Politics can be a tricky subject, and it’s not always easy to navigate conversations without a few arguments here and there. But have you ever noticed that people who argue about politics often display certain behaviors?

According to psychology, there are seven key behaviors that are frequently exhibited by those who find themselves in heated political debates.

And trust me, being aware of these behaviors can really help in understanding these discussions better.

With this information, you’ll not only gain insights into why these arguments can become so intense but also you’ll be able to communicate more effectively by understanding the psychological factors at play.

So, let’s dive into these seven behaviors that people who love a good political argument tend to display.

1) Confirmation bias

Politics is a realm where biases often come out to play. And there’s one particular psychological tendency that is frequently on display in political arguments: confirmation bias.

In the world of psychology, confirmation bias refers to our tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs while ignoring or discounting information that contradicts them.

This is why during a political argument, you often see people cherry-picking facts and statistics that bolster their stance, while disregarding those that challenge it.

Famous psychologist Carl Jung once said, “People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own souls.”

In the context of politics, this could be interpreted as people clinging to their beliefs and using confirmation bias as a shield against confronting perspectives that differ from their own.

Understanding this behavior not only makes political discourse more comprehensible but also helps us navigate these discussions with more patience and empathy.

2) Cognitive dissonance

Another psychological behavior that often surfaces in political debates is cognitive dissonance.

This is the mental discomfort that we feel when our beliefs or attitudes conflict with our behavior or new information that contradicts those beliefs.

I remember a time when I found myself in a heated political debate with a friend.

He firmly believed in a certain policy and was advocating for it passionately, but I noticed that his daily actions didn’t align with the policy he was promoting.

When I pointed this out, he became defensive and uncomfortable – a classic sign of cognitive dissonance.

Renowned psychologist Leon Festinger, who developed the theory of cognitive dissonance, once said, “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change.”

This rings particularly true in political arguments where people often stick to their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary, mainly to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

Understanding this can help us approach political discussions with more understanding and less frustration.

3) Groupthink

Ever wondered why people who usually argue about politics seem to have a strong sense of solidarity with their group? Welcome to the concept of groupthink.

This is a psychological phenomenon where individuals within a group strive for consensus to the point that they suppress dissenting viewpoints.

The desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational decision-making outcome.

When it comes to political debates, groupthink often takes center stage. People align themselves with a particular political group and adopt its beliefs and ideologies, often disregarding any differing opinions.

In the raw honesty of it all, it’s easier to go with the flow and agree with the majority than to stand out with a differing opinion, especially in politically charged discussions.

The famous psychologist Irving Janis, who coined the term groupthink, aptly said:

“The more amiability and esprit de corps among the members of a policy-making in-group, the greater is the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink.”

Understanding this can help us approach political discussions with more open-mindedness, encouraging diverse opinions rather than stifling them.

4) Echo chambers

Echo chambers are another common behavior seen in political arguments.

This phenomenon occurs when individuals surround themselves with voices and opinions that mirror their own, which in turn reinforces their existing beliefs.

In a study, researchers found that people are more likely to believe information that aligns with their political views, even if it’s false.

They also found that when people are exposed to differing views, they’re likely to become even more entrenched in their original beliefs.

This study not only sheds light on how echo chambers can contribute to the polarization we often see in political discussions but also underscores the importance of broadening our perspectives and actively seeking out diverse viewpoints.

After all, understanding is deepened not by constant agreement, but by thoughtful challenge and discussion.

5) Defensive aggression

We’ve all been there, haven’t we? A simple political discussion suddenly escalates into a full-blown argument, with defensive aggression taking the front seat.

Defensive aggression is a psychological behavior where individuals react aggressively to protect their ego or self-esteem when they feel threatened.

In the context of political debates, this often occurs when people’s deeply-held beliefs are challenged.

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, once said, “Aggression is a response to frustration.”

And in political discussions, this frustration often stems from feeling unheard or misunderstood.

Recognizing this can help us approach these debates with more empathy and patience, striving to understand rather than just to be understood.

6) Overconfidence effect

Here’s something that might surprise you. Overconfidence, a behavior typically associated with success, can actually hinder productive political discourse.

The overconfidence effect is a cognitive bias where people’s subjective confidence in their own abilities is greater than their objective accuracy.

In political arguments, this might manifest as someone overestimating their knowledge about a particular issue or policy.

Renowned psychologist Daniel Kahneman once said, “We’re blind to our blindness. We have very little idea of how little we know. We’re not designed to know how little we know.”

In the realm of politics, this overconfidence can lead to dismissiveness and an unwillingness to consider other perspectives.

Understanding this behavior can encourage us to approach political discussions with humility and an openness to learning.

7) Us vs. Them mentality

Lastly, the “Us vs. Them” mentality is a common behavior in political debates. It’s a form of in-group bias where individuals favor those who belong to their group, while showing prejudice towards those who don’t.

Social psychologist Henri Tajfel once said, “Social categorization is the basis of the tendency of people to form groups.”

This tendency can often lead to division and conflict in political discussions, making it crucial for us to recognize and challenge this behavior.

Final thoughts

The dance of politics and psychology is a captivating one, revealing much about our behaviors, biases, and the way we interact with one another.

These seven behaviors are not exclusive to political debates. They are part of our human nature, popping up in various aspects of our lives.

Understanding them can help us navigate not just political discussions, but any conversation where differing views are at play.

So next time you find yourself in a heated political discussion, take a moment to observe. Are you seeing signs of groupthink? Is there an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality at play?

By recognizing these behaviors, we can step back, reassess, and approach these discussions with more empathy and openness. After all, the beauty of democracy lies in the diversity of opinions and the freedom to express them.

As we continue to engage in political discourse, let’s strive to do so thoughtfully, respectfully, and with an eagerness to learn from one another.