Verified by 
Key points
- Polarization results from dividing a whole into two opposing parts.
- Polarization can occur on personal, interpersonal, and transpersonal levels.
- Catastrophizing, interpersonal conflict, and loss of trust can result from polarization.
What is Polarization?
Polarization is defined as “the act of dividing something, especially something that contains different people or opinions, into two completely opposing groups.”
Polarization can happen at multiple levels including intrapersonal (within the individual), interpersonal (between individuals), and transpersonal (between groups of individuals). Each level comes with its own unique set of problems.
Intrapersonal polarization occurs when an individual struggles with opposing views or perspectives. The resulting cognitive dissonance can manifest as black-or-white thinking, which is characteristic of a number of mental disorders including borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, narcissism, depression, and anxiety. Psychologists view black-or-white thinking as a type of cognitive distortion that involves thinking in absolutes rather than in more nuanced terms.
Interpersonal polarization occurs when an individual perceives their own views as diametrically opposed to the views of another person. This can produce struggles in relationships resulting from feeling misunderstood, unsupported, or judged by the other person whose ideas or opinions are different from our own.
Transpersonal polarization results from a group being divided into mutually antagonistic camps. This may involve small or large groups. At a societal level, people can become polarized over political views (e.g., Democrats vs. Republicans), religious ideology (e.g., Christian vs. non-Christians), scientific interpretation (e.g., orthodox vs. heterodox views), or medical interventions (e.g., prov-vaxx vs. anti-vaxx).
What Are the Consequences of Polarization?
Polarization can result in adverse consequences at each of these levels.
For an individual, black-or-white thinking leads to an incapacity to recognize the complexities, uncertainties, and fluidity of life. Also, the inability to find a middle ground can produce “catastrophic thinking” or “catastrophizing,” which is defined as “a cognitive distortion that prompts people to jump to the worst possible conclusion.” This type of thinking also produces what is known as “the sky is falling” or the “Chicken Little" syndrome, which can change one’s perception of a relatively minor incident into a perceived disaster. Other consequences of black-or-white thinking include rigidity and intolerance. If a person believes they are “right” and refuses to consider alternate viewpoints, that person limits their ability to expand their belief system, which restricts learning and growth.
Interpersonal polarization can lead to problems with relationships. If a person is disappointed by their partner, they may shift that partner from the “good person” to the “bad person” category and possibly end the relationship rather than work through their differences. Also, a person who receives an unfavorable job review may quit their job due to feeling persecuted by their boss rather than seeing this as an opportunity to accept constructive feedback and improve.
On a societal level, polarization can lead to numerous adverse consequences including an unwillingness to compromise, loss of confidence in public institutions, intolerance of opposing viewpoints, and an “Us vs. Them” mentality. At an extreme level, polarization can lead to the idea that those who hold opposing views are an enemy who cannot be trusted. This extreme form of polarization is called “pernicious polarization.” Feelings of victimization may also result from the perception that those who are different from us don’t understand us, won’t accept us, and may be out to get us. There may be an increased focus on the differences between “us” and “them” rather than acknowledging our similarities and commonalities.
One example of this type of societal polarization relates to the COVID-19 pandemic. Debates over the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that was responsible for the pandemic, as well as disagreements over the safety and efficacy of the vaccines that were developed to prevent COVID-19, often descended into conflicts over beliefs and ideology followed by censorship or suppression of opposing views rather than open scientific discussion and debate. With regard to the COVID-19 vaccines, this resulted in what Dr. Vinay Prasad labeled “vaccine tribalism.” In an article in MedPage Today, Prasad pointed out that some people assigned labels to those who raised scientific questions about the vaccines such as "anti-vaxxer" or purveyors of "dangerous misinformation." Prasad pointed out that this led to a polarized rather than a nuanced view of the vaccines. Prasad suggested, “we need to welcome new questions and invite ongoing, open discussions from medical professionals. If not, we risk poisoning progress.”
It appears Dr. Prasad’s admonishment was correct. One consequence of the ongoing polarization about COVID-19-related issues has been a decline in the public’s trust of medical authorities. As one survey reported, 4 of 10 Americans lost trust in their physician during the pandemic. Another study found physicians lost trust in the health care system and government health agencies during the pandemic. Still another poll found only 52 percent of the people now trust the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This loss of trust in our health care providers and institutions can be traced to the expanding polarization regarding scientific opinions and recommendations.
How Can We Overcome Polarization?
Is there a way to halt and reverse polarization? One option is “depolarization,” which refers to the ability to reduce the level of polarization. This can be effective on personal, interpersonal, and transpersonal levels.
Depolarization strategies employed on a personal level include dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) for borderline personality disorder (BPD). The word “dialectical” refers to the interaction of conflicting ideas, and in the context of DBT, it refers to the ability to accept and change in order to grow and improve. This is accomplished through a combination of skills training, mindfulness practice, developing social skills, learning emotional regulation, and acquiring distress tolerance skills. Multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated DBT to be an effective treatment for BPD.
On interpersonal and transpersonal levels, exploring one’s own beliefs and being willing to consider others’ views as valid, even if we disagree with them, can lead to increased tolerance and validation of differing perspectives. Additionally, encouraging communication, listening to opposing viewpoints, increasing collaboration, and encouraging transparency can help rebuild trust while reducing polarization.
Much work remains to be done, but doing nothing will likely only exacerbate the problems associated with polarization.
References
Actium. 2021. COVID-19’s Impact on Patient Engagement Expectations.
Boele-Woelki K et al. How We Can Rebuild Trust in Science—And Why We Must. Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English). 2018 Jul 24;57(42):13696-7.
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. May 2021. The public’s perspective on the United States public health system. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
May JM et al. Dialectical behavior therapy as treatment for borderline personality disorder. Mental Health Clinician. 2016 Mar 1;6(2):62–67.
McCoy J et al. May 5, 2022. Reducing Pernicious Polarization: A Comparative Historical Analysis of Depolarization. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
National Opinion Research Council. May 21, 2021. Surveys of Trust in the U.S. Health Care System. University of Chicago.
