Why it is so hard for people to change their political opinions and how we can learn to live together again

Why we find it so hard to change our minds

Consciously or subconsciously, many hope for a quick and easy solution: that people on the “other side” will change their opinion, that they will change their minds when they see all the stakes on the table. But this scenario is utopian, as research has recently shown.

A study published by two researchers from Duke University and UCLA looked at the degree to which sympathizers of a political party change their opinion if they receive new information about a particular situation.

The research was based on surveys of 2,000 people who were divided into two groups – a group whose members answered questions about their political preferences and were given a piece of political information that they were told was true, and a group whose members were asked what their hypothetical political preferences would be, if a particular piece of information were true.

Individuals who said they were open to changing their minds in the face of new and contradictory information did not, actually, do so, and stuck to their own beliefs, researchers note. Experts point out that this biased behavior shows that people tend not to change their beliefs, even when information contradicts them. Basically, even though they said they were flexible in accepting new perspectives, the participants in the study did not change their political reasoning when confronted with information that showed them to be wrong.

A Vox article points out that important issues like politics lead to partisanship, and political preferences then become part of an individual’s identity, so changing them is perceived as an attack on the self.

And Romanians may find it even harder than others to change their opinions, because of our cultural perception of mistakes, says the psychologist. Because we are harshly penalized when we make mistakes at school, it’s very hard for us to admit that we have made a mistake later in adult life, and this makes us rigid, sometimes. “We need to have more tolerance, to give ourselves space to make mistakes. It’s not bad if we make mistakes, it’s bad if we don’t correct them afterwards”, says Adelina Clapon.

How to go from firm opinions to “political empathy”

An article in The Conversation talks about the problems that arise when people with opposing political views argue with each other. The key to avoiding conflict (which is unlikely to change the other person’s opinion anyway) is curiosity. So, if we talk to the other person with genuine curiosity to understand their different point of view, approach the situation calmly, and ask questions respectfully, there is a good chance that we will “defuse” the conflict because the other person will drop their defensiveness and there will be room for real dialogue.

While most of us prefer to hang out with those who share our views, interaction between voters with different opinions is essential because from social media or press we can acquire a distorted image of what “the others” are like, says Adelina Clapon. If we can get over this hurdle of perceiving others negatively, we can discover that we all want the same thing.

Amanda Ripley, an American journalist turned conflict expert, recently spoke in an interview with Panorama about how to relearn how to dialogue when political tensions get in the way. Ripley explained that an us-versus-them stance fuels destructive conflict and gives an opportunity for conspiracists or toxic influencers to use that context for their own interests. What we can do is refrain from demeaning others, treat them with curiosity and understanding, and remember that every situation always has gray areas, it’s not all black and white.

But, to do that, we need to understand how we got here and what are the vulnerabilities that brought an extremist candidate within a step of becoming the head of state.

Why do you feel poorer, even though you’re doing better

The elections that just passed were marked by anger and “anti-system” voting. One of the explanations for this situation that has been talked about in the public space is economic inequality, but Gabriel Bădescu doesn’t completely agree.

A professor at the Faculty of Political, Administrative and Communication Sciences at the Babeș-Bolyai University of Cluj and director of the Center for the Study of Democracy, he says statistics show that economic inequality has declined in recent years and that, paradoxically, the fact that we are doing better could be the explanation for the build-up of voters anger.

He also says that economically, the gap between the diaspora, where George Simion got most of the votes, and Romania has narrowed in recent years, and this has led to frustration and revolt. “Many of those who left, left when incomes were high there. In the meantime, the gap has narrowed or even reversed in some cases, for certain professions, and this generates frustration and could explain that part of the story”, Gabriel Bădescu adds.

Beyond economic grievances, there is a deeply human need behind the bitterness on either side, Adelina Clapon believes. The need to belong provides people with meaning and security, so in difficult situations we tend to go to those we perceive as “our own” and stay as close to them as possible.

She also explains that the pace of modern life has taken its toll on us – we are constantly bombarded with more and more information from all sides, and things are moving very fast, so we resort to mental simplifications to protect ourselves from complicated contexts and to cope with ambiguity. Basically, because they fail to cope with the pace and make sense of the world they live in, people become more rigid in their beliefs – this gives them a sense of control, security, and stability.

The feeling of being abandoned by the state

An MIT Sloan analysis shows that, surprisingly, even voters who call themselves “independent” tend to show some degree of partisanship, regardless of their political preferences. In practical terms, the researchers’ findings demonstrate that no matter how immune we consider ourselves to be when it comes to political issues, we are cognitively biased, consciously or unconsciously, towards one side or the other. At the same time, voters are more likely to believe information that confirms their beliefs during election time than outside it. 

Gabriel Bădescu also says that rigid thinking brings us closer to ideological extremes, whether on the right, or the left. The psychological mechanisms that fuel extremism of any kind are the same. Especially when there are highly effective ways of spreading them.

Social platforms have caused the anger that the electorate feels to spread like wildfire in posts that have fueled polarization. In recent years, more and more Romanians have begun to feel abandoned by the state, that they are on their own in Romania, and this perceived social abandonment has led to a feeling of alienation, also fueled by the online environment.

We’ve each retreated into digital bubbles that confirm our opinions and have become less and less open to listening to those who disagree with us. A Gallup study from 2024 shows that globally, 1 in 5 people feel lonely frequently, and those who feel lonely are 30 to 36% more likely to experience negative emotions such as sadness, worry or stress than people who only feel lonely only occasionally.

When you feel on your own, you become more susceptible to the ideas of extremist leaders. Why is that?

The heroic people and the strong belief in the myth of the savior

The perception that we are being abandoned by the state means that the unwritten contract that citizens have with the country in which they live is in jeopardy. The unwritten social contract on which we elect our leaders is that we expect them to treat us fairly, equally, to support us when we need it, and to be “on the side of the people”. Eroding this perception and replacing it with one in which the state abandons its people creates frustrations and a fertile ground on which clever politicians can plant extremist ideas and play the role of savior, as George Simion and Călin Georgescu have tried to do.

Adelina Clapon explains the public acceptance of the savior myth in Romania through the problem of learned helplessness.

“We learn right from our schooldays what a heroic, wonderful, and powerful nation we are, but we have not been able to reach our potential because of evil neighbors, oppressors and so on. This sugar-coated history shapes our perceptions of ourselves as individuals and of ourselves as a nation from the time we are young. And then we end up looking for easy solutions. There’s this myth of the savior father, which is very popular with Romanians. In our culture, we very often look for a paternal leader, who tides up, sweeps enemies, and those who wish to harm us. It is also a psychological legacy that comes from Communism”, says the psychologist.

A vulnerability for Romania

Gabriel Bădescu also says Romania stands out among other countries. In the literature that has analyzed the prejudices of nations and the ideological traps into which they fall into, there is also the perception of one’s own people. In Europe as a whole, Romania has one of the highest levels of perceived superiority of its own culture over others (around 60%), while other countries have levels of around half of that.

“It’s an aspect that sends us to social psychology and that we associate with uncritical acceptance of things”, the researcher points out. In other words, because we are under the impression that Romanians are superior to others, it is easier for us to accept when politicians attribute supposed “superpowers” to today’s Romanians and their ancestors, without asking ourselves whether the so-called monumental achievements and idealizations are real.

In terms of the electorate and voting habits, Bădescu says there is a growing global tendency towards emotional voting, but post-communist countries like Romania are more vulnerable to conspiracies and the use of emotions to activate the masses. In countries with authoritarian regimes, people are more prone and vulnerable to misinformation and more readily adhere to conspiracy theories and outlandish ideas.

He also mentions the concept called generalized trust. Romania is among the countries with the lowest levels of trust in others, and that makes us more suspicious, less tolerant of minorities and other vulnerable groups, and less able to identify shady characters. When you give trust, you take a risk and learn from it, but Romanians rarely have the opportunity to learn from such experiences. A lack of tolerance also makes many people adhere to the anti-minority rhetoric from politicians, adds Bădescu to the overall picture of how Romanians relate to each other.

The powerful role of pluralism

Gabriel Bădescu believes that, on top of all the vulnerabilities of the Romanian electorate, social polarization also contributed to the decreasing weight of journalism and the increasing role of social networks, which have led to the formation of digital bubbles in which we have taken refuge. In addition, the researcher says that people have lost the exercise of dialoguing with others, as they are increasingly in contact only with people who have similar opinions to their own. In this way, we end up perceiving others as ridiculous or absurd, which leads to the loss of centered or more flexible political positions.

Bădescu also says that, paradoxically, in the 1990s the political scene was much more diverse, and the fact that there are now a few big parties dominating the landscape has reduced pluralism. We have ended up with a paucity of interesting political ideas and candidates, even though it is precisely this pluralism that could help to ameliorate the political polarization.

The boat we have to guide in the troubled social and political waters of the coming years is not an easy one to steer. While responsibility is shared, and while we like to believe that it is only “the others” who are to blame and that they have to sort things out, the reality is that a joint effort is needed. We can only move forward together, so it’s up to all of us to put down our swords and mental shields and start talking genuinely with each other. If we fail to build the bridges that unite us, at the next elections we will find ourselves back to sharpening our axes, ready to wipe out every trace of humanity.

The antidote to the polarization and loneliness we feel now, though we may not be aware of it, is to take a step towards those we consider “others” and remember what unites us, not what divides us. No matter how different others may seem to us, no matter how much we believe that we are the superior ones and others’ opinion is wrong, at the end of the day we all return to a “home” built on the same basic human needs – safety, belonging and a life lived with meaning –, whatever form they take for each of us.