Polarization, Conflict & Division

Summary: This study tests ideological asymmetries in politically motivated reasoning and finds no evidence that one political group is more biased than the other, nor that epistemic needs for certainty drive rationalization.

Summary: Shows that people are less accurate in logical reasoning when conclusions conflict with their political ideology, especially on hot-button issues, and analytical thinking helps leftists more than rightists.

Summary: Investigates how emotional attachment to political groups (affective polarization) shapes belief in misinformation, highlighting the fusion of emotion and erroneous belief.

Summary: This article challenges the assumption that young children lack the capacity for political thought, arguing that early social cognition and proto-political attitudes lay the foundation for adult political ideologies such as authoritarianism, social dominance, and hawkish ideology. It demonstrates how studying early childhood is critical for a complete understanding of political psychology.

Summary: This paper argues that group polarization—the tendency for discussion to intensify shared views—provides the psychological foundation for political polarization, showing how social interaction builds collective identities that mobilize groups to action.

Summary: This paper introduces the concept of 'imagined otherness'—the perception that outgroup members construe social reality in fundamentally different ways—and demonstrates that such attributions fuel blatant dehumanization beyond general perceived difference and group identification, using correlational and experimental evidence from U.S. political partisans.

Summary: This paper proposes a formal model linking social media technology to affective polarization through social identity mechanisms, finding that lower interaction costs can trigger a transition to entrenched, homogeneous group identities that are difficult to reverse.

Summary: This study examines how perceived differences in external threat between ideological groups within societies involved in intractable conflicts can increase affective polarization, revealing a mechanism through which internal fragmentation is exacerbated. The findings highlight the interplay between intergroup conflict and intragroup dynamics, offering insights into how such processes may perpetuate conflict.

Summary: Drawing on social identity and intergroup threat theories, this study analyzes survey data from Sweden to show that perceived intergroup threat among voters is associated with increased affective polarization, measured through social distance, negative trait attribution, and party like-dislike ratings. The findings extend understanding of political polarization beyond the US two-party context to multi-party systems.

Summary: This study examines affective polarization in online political discussions on Reddit, finding that interactions between ideological opponents are significantly more negative and often cut short, while positive cross-group sentiment can reduce hostility. It offers insights into the dynamics of intergroup bias in digital political communication.

Summary: This study systematically reviews research on affective polarization, revealing that the concept is increasingly applied beyond political parties to encompass divides based on opinion, ideology, race, territory, and religion. It argues for a dynamic understanding of identity salience in the public sphere and examines how intergroup hostility connects to broader democratic concerns.

Summary: This study examines how perceived intergroup threats, when met with anger, increase affective polarization by distancing individuals from opposing party supporters, highlighting the role of specific emotional reactions in political division.