Ideological Polarization and Social Psychology
Abstract
Ideology is a recurrent feature of human societies. Ideologies provide people with frameworks to evaluate the relative legitimacy of different approaches to social order. Such ideologies often involve an opposition between right-leaning ideologies, which tend to justify and maintain the traditional order, and left-leaning ideologies, which advocate for systemic reforms to reduce hierarchies. Social psychological investigations of ideology explore the root motivations and moral foundations of people’s attraction to left versus right ideologies. In particular, such work focuses on understanding the motivational dynamics of ideologies that justify the status quo, promote authoritarian control, and rationalize social dominance hierarchies. Social psychological research also investigates information-processing biases that increase the polarization between left and right. These insights can be applied to bridge divides within ideologically polarized communities.
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?
Conservative-rightist ideology is associated with valuing tradition, social order and maintenance of the status quo, whereas liberal-leftist ideology is associated with a push for egalitarian social change.
“Whereas conservative-rightist ideology is associated with valuing tradition, social order and maintenance of the status quo, liberal-leftist ideology is associated with a push for egalitarian social change.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [149]
'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 [149]
Whereas ego-justifying and group-justifying motives contribute to relatively symmetrical forms of polarization on the liberal-left and conservative-right, system justification mechanisms might contribute to ideological asymmetries.
“Whereas ego-justifying and group-justifying motives contribute to relatively symmetrical forms of polarization on the liberal-left and conservative-right, a third class of cognitive–motivational mechanisms related to system justification might contribute to ideological asymmetries99,149.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [149]
Decades of research in political psychology demonstrate that those who embrace more conservative-rightist attitudes, identities and leaders are more authoritarian and social-dominance-oriented than those who embrace more liberal-leftist attitudes, identities and leaders.
“In addition, decades of research in political psychology demonstrate that those who embrace more conservative-rightist attitudes, identities and leaders are more authoritarian and social-dominance-oriented (that is, supportive of group-based hierarchies) than those who embrace more liberal-leftist attitudes, identities and leaders107,149,163–169.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [149]
Liberal-leftists are more willing to challenge the societal status quo and push for egalitarian forms of social change, whereas conservative-rightists are more authoritarian and more protective of cultural traditions as well as longstanding social, economic and political institutions.
“Whereas liberal-leftists are more willing to challenge the societal status quo and push for egalitarian forms of social change, conservative-rightists are more authoritarian and more protective of cultural traditions as well as longstanding social, economic and political institutions101,107,149,166,168,172.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [149]
There are meaningful ideological asymmetries in democratic tolerance and other key outcomes.
“Finally, when it comes to democratic tolerance and other key outcomes, there are meaningful ideological asymmetries that should not be ignored.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [149]
Cites
A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice
Duckitt, J. (2001) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(01)80004-6 · Cited by 1,416 · see citing works
Jonas, E., McGregor, I., Klackl, J., Agroskin, D., Fritsche, I., Holbrook, C., Nash, K., Proulx, T., & Quirin, M. (2014) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-800052-6.00004-4 · Cited by 447 · see citing works
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2009) · Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195320916.003.015 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Kay, A. C., Jost, J. T., Mandisodza, A. N., Sherman, S. J., Petrocelli, J. V., & Johnson, A. L. (2007) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)39006-5 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
CHAPTER 7 A Contextual Analysis of the System Justification Motive and Its Societal Consequences
Kay, A. C., & Zanna, M. P. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195320916.003.007 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Oakes, H., brienza, J. P., Elnakouri, A., & Grossmann, I. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108568272.011 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Wise Reasoning in an Uncertain World
Grossmann, I., & Dorfman, A. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20287-3_3 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Xu, H., Das, D., Huh, J., Rim, H., & Srivastava, J. (2024) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2024.102486 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
The terrible unknown: How uncertainty fosters nationalist and anti-immigration attitudes
Alves, S. G., Pinto, I. R., & Marques, J. M. (2024) · Journal of Social and Political Psychology · doi:10.5964/jspp.9953 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Mass polarisation: identification with parliamentary discourses and psychological factors
Afonso, B., Rosa, C., da Silva, R., & Bem‐Haja, P. (2024) · Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression · doi:10.1080/19434472.2024.2413560
Kirbiš, A., & Branilović, S. (2026) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119057
- Authors
- Eibach, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Eibach, Richard
- ORCID
- Eibach, Richard
- Venue
- Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressNew York, NY
- Published
- 2021-06-28
- OpenAlex
- W4242128039
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1
- Type
- reference entry
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology (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 › Political Science and International Relations › Academic Freedom and Politics
- Keywords
- ideological polarization, left-right ideology, social dominance, authoritarianism, status quo, moral foundations, information processing biases, ideological motivation, social order
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
