False polarization: Cognitive mechanisms and potential solutions
Abstract
Although political polarization in the United States is real, intense, and increasing, partisans consistently overestimate its magnitude. This 'false polarization' is insidious because it reinforces actual polarization and inhibits compromise. We review empirical research on false polarization and the related phenomenon of negative meta-perceptions, and we propose three cognitive and affective processes that likely contribute to these phenomena: categorical thinking, oversimplification, and emotional amplification. Finally, we review several interventions that have shown promise in mitigating these biases.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These types of misperceptions respond to two widespread cognitive mechanisms: categorical thinking and simplification.
“These types of misperceptions respond to two widespread cognitive mechanisms: categorical thinking and simplification (Fernbach & Van Boven, 2022).”
From ¿Demasiado lejos? Cómo la polarización mal percibida alimenta la polarización afectiva en España (2025) · cites this paper as Fernbach & Van Boven, 2022
Other intervention strategies focus on correcting misperceptions, encouraging more complex thinking, and reducing anger and competitive feelings.
“Other intervention strategies focus on correcting misperceptions, encouraging more complex thinking, and reducing anger and competitive feelings26,131,132.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [132]
The mass polity might in fact be less polarized than people often assume.
“These findings suggest that the mass polity might in fact be less polarized than people often assume132.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [132]
'Us versus them' dynamics can result in stereotyping and false or exaggerated beliefs about the out-group.
“As noted above, ‘us versus them’ dynamics can result in stereotyping and false or exaggerated beliefs about the out-group132,146–149.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [132]
Retweets often included anger-related language; anger inflames political polarization by, among other things, increasing cognitive oversimplification and categorical thinking that divides 'us' and 'them'.
“Retweets often included anger-related language260; this is important because anger inflames political polarization by, among other things, increasing cognitive oversimplification and categorical thinking that divides ‘us’ and ‘them.’132.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [132]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 78 · Cited by 107
- Authors
- Fernbach, P. M., & Van Boven, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Corresponding author
- Fernbach, Philip M.
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-02
- Volume
- 43
- Pages
- 1-6
- ISSN
- 2352-250X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3182335714
- Cited by
- 107
- References
- 78
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 2.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Current Opinion in Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- political polarization, partisanship, categorical thinking, oversimplification, emotional amplification, compromise, cognitive biases
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Emotions, Humans, Politics, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
