When Opponents Silently Become Enemies: Explaining the Psychological Roots of Polarization in Democratic Societies
When Opponents Silently Become Enemies: Explaining the Psychological Roots of Polarization in Democratic Societies

Summary/Abstract: Introduction: Affective polarization, when opposing ideological groups begin to view each other with hostility and moral contempt, represents a growing challenge in many democratic societies. Although democratic systems are based on pluralism of opinions, recent years have seen an escalation in value-laden conflicts that increasingly threaten social cohesion, particularly in culturally divided societies like Slovakia. Objectives and methods: This theoretical paper explores the psychological mechanisms behind the polarization, with a focus on how symbolic threats trigger defensive responses that may deepen ideological divides. The study builds upon the Intergroup Value Protection Model, which explains affective polarization as a process wherein individuals seek to protect their social embeddedness when they perceive an out-group’s actions as threatening core moral values. The IVPM identifies multiple affective and behavioral responses to such threats. However, while the IVPM offers a robust framework for explaining group-level responses to value threats, it does not encompass the full spectrum of threat-defense mechanisms that may play a role in polarization. To address this gap, this study integrates the General Process Model of Threat and Defense (GPMTD) into the IVPM framework. Results: Drawing on the GPMTD model, the present study proposes three novel defensive responses to symbolic threat that may have the potential to escalate between-group conflicts and increase affective polarization in societies. First, the study highlights how people first engage in avoidance-oriented reactions, governed by the Behavioral Inhibition System. These proximal reactions – such as anxiety, withdrawal, or hypervigilance – may seem unrelated to polarization at first. Yet, research shows they can contribute to “silent radicalization” whereby individuals disengage from public discourse and increasingly seek out ideologically congruent and extremist narratives online. Second, exposure to threats can prompt individuals to engage in distal defenses of the Behavioral Activation System, such as reinforcing existing beliefs, intensifying moral convictions, and relying on confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. These responses may result in increased rigidity of worldviews and reduced openness to alternative perspectives. Third, the paper discusses how symbolic or existential threats can drive individuals to conspiratorial thinking, which in turn intensifies intergroup prejudice, institutional distrust, and support for antisocial or violent behavior. Discussion and conclusion: Integrating these three new defensive reactions into the IVPM allows for a richer account of how symbolic threats produce cognitive, emotional, and behavioral shifts that collectively drive polarization. The study calls for future research to empirically test this broader set of defensive responses. Understanding these psychological processes is essential for developing more comprehensive strategies to mitigate polarization in divided societies.

• Details
• Contents