What I think and feel is true. If you mess with a politician like that, you mess with me. I don't read what this newspaper publishes. If a person like that said that, I'm not interested. It's either them or us… Ideological polarization is the process by which disagreements between two or more groups become ever greater. Affective polarization is related to negative perceptions, feelings of rejection, and low respect for opinions or people with whom one does not feel identified. Through this process, the multiple qualities of others are reduced to a single element, as Míriam Juan-Torres González, a researcher at the University of Berkeley, pointed out in a recent article. In this way, in-group favoritism is encouraged over hostility toward the opposing group.
According to a study by the consulting firm LLYC, polarization in Spain has increased by 35% in the last five years. People who have difficulty coping with the tensions of a polarized environment come for psychological consultations, and experts are beginning to take an interest in this phenomenon. There is agreement that individual and social factors interact in the polarization process, but it is not easy to determine whether a person was previously polarized or whether society is polarizing them. Although no one is immune, there are those who are more susceptible. They are people with a deeply rooted ideology and a sense of strong identification with a group. Their thinking style tends to be cognitively rigid, which makes them perceive reality in an extremely simplified and nuanced way. They tend to have low frustration tolerance and lower life satisfaction. The polarization process is related to the construction of identity in adolescence, for example at school, in the family or among friends. Many of the qualities on which it is based are associated with core beliefs, with high emotional charge and little reflection. The polarized person constructs these beliefs in opposition to another person, often as a result of peer pressure. And in crisis contexts, these ideas become certainties. Even when reality proves them wrong, they refuse to give up on it.
As for the social aspects that influence increasing polarization, we should highlight unemployment, inequality, economic crises or the emergence of social networks, as the sociologist Luis Miller highlights in his book Polarizados. As social psychologist Jonathan Haidt explains in “The Mind of the Righteous,” social network confirmation bias disrupts the process of making ideas more flexible. The media or politicians can also help spread certain narratives that promote division and highlight differences between groups. For this reason, the issues on which polarization occurs vary depending on the context, society and current priorities in a debate where reasons are replaced by feelings.
Guillermo Lahera, head of psychiatry at the Príncipe de Asturias University Hospital, emphasizes that ideological tribalism can cause harm. The consequences of a polarized environment are devastating, both for individuals and for society. The consulting firm LLYC defines polarization as the new addictive drug: The more polarized people are, the more willing they are to spread misinformation. And the environmental conditions in which anonymity prevails encourage this. The more radical the polarized person's message, the better their point of view will be positioned. They may enjoy immediate gratification, but fail to measure the long-term consequences: increased feelings of hostility or anger, which are associated with lower well-being and fewer positive emotions. It can cause you to make inappropriate, unwise, and even rude decisions. Overall, polarization leads to social breakdown, low trust in institutions, disengagement from politics, and low community engagement.
It is necessary to think about measures to avoid polarization. One of these is promoting a culture of debate in schools and families. Another is to approach people with curiosity who have different ideas. When it is discussed, it is with arguments and not on a personal level. From a practical point of view, it is a good idea to reduce the time spent on social networks and think about using them consciously. You can think about the motivation that drives content sharing and ask yourself whether this adds something new to the debate or whether it is a polarizing message. It is also useful to distrust news that provokes very strong emotional reactions and to read various sources of information.
Mental health is based on a well-organized society with healthy networks and emotional connections. Polarization can fill a void, but ultimately it is an excuse not to think.
______________________________________________
Patricia Fernández Martín is a clinical psychologist at the Ramón y Cajal Hospital in Madrid.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_