An Article by Anna Keyter, Chartered and Research Psychologist | Photo from LOS ANGELES, CALF. — MARCH 6, 2025: Supporters and protesters gather for Turning Point USA’s “The American Comeback Tour” with Charlie Kirk on the campus of California State University, Northridge.

Introduction

Global events, especially moments of crisis and upheaval, profoundly impact individuals’ mental health by provoking feelings of fear, anxiety, and uncertainty. These fear reactions can contribute to heightened division and polarisation within society. I investigate this phenomenon from a psychological perspective, understanding how these events influence perception, belief systems, and social behaviour as it relates to growing societal divides. It can also contribute to vicarious trauma.

Background

Recent events have cast a spotlight on growing divides across societies worldwide, with tensions erupting into public demonstrations and violent acts. On 10 September 2025, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, sparking intense discussions about ideological conflicts (BBC News, 2025a; The New York Times, 2025).

On 13 September 2025, the “Unite the Kingdom” rally in London, organised by activist Tommy Robinson, attracted an estimated 110,000 to 150,000 participants. The event resulted in clashes with police and counter-protesters, which caused injuries to 26 officers (BBC News, 2025b; The Guardian, 2025a).

These incidents, alongside the September 2024 attempted assassination of Donald Trump and the emotionally heightened atmosphere in politics in the UK, reflect a broader trend of societal polarisation (The Guardian, 2025b; Murdermap, 2025).

This article explores, in a neutral manner, why people are adopting extreme positions, what fears are driving these divisions, how labels like “left” and “right” exacerbate the split, and how individuals can better listen to one another. Using psychological research, I am to explain these dynamics, avoiding bias towards any specific perspective.

The Nature of Polarisation: A Simple Explanation

Polarisation occurs when people’s beliefs and emotions pull them into opposing groups, often viewing the world as “us versus them.” This isn’t just about disagreeing—it’s about feelings and group loyalty making disagreements feel personal and intense (Iyengar et al., 2019).

Psychologically, this involves a process called splitting, where people simplify the world into good versus bad, such as seeing the Kirk shooting as either a perceived fear of an attack on free speech or a reaction to perceived harmful rhetoric (Frontiers, 2023a; The New York Times, 2025).

This divide grows due to how our brains process information and how we connect with others. For instance, we tend to stick with ideas that feel familiar, and social media worsens this by showing us more of what we already agree with, creating echo chambers—spaces where only similar opinions are heard (Princeton University, 2021).

Events like the London rally, with its focus on immigration, strengthen these group bonds by emphasising shared concerns, making it harder to see other perspectives (Al Jazeera, 2025).

How “Left” and “Right” Labels Fuel Division and Fear

The terms “left” and “right” are simple labels for political beliefs, but they can worsen divisions by turning complex ideas into oversimplified categories. Originating from seating arrangements during the French Revolution, these labels now carry strong emotions, making people feel loyal to one side and wary of the other (Mason, 2022).

This relates to social identity theory, which suggests people feel better about themselves by identifying with a group, like “left” or “right,” and sometimes look down on those outside their group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).These labels create affective polarisation, where people don’t just disagree on issues but actively dislike or distrust the other side (Iyengar et al., 2019).

For example, after the Kirk shooting, some who identify with the “right” saw it as an attack on their values, while some on the “left” viewed it as a response to divisive speech, leaving little room for compromise (BBC News, 2025a). At the London rally, “right-wing” marchers and “anti-fascist” counter-protesters were quickly labelled, turning a debate about immigration into a clash of identities (The Guardian, 2025a).

These labels lead people to assume they know what others think, reducing their willingness to talk or listen (Fiske & Taylor, 2013). Social media adds to this by tagging posts with these terms, making common ground harder to find (Princeton University, 2021).

Why Are People Adopting Extreme Positions?

People are leaning towards extreme views due to how our minds and social environments interact. One reason is tribalism, a natural human tendency to stick with groups that feel safe and familiar, like family or friends, while being cautious of outsiders (van Prooijen et al., 2015).

Today, this appears as loyalty to political or ideological groups, such as those at the London rally who bonded over shared concerns about immigration (BBC News, 2025b).

Life’s uncertainties—like economic challenges, cultural shifts, or global events—also push people towards strong beliefs to feel more in control (Carnegie Endowment, 2023). For instance, concerns about jobs or community identity can draw people to extreme views that promise clear answers, as seen in the London rally’s focus on national identity (The Guardian, 2025a).

Our brains also contribute through cognitive biases, which are mental shortcuts that can lead to errors in thinking:

• Confirmation bias means we focus on information that supports what we already believe and ignore what doesn’t. For example, someone may only read news that aligns with their view of the Kirk shooting, overlooking other perspectives (Nature, 2023).
• Illusory truth effect is when hearing something repeatedly makes it feel true, even if it’s not. If people keep seeing posts about immigration threats, they’re more likely to believe them, even without evidence (Pew Research Center, 2014).

These biases are amplified online, where platforms show us more of what we like, pushing moderate views towards extremes (Princeton University, 2021). At events like the London rally, group discussions can lead to group polarisation, where talking with like-minded people makes beliefs stronger, turning concerns into firm stances (Al Jazeera, 2025).

What Are People Afraid Of?

Fear is a major reason people take sides. Our brains are wired to spot danger, a survival trait that makes us protective of our group when we feel threatened (Council on Foreign Relations, 2019). Today, these threats can involve losing cultural identity, financial stability, or personal safety (Frontiers, 2024). For example:
At the London rally, some participants feared immigration would change their communities, while counter-protesters worried about rising intolerance (BBC News, 2025b).

After the Kirk shooting, some feared growing ideological violence, while others worried about losing their right to speak freely (The New York Times, 2025).
These fears make people see neutral events as dangerous, a reaction called perceived threat, which makes them less open to other viewpoints (Bilewicz et al., 2020). Very strong language, like that heard at rallies or online, can worsen this by making others seem less human (a process of dehumanisation), reducing empathy and making fear feel justified (United Nations, n.d.).

Why Are People Choosing Sides?

People pick sides because they crave belonging and meaning, especially when life feels uncertain. Social identity theory explains that being part of a group—like those identifying with “left” or “right”—gives a sense of purpose and support (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This is why people at the London rally or reacting to the Kirk shooting align with groups that share their views or frustrations (Al Jazeera, 2025; Wikipedia, 2025).

Emotions like anger or fear also pull people to groups that validate those feelings. For example, feeling upset about social changes could draw someone to a rally that voices those concerns (The Guardian, 2025a). This can lead to reciprocal radicalisation, where opposing groups push each other to more extreme positions, as seen in clashes between rally-goers and counter-protesters (The Guardian, 2025a).

The Mental Health Impact: Why Division Hurts

Polarisation affects mental health by creating stress and disconnection. Exposure to divisive events or strong rhetoric, like that surrounding the Kirk shooting or London rally, can increase anxiety, depression, and symptoms similar to post-traumatic stress, even for those only hearing about it through news (Dubow et al., 2012; PMC, 2020).

This happens because constant worry about conflict keeps the body’s stress response on high alert, leading to exhaustion (Journal of Democracy, 2021).In therapy, people report political anxiety, where fears about society’s direction disrupt sleep, relationships, and overall well-being (American Psychological Association, 2024).

Division also erodes trust, making people feel isolated or unsafe, especially if they feel targeted by harsh words or actions (Northwestern University, 2023). This can create a cycle where fear and isolation worsen divisions (PMC, 2012).

How Can People Listen and Hear Each Other?

To bridge these divides, people can use practical, research-backed strategies to understand others better:

• Listen Actively: Focus on understanding what someone says without planning a response. Repeating back what you hear, like “It sounds like you’re concerned about change,” builds trust (Therapy Group of DC, 2025).
• Avoid Labels: Instead of calling someone “left” or “right,” ask about their specific concerns. Questions like “What matters most to you about this?” encourage real conversation (Greater Good, n.d.).
• Meet Different People: Spending time with those who think differently, such as in community groups, reduces prejudice. This is called contact theory and works best in friendly, equal settings (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).
• Stay Calm: Use simple techniques like taking deep breaths to stay relaxed during tough talks, which helps keep things respectful (American Psychological Association, 2024).
• Find Shared Goals: Look for things everyone cares about, like safety or family, to connect despite differences (Frontiers, 2023b).
• Diversify Your Media: Read or watch news from varied sources to challenge your own views and avoid getting stuck in one perspective (Princeton University, 2021).

Therapy can help by teaching mentalisation, which means understanding someone else’s thoughts and feelings, making it easier to see their side (Bilewicz et al., 2020). Community efforts, like discussion groups, also create safe spaces for people to share and listen (PMC, 2013).

Moving Forward: Building Understanding

The divisions seen in events like the Kirk shooting and the London rally stem from natural human reactions to fear, uncertainty, and the need to belong (BBC News, 2025a; The Guardian, 2025a). Labels like “left” and “right” make these divides worse by simplifying complex issues, but people can counteract this by listening carefully and seeking common ground. By understanding these psychological patterns and practising empathy, individuals can help reduce division and its mental health impacts, fostering stronger communities (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).

Do you face existential fear? Do you know someone fearful of current events? If you believe that one of your loved ones or you has been affected by global events, please feel free to contact us by completing the contact form below. One of our psychotherapists will contact you as soon as possible.

References

• Al Jazeera. (2025, September 13). Clashes in London as 110,000 join far-right rally against immigration. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/13/over-100000-attend-london-rally-led-by-far-right-activist-tommy-robinson
• American Psychological Association. (2024, October 27). Election 2024: 12 science-backed must-reads to help soothe anxiety. https://www.apa.org/topics/politics/election-stress-resources
• BBC News. (2025a, September 13). Charlie Kirk’s widow gives tearful address after shooting. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c206zm81z4gt
• BBC News. (2025b, September 14). Police hurt during Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom rally in London. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwydezxl0xlo
• Bilewicz, M., Soral, W., Marchlewska, M., & Winiewski, M. (2020). Hate speech epidemic: The dynamic effects of derogatory language on intergroup relations and political radicalisation. Political Psychology, 41(S1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12670
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (2023, September). Polarisation, democracy, and political violence in the United States: What the research says. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/09/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-the-united-states-what-the-research-says
• Council on Foreign Relations. (2019, June 7). Hate speech on social media: Global comparisons. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons
• Dubow, E. F., Huesmann, L. R., Fabes, R. A., Boxer, P., Dykas, M., & Hastings, P. D. (2012). Political violence, psychological distress, and perceived health: A longitudinal investigation in the Palestinian Authority. PMC, Article PMC3275891. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3275891/
• Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.Frontiers. (2023a, May 1). Exposure to continuous political violence: Rational and experiential thinking styles, coping styles and post traumatic stress symptoms. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1113608/full
• Frontiers. (2023b, August 14). Depression, anxiety and coping strategies among Palestinian university students during political violence: A cross sectional study. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1436672/full
• Greater Good. (n.d.). What’s driving political violence in America? https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/whats_driving_political_violence_in_america
• Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarisation in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
• Journal of Democracy. (2021, October). The rise of political violence in the United States. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-rise-of-political-violence-in-the-united-states/
• Mason, L. (2022). Radical American partisanship: Mapping violent hostility, its causes, and the consequences for democracy. University of Chicago Press.Murdermap. (2025, September 13). Homicide victims in London in 2025. https://www.murdermap.co.uk/victims/murders-london-2025-total-how-many/
• Nature. (2023, March 12). Exposure to hate speech deteriorates neurocognitive mechanisms of the ability to understand others’ pain. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31146-1
• Northwestern University. (2023). The political consequences of poor mental health. https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2023/the-political-consequences-of-poor-mental-health.html
• Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
• Pew Research Center. (2014, June 12). Political polarisation in the American public. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
• PMC. (2012). Political violence, collective functioning and health: A review of the literature. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3801099/
• PMC. (2013). Understanding the impact of political violence in childhood: A theoretical review using a social identity approach. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3801099/
• PMC. (2020). Prevalence and psychological effects of hateful speech in online college communities. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7500692/
• Princeton University. (2021, December 9). Political polarisation and its echo chambers: Surprising new, cross-disciplinary perspectives. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2021/12/09/political-polarization-and-its-echo-chambers-surprising-new-cross-disciplinary
• 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). Brooks/Cole.
• The Guardian. (2025a, September 13). Far-right London rally sees record crowds and violent clashes with police. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/13/unite-the-kingdom-far-right-rally-london-tommy-robinson-police-assaulted
• The Guardian. (2025b, September 12). Judge cuts off opening statement of man defending himself in court over Trump assassination attempt. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/12/trump-assasination-attempt-trial
• The New York Times. (2025, September 12). Charlie Kirk shooting updates: Family member alerted officials to suspect. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/12/us/charlie-kirk-news-suspect
• United Nations. (n.d.). Hate speech and real harm. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-and-real-harm
• van Prooijen, J.-W., Krouwel, A. P. M., & Polako, T. (2015). Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614567356
• Wikipedia. (2025, September 16). Killing of Charlie Kirk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk