Mar 11, 2020 3 min read

With eight months to go until November’s presidential election, some voters are already tired of hearing about politics.

A recent survey from Cherry Digital, a consumer information company, indicated 21% of Pennsylvanians surveyed were already worn out from the constant political news cycle.

Dr. Justin Hackett, an associate professor of psychology at California University of Pennsylvania, said he can see why.

“There’s a lack of productive engagement between political viewpoints,” he said. “Twitter isn’t helping. That dialogue’s not productive.”

Social media, he said, has become a favored place by many for political dialogue.

He described a mindset based not on thinking or imagining other perspectives, but on solidifying the most familiar positions.

Back in August 2019, a Pew Research Center survey found 46% of U.S. social media users were already tired of political posts and discussions related to the presidential election. That survey also found that 68% of people found social media-based political discussions with someone who has a differing view was stressful and frustrating.

Hackett mentioned the tendency “to hop onto social media to get your supporters riled up.” But that, he said, “prevents bipartisan work.”

That tendency can create not only widespread animosity, but also widespread fatigue as voters are inundated with political messages and media coverage.

The Cherry Digital survey also found that 82% of Americans believe U.S. elections should have official campaign time periods because they last too long.

As to voter fatigue, the survey lists all but one state in double digits – Louisiana is noted with 9% expressing voter fatigue – and many states exceed 50%.

But talking politics – in person or on social media – doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon.

Hackett described the reverberations of political identities as stronger than he’s ever seen.

“In my lifetime, we’re at the peak of animosity,” said Hackett, who’s 38. “Think about how powerful our political affiliations have become … You think you can know a lot of (people’s) attitudes based on this one identification.”

It’s something he discusses in his political psychology classes, along with the broader concept of group identities. He said he and his students also talk about leadership – both “prototypical and non-prototypical.”

It’s in those classrooms, where thoughtful analysis can pervade a discussion, that some of the most constructive conversations occur.

“I have a lot of open dialogue in my classes,” he said. “I remind (students) that they can disagree, but they can’t be disrespectful to each other.”