SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Osmaniye Korkut Ata Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

POLITICAL POLARIZATION: SOCIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES

POLİTİK KUTUPLAŞMA: SOSYOLOJİK VE PSİKOLOJİK NEDENLER

Naile Erdem(MERSİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3039-324X
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Understanding the causes of political polarization is therefore important for evaluating democratic political processes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the concept of political polarization from sociological and psychological perspectives.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The analyses indicate that political polarization has significant effects on social relations, political attitudes, and group perceptions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Understanding the causes of political polarization is therefore important for evaluating democratic political processes.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Politik kutuplaşma · Siyasal Psikoloji · Toplumsal Kimlik

Abstract

This study examines the concept of political polarization from sociological and psychological perspectives. The aim of the study is to discuss the main dynamics that produce political polarization through sociological and psychological factors. The literature on political polarization shows that this phenomenon cannot be explained by a single cause. Social structure, economic inequalities, social identity processes, group belonging, emotions, and cognitive mechanisms are among the factors that contribute to the emergence of polarization. This study is a review based on the literature of sociology, political science, and political psychology. The analyses indicate that political polarization has significant effects on social relations, political attitudes, and group perceptions. An increase in political polarization may lead to more confrontational political debates and a narrowing of the space for compromise. Understanding the causes of political polarization is therefore important for evaluating democratic political processes.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, politik kutuplaşma kavramı sosyolojik ve psikolojik perspektifler çerçevesinde ele alınmıştır. Çalışmanın amacı politik kutuplaşmayı ortaya çıkaran temel dinamikleri sosyolojik ve psikolojik faktörler üzerinden tartışmaktır. Politik kutuplaşma literatürü bu olgunun tek bir nedene indirgenemeyeceğini göstermektedir. Toplumsal yapı, ekonomik eşitsizlikler, sosyal kimlik süreçleri, grup aidiyeti, duygular ve bilişsel mekanizmalar kutuplaşmanın oluşumunda etkili olan unsurlar arasında yer almaktadır. Bu çalışma sosyoloji, siyaset bilimi ve siyaset psikolojisi literatürüne dayanan bir derleme niteliği taşımaktadır. Analizler politik kutuplaşmanın toplumsal ilişkiler, siyasal tutumlar ve grup algıları üzerinde önemli etkiler oluşturduğunu göstermektedir. Politik kutuplaşmanın artması siyasal tartışmaların sertleşmesine ve uzlaşma alanının daralmasına yol açabilir. Bu nedenle politik kutuplaşmanın nedenlerini anlamak demokratik siyasal süreçlerin değerlendirilmesi açısından önem taşımaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Erdem, N. (2026). POLITICAL POLARIZATION: SOCIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES. Osmaniye Korkut Ata Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1. https://ajindex.com/articles/1534704

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B., Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
  2. Bilgi Göç Merkezi (2018). Türkiye’de Kutuplaşmanın Boyutları Araştırması (2017). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Göç Çalışmaları Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Yayını.
  3. Bishop, B. (2008). The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing us Apart. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Publishing.
  4. Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  5. Çalışkan, O. S. (2021). Politik psikolojinin tarihsel gelişim süreci. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.33905/bseusbed.954415
  6. Çarkoğlu, A., Yıldırım, K. (2023). Media effects in a polarized political system: The case of Turkey. Political Behavior, 46, 1189–1211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-023-09867-w
  7. Chandra, K. (2004). Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Head Counts in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Dalton, R. J. (2017). The Participation Gap: Social Status and Political Inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.
  9. DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., Bryson, B. (1996). Have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 690-755.
  10. Erdem, N. (2026). Kurumsal itibar yönetimi ve siyasal iletişim: 2025 liselere giriş sınavı ve Türkiye Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı üzerine bir analiz. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 9(1), 100–124. https://doi.org/10.33712/mana.1861756
  11. Ertuğay, F. (2022). Türkiye’de politik kutuplaşmanın tarihsel kökenleri: Kolektif hafıza. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 55(2), 27-62.
  12. Fukuyama, F. (2018). Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux Publishing.
  13. Gülalp, H. (2009). Kimlikler, toplum ve iktidar. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, 133–143.
  14. Horowitz, D. L. (1985). Ethnic Groups in Conflict. California: University of California Press.
  15. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00230
  16. Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Weber, C. (2007). The political consequences of perceived threat and felt insecurity. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 614(1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207305951
  17. Inglehart, R., Norris, P. (2016). Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism. Massachusetts: Harvard Kennedy School Working Paper.
  18. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
  19. Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., Westwood, S. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
  20. Iyengar, S., Westwood, S. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
  21. İnce, M. (2017). Toplumsal tabakalaşma ve eşitsizlik. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 294–319.
  22. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux Publishing.
  23. Keyifli, N., Akdede, S. H. (2020). Politik kutuplaşma ve devletin ekonomik boyutu. Sosyoekonomi, 28(44), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2020.02.14
  24. Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69–105.
  25. Lipset, S. M., Rokkan, S. (1967). Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments. In S. M. Lipset, S. Rokkan (Eds.), Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives (pp. 1–64). New York: Free Press.
  26. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  27. Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  28. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., Rosenthal, H. (2016). Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  29. McCoy, J., Rahman, T. ve Somer, M. (2018). Polarization and the global crisis of democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 16–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218759576
  30. McCoy, J., Somer, M. (2019). Toward a theory of pernicious polarization and how it harms democracies. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 234–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218818782
  31. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
  32. Moral, M. (2022). Siyasi Kutuplaşma. In M. A. Y. Saraç (Ed.), Sosyal Bilimler Ansiklopedisi (c. 4, s. 89). Ankara: Popüler Bilim Kitapları.
  33. Mudde, C., Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
  34. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  35. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.
  36. Norris, P., Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Pew Research Center (2014). Political polarization in the American public. https://www.pewresearch.org (Erişim Tarihi: 08.01.2026).
  38. Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and Ideology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  39. Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination, (pp. 23–45). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing.
  41. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  42. Taber, C. S., Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
  43. Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, (pp. 33–47). Kaliforniya: Brooks/Cole.
  44. Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, (pp. 25–73). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  45. Uslu, C. (2022). Keskin siyasi kutuplaşma ve demokratik siyasete olumsuz etkileri. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 556-581. https://doi.org/10.26745/ahbvuibfd.1105875
  46. Yanmış, M., Kahraman, B. (2013). Gençlerin dini ve etnik kimlik algısı: Diyarbakır örneği. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 8(2), 117–134.
  47. Yaşar, O. (2022). Sosyal Kimlik Kuramı. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  48. Zariç, S., Erdem, N. (2021). Türk siyasal hayatında sağ partilerde bölünme: 1960–1980. Academic Social Resources Journal, 6(31), 1706–1719. https://doi.org/10.31569/ASRJOURNAL.363