combination of both social media echo chambers and a need for social desirability (or social stability) can directly influence a person’s extreme political views.
In conclusion, “The Polarized Mind in Context,” gives an excellent overview of the current research of political polarization in the United States. While the lack of attention is staggering, the lack of research only means that there are more things to uncover. Throughout this ISM journey, the question posed to us is “Why and how did America get so polarized?” The answer lies both within and outside the human brain.
.
.
.
.
Works Cited
Van Baar, Jeroen M, and Oriel FeldmanHall. “The polarized mind in context: Interdisciplinary approaches to the psychology of political polarization.” The American Psychologist vol. 77,3 (2022): 394-408. doi:10.1037/amp0000814