Value-Affective Polarization of Large Social Groups in Conditions of Information Uncertainty

Objective. The goal is to consider the phenomenon of value-affective polarization of large social groups, to analyze the methodological foundations of the study of this phenomenon in Russia and abroad, as well as some empirical results in the study conducted by the authors.
Background. Due to the global changes taking place in the world in the context of rapid scientific and technological progress, as well as the emergence of new means of information exchange, conditions have arisen in many countries, including Russia, for the manifestation of the phenomenon of value-affective polarization of the population. The study of this phenomenon is an extremely urgent problem, since it allows not only to describe the psychological mechanisms of political confrontation in society, but also to develop approaches to assess its development and reduce negative consequences.
Study design. The article examines the attitude of respondents with different types of value polarization to the most significant political events in Russia against the background of stressful social events, such as the conduct of a special military operation and partial military mobilization.
Participants. Russian sample: 548 people with higher education (60% women, 40% men), aged 21 to 47 years (M = 34,8; SD = 8,6).
Measurements. Developed on the basis of the IAT (Implicit Association Test) test, a methodology that evaluates implicit (hidden or unconscious) political attitudes (IPA). The Big 5 methodology and questionnaire for assessing current events in Russia and abroad and the likelihood of their occurrence in the future. Results. A connection has been established between the results of the IPU and the direct answers of the respondents to the questionnaire questions. After the announcement of partial military mobilization in both polar subgroups ("loyal" and "disloyal"), the number of people who do not trust the Russian media, which cover events taking place on the territory of Ukraine, increased. At the same time, the level of patriotic sentiment among the population as a whole has increased. It is shown that as polarization develops, there is a tendency to irrationality of judgments of representatives of opposing parties. After the announcement of the SMO, the opinions of the respondents of the polar groups on some issues either did not change, or became more solid and pronounced.
Conclusions. Currently, there is no reason to believe that the value polarization of the Russian population has a pronounced tendency to transform into affective polarization, but such a danger exists. The problem discussed in the article has not been sufficiently studied in Russian social and political psychology, however, the development of an appropriate methodology and theory, as well as methods and techniques, will allow us to study this phenomenon more deeply and effectively.

1. Emel'yanova T.P. Sotsial'nye predstavleniya: teoriya, istoriya i empiricheskie issledovaniya [Social representations: theory, history and empirical research]. Moscow: Publ. «Institut psikhologii RAN», 2016. 476 p.
2. Lebedev A.N. Affekt neopredelennosti i tsennostno-affektivnaya polyarizatsiya bol'shikh sotsial'nykh grupp [Affect of uncertainty and value-affective polarization of large social groups]. Uchenye zapiski Instituta psikhologii RAN = Proceedings of the Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences, 2023. Vol. 3, no. 1(7), pp. 3–17.
3. Lebedev A.N. K teorii tsennostno-affektivnoi polyarizatsii sotsial'nykh grupp [To the theory of value-affective polarization of social groups]. Uchenye zapiski Instituta psikhologii RAN = Proceedings of the Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences, 2022. Vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 2–19.
4. Lebedev A.N., Gordyakova O.V. Fenomen gruppovoi polyarizatsii v politologii i politicheskoi psikhologii SShA i Evropy [The phenomenon of group polarization in political science and political psychology of the USA and Europe]. Sotsial'naya i ekonomicheskaya psikhologiya = Social and economic psychology, Vol. 6, no. 4(24), pp. 123–150.
5. Moskovichi S. Vek tolp. Istoricheskii traktat po psikhologii mass [The age of crowds. Historical treatise on the psychology of the masses]. Moscow: Akademicheskii proekt, 2011. 396 p.
6. Moskovichi S. Mashina, tvoryashchaya bogov [The Machine that creates the gods]. Moscow: Zakharov, 1998. 560 p.
7. Osipov G.V. Sotsiologiya i gosudarstvennost': Dostizheniya, problemy, resheniya [Sociology and statehood: Achievements, problems, solutions]. Moscow: Veche, 2005. 368
8. Plaus S. Psikhologiya otsenki i prinyatiya reshenii [Psychology of evaluation and decision-making]. Moscow: Informatsionno-izdatel'skii dom "Filin", 1998. 368 p.
9. Podshibyakina N. Sotsial'no-trudovye otnosheniya v usloviyakh perekhodnoi ekonomiki [Social and labor relations in a transitional economy]. Obshchestvo i ekonomika = Society and Economics], 2006, no. 4, pp. 71.
10. Sapronov A.V., Kritskaya O.A. Osobennosti sotsial'noi polyarizatsii Rossiiskogo obshchestva [Features of social polarization of Russian society]. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo Universiteta im. N.I. Lobachevskogo. Seriya: Sotsial'nye nauki = Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University named after N.I. Lobachevsky. Series: Social Sciences, 2013, pp. 82–86.
11. Amodio D.M., Jost J.T., Master S.L., Yee C.M. Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature Neuroscience, 2007. Vol. 10, pp. 1246– DOI:10.1038/nn1979
12. Bishop B., Cushing R. The big sort: Migration, community, and politics in the United States of ‘those people’. In R.A. Teixeira (Ed.). Red, blue and purple America: The future of election demographics. Washington: Brookings Institution, 2008, pp. 50–75.
13. Boxell L., Gentzkow M., Shapiro J.M. Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization. NBER Working Paper, January 2020, no. w26669. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3522318
14. Child T., Massoud N., Schabus M., Zhou Y. Surprise Election for Trump Connections. Journal of Financial Economics, 2021. 140, Iss. 2, pp. 676–697. DOI:10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.12.004
15. Chomsky N., Herman E.S. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. NY: Knopf Publishing Group, 2003. 582 p.
16. ConverseE. The nature of belief systems in mass publics.Critical Review, 2006. Vol. 18, Iss. 1-3, pp. 1–74. DOI:10.1080/08913810608443650
17. Druckman J.N., Klar S., Krupnikov Y., Levendusky M., Ryan J.B. Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 5, pp. 28–38.
18. Goren P. Party Identification and Core Political Values. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 49(4), pp. 882–897.
19. Graham M.H., Svolik M.W. Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review, Vol. 114, Iss. 2, pp. 392–409. DOI:10.1017/S0003055420000052
20. Iyengar S., Lelkes Y., Levendusky M., Malhotra N., Westwood S. The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 22(1), pp. 129–146.
21. Johnston, Manley D., Jones K. Spatial Polarization of Presidential Voting in the United States, 1992-2012: The “Big Sort” Revisited. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 2016. Vol. 106, Iss. 5, pp. 1047–1062. DOI:10.1080/24694452.2016.1191991
22. Jost J.T., Glaser J., Kruglanski A.W., Sulloway F.J. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 129(3), pp. 339–375. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
23. Jowett G.S., O’Donnell V. Propaganda & Persuasion. London: Sage Publications,
24. Jungkunz S. Political Polarization During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontiers in Political Science, 04 March 2021. DOI:3389/fpos.2021.622512
25. Kam C.D., Simas E.N. Risk orientations and policy frames. The Journal of Politics, 2010. Vol. 72, Iss. 2, pp. 381–396. DOI:1017/S0022381609990806
26. Lane K.A., Banaji M.R., Nosek B.A., Greenwald A.G. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What we know (so far). In B. Wittenbring and N. Schwarz (eds.). Implicit Measures of Attitudes. New York: Guilford, 2007, pp. 59–12.
27. Lasswell H.D. The Theory of Political Propaganda. The American Political Science Review, 1927. Vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 627–631.
28. Lippmann W. Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1922. 233 p.
29. Miller R.G. Simultaneous Statistical Inference. Springer, 1966. 315 p.
30. Moscovici S., Lage E., Naffrechoux M. Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 1969. Vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 365–380.
31. Moscovici S., Zavalloni M. The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969. Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 125–135.
32. Oxley D.R., Smith K.B., Alford J.R., Hibbing M.V., Miller J.L. et al. Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science, Vol. 321, pp. 1667–1670. DOI:10.1126/science.1157627
33. Pratschke J., Morlicchio E. Social Polarisation, the Labour Market and Economic Restructuring in Europe: An Urban Perspective. Urban Studies, 2012. 49, Iss. 9, pp. 1891–1907. DOI:10.1177/0042098012444885
34. Rogowski J.C. Voter Decision-Making with Polarized Choices. British Journal of Political Science, January 2018. 48, Issue 1, pp. 1–22.
35. Stoet G. PsyToolkit: A Novel Web-Based Method for Running Online Questionnaires and Reaction-Time Experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 2017. Vol. 44, pp. 24–31.
36. Van S., Lyn M. Extreme members and group polarization. Social Influence, 2009. Vol. 4(3), pp. 185–199.
37. Wagner M., Russo L. Affective Polarization Around the World: Measurement, Causes and Consequences. 2021. URL: https://ecpr.eu/Events/Event/PanelDetails/10463
38. Westwood S.J., Iyengar S., Walgrave S., Leonisio R., Miller L., Strijbis O. The Tie that Divides: Cross-National Evidence of the Primary of Partyism. European Journal of Political Research, 2018. Vol. 57(2), pp. 333–354.