Originally written for a social psychology paper on political polarization in America in Spring of 2022
What comes to mind when first thinking of political polarization? Is it politicians screaming at each other in a public setting? Or is it advertising? In every form, positive and negative? The reality is that technology is evolving rapidly, and we have not evolved to handle the influx of information that is happening. Television gained popularity in the 1950’s, and with it came the rise in cable television and news. Now, we have many other outlets for news with improved ways to deliver the information and automatically deliver information wanting to be seen. The year of 2020 is a perfect example of how information and mass media can be leveraged for better or worse. The COVID-19 pandemic showed us how information with positive intent could relay information. The death of George Floyd with the protests following showed us how quickly people could come together for a cause. The 2020 elections showed us how issues can become emotionally charged when they are associated with a political party over fact and unveiled how social media algorithms can exacerbate already attacking campaign ads. While real information was relayed by the media, the way in which the information was delivered caused further polarization in our society during a time of political crisis. Political polarization could be seen as a side-effect of groupthink, human nature and implicit biases, and cognitive dissonance.
Groupthink is defined as “a kind of decision process in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner” (Aronson et al., 2019). A concept developed by Irving Janis, groupthink is most likely to occur when the group itself is “highly cohesive, isolated from contrary opinions, and ruled by a directive leader” (Aronson, et al., 2019). Following the group identifying with each other and meeting certain conditions, symptoms of groupthink will begin to appear such as a feeling of invulnerability for the group, self-censoring to ignore actual feelings but amplify feelings of the group, and pressuring group members to further conform when possible. A recent example is how the Donald Trump losing the 2020 election led to mobilization people who were convinced that the election was stolen, later leading to an insurrection on January 6th, 2021. The groupthink occurred when the Trump supporters thought there was no way they could lose the election, and members who supported Trump took it upon themselves to break into the White House in an organized effort through their own media and communication channels in a coup attempt.
2020 was a year of discomfort for many. From political tensions to pandemic, there is no denying that our society is in a period of adjustment, some more positive than others. This change, whether it be viewpoints or behaviors, is cognitive dissonance occurring, and could be seen as a part of or side-effect of political polarization. Cognitive dissonance is defined as the “discomfort that people feel when two cognitions (beliefs, attitudes) conflict, or when they behave in ways that are inconsistent with their conception of themselves” (Aronson et al., 2019). We often feel cognitive dissonance when adjusting to a new rule put into place, or a new behavior needs to be adopted as habit. If something is outside of our habit or routine, it takes greater effort to make it a part of our life than something that already falls in line with how we feel. The period until said behavior becomes habit is the period of cognitive dissonance. Some members of society may be uncomfortable for a period but adjust to the new habit with some time and patience, where other members of society could choose to reject the new behavior or potential norm, in turn causing polarization. When behaviors become associated with important figures in society, they can cause polarization during periods of cognitive dissonance.
An example of cognitive dissonance and the potential for amplifying political polarization is mask-mandates to help control the spread of COVID-19 and other respiratory illnesses. The behavior in question is adopting wearing masks as a society based on scientific evidence. While many adjusted to this new way of life, others completely rejected wearing masks despite the mandate and research. Unfortunately, some viewed the mask mandate as infringing upon basic freedom, and many traditionally conservative and right-wing supporters adopted not wearing a mask as a symbol for their beliefs (Aronson & Tavris, 2020). The way that the media delivered information on masks further caused political polarization by preaching views of the network surrounding mask mandates to viewers rather than science and facts about wearing masks. A behavior that started out as an attempt to help the health of our society was turned into a political statement and exacerbated by many different media channels for views and higher ratings. When public issues or concerns become politically charged, they cause further political polarization.
As humans, we gravitate toward what we are familiar with by either behaving in certain ways or surrounding ourselves around certain groups of people, stereotyping ourselves and each other subconsciously. This behavior can be demonstrated by experiments such as the Implicit Association Test and the thesaurus study for mapping heuristics (Christen et al., 2016). When coming together as a group with whom we have things in common with, prejudices can often be shared. Prejudice is defined as “a hostile or negative attitude toward people in a distinguishable group, based solely on their membership in that group” and deals with cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components (Aronson et al., 2019). While racism may be the first thought that comes to mind when thinking of prejudice, how we treat each other based on affiliations with certain belief systems or ideologies are also included. Political polarization has grown in our country partly due to the two-party system, and the ideas we think we know about somebody based on their political party affiliation.
A stereotype is a “generalization about a group of people in which certain traits are assigned to virtually all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among members” (Aronson et al., 2019). The IAT shows us how the human brain groups things and people together to improve information processing, and that we may not be as unbiased as we think (Payne, 2018). The thesaurus study demonstrates how humans associate certain words over others based on previous experience or association (Christen et al., 2016). These studies demonstrate more reasons as to how political parties come together out of human nature for familiarity. Our own implicit prejudices lead us to political parties by allowing us to find a group of people who think similarly, and stereotypes about the opposing party are often made, further polarizing society in the process.
These political parties could also be seen as groups, or “two or more people who interact and are interdependent in the sense that their needs and goals cause them to influence each other” (Aronson et al., 2019). With politics publicized now more than ever, stereotypes about people affiliated with certain political parties, or groups, are being exploited through advertising and our social media feeds throughout the day. Elections and their campaigns show us how stereotypes of the group are used to gain views and exposure, while exploiting the group’s own prejudices and stereotypes of the opposing group to get an intended message across. One assumption often made about the Democratic or left-wing political party is that if you support COVID-19 vaccinations, then you also support communism. This example shows how another health issue, such as vaccinations, became politically charged, in turn creating association with political party versus science, and stereotypes were generated in the process, furthering political polarization.
Leadership of groups tend to cause polarization and groupthink, whether intended or not. Sometimes the decisions of the leader can cause polarization, other times the leader stirs the pot themself over something said or done. Historically, there is some small evidence that a group’s leader has an influence over the occurrence of groupthink (Schafer, 1999). The leader by him or herself does not have the sole power to cause groupthink, however, their presence can amplify the effects of groupthink due to political polarization or other factors. We see in evidence of Schafer’s study of psychological characteristics and groupthink that previous presidents did possess a few common traits to influence groupthink while not being the sole factor (Schafer, 1999). Knowing that there is at least some small influence over the leader and groupthink, trends over time can certainly be observed. With media being more popular now more than ever, leaders must be aware of just how far their influence goes to opposing groups.
With great power comes great responsibility, and the role of media and how it affects groupthink is no different. Knowing that our human nature finds us interpreting information based on quick facts or stereotyping, already polarizing us in a way, monitoring the way in which information is delivered could be significant for the American people in improving further political polarization. Groupthink is inevitable, however the severity of the groupthink itself can be contained if leaders are aware of how far their words can go. Because political polarization has only continued to increase, we need to consciously elect leaders who will make deliberate attempts at educating the public from a neutral standpoint. Leaders who remain impartial, seek outside and/or anonymous opinions, and create subgroups for better decision-making or possibly to fight an implicit bias (Aronson et al., 2019). Today’s society is more ready than ever to digest information, the quality of the information itself and method of delivery will need fair and just treatment.
References
Aronson, E., & Tavris, C. (2020, July 14). The role of cognitive dissonance in the pandemic. The Atlantic. Retrieved February 14, 2022, from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/role-cognitive-dissonance-pandemic/614074/
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Sommers, S. R. (2019). Social psychology. Pearson.
Christen, M., Narvaez, D., Tanner, C., & Ott, T. (2016). Using thesauruses as a heuristics for mapping values. Cognitive Systems Research, 40, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2016.02.003
Payne, K. (2018, March 27). How to think about ‘implicit bias’. Scientific American. Retrieved February 6, 2022, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-think-about-implicit-bias/
Schafer, M. (1999). Explaining groupthink: Do the psychological characteristics of the leader matter? International Interactions, 25(2), 181–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629908434948
Appetite From Hell 
Leave a comment