Hurt Feelings and Blocked Complexity in American Politics: Interpersonal Wounds Under Political Polarization and Social Distance
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Methods
3.1. Study Size
3.2. Setting
3.3. Participants
3.4. Quantitative Variables and Measurement
4. Results
5. Discussion
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Abbass, A., Town, J., & Driessen, E. (2012). Intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy: A systematic review and metaanalysis of outcome research. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 20(2), 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abe, J. A. A. (2022). Cognitive-Affective Styles of Biden and Trump Supporters: An Automated Text Analysis Study. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 19485506221082737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahn, L. H., Yee, S. E., Dixon, K. M., Kase, C. A., Sharma, R., & Hill, C. E. (2021). Feeling offended by clients: The experiences of doctoral student therapists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(2), 125–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkoby, A., Pliskin, R., Halperin, E., & Levit-Binnun, N. (2019). An eight-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) workshop increases regulatory choice flexibility. Emotion, 19(4), 593–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker-Brown, G., Ballard, E. J., Bluck, S., de Vries, B., Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. (1992). The conceptual/integrative complexity scoring manual. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 400–418). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Balinhas, D. (2023). Bringing critical social psychology to the study of political polarization. Social Personality Psychology Compass, 17(1), 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogardus, E. S. (1932). Social distance scale. Sociology and Social Research, 17, 265–271. [Google Scholar]
- Bogardus, E. S. (1959). Social distance. Antioch Press. [Google Scholar]
- Burleson, B. R., & Caplan, S. E. (1998). Cognitive complexity. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 230–286). Hampton Press. [Google Scholar]
- Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2019). Personality: Theory and research (14th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
- Condon, B. B. (2010). The lived experience of feeling misunderstood. Nursing Science Quarterly, 23(2), 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conway, L. G., III, Conway, K. R., Gornick, L. J., & Houck, S. C. (2014). Automated integrative complexity. Political Psychology, 35(5), 603–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conway, L. G., III, Conway, K. R., & Houck, S. C. (2020). Validating Automated Integrative Complexity: Natural language processing and the Donald Trump test. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 8, 504–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conway, L. G., III, Gornick, L. J., Houck, S., Towgood, K. H., & Conway, K. R. (2016). The hidden implications of radical group rhetoric: Integrative complexity and terrorism. In A. Smith (Ed.), The relationship between rhetoric and terrorist violence (pp. 71–81). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Conway, L. G., III, Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (2001). Integrative complexity and political decisions that led to war and peace. In D. J. Christie, R. V. Wagner, & D. D. N. Winter (Eds.), Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century (pp. 66–75). Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
- Conway, L. G., III, Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (2018). Integrative complexity in politics. In A. Mintz, & L. G. Terris (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of behavioral political science (pp. 153–173). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Conway, L. G., III, & Zubrod, A. (2022). Are U.S. Presidents becoming less rhetorically complex? Evaluating the integrative complexity of Joe Biden and Donald Trump in historical context. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41(5), 613–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davanloo, H. (1987). Unconscious therapeutic alliance. In P. Buirski (Ed.), Frontiers of dynamic psychotherapy (pp. 64–88). Brunner Meisel. [Google Scholar]
- Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finkel, E. J., Bail, C. A., Cikara, M., Ditto, P. H., Iyengar, S., Klar, S., Mason, L., McGrath, M. C., Nyhan, B., Rand, D. G., Skitka, L. J., Tucker, J. A., Van Bavel, J. J., Wang, C. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2020). Political sectarianism in America. Science, 370(6516), 533–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freyd, M. (1923). The graphic rating scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 14, 83–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaillard, L. M., Shattell, M. M., & Thomas, S. P. (2009). Mental health patients’ experiences of being misunderstood. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 15, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gervais, M. M., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2017). On the deep structure of social affect: Attitudes, emotions, sentiments, and the case of “contempt”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Green, C. (2023). Misunderstood. In Social Justice Case Studies (pp. 53–58). Emerald Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar]
- Grubbs, J. B., Warmke, B., Tosi, J., & James, A. S. (2020). Moral grandstanding in political polarization: A multi-study consideration. Journal of Research in Personality, 88, 104009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heck, E. J., & Davis, C. S. (1973). Differential expression of empathy in a counseling analogue. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20(2), 101–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heller, G., Manuguerra, M., & Chow, R. (2016). How to analyze the Visual Analogue Scale: Myths, truths and clinical relevance. Scandinavian Journal of Pain, 13(1), 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houck, S. C., Conway, L. G., III, & Gornick, L. J. (2014). Automated integrative complexity: Current challenges and future directions. Political Psychology, 35, 647–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansson, R., Town, J. M., & Abbass, A. (2014). Davanloo’s intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy in a tertiary psychotherapy service: Overall effectiveness and association between unlocking the unconscious and outcome. PeerJ, 2, e548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, P., & Arnold, A. (2024). Reluctance to discuss controversial issues on campus: Raw numbers from the 2023 campus expression survey. Heterodox Academy. [Google Scholar]
- Kam, C. (2023). Conscious and unconscious interpersonal complexity in the narrative enneagram participants [Doctoral dissertation, Saint Paul University]. [Google Scholar]
- Kam, C. (2024). Enhancing enneagram therapy with contemporary research on the conscious and unconscious mind. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 58, 711–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kam, C., & Bellehumeur, C. R. (2021). Exploring rational and non-rational dimensions of interpersonal complexity. Journal of Adult Development, 28, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kam, C., & Bellehumeur, C. R. (2024). Countering political polarization through conscious and unconscious integrative complexity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 46(6), 436–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kam, C., & Vriend Fluit, D. (2023). Combining the enneagram and narrative therapy for adult ego development. Current Psychology, 42(1), 406–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 865–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kekkonen, A., Suuronen, A., Kawecki, D., & Strandberg, K. (2022). Puzzles in affective polarization research: Party attitudes, partisan social distance, and multiple party identification. Frontiers in Political Science, 4, 920567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwint, J. (2024). Why do women feel unheard and dismissed by health professionals? Nursing Times, 120, 5. [Google Scholar]
- Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1225–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lesage, F.-X., Berjot, S., & Deschamps, F. (2012). Clinical stress assessment using a visual analogue scale. Occupational Medicine, 62(8), 600–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- May, E. R., & Zekilow, P. D. (Eds.). (1997). The Kennedy tapes: Inside the White House during the Cuban missile crisis. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
- McCormack, H. M., de L. Horne, D. J., & Sheather, S. (1988). Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: A critical review. Psychological Medicine, 18(4), 1007–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parrillo, V. N., & Donoghue, C. (2013). The national social distance study: Ten years later. Sociological Forum, 28(3), 597–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poggi, I., & D’Errico, F. (2018). Feeling offended: A blow to our image and our social relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruzicka, A. (2013). Considering the influences of the physician-patient relationship on the patient’s quality of life: An interpretive phenomenological analysis of the experience of being dismissed by one’s physician among women with autoimmune diseases (Order No. 3589680). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; Publicly Available Content Database. (1430475143). Available online: http://adams.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/considering-influences-physician-patient/docview/1430475143/se-2 (accessed on 24 July 2025).
- Sommer, J., Iyican, S., & Babcock, J. (2016). The relation between contempt, anger, and intimate partner violence: A dyadic approach. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(15), 3059–3079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suedfeld, P. (2010). The cognitive processing of politics and politicians: Archival studies of conceptual and integrative complexity. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1669–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (Eds.). (1991). Psychology and social policy. Plenum Press. [Google Scholar]
- Sung, Y. T., & Wu, J. S. (2018). The visual analogue scale for rating, ranking and paired-comparison (VAS-RRP): A new technique for psychological measurement. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1694–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tetlock, P. E., Armor, D., & Peterson, R. S. (1994). The slavery debate in antebellum America: Cognitive style, value conflict, and the limits of compromise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Jamovi Project. (2025). Jamovi (Version 2.6.26) [Computer software]. Available online: https://www.jamovi.org (accessed on 24 July 2025).
- Town, J. M., Abbass, A., & Bernier, D. (2013). Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Davanloo’s intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy: Does unlocking the unconscious make a difference? American Journal of Psychotherapy, 67(1), 89–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tyler, M., & Iyengar, S. (2024). Testing the robustness of the ANES feeling thermometer indicators of affective polarization. American Political Science Review, 118(3), 1570–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vangelisti, A. L. (2001). Making sense of hurtful interactions in close relationships: When hurt feelings create distance. In V. Manusov, & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Attribution, communication behavior, and close relationships (pp. 38–58). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Vangelisti, A. L., & Redlick, M. (2017). Hurt feelings. In J. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Foundations for couples’ therapy: Research for the real world (pp. 186–196). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Osch, Y., Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2017). The self and others in the experience of pride. Cognition and Emotion, 32(2), 404–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallace, M. D., & Suedfeld, P. (1988). Leadership performance in crisis: The longevity-complexity link. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 439–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wark, C., & Galliher, J. F. (2007). Emory Bogardus and the origins of the social distance Scale. The American Sociologist, 38, 383–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waytz, A., Young, L. L., & Ginges, J. (2014). Motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. hate drives intractable conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(44), 15687–15692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wewers, M. E., & Lowe, N. K. (1990). A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Research in Nursing & Health, 13(4), 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeung, A. W. K., & Wong, N. S. M. (2019). The historical roots of visual analog scale in psychology as revealed by reference publication year spectroscopy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variable | Democrats (n = 100) | Republicans (n = 103) | t | df | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hurt | 61.3 | 36.8 | 5.72 | 201 | <.001 |
Misunderstood | 69.6 | 55.0 | 3.82 | 201 | <.001 |
Dismissed | 74.1 | 55.3 | 4.63 | 198 | <.001 |
Offended | 61.7 | 45.1 | 3.59 | 200 | <.001 |
Looked down upon | 66.9 | 50.5 | 3.62 | 201 | <.001 |
Affective polarization (AP) | 55.7 | 47.1 | 2.18 | 201 | <.05 |
Social distance (SD) | 3.10 | 2.83 | ns | — | — |
Integrative complexity (IC) | 2.27 | 2.69 | −2.25 | 201 | <.05 |
Variables | AP | SD | Hurt | Misunderstood | Dismissed | Offended | Looked Down Upon | IC | Age |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AP | - | ||||||||
SD | .304 *** | - | |||||||
Hurt | .435 *** | .234 *** | - | ||||||
Misunderstood | .407 *** | .276 *** | .576 *** | - | |||||
Dismissed | .499 *** | .278 *** | .612 *** | .717 *** | - | ||||
Offended | .475 *** | .296 *** | .727 *** | .637 *** | .67 *** | - | |||
Looked Down Upon | .510 *** | .283 *** | .617 *** | .686 *** | .771 *** | .714 *** | - | ||
IC | −.066 | −.002 | −.159 * | −.093 | −.12 | −.144 * | −.204 ** | - | |
Age | .230 ** | .207 ** | 0.155 * | 0.148 * | 0.182 * | .203 * | .122 | .013 | - |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kam, C. Hurt Feelings and Blocked Complexity in American Politics: Interpersonal Wounds Under Political Polarization and Social Distance. Behav. Sci. 2025, 15, 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15081103
Kam C. Hurt Feelings and Blocked Complexity in American Politics: Interpersonal Wounds Under Political Polarization and Social Distance. Behavioral Sciences. 2025; 15(8):1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15081103
Chicago/Turabian StyleKam, Chris. 2025. "Hurt Feelings and Blocked Complexity in American Politics: Interpersonal Wounds Under Political Polarization and Social Distance" Behavioral Sciences 15, no. 8: 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15081103
APA StyleKam, C. (2025). Hurt Feelings and Blocked Complexity in American Politics: Interpersonal Wounds Under Political Polarization and Social Distance. Behavioral Sciences, 15(8), 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15081103