CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Social and Intergroup PsychologyElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence

The polarized mind in context: Interdisciplinary approaches to the psychology of political polarization.

Open access
van Baar, Jeroen M., FeldmanHall, Oriel·2022·American Psychologist
DOI 10.1037/amp0000814PMC PMC8630091
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Existing research into the psychological roots of political polarization centers around two main approaches: one studying cognitive traits that predict susceptibility to holding polarized beliefs and one studying contextual influences that spread and reinforce polarized attitudes. Although both accounts have made valuable progress, political polarization is neither a purely cognitive trait nor a contextual issue. We argue that a new approach aiming to uncover interactions between cognition and context will be fruitful for understanding how polarization arises. Furthermore, recent developments in neuroimaging methods can overcome long-standing issues of measurement and ecological validity to critically help identify in which psychological processing steps-e.g., attention, semantic understanding, emotion-polarization takes hold. This interdisciplinary research agenda can thereby provide new avenues for interventions against the political polarization that plagues democracies around the world. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/amp0000814

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The mixed findings on mass political polarization reflect a literature that has been vague in identifying precise psychological mechanisms and how they operate across social-communicative contexts.

    “These mixed findings reflect a literature that has been vague in identifying precise psychological mechanisms and how they operate across social-communicative contexts61.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [61]

    The Introduction says our psychological grasp of polarization remains limited and that it is unclear at which processing step polarization takes hold, particularly in naturalistic social and political discourse. It also calls for studying interactions between cognition and context. The cited passages do not say that mixed findings on mass polarization result from this lack of precision. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Once groups are ideologically polarized, their members may engage in 'normal' or 'cold' cognitive processes, possibly including Bayesian updating, to maintain or exacerbate motivated differences in beliefs, opinions and values.

    “Once groups are ideologically polarized (that is, extreme), their members may engage in ‘normal’ or ‘cold’ cognitive processes, possibly including Bayesian updating, to maintain or exacerbate motivated differences in beliefs, opinions and values61,102–105.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [61]

  • For political polarization or depolarization to occur, the cognitive-motivational mechanisms described above must play out in some social or political context.

    “For political polarization (or depolarization) to occur, the cognitive–motivational mechanisms described above must play out in some social or political context61.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [61]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 156

  1. Abelson RP (1986). Beliefs are like possession. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 16(3).
  2. Ahlheim C, & Love BC (2018). Estimating the functional dimensionality of neural representations. NeuroImage, 179(January), 51– 62. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.06.015 29886143 PMC6057285 · DOI
  3. Albertson BL (2015). Dog-Whistle Politics: Multivocal Communication and Religious Appeals. Political Behavior, 37(1), 3– 26. 10.1007/s11109-013-9265-x · DOI
  4. Alesina A, Miano A, & Stantcheva S (2020). The Polarization of Reality. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 110, 324– 328. 10.1257/pandp.20201072 · DOI
  5. Badre D, Bhandari A, Keglovits H, & Kikumoto A (2020). The dimensionality of neural representations for control. PsyArXiv. PMC7451207 32864401
  6. Bakker BN, Schumacher G, Gothreau C, & Arceneaux K (2020). Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(6), 613– 621. 10.1038/s41562-020-0823-z PMC7306406 32042109 · DOI
  7. Bakker BN, Schumacher GIJS, & Rooduijn M (2020). Hot Politics? Affective Responses to Political Rhetoric. American Political Science Review, 1– 15. 10.1017/S0003055420000519 · DOI
  8. Bakshy E, Messing S, & Adamic LA (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130– 1132. 10.1126/science.aaa1160 25953820 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Baldassarri D, & Gelman A (2008). Partisans without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114(2), 408– 446. 10.2139/ssrn.1010098 PMC4056259 24932012 · DOI
  10. Banerjee A, Chandrasekhar AG, Duflo E, & Jackson MO (2013). The diffusion of microfinance. Science, 341(6144). 10.1126/science.1236498 23888042 · DOI
  11. Baron J, & Jost JT (2019). False Equivalence: Are Liberals and Conservatives in the United States Equally Biased? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 292– 303. 10.1177/1745691618788876 30836901 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Bartels LM (2002). BEYOND THE RUNNING TALLY: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117– 150.
  13. Baumeister RF, & Leary MR (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497– 529. 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 7777651 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Bayer J, Ellison N, Schoenebeck S, Brady E, & Falk EB (2018). Facebook in context(s): Measuring emotional responses across time and space. New Media and Society, 20(3), 1047– 1067. 10.1177/1461444816681522 · DOI
  15. Bennett WL, & Iyengar S (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707– 731. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x · DOI · Paper page
  16. Bhandari A, Gagne C, & Badre D (2017). Just above Chance: Is It Harder to Decode Information from Prefrontal Cortex Hemodynamic Activity Patterns? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(10), 1473– 1498. 10.1162/jocn 29877764 · DOI
  17. Bovet A, & Makse HA (2019). Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1– 14. 10.1038/s41467-018-07761-2 PMC6315042 30602729 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Bower GH (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36(2). 10.1016/0005-7967(87)90052-0 7224324 · DOI
  19. Boyce WT, & Ellis BJ (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary-developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology, 17(2), 271– 301. 10.1017/S0954579405050145 16761546 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Bullock JG, Gerber AS, Hill SJ, & Huber GA (2015). Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10(4), 519– 578. 10.1561/100.00014074 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Campbell TH, & Kay AC (2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 809– 824. 10.1037/a0037963 25347128 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Chang LJ, Jolly E, Cheong JH, Rapuano K, Greenstein N, Chen P-HA, & Manning JR (2018). Endogenous variation in ventromedial prefrontal cortex state dynamics during naturalistic viewing reflects affective experience. BioRxiv, 487892. 10.1101/487892 PMC8064646 33893106 · DOI
  23. Chen G, Taylor PA, Qu X, Molfese PJ, Bandettini PA, Robert W, & Finn ES (2019). Untangling the Relatedness among Correlations, Part III: Inter-Subject Correlation Analysis through Bayesian Multilevel Modeling for Naturalistic Scanning, 1– 21. PMC7299750 31884057
  24. Chen G, Taylor PA, Shin YW, Reynolds RC, & Cox RW (2017). Untangling the relatedness among correlations, Part II: Inter-subject correlation group analysis through linear mixed-effects modeling. NeuroImage, 147(August 2016), 825– 840. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.08.029 27751943 PMC5303634 · DOI
  25. Chen PHA, Jolly E, Cheong JH, & Chang LJ (2020). Intersubject representational similarity analysis reveals individual variations in affective experience when watching erotic movies. NeuroImage, 216(April), 116851. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116851 32294538 PMC7955800 · DOI
  26. Cheong JH, Molani Z, Sadhukha S, & Chang L (2020). Synchronized affect in shared experiences strengthens social connection. PsyArXiv. 10.31234/osf.io/bd9wn PMC10613250 37898664 · DOI
  27. Cohn N (2016). How the Obama Coalition Crumbled, Leaving an Opening for Trump. New York Times, pp. 1– 9.
  28. Cook J, & Lewandowsky S (2016). Rational Irrationality: Modeling Climate Change Belief Polarization Using Bayesian Networks. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 160– 179. 10.1111/tops.12186 26749179 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Cornell J, & Park B (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(4), 341– 359. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0904_4 16223356 · DOI
  30. De Dreu CKW, Nijstad BA, & Van Knippenberg D (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 22– 49. 10.1177/1088868307304092 18453471 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Dick DM, Meyers JL, Latendresse SJ, Creemers HE, Lansford JE, Pettit GS, … Huizink AC (2011). CHRM2, Parental Monitoring, and Adolescent Externalizing Behavior: Evidence for Gene-Environment Interaction. Psychological Science, 22(4), 481– 489. 10.1177/0956797611403318 21441226 PMC3391964 · DOI
  32. Ditto PH, Liu BS, Clark CJ, Wojcik SP, Chen EE, Grady RH, … Zinger JF (2019). At Least Bias Is Bipartisan: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Partisan Bias in Liberals and Conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 273– 291. 10.1177/1745691617746796 29851554 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Eklund A, Nichols TE, & Knutsson H (2016). Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(28), 7900– 7905. 10.1073/pnas.1602413113 27357684 PMC4948312 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Festinger L, & Carlsmith JM (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203– 210. 10.1037/h0041593 13640824 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Finn ES, Corlett PR, Chen G, Bandettini PA, & Constable RT (2018). Trait paranoia shapes inter-subject synchrony in brain activity during an ambiguous social narrative. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1– 13. 10.1038/s41467-018-04387-2 PMC5966466 29795116 · DOI
  36. Finn ES, Glerean E, Khojandi AY, Nielson D, Molfese PJ, Handwerker DA, & Bandettini PA (2020). Idiosynchrony: From shared responses to individual differences during naturalistic neuroimaging. NeuroImage, 215(October 2019), 116828. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116828 32276065 PMC7298885 · DOI
  37. Fiske ST (2018). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology. John Wiley & Sons.
  38. Flaxman S, Goel S, & Rao JM (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(Specialissue1), 298– 320. 10.1093/poq/nfw006 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Frey WH (1979). Central city white flight: racial and nonracial causes(US). American Sociological Review, 44(3), 415– 448. 10.2307/2094885 · DOI
  40. Friedman BH, & Thayer JF (1998). Autonomic Balance Revisited: Panic Anxiety and HRV. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 44(1), 133– 151. 9483470
  41. Frimer JA, Skitka LJ, & Motyl M (2017). Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another’s opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72(July 2016), 1– 12. 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.003 · DOI
  42. Gaines BJ, Kuklinski JH, Quirk PJ, Peyton B, & Verkuilen J (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 957– 974. 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00601.x · DOI · Paper page
  43. Galizzi MM, & Navarro-Martinez D (2018). On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study. Management Science. 10.1287/mnsc.2017.2908 · DOI
  44. Garrett RK (2009a). Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 265– 285. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01440.x · DOI · Paper page
  45. Garrett RK (2009b). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676– 699. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x · DOI · Paper page
  46. Gerber A, & Green D (1999). Misperceptions About Perceptual Bias. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 189– 210. 10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.189 · DOI
  47. Gilovich T (1983). Biased evaluation and persistence in gambling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(6), 1110– 1126. 10.1037/0022-3514.44.6.1110 6875803 · DOI
  48. Ginossar Z, & Trope Y (1987). Problem Solving in Judgment Under Uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 464– 474. 10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.464 · DOI
  49. Glowacki L, Isakov A, Wrangham RW, McDermott R, Fowler JH, & Christakis NA (2016). Formation of raiding parties for intergroup violence is mediated by social network structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(43), 12114– 12119. 10.1073/pnas.1610961113 27790996 PMC5086992 · DOI
  50. Goodwin J, Jasper JM, & Polletta F (Eds.). (2009). Passionate politics: emotions and social movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  51. Grim P, Thomas SB, Fisher S, Reade C, Singer DJ, Garza MA, … Chatman J (2012). Polarization and belief dynamics in the Black and White communities: An agent-based network model from the data. Artificial Life 13: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems, ALIFE 2012, 186– 193. 10.7551/978-0-262-31050-5-ch026 PMC4186741 25298731 · DOI
  52. Grodzins M (1957). Metropolitan Segregation. Scientific American, 197(4), 33– 41. 10.1038/scientificamerican1057-33 · DOI
  53. Hagoort P, & Indefrey P (2014). The Neurobiology of Language Beyond Single Words. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 37(1), 347– 362. 10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-013847 24905595 · DOI
  54. Halpern DJ, & Rodriguez PL (2018). Partisan Representations: Partisan Differences in Semantic Representations and their Role in Attitude Judgments. In Kalish C, Rau M, Zhu J, & Rogers T (Eds.), CogSci 2018 (pp. 445– 450).
  55. Hampton AN, Bossaerts P, & O’Doherty JP (2008). Neural correlates of mentalizing-related computations during strategic interactions in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(18), 6741– 6746. 10.1073/pnas.0711099105 18427116 PMC2373314 · DOI
  56. Haney López I (2015). Dog Whistle Politics: How coded racial appeals have reinvented racism and wrecked the middle class. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  57. Hasson U, Nir Y, Levy I, Fuhrmann G, & Malach R (2004). Intersubject Synchronization of Cortical Activity During Natural Vision. Science, 303, 1634– 1640. 10.1126/science.1089506 15016991 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Hatemi PK, & McDermott R (2016). Give Me Attitudes. Annual Review of Political Science. 10.1146/annurev-polisci-103113-034929 · DOI
  59. Hatemi PK, Mcdermott R, Eaves LJ, Kendler KS, & Neale MC (2013). Fear as a Disposition and an Emotional State: A Genetic and Environmental Approach to Out-Group Political Preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 279– 293. 10.1111/ajps.12016 · DOI
  60. Haxby JV, Guntupalli JS, Connolly AC, Halchenko YO, Conroy BR, Gobbini MI, … Ramadge PJ (2011). A common, high-dimensional model of the representational space in human ventral temporal cortex. Neuron, 72(2), 404– 416. 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.08.026 22017997 PMC3201764 · DOI
  61. Haxby JV, Gobbini MI, Furey ML, Ishai A, Schouten JL, & Pietrini P (2001). Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex. Science, 293(September), 2425– 2430. 10.1126/science.1063736 11577229 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Heath C, & Heath D (2007). Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die. Random House. 10.1177/001440291307900201 · DOI
  63. Henderson JM, & Hayes TR (2018). Meaning guides attention in real-world scene images: Evidence from eye movements and meaning maps. Journal of Vision, 18(6), 10. 10.1167/18.6.10 PMC6012218 30029216 · DOI
  64. Hetherington MJ (2001). Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization. American Political Science Review, 95(3). 10.1017/S0003055400276375 · DOI
  65. Hetherington MJ (2009). Review article: Putting polarization in perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 413– 448. 10.1017/S0007123408000501 · DOI
  66. Hibbing JR, Smith KB, & Alford JR (2015). Liberals and conservatives: Non-convertible currencies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 2014– 2015. 10.1017/S0140525X14001216 26786407 · DOI
  67. Huckfeldt R, Mendez JM, & Osborn T (2004). Disagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogeneous Networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65– 95. 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x · DOI · Paper page
  68. Huth AG, de Heer WA, Griffiths TL, Theunissen FE, & Gallant JL (2016). Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex. Nature, 532(7600), 453– 458. 10.1038/nature17637 27121839 PMC4852309 · DOI · Paper page
  69. Issacharoff S, & Nagler J (2007). Protected from Politics: Diminishing Margins of Electoral Competition in U.S. Congressional Elections. Ohio State Law Journal, 68(1121).
  70. Iyengar S, & Ansolabehere S (1995). Going negative. Free Press.
  71. Iyengar S, Lelkes Y, Levendusky M, Malhotra N, & Westwood SJ (2019). The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129– 146. 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Iyengar S, Sood G, & Lelkes Y (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405– 431. 10.1093/poq/nfs038 · DOI · Paper page
  73. Jaffee SR, & Price TS (2007). Gene-environment correlations: A review of the evidence and implications for prevention of mental illness. Molecular Psychiatry, 12(5), 432– 442. 10.1038/sj.mp.4001950 17453060 PMC3703541 · DOI
  74. Jern A, Chang KMK, & Kemp C (2014). Belief polarization is not always irrational. Psychological Review, 121(2), 206– 224. 10.1037/a0035941 24730598 · DOI
  75. Johnson NF, Leahy R, Restrepo NJ, Velasquez N, Zheng M, Manrique P, … Wuchty S (2019). Hidden resilience and adaptive dynamics of the global online hate ecology. Nature. 10.1038/s41586-019-1494-7 31435010 · DOI
  76. Jones EE, & Harris VA (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(1), 1– 24. 10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0 · DOI · Paper page
  77. Jost JT (2017). Ideological Asymmetries and the Essence of Political Psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167– 208. 10.1111/pops.12407 · DOI
  78. Jost JT, & Amodio DM (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 36(1), 55– 64. 10.1007/s11031-011-9260-7 · DOI
  79. Jost JT, Federico CM, & Napier JL (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 307– 337. 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600 19035826 · DOI · Paper page
  80. Jost JT, Glaser J, Kruglanski AW, & Sulloway FJ (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339– 375. 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 12784934 · DOI · Paper page
  81. Jost JT, Nam HH, Amodio DM, & Van Bavel JJ (2014). Political neuroscience: The beginning of a beautiful friendship. Political Psychology, 35(SUPPL.1), 3– 42. 10.1111/pops.12162 · DOI
  82. Jost JT, Napier JL, Thorisdottir H, Gosling SD, Palfai TP, & Ostafin B (2007). Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(7), 989– 1007. 10.1177/0146167207301028 17620621 · DOI
  83. Jost JT, Sterling J, & Stern C (2017). Getting Closure On Conservatism, Or The Politics Of Epistemic And Existential Motivation. In Kopetz CE & Fishbach A (Eds.), The Motivation-Cognition Interface: From the Lab to the Real World: A Festschrift in Honor of Arie W. Kruglanski. New York, London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315171388 · DOI
  84. Jung J, Grim P, Singer DJ, Bramson A, Berger WJ, Holman B, & Kovaka K (2019). A multidisciplinary understanding of polarization. American Psychologist, 74(3), 301– 314. 10.1037/amp0000450 30945893 · DOI
  85. Kahan DM, Peters E, Dawson EC, & Slovic P (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 54– 86. 10.1017/bpp.2016.2 · DOI · Paper page
  86. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, & Mandel G (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732– 735. 10.1038/nclimate1547 · DOI · Paper page
  87. Kanwisher N, McDermott J, & Chun MM (1997). The Fusiform Face Area: A Module in Human Extrastriate Cortex Specialized for Face Perception. The Journal of Neuroscience, 17(11). 10.1109/CDC.2005.1583375 PMC6573547 9151747 · DOI
  88. Kosinski M, Stillwell D, & Graepel T (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(15), 5802– 5805. 10.1073/pnas.1218772110 23479631 PMC3625324 · DOI · Paper page
  89. Kreps S (2020). Social Media and International Relations. Cambridge University Press.
  90. Kriegeskorte N, Goebel R, & Bandettini P (2006). Information-based functional brain mapping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 3863– 3868. 10.1073/pnas.0600244103 16537458 PMC1383651 · DOI · Paper page
  91. Kriegeskorte N, Mur M, Ruff DA, Kiani R, Bodurka J, Esteky H, … Bandettini PA (2008). Matching Categorical Object Representations in Inferior Temporal Cortex of Man and Monkey. Neuron, 60(6), 1126– 1141. 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.043 19109916 PMC3143574 · DOI
  92. Kunda Z (1987). Motivated Inference: Self-Serving Generation and Evaluation of Causal Theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 636– 647. 10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.636 · DOI · Paper page
  93. Kunst JR, Dovidio JF, & Thomsen L (2019). Fusion with political leaders predicts willingness to persecute immigrants and political opponents. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(11), 1180– 1189. 10.1038/s41562-019-0708-1 31477913 · DOI
  94. Lakoff G (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. University of Chicago Press.
  95. Lazer DMJ, Baum MA, Benkler Y, Berinsky AJ, Greenhill KM, Menczer F, … Zittrain JL (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094– 1096. 10.1126/science.aao2998 29590025 · DOI · Paper page
  96. Lees J, & Cikara M (2019). Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive intergroup contexts. Nature Human Behaviour. 10.1038/s41562-019-0766-4 31712763 · DOI · Paper page
  97. Leong YC, Chen J, Willer R, & Zaki J (2020). Conservative and liberal attitudes drive polarized neural responses to political content. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1– 9. 10.1101/2020.04.30.071084 PMC7959490 33082227 · DOI
  98. Levendusky M (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  99. Lieberman MD, Schreiber D, & Ochsner KN (2003). Is Political Cognition Like Riding a Bicycle? How Cognitive Neuroscience Can Inform Research on Political Thinking. Political Psychology, 24(4), 681– 704. 10.1046/j.1467-9221.2003.00347.x · DOI
  100. Lionetti F, Aron A, Aron EN, Burns GL, Jagiellowicz J, & Pluess M (2018). Dandelions, tulips and orchids: Evidence for the existence of low-sensitive, medium-sensitive and high-sensitive individuals. Translational Psychiatry, 8(1). 10.1038/s41398-017-0090-6 PMC5802697 29353876 · DOI
  101. Lord CG, Ross L, & Lepper MR (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098– 2109. 10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · DOI · Paper page
  102. Marquart F, Matthes J, & Rapp E (2016). Selective exposure in the context of political advertising: A behavioral approach using eye-tracking methodology. International Journal of Communication, 10, 2576– 2595.
  103. McCauley C, & Moskalenko S (2017). Understanding political radicalization: The two-pyramids model. American Psychologist, 72(3), 205– 216. 10.1037/amp0000062 28383974 · DOI
  104. McClelland JL, & Rogers TT (2003). The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(4), 310– 322. 10.1038/nrn1076 12671647 · DOI
  105. McDermott R (2019). Psychological underpinnings of post-truth in political beliefs. PS - Political Science and Politics, 52(2), 218– 222. 10.1017/S104909651800207X · DOI
  106. McDermott R, Dawes C, Prom-Wormley E, Eaves L, & Hatemi PK (2013). MAOA and Aggression: A Gene-Environment Interaction in Two Populations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 57(6), 1043– 1064. 10.1177/0022002712457746 · DOI
  107. McDermott R, & Hatemi PK (2017). The relationship between physical aggression, foreign policy and moral choices: Phenotypic and genetic findings. Aggressive Behavior, 43(1), 37– 46. 10.1002/ab.21660 27245759 · DOI
  108. McDuff D, El Kaliouby R, Kodra E, & Picard R (2013). Measuring voter’s candidate preference based on affective responses to election debates. Proceedings - 2013 Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, ACII 2013, 369– 374. 10.1109/ACII.2013.67 · DOI
  109. Mclean SL (2015). Purple Battlegrounds: Presidential Campaign Strategies and Swing State Voters. In Hecht SH & Schultz DA (Eds.), Presidential Swing States: Why Only Ten Matter. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.
  110. Mikulincer M, Kedem P, & Paz D (1990). Anxiety and categorization-1. The structure and boundaries of mental categories. Personality and Individual Differences, 11(8), 805– 814. 10.1016/0191-8869(90)90189-X · DOI
  111. Miller DT, & Ross M (1975). Self-serving bias in the attribution of causality: fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213– 225.
  112. Nastase SA, Gazzola V, Hasson U, & Keysers C (2019). Measuring shared responses across subjects using intersubject correlation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, (March), 669– 687. 10.1093/scan/nsz037 PMC6688448 31099394 · DOI
  113. Neumann R, Marcus G, Crigler AN, & MacKuen M (2007). The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  114. Nisbett RE, & Wilson TD (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231– 259. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231 · DOI · Paper page
  115. Niv Y (2020). On the Primacy of Behavioral Research for Understanding the Brain. Current Controversies in Philosophy of Cognitive Science, 134– 151. 10.4324/9781003026273-16 · DOI
  116. Nyhan B, & Reifler J (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303– 330. 10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2 · DOI · Paper page
  117. Nyhan B, & Reifler J (2015). Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine, 33(3), 459– 464. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017 25499651 · DOI
  118. Oosterhoff B, Kaplow JB, Layne CM, & Pynoos RS (2018). Civilization and its discontented: Links between youth victimization, beliefs about government, and political participation across seven American presidencies. American Psychologist, 73(3), 230– 242. 10.1037/amp0000189 29355354 · DOI
  119. Pariser E (2011). The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. Penguin Press.
  120. Pedroni A, Frey R, Bruhin A, Dutilh G, Hertwig R, & Rieskamp J (2017). The risk elicitation puzzle. Nature Human Behaviour. 10.1038/s41562-017-0219-x 31024120 · DOI
  121. Petersen MB, Giessing A, & Nielsen J (2015). Physiological responses and partisan bias: Beyond self-reported measures of party identification. PLoS ONE, 10(5), 1– 10. 10.1371/journal.pone.0126922 PMC4444316 26010527 · DOI
  122. Poole KT, & Rosenthal H (1984). The Polarization of Contemporary American Politics. The Journal of Politics1, 46(4), 1061– 1079.
  123. Poole KT, & Rosenthal H (1991). Patterns of Congressional Voting. American Journal of Political Science, 35(1), 228. 10.2307/2111445 · DOI
  124. Renshon J, Lee JJ, & Tingley D (2015). Physiological Arousal and Political Beliefs. Political Psychology, 36(5), 569– 585. 10.1111/pops.12173 · DOI
  125. Rogowski JC, & Sutherland JL (2016). How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization. Political Behavior, 38(2), 485– 508. 10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7 · DOI · Paper page
  126. Rollwage M, Dolan RJ, Fleming SM, Rollwage M, Dolan RJ, & Fleming SM (2018). Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Report Metacognitive Failure as a Feature of Those Holding Radical Beliefs. Current Biology, 28(24), 4014– 4021.e8. 10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.053 30562522 PMC6303190 · DOI · Paper page
  127. Ross L, & Nisbett RE (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. McGraw-Hill.
  128. Scheufele DA (2000). Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing Revisited: Another Look at Cognitive Effects of Political Communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3(2–3), 297– 316. 10.1207/S15327825MCS0323_07 · DOI
  129. Schmuck D, Tribastone M, Matthes J, Marquart F, & Bergel EM (2019). Avoiding the Other Side?: An Eye-Tracking Study of Selective Exposure and Selective Avoidance Effects in Response to Political Advertising. Journal of Media Psychology. 10.1027/1864-1105/a000265 · DOI
  130. Schreiber D, & Iacoboni M (2012). Huxtables on the Brain: An fMRI Study of Race and Norm Violation. Political Psychology, 33(3), 313– 330. 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00879.x · DOI
  131. Sharot T, Korn CW, & Dolan RJ (2011). How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality. Nature Neuroscience, 14(11), 1475– 1479. 10.1038/nn.2949 21983684 PMC3204264 · DOI · Paper page
  132. Siegel EH, Wormwood JB, Quigley KS, & Barrett LF (2018). Seeing What You Feel: Affect Drives Visual Perception of Structurally Neutral Faces. Psychological Science, 29(4), 496– 503. 10.1177/0956797617741718 29485945 PMC5902425 · DOI
  133. Slovic P, Mertz CK, Markowitz DM, Quist A, & Västfjäll D (2020). Virtuous violence from the war room to death row. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(34), 202001583. 10.1073/pnas.2001583117 PMC7456115 32778580 · DOI
  134. Stanley ML, Henne P, Yang BW, & Brigard F De. (2019). Resistance to position change, motivated reasoning, and polarization. Political Behavior, (0123456789). 10.1007/s11109-019-09526-z · DOI · Paper page
  135. Starbird K, Maddock J, Orand M, Achterman P, & Mason RM (2014). Rumors, False Flags, and Digital Vigilantes: Misinformation on Twitter after the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing. IConference 2014 Proceedings. 10.9776/14308 · DOI · Paper page
  136. Stonecash JM, Brewer MD, & Mariani MD (2003). Diverging Parties: Social Change, Realignment, and Party Polarization. (Dodd LC, Ed.). New York, London: Routledge. 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 · DOI · Paper page
  137. Stroud NJ (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556– 576. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x · DOI · Paper page
  138. Talmud PJ (2007). Gene-environment interaction and its impact on coronary heart disease risk. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, 17(2), 148– 152. 10.1016/j.numecd.2006.01.008 17306734 · DOI
  139. Tam Cho WK, Gimpel JG, & Hui IS (2013). Voter Migration and the Geographic Sorting of the American Electorate. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(4), 856– 870. 10.1080/00045608.2012.720229 · DOI · Paper page
  140. Tashjian SM, & Galván A (2018). The role of mesolimbic circuitry in buffering election-related distress. Journal of Neuroscience, 38(11), 2887– 2898. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2470-17.2018 29431648 PMC6595992 · DOI
  141. Tetlock PE (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(C), 331– 376. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60287-7 · DOI · Paper page
  142. Tetlock PE (2002). Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109(3), 451– 471. 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.451 12088240 · DOI
  143. Tetlock PE (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320– 324. 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00135-9 12860191 · DOI · Paper page
  144. Urman A (2019). Context matters: political polarization on Twitter from a comparative perspective. Media, Culture and Society. 10.1177/0163443719876541 · DOI · Paper page
  145. Vallone RP, Ross L, & Lepper MR (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 577– 585. 10.1037//0022-3514.49.3.577 4045697 · DOI
  146. van Baar JM, Chang LJ, & Sanfey AG (2019). The computational and neural substrates of moral strategies in social decision-making. Nature Communications, 10(1483), 1483. 10.1038/s41467-019-09161-6 PMC6445121 30940815 · DOI
  147. van Baar JM, Halpern DJ, & Feldmanhall O (2020). Intolerance to uncertainty modulates neural synchrony between political partisans. BioRxiv, 1– 18.
  148. van Prooijen JW, & Krouwel APM (2019). Psychological Features of Extreme Political Ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(2), 159– 163. 10.1177/0963721418817755 · DOI
  149. Waytz A, Young LL, & Ginges J (2014). Motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. hate drives intractable conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(44), 15687– 15692. 10.1073/pnas.1414146111 25331879 PMC4226129 · DOI
  150. Webster SW, & Abramowitz AI (2017). The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization in the U.S. Electorate. American Politics Research, 45(4), 621– 647. 10.1177/1532673X17703132 · DOI · Paper page
  151. Wood T, & Porter E (2019). The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence. Political Behavior, 41(1), 135– 163. 10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y · DOI · Paper page
  152. Yeshurun Y, Swanson S, Simony E, Chen J, Lazaridi C, Honey CJ, & Hasson U (2017). Same Story, Different Story. Psychological Science, 28(3), 307– 319. 10.1177/0956797616682029 28099068 PMC5348256 · DOI · Paper page
  153. Young AI, Ratner KG, & Fazio RH (2014). Political Attitudes Bias the Mental Representation of a Presidential Candidate’s Face. Psychological Science, 25(2), 503– 510. 10.1177/0956797613510717 24367060 · DOI
  154. Zaller JR (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge university press.
  155. Zmigrod L (2020). The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: theory, evidence, and future directions. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 34– 39. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.10.016 · DOI · Paper page
  156. Zmigrod L, Rentfrow PJ, & Robbins TW (2019). The partisan mind: Is extreme political partisanship related to cognitive inflexibility? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 10.1037/xge0000661 31380695 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Baar, J. M., & FeldmanHall, O.
Corresponding author
FeldmanHall, Oriel
ORCID
Venue
American Psychologist
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2022-04
Volume
77
Issue
3
Pages
394-408
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
DOI
10.1037/amp0000814
PMC
PMC8630091
OpenAlex
W3164969905
Cited by
38
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2
FWCI
10.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (P20GM103645)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Keywords
political polarization, semantic processing, democratic society
MeSH terms
Attitude, Cognition, Emotions, Politics, Interdisciplinary Studies

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