Psychologist Simona Ștefan, an associate professor at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences at Babeș-Bolyai University (UBB) in Cluj-Napoca, explained on Reporter Medical TV some of the psychological mechanisms fueling these tensions and offered concrete advice on how to better navigate this emotionally charged period.
Polarization is a normal phenomenon — but amplified by context
“Polarization is natural in electoral contexts, especially when the stakes are high and the choices come down to two fundamental options. This was also the case with Brexit or the recent presidential elections in Romania,” says Simona Ștefan.
The situation worsens, however, when one of the camps is perceived as extremist — a perception often fed by the media or even by the rhetoric of political candidates. “When someone attacks your values — democracy, faith, tolerance, or tradition — you feel personally attacked. And the response inevitably becomes emotional.”
Personal choices, collective consequences
The psychologist draws attention to a frequently overlooked aspect: in such contexts, it’s not just your vote that’s on the line, but your very identity. “When a vote seems to threaten what you consider fundamental to your life, the reaction becomes visceral. It’s no longer just about ideas — it’s about who you are as a person,” she explains.
This emotional charge explains why arguments even erupt within families: “I’ve seen couples break up, siblings who no longer speak. It’s real — and unfortunately, it’s not just in Romania. The same has happened in the US and the UK.”
The online space: where voice becomes weapon
Much of this conflict spills over into the online space, where — the psychologist says — aggressive communication is fueled by subtle psychological mechanisms: “Posts generate reactions, comments get likes, and the conflict becomes addictive. It’s a cycle of validation and confrontation that can become compulsive.”
Her recommendation is to reflect on the intention behind each post or comment. “Am I venting? Informing? Provoking? Or just trying to hurt someone? If we want harmony, we need to avoid insults and personal attacks. You’re not going to convince anyone by calling them stupid.”
The tough choice between being right and keeping a relationship
In close relationships, political conflict can become a choice between two fundamental human needs: self-expression and connection. “We need to ask ourselves: is it worth sacrificing the relationship over a political opinion? Maybe it’s not about compromise, but about deciding what matters more to you at that moment,” says Simona Ștefan.
One solution: temporary distance or avoiding tense topics. “Agree to disagree” can be a lifesaving strategy for friendships or families that might otherwise fall apart.
Is education a shield against radicalization?
In the psychologist’s view, education plays a significant — but not exclusive — role. “The way you gather information, how you argue your points, how you express yourself — all of these are influenced by education. But there are people with various levels of education on both sides. It’s not just about diplomas, but about your willingness to listen and think critically.”
The media and its responsibility
Simona Ștefan also emphasizes that the media should take responsibility for reducing tensions: “Presenting the truth, providing context, and avoiding excessive polarization should be priorities. Unfortunately, the media often plays both sides: audience loyalty versus social responsibility.”
The takeaway?
Tensions during election periods can’t be completely avoided. But we can choose how we respond. We can choose what price we’re willing to pay for being “right.” And perhaps most importantly, we can choose to preserve our essential relationships, even when our opinions divide us.
“Between truth and the relationship, sometimes it’s worth choosing the latter,” concludes psychologist Simona Ștefan.