Skip to Main Content

Social Psychology and Society
2026. Vol. 17, no. 1, 41–59
doi:10.17759/sps.2026170103
ISSN: 2221-1527 / 2311-7052 (online)

How does ideological polarization affect family relationships? The role of perceived psychological climate

 
Audio is AI-generated
0

,

PDF (RUS)
Online translation in english
GS
Information
in Google Scholar
Metrics

Abstract

Context and relevance. Previous studies have shown that ideological polarization negatively affects family and romantic relationships. People have a more negative attitude toward family members and romantic partners they perceive as political opponents than toward those they see as politically like-minded individuals. However, the psychological mechanisms of this connection are not fully understood.
Objective. To analyze the relationship between ideological polarization, basic psychological needs satisfaction, and family relationships.
Hypothesis. Ideological polarization between family members is negatively associated with the quality of family relationships. This connection is mediated by political discussions that frustrate basic psychological needs.
Methods and materials. Respondents were recruited on the Yandex-Zadaniya online platform. The sample included 513 citizens; 48,5% identified as male and 51,5% as female; participants' ages ranged from 18 to 64 (M = 38,96, SD = 9,88). Participants selected a family member with whom they discuss social issues and indicated the degree of similarity between their views and those of that person. Participants then answered questions about (a) the style of political discussions with this person (the author's questionnaire), (b) the extent to which these discussions satisfy psychological needs (Legate, Ryan, Weinstein, 2012), and (c) relationships with this family member (items from the Russian version of the FACES-IV questionnaire; Zelenskaya, 2016).
Results. Ideological polarization reduces the likelihood of compromise and calm communication between family members but increases the likelihood of dominance and tense communication between them. Compromise and calm communication, in turn, form an autonomy-supportive psychological climate that promotes the satisfaction of basic psychological needs. Meanwhile, dominance and tense communication contribute to the controlling psychological climate that frustrates these needs. The autonomy-supportive climate, in turn, improves, while the controlling climate worsens relationships between family members.
Conclusions. Ideological polarization can worsen relationships between close people. This occurs because political opponents more persistently promote their position and listen less to each other than political like-minded individuals do. This effect arises primarily when political discussions hinder participants from satisfying basic psychological needs. This means that if interlocutors can restore an autonomy-supportive psychological climate through other actions, political discussions can no longer an obstacle for them, but an opportunity to expand their understanding of political events and processes.

General Information

Keywords: political polarization, ideological polarization, family, interpersonal relationships, basic psychological needs theory, communication strategies

Journal rubric: Empirical Research

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2026170103

Funding. HSE University Basic Research Program, 2025.

Supplemental data. Datasets аvailable from https://repo.hse.ru/search/item/396/description.

Received 13.09.2025

Revised 24.11.2025

Accepted

Published

For citation: Gulevich, O.A., Semiletova, L.A. (2026). How does ideological polarization affect family relationships? The role of perceived psychological climate. Social Psychology and Society, 17(1), 41–59. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2026170103

© Gulevich O.A., Semiletova L.A., 2026

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

References

  1. Гулевич, О.А., Косимова, С.С. (2024). Связь российской идентичности и политической поляризации: роль надежной национальной идентификации и национального нарциссизма. Социальная психология и общество, 15(4), 123—139. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2024150409 Gulevich, O.A., Kosimova, S.S. The relationship between Russian identity and political polarization: The role of secure national identification and national narcissism. Social Psychology and Society, 15(4), 123–139. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2024150409
  2. Гулевич, О.А., Семилетова, Л.А. (2025). Как политическая поляризация сказывается на семейных отношениях? Роль воспринимаемого психологического климата [Датасет]. Репозиторий социально-экономической информации НИУ ВШЭ. URL: https://repo.hse.ru/search/item/396/description Gulevich, O.A., Semiletova, L.A. How does political polarization affect family relationships? The role of perceived psychological climate [Dataset]. HSE Socio-Economic Information Repository. URL: https://repo.hse.ru/search/item/396/description (In Russ.).
  3. Гулевич, О.А., Чернов, Д.Н. (2025). Автономный политический климат и отношение к политической системе: как теория самодетерминации помогает понять политические взгляды. Социальная психология и общество, 16(1), 51—69. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2025160103 Gulevich, O.A., Chernov, D.N. (2025). Autonomous political climate and attitude towards the political system: How self-determination theory helps to understand political views. Social Psychology and Society, 16(1), 51—69. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2025160103 (In Russ.).
  4. Зеленская, М.С. (2016). Адаптация методики FACES-IV на российской выборке подросткового возраста: магист. дис. НИУ ВШЭ. М. Zelenskaya, M.S. (2016). Adaptation of the FACES-IV methodology on a Russian adolescent sample: Master's thesis. Higher School of Economics. (In Russ.).
  5. Кардашина, С.В., Шаньгина, Н.В. (2016). Психометрические характеристики русскоязычной версии опросника К. Томаса–Р. Килманна («Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument-TKI-R»). Педагогическое образование в России, 11, 219–220. https://doi.org/10.26170/po16-11-36 Kardashina, S.V., Shangina, N.V. (2016). Psychometric characteristics of the Russian version of the K. Thomas– Kilmann questionnaire («Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument-TKI-R»). Pedagogical Education in Russia, 11, 219–220. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26170/po16-11-36
  6. Стукал, Д.К., Шилина, А.Н., Ахременко, А.С. (2025). Социальные медиа как альтер эго реальности: о чем говорит аффективная политическая поляризация? Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Политология, 27(3). Stukal, D.K., Shilina, A.N., Akhremenko, A.S. (2025). Social media as alter ego of reality: what does affective political polarization tell us? RUDN Journal of Political Science, 27(3). (In Russ.).
  7. Afifi, T.D., Zamanzadeh, N., Harrison, K., Torrez, D.P. (2019). Explaining the impact of differences in voting patterns on resilience and relational load in romantic relationships during the transition to the Trump presidency. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519846566
  8. Béjar, S., Moraes, J.A., López-Cariboni, S. (2020). Elite polarization and voting turnout in Latin America, 1993–2010.Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 30, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2018.1545775
  9. Cowan, S.K., Baldassarri, D. (2018). "It could turn ugly": Selective disclosure of attitudes in political discussion networks. Social Networks, 52, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.04.002
  10. Ellger, F. (2024). The mobilizing effect of party system polarization: Evidence from Europe.Comparative Political Studies, 57, 1310–1338. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231194059
  11. Gerber, A.S., Huber, G.A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C.M. (2012). Disagreement and the avoidance of political discussion: Aggregate relationships and differences across personality traits. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 849–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00571.x
  12. Graça, J., Calheiros, M.M., Barata, M.C. (2013). Authority in the classroom: Adolescent autonomy, autonomy support, and teachers' legitimacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 1065–1076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0154-1
  13. Griffin, J., Kiewiet de Jonge, C., Velasco-Guachalla, V. (2021). Deprivation in the midst of plenty: Citizen polarization and political protest.British Journal of Political Science, 51, 1080–1096. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123419000681
  14. Grubbs, J.B., Warmke, B., Tosi, J., James, A.S. (2020). Moral grandstanding and political polarization: A multi-study consideration. Journal of Research in Personality, 88, 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104009
  15. Hobolt, S., Hoerner, J. (2020). The mobilising effect of political choice. European Journal of Political Research, 59, 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12353
  16. Hopmann, D.N., Bjarnøe, C., Wonneberger, A. (2020). Responding to interpersonal political disagreement. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 32(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edz011
  17. Jost, J.T. (2020). A theory of system justification. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv13qfw6w
  18. Kachanoff, F.J. (2023). A group-conscious approach to basic psychological needs theory. In R.M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Self-Determination Theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197600047.013.56
  19. Kachanoff, F.J., Kteily, N.S., Park, H.J., Khullar, T.H., Taylor, D.M. (2020). Determining our destiny: Do restrictions to collective autonomy fuel collective action? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(3), 600–632. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000217
  20. Kobayashi, T., Tse, C.H. (2022). How political disagreements undermine intrafamily communication: The case of the anti-extradition bill movement in Hong Kong. Chinese Journal of Communication, 15(3), 378–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2021.1987283
  21. Kuhn, U., Marquis, L. (2025). Does ideological polarization promote political engagement and trust? Evidence from Swiss panel data, 1999–2023. European Journal of Political Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1475676525100248
  22. La Guardia, J.G., Ryan, R.M., Couchman, C.E., Deci, E.L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367
  23. Legate, N., Ryan, R.M., Weinstein, N. (2012). Is coming out always a "good thing"? Exploring the relations of autonomy support, outness, and wellness for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611411929
  24. Levinsen, K., Yndigegn, C. (2015). Political discussions with family and friends: Exploring the impact of political distance. The Sociological Review, 63(S2), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12263
  25. Morey, A.C., Eveland, W.P., Hutchens, M.J. (2012). The "Who" Matters: Types of Interpersonal Relationships and Avoidance of Political Disagreement. Political Communication, 29(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2011.641070
  26. Peacock, C., Pederson, J.R. (2022). Love and politics: The influence of politically (dis)similar romantic relationships on political participation and relationship satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 48(4), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac011
  27. Ryan, R.M., Duineveld, J.J., Di Domenico, S.I., Ryan, W.S., Steward, B.A., Bradshaw, E.L. 2022. "We Know This Much Is (Meta-Analytically) True: A Meta-Review of Meta-Analytic Findings Evaluating Self-Determination Theory." Psychological Bulletin 148 (11–12), 813–842. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000385
  28. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
  29. Sinclair, S., Nilsson, A., Agerström, J. (2023). Judging job applicants by their politics: Effects of target–rater political dissimilarity on discrimination, cooperation, and stereotyping. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 11, 75–91.
  30. Slemp, G.R., Kern, M.L., Patrick, K.J., Ryan, R.M. (2018). Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta-analytic review. Motivation and Emotion, 42(5), 706–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9698-y
  31. Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Ryan, R.M. (2023). Basic psychological needs theory: A conceptual and empirical review of key criteria. In R.M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Self-Determination Theory. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197600047.013.5
  32. Warner, B.R., Colaner, C.W., Park, J. (2021). Political difference and polarization in the family: The role of (non)accommodating communication for navigating identity differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(2), 564–585.

 

Information About the Authors

Olga A. Gulevich, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Head of the Politics & Psychology Research Laboratory, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3806-5064, e-mail: goulevitch@mail.ru

Liya A. Semiletova, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, Master of Arts Student in Applied Political Science, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7176-0290, e-mail: semiletova.liya@yandex.ru

Contribution of the authors

Olga A. Gulevich — idea and planning of the study; annotation, writing a theoretical review and discussion of the results of the study; application of statistical, mathematical or other methods to analyze the data; visualization of the results of the study; control over the conduct of the study.
Liya A. Semiletova — idea and planning of the study; collection and analysis of data; writing of the methodology and results of the study; application of statistical, mathematical or other methods to analyze the data; preparation of the manuscript.
All authors participated in the discussion of the results and agreed on the final text of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethics statement

Respondents provided informed consent online to participate in this activity.

Metrics

 Web Views

Whole time: 3
Previous month: 0
Current month: 3

 PDF Downloads

Whole time: 0
Previous month: 0
Current month: 0

 Total

Whole time: 3
Previous month: 0
Current month: 3