Political Polarization
In this informative article, psychology journalist Allison Robinson explores Group Polarization in United States politics.
Is the United States’ Democracy Being Helped or Hurt by Group Polarization?
By Allison Robinson
Vastly differing opinions among United States political figureheads and the parties they represent have existed long before the birth of the current two-party system today. An example of this, according to political scientist Keith T. Poole, was found in the stark contrast between Thomas Jefferson’s and Alexander Hamilton’s views on the fundamental issue of the government’s role in the national economy. Throughout United States history, including in the late 1880s and again in the late 1960s to mid-1970s, national politics became much more divisive. While differing opinions have served the country well by creating healthy debate and diverse representation of the population at large, recent years (specifically 2020 and 2021) have seen what some view as a destructive chasm and polarization between the United States’ two main political groups, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Generally, Democrats support liberal positions, and Republicans support conservative ones. Throughout the most recent Presidential election, the two groups have become more susceptible to group polarization. This begs the question: does group polarization help or hurt democracy in the United States?
The American Psychology Association defines group polarization as “the tendency for members of a group discussing an issue to move toward a more extreme version of the positions they held before the discussion began. As a result, the group as a whole tends to respond in more extreme ways than one would expect given the sentiments of the individual members prior to deliberation.” The University of British Columbia’s psychology student Gordon Heltzel and his psychology professor Kristin Laurin believe that a healthy level of group polarization can help stabilize a government by encouraging civil engagement and coalescing compatible points of view, while preventing groupthink. In contrast to group polarization, psychologist and author David G. Myers defines groupthink as “the mode of thinking that occurs when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives,” which historically has not been good for democracy, as shown in the Cold War’s Bay of Pigs controversy.
The official logo for the American Psychological Association
Group polarization may also have negative effects on democracy. While national groupthink may be avoided, polarization has potential to cause groupthink within the political parties. An individual’s inability to disassociate themselves from policies within their parties that they do not agree with has potential to polarize the groups more. As the American journalist Ezra Klein said in his book Why Are We Polarized, “We are so locked into our political identities that there is virtually no candidate, no information, no condition, that can force us to change our minds. We will justify almost anything or anyone so long as it helps our side, and the result is a politics devoid of guardrails, standards, persuasion, or accountability.” In addition, group polarization can potentially create greater conflict in the United States. For example, researcher Donovan Slack observed that in 2004 only about 40 percent of political campaign ads were negative. In contrast, only about 17 percent of campaign ads were positive in 2012.
The United States government has unarguably become more polarized in recent years than at any other time since 1861, when controversy between the northern and southern states ripped the nation apart. The consequences of the current group polarization must ultimately be resolved through reconciliation and compromise, or it will inevitably result in another tragic upheaval, not unlike the Civil War. Where the country goes from here, and how the next chapter of its historical narrative reads, will ultimately rest upon the shoulders of all who call themselves citizens, for it is by them that leaders are elected, sustained, and held accountable.
