Social media often amplifies and distorts political discourse. A study ran by the Brain and Creativity Institute at the University of Southern California in 2017 sheds light on why engaging in political arguments, whether online or offline, can be so emotionally charged. The study found that discussing political beliefs activates brain systems related to emotions and identity, similar to the response to physical threats. This neurological reaction often leads to a defensive stance, making individuals more likely to cling to their beliefs rather than reconsider them –even in the face of compelling evidence.
Emily Glover, writing for Paste Magazine, detailed the study’s findings, highlighting how deeply our political beliefs are intertwined with our personal identities. According to Jonas Kaplan, the lead author of the study and an assistant professor of psychological research at USC, people perceive political beliefs as integral to their self-concept. He notes, “There is more at stake for the political beliefs than the non-political beliefs. Political beliefs are tied into our identities, our sense of who we are.”
Emotional responses
The study involved 40 participants who identified as liberals. They were presented with both political and non-political statements while their brain activity was monitored using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with these statements. The findings revealed a stark contrast: while many participants were willing to reconsider their views on non-political topics (such as the attribution of the invention of the electric light bulb), they were significantly less likely to change their minds on political issues.
The fMRI results showed increased activity in the amygdala and insular cortex when participants encountered political statements challenging their beliefs. These areas of the brain are associated with emotional responses and the perception of threats. Kaplan explained that this reaction is akin to a protective mechanism, saying, “We believe the amygdala and insula, in this case, are reflecting the emotional nature of being challenged. When we are challenged on our most important beliefs, it doesn’t feel good, and we take action to mitigate those negative feelings.” This finding suggests that the more emotionally invested individuals are in their beliefs, the less likely they are to change them.
Understanding the neurological basis of this defensive reaction can be enlightening for those seeking constructive dialogue in a polarized world. For more detailed insights, you can read the full article by Emily Glover on Paste Magazine.
