Why Is Political Extremism so Hard to Change?

Are the political extremes in American driving democracy off a cliff?  You’d certainly think so if you follow slanted news, social media and angry politicians.  Indeed, just before the 2020 presidential election 89 percent of Trump supporters said that Biden’s election would “lead to lasting harm to the U.S.” and 90 percent of Biden supporters said that about Trump’s election.  Yet, perhaps surprisingly, Pew Research’s political typology suggests that extremism may not be as widespread as we think.  They segmented political ideologies into nine different types and their research showed that only 23 percent of Republicans identify as “Faith and Flag Conservatives” – the far right - and only 12 percent of Democrats identify with the opposite political extreme, the “Progressive Left.”   Further, these two extremes account for only 16 percent of all Americans.

Admittedly, those at the extremes seem largely unwilling to listen to and talk across their political battle lines and take up an inordinate amount of attention in our politics.  So if they are helping sour us on democracy – and we have any hope of moderating their impact - it would help to understand why they seem politically stuck.  Recent research offers some new insights.

People Can Be Drawn to Extreme Views

We know from prior research that people like to associate with, live among and even have their kids marry those who share their politics.  This is called “political homophily.”  Research by Harvard’s Amit Goldenberg suggests that people also gravitate to those who hold more extreme political views than their own, which is called “political acrophily.” Over time, this pushes those near or at the far right or far left further in that direction.  Goldenberg conducted a series of studies in which he first measured peoples’ reactions on such topics as police brutality, gun control and military spending.  Subjects were then shown responses to these same topics by six “peers” chosen to represent a range of political views.  When asked to select which of those peers they would like to see more views from in subsequent rounds, subjects tended to choose peers with political views more extreme than their own.  Political extremism, Goldenberg suggests, may just be more attractive than moderation.

People Avoid Sources They Distrust

Another study found we are more willing to accept factual information when we believe the source is just trying to inform us and are more likely to reject factual information when we believe the source is trying to deceive us.  Boston College psychologists Liane Young and Isaac Hadley-Miner worked with 1,181 participants who were told how accurate or inaccurate a factual claim actually was and were then asked whether they considered the claim “true” or “false.”  When participants judged the intent of the source was to inform them, they were more likely to label it as true than when told the source’s intent was to deceive them.  For example, a participant might be told that a claim about climate change came from Fox News and another that the (same) claim came from MSNBC. A liberal thus might judge a claim coming from the former as “false” even after being told it was factually accurate.  In this way, we limit our information sources and/or discount what “untrusted” sources say.

With Repeated Exposure the Brain Can Become Hard-Wired for Extreme Views

Yet a third study suggests the disturbing possibility that politically extreme thinking may become hard-wired in the brain and that this is one reason it is so hard to change. University of Toronto professor Marcel Danesi analyzed the speech of dictators – such as Hitler and Putin - and hate groups.  He found that they use metaphors to dehumanize, such as calling their opponents “pests,” “anti-White filth,” and “poison.”  He argues that such language links brain neuronal circuits in a pattern that becomes stronger with frequent repetition – and thus much more difficult to rewire.  The same mechanism operates, he theorizes, with conspiracy theories and political lies.  Both could become more believable with repetition because we already have a neural pathway formed to believe them – and the more such pathways are used, the stronger they get. 

Openness to New Ideas Can be an Antidote

Of course, extreme rhetoric and encouragement of extreme positions comes from many sources.   But we can limit its impact on our thinking.  Research by Kevin Stanek and colleagues at the University of Minnesota, analyzing 1,300 studies from over 50 nations found that people open to new ideas have stronger thinking skills and, one would thus expect, greater ability to avoid the kinds of problems cited above.

Leadership is the Key to Improvement

Leaders also must play a more helpful role.  A poll by Public Agenda and USA TODAY reported that while 93 percent of Americans say they want to reduce divisions in American society and nearly half report having tried to resolve political differences with others, 77 percent say the toxicity comes from leaders, from the top down not the bottom up.  As long as leaders encourage extremism is the pursuit of votes and agendas, the work of the rest of us to avoid the dangers of political extremism becomes both harder and more important.

Photo Credit: www.theconversation.com