The Psychology of Political Polarization: Why We're So Divided

Bridging the gap starts with understanding the drivers...

As someone who has spent years studying organizational behavior — a field that draws from psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, and technology — I’ve always been fascinated by the forces that shape human behavior within groups. My interest in political division stems from a deep curiosity about the interplay of these disciplines in understanding why people hold certain beliefs so deeply that they become immovable — even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. From the perspective of organizational dynamics, understanding these forces is not just an academic exercise but a necessity if we’re to address the challenges posed by intractable ideology and dogma.

Throughout history, we see striking examples of societies falling victim to the consequences of ideological extremity. The French Revolution, for instance, devolved into the Reign of Terror as rigid adherence to revolutionary ideals led to purges and violence against perceived enemies. Similarly, the fall of the Soviet Union illustrates how dogmatic adherence to communist ideology stifled innovation and ultimately fractured the nation. These lessons remind us that ideological inflexibility can erode societal cohesion and lead to catastrophic outcomes.

The importance of approaching this issue from multiple perspectives cannot be overstated. In my view, it is not hyperbolic to suggest that, despite the myriad global challenges we face — from the threat of global conflict to economic instability — perhaps the greatest threat to humanity is the grip of entrenched ideologies. These ideologies, fueled by rigid thinking and identity fusion, undermine our ability to think rationally, critically, collaboratively, and innovatively. Understanding this phenomenon at its root is the first step toward mitigating its effects and fostering a more constructive, less polarized world…if we can!

The Psychology Behind Polarization

Understanding why political polarization persists requires delving into the psychological traits that influence how people process information, form beliefs, and interact with opposing perspectives. Certain patterns of thinking and behavior — such as cognitive rigidity, authoritarian tendencies, and identity fusion — contribute to the entrenchment of extreme ideologies and intensify division. The following sections explore these psychological dimensions, shedding light on the mechanisms that drive polarization and offering insights into how we might address them.

Cognitive Rigidity and Intolerance of Ambiguity

A key driver of political polarization is cognitive rigidity—the inability to adapt one’s thinking when confronted with new information. Paired with an intolerance of ambiguity, this mindset fosters black-and-white thinking, making it difficult to engage with opposing views or accept complex realities. Research shows that individuals with these traits often gravitate toward ideologies that provide simple, absolute answers to societal challenges, reinforcing echo chambers and deepening division (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003).

This cognitive rigidity can be particularly problematic in a rapidly changing world where nuance and adaptability are essential. Instead of reevaluating their beliefs in the face of new evidence, individuals with low tolerance for ambiguity are more likely to double down on existing viewpoints. This creates a feedback loop in which ideologically aligned narratives are selectively absorbed while conflicting perspectives are dismissed outright. Over time, this insularity intensifies polarization, as people become less willing—or even able—to engage in the kind of critical thinking that fosters compromise and mutual understanding.

Authoritarian Tendencies

Authoritarian tendencies, observed at both extremes of the political spectrum, often stem from a psychological need for power and control, particularly in response to feelings of vulnerability or disempowerment. Research suggests that individuals who experience significant losses of agency—through economic instability, social marginalization, or political exclusion—are more likely to embrace rigid ideologies or leaders that promise stability and order (Fritsche et al., 2013).

Early childhood experiences can also play a critical role in shaping political tendencies, as environments where a child’s sense of autonomy or power is diminished—whether through strict, punitive parenting or disempowering social interactions with peers—can result in a gravitation toward political extremes. Broad research indicates that early experiences of control or powerlessness foster a heightened need for order and predictability, often translating into authoritarian tendencies (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Van Prooijen, Krouwel, & Pollet, 2015; Kay, Gaucher, Napier, Callan, & Laurin, 2008; Smith, Pettigrew, Pippin, & Bialosiewicz, 2012).

This predisposition fosters "us versus them" thinking, as individuals seek to regain a sense of security and agency through group loyalty and ideological alignment. While this can create solidarity within the group, it often intensifies hostility toward outsiders, exacerbating polarization. Leaders who exploit these fears position themselves as protectors, offering simplistic solutions that appeal to those longing for stability and empowerment. To address these dynamics, it is crucial to create environments—both in childhood and society at large—that encourage autonomy, critical thinking, and resilience against divisive narratives.

Identity Fusion and Polarization

In extreme ideologies, political beliefs often merge with personal identity, a phenomenon known as identity fusion. This blurring of boundaries makes ideological disagreements feel like personal attacks, intensifying hostility and deepening polarization. Fused individuals may go to great lengths to defend their group, even at significant personal cost, further fracturing societal cohesion (Swann, Gómez, Seyle, Morales, & Huici, 2009).

This fusion leads to an emotional entanglement with the group’s values and goals, making loyalty to the ideology or cause a defining feature of the individual’s sense of self. As a result, challenges to their political beliefs are not merely intellectual disagreements but existential threats. This dynamic can manifest in extreme behaviors, such as vehemently rejecting compromise, participating in less than peaceful public demonstrations, or even engaging in confrontational or aggressive actions to "protect" the group’s identity. Over time, the emotional intensity of identity fusion exacerbates divisions, as fused individuals may become increasingly unwilling to engage with those outside their ideological circles, further eroding opportunities for dialogue and mutual understanding (Swann et al., 2009; Gómez et al., 2011; Paredes et al., 2019; Newson et al., 2018).

Narcissism and Moral Grandiosity

Narcissism and moral grandiosity often intersect, particularly among individuals who occupy the extremes of the ideological spectrum. These individuals frequently exhibit a sense of moral superiority, which can serve as a means to bolster their self-image. This overlap is not merely a psychological tendency but a profound expression of identity, where personal convictions are elevated to moral absolutes. Such individuals may view their beliefs as inherently virtuous and unassailable, often positioning themselves as paragons of ethical conduct. The result is often additional polarization and not only reinforces the individual's ideological stance but also fuels social division, as debates shift from disagreements over policy to conflicts rooted in perceived moral hierarchies.

Karpowitz and Mendelberg (2014) provide a valuable lens for understanding this phenomenon, illustrating how moral grandiosity and narcissism can influence group deliberation and institutional dynamics. These tendencies often distort productive dialogue by prioritizing self-righteousness over mutual understanding. When individuals become fixated on their moral infallibility, they may dismiss alternative viewpoints, stifling meaningful collaboration. This behavior is not confined to one end of the ideological spectrum but can be observed across various political and social movements. By framing their beliefs as the sole path to righteousness, individuals driven by moral grandiosity contribute to an environment where compromise and empathy are increasingly scarce. Such insights highlight the need for fostering humility and open-mindedness in public discourse to counteract these divisive tendencies.

Toward Constructive Dialogue: Building Bridges in a Fractured World

In my years as a senior executive in industry, as well as studying and teaching organizational behavior, I’ve seen the dynamics of polarization play out in both classrooms and corporate boardrooms. Whether it’s a team struggling to navigate opposing viewpoints or students grappling with clashing ideologies, the patterns are strikingly similar: rigid thinking, identity-based conflicts, and a reluctance to engage with perspectives that challenge deeply held beliefs. These moments have shown me that bridging divides isn’t just an abstract ideal—it’s a practical necessity for progress in any group or organization.

I’ve witnessed how fostering environments that encourage open dialogue and cognitive flexibility can transform these situations. When individuals are given the tools to critically evaluate their own assumptions and engage with others in good faith, tensions often give way to collaboration. In the classroom, this might mean guiding students to see the value of opposing arguments; in industry, it involves creating spaces where innovation thrives precisely because diverse perspectives are welcomed and respected.

Ultimately, I believe ideological diversity can be a tremendous strength when approached constructively. My experiences have taught me that disagreements, when handled with curiosity and empathy, can lead to richer, more innovative solutions. The challenges of polarization are real, but they are not insurmountable. By prioritizing shared values, fostering humility, and modeling constructive dialogue, we can create a world where our differences don’t divide us—they inspire us to grow.

About the Author

David Ragland is a former senior executive, thought leader, and recognized expert at the intersection of organizational behavior, leadership, and artificial intelligence. As Co-Founder and Partner of FuturePoint Digital, an empirical research consultancy, David explores the convergence of human dynamics and technology, focusing on how organizations can navigate ideological polarization, digital transformation, and the complexities of leadership in an AI-driven world.

With decades of executive leadership experience and a strong academic foundation, David draws on insights from psychology, sociology, and organizational theory to examine how belief systems and group dynamics influence collaboration and innovation. His research and consultancy work emphasize fostering constructive dialogue, ethical leadership, and human-centric strategies to bridge divides and drive progress in organizations facing rapid change.

David holds a Doctorate in Business Administration with a specialization in Organizational Behavior from IE University in Madrid, Spain, where his research centered on leadership dynamics in global virtual teams. He also earned a Master of Science in Information and Telecommunications Systems from Johns Hopkins University, a Bachelor of Science in Psychology from James Madison University, and a certificate in Artificial Intelligence and Business Strategy from MIT. Through his work, David empowers leaders and organizations to harness the power of diversity, shared understanding, and ethical practices to thrive in today’s complex and polarized world.

References

Fritsche, I., Jonas, E., & Kessler, T. (2013). Collective reactions to threat: Implications for intergroup conflict and for solving societal crises. Social Issues and Policy Review, 7(1), 125–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2012.01045.x

Gómez, Á., Brooks, M. L., Buhrmester, M. D., Vázquez, A., Jetten, J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2011). On the nature of identity fusion: Insights into the construct and a new measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 918–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022642

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339

Karpowitz, C. F., & Mendelberg, T. (2014). The silent sex: Gender, deliberation, and institutions. Princeton University Press.

Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J. L., Callan, M. J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.18

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265

Newson, M., Buhrmester, M., & Whitehouse, H. (2018). Explaining lifelong loyalty: The role of identity fusion and self-shaping group events. PLoS ONE, 13(9), e0202796. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202796

Paredes, B., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2019). Identity fusion leads to willingness to fight and die for a group: A cognitive perspective. Self and Identity, 18(5), 442–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2018.1528446

Smith, A. E., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic critique. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(3), 203–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311430825

Swann, W. B., Jr., Gómez, Á., Seyle, D. C., Morales, J. F., & Huici, C. (2009). Identity fusion: The interplay of personal and social identities in extreme group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 995–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013668

Van Prooijen, J.-W., Krouwel, A. P. M., & Pollet, T. V. (2015). Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614567356