Young adults who feel excluded because of their political identity are more likely to experience anger and less willing to engage with people from the opposing political side, according to new research published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. The study found that experiences of exclusion—whether from one’s own political group or the opposition—threaten psychological well-being and promote polarized behaviors, including avoidance and online hostility.
The findings shed light on one of the psychological processes that may be driving the widening divide in American politics. Rather than simply reflecting ideological disagreements, the study suggests that social experiences, such as being ignored or rejected by political groups, can push people toward stronger partisanship and antagonism.
Political polarization in the United States has been increasing for decades, with Republicans and Democrats expressing growing hostility toward each other. Known as affective polarization, this trend reflects emotional and social distance between partisans, beyond just policy disagreements. Many Americans now view their political opponents as immoral, unintelligent, or even dangerous.
This political divide often spills over into everyday life. Surveys show that friendships and family ties are increasingly strained by politics, and a significant portion of the population avoids interacting with people from the opposing party. Researchers have proposed that these patterns are not only the result of ideological conflict but also stem from social exclusion—the experience of being ignored or rejected because of one’s political identity.
Social exclusion is known to threaten basic psychological needs such as belonging, control, and self-esteem. When people feel excluded, they often become angry and are more likely to retaliate or withdraw. The current research explored how political exclusion influences these psychological processes and whether it contributes to increased polarization by reducing willingness to engage with political opponents and increasing antisocial intentions.
“Early in my graduate program, my mentor and I were interested in exploring different forms of identity-based exclusion we could research,” said study author Katarina E. AuBuchon, who was a graduate student at George Washington University in the Psychological and Brain Sciences Department at the time of the study.
“Given the political climate at the time, we discussed how families and friendships were ending over politics, and how exclusion based on political affiliation could be hurtful and potentially have unintended negative effects. We wanted to better understand how political exclusion might be negatively impacting the political climate.”
The researchers conducted two studies with college-aged adults in the United States during the 2020 presidential election. In both studies, they used a virtual ball-tossing game called Cyberball to simulate experiences of political inclusion or exclusion. Participants believed they were playing with other students who either shared their political views (ingroup) or held opposing views (outgroup).
In Study 1, 135 young adults from the Washington, D.C. area were randomly assigned to be included or excluded by three players from their political outgroup. Participants’ political identity was based on general ideological labels (liberal vs. conservative). After the game, participants completed surveys measuring psychological needs, anger, willingness to interact with outgroup members, and attitudes toward the opposing side.
Study 2 expanded on this design by recruiting a larger sample of 316 participants from both liberal (Washington, D.C.) and conservative (Texas) regions. This time, political identity was defined by candidate support (Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump). Participants were randomly assigned to be included or excluded by either political allies or opponents. The researchers again measured psychological needs, anger, attitudes, and in this case, participants’ willingness to engage in antisocial behaviors toward political opponents on social media—such as insulting or threatening them.
Across both studies, political exclusion had consistent negative effects on participants’ psychological well-being. In Study 1, participants who were excluded by their political outgroup reported lower psychological needs satisfaction and were less interested in interacting with outgroup members in a future task. This reduction in affiliation interest was explained by the decrease in psychological needs—especially the need to feel accepted and in control.
Although the researchers expected that exclusion would also increase anger and reduce positive attitudes toward the outgroup, these effects were less pronounced in Study 1. Anger levels were not significantly higher among excluded participants, and their warmth toward the outgroup did not significantly decline. The researchers suggested that using general ideological labels may not have created strong enough group boundaries to elicit more intense emotional reactions.
“We were surprised that political exclusion from the outgroup didn’t really lead to people wanting to seek out their political ingroup more,” AuBuchon told PsyPost. “This could be because people in our studies perhaps don’t highly identify as liberal/conservative or Trump/Biden supporters.”
In Study 2, where political identity was tied to support for Biden or Trump during a contentious election, exclusion had stronger emotional and behavioral effects. Participants who were excluded—whether by their own group or the opposing group—reported significantly lower needs satisfaction and more anger. Those who were excluded also expressed a greater willingness to engage in hostile behaviors toward political opponents online.
Importantly, mediation analyses showed that different psychological mechanisms were responsible for different outcomes. Decreased needs satisfaction predicted lower interest in affiliating with the political outgroup, while increased anger predicted higher antisocial inclinations, such as insulting or threatening members of the opposing side. This suggests that exclusion influences polarization in at least two distinct ways: by reducing people’s willingness to cooperate and by increasing their hostility.
One unexpected finding was that participants who were excluded by their own political group (ingroup) sometimes responded by expressing more positive attitudes toward the opposing group (outgroup). This suggests that rejection from one’s own side may lead individuals to reevaluate their group affiliations and become more open to political alternatives. However, this effect was relatively modest and needs further investigation.
“Excluding others based solely on their perceived political beliefs or affiliation is unlikely to make people more amenable to changing their political beliefs, and indeed it can influence how that person will then act toward people from different political groups later,” AuBuchon said. “When participants in our study were excluded by the political ‘outgroup’—in other words, if a conservative was excluded by a liberal or vice-versa—this made the participant angrier, which led to them being more inclined to be antisocial toward the political outgroup in the future, and made them feel like they didn’t belong and more likely to avoid the political outgroup in the future. Political exclusion likely increases the likelihood of more political partisanship in the future.”
As with all research, there are a few limitations to consider. The studies focused on young adults, who may differ from older voters in how they experience and respond to exclusion. Although young people are an important voting demographic, more research is needed to determine whether similar patterns hold across other age groups.
Additionally, most participants were college students, and the samples were not nationally representative. While the researchers recruited from both liberal and conservative regions, geographical differences may still have influenced the results.
“It was hard to recruit conservatives for our study, in particular due to mistrust,” AuBuchon noted. “Some of the conservative groups outside of our university we reached out to point-blank refused, as they held a lot of mistrust toward psychological research and our intentions. This was surprising and also limited our data’s conclusions. Ultimately, we are grateful to have partnered with colleagues at a Texas university to help with recruitment.”
The researchers also noted that they measured attitudes and intentions rather than actual behavior. While participants reported how tempted they would be to insult or threaten political opponents online, it remains unclear how exclusion affects real-world actions. The simplified experimental scenarios may also differ from the complexities of real-life exclusion.
“As with all basic social psychology experiments, we use very basic manipulations to create artificial conditions that are easy to control,” AuBuchon said. “In other words, when we experience political exclusion in real life, it is unlikely to be in Cyberball! So, it’s hard to know how these minutely measured reactions compare to the real-life experience of political exclusion. But when we put it together with the broader context, it can help us better understand human behavior. Any readers interested should consider learning more about political polarization from leading scholars who conduct this work in real-world settings.”
Another important direction for future research is exploring how people can recover from political exclusion and avoid falling into cycles of polarization. The current findings suggest that addressing anger and restoring psychological needs may be key to reducing hostility and promoting dialogue. Interventions that reduce emotional reactivity or increase feelings of belonging across political lines may help bridge divides.
“This project, though near to my heart, did not become my main focus of research as my graduate work continued to grow,” added AuBuchon, who is currently a T32 Postdoctoral Fellow at the Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center. “This work helped introduce me to the field of social exclusion, which aligned with my interests in understanding how discrimination influences health outcomes. I used Cyberball for my dissertation, which explored acute racism’s influence on pain sensitization. My current scholarship focuses on how we can harness our understanding of social psychology to work toward mitigating health inequities. So, I personally do not have any future plans in this line of work.”
The study, “The Effects of Political Exclusion: Threatened Needs and Decreased Affiliation With Increased Anger and Antisocial Inclinations,” was authored by Katarina E. AuBuchon, Michelle L. Stock, Emily Raibley, Adrienne R. Carter-Sowell, and Paul J. Poppen.
