Polarizing language is a key mechanism through which intergroup boundaries are constructed and experienced, yet research has rarely specified how distinct linguistic strategies contribute to perceived polarization. This article develops and validates a coding instrument that conceptualizes polarizing language as a communicative process. Drawing on social identity, facework, and persuasion theories, we identify eight functionally distinct language strategies that intensify intergroup contrast or dampen counter-arguing. Across four studies, we link language use to audience perception and examine the generalizability of the framework. Study 1 applies the coding scheme to U.S. governors’ speeches. Study 2 examines audience perceptions of each strategy. Study 3 constructs a perception-weighted index integrating prevalence and perceived impact. Study 4 extends validation to congressional tweets, demonstrating that the categories are empirically distinguishable and applicable across communicative contexts using both manual and computational approaches. The approach advances the psychological measurement of polarizing discourse.
BiswasB.DeylamiS. (2019). Radicalizing female empowerment: Gender, agency, and affective appeals in Islamic State Propaganda. Small Wars and Insurgencies, 30(6-7), 1193–1213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2019.1649831
2.
BradacJ.BowersJ.CourtrightJ. (1979). Three language variables in communication research: Intensity, immediacy and diversity. Human Communication Research, 5(3), 257–269.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00639.x
3.
BrownP.LevinsonS. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In GoodyE. N. (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–311). Cambridge University Press.
4.
BrownP.LevinsonS. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
5.
DonohueW. A. (2011). The identity trap: The language of genocide. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(1), 13–29.https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X11425033
6.
DonohueW. A.HamiltonM. A. (2023). A framework for understanding polarizing language. In FahnestockJ.HarrisR. A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and persuasion (pp. 207–224). Routledge.
7.
GoffmanE. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Doubleday.
8.
HamiltonM. A. (1997). The phase interfaced omnistructure underlying the processing of persuasive messages. In BosterF. J.BarnettG. (Eds.), Progress in communication science (pp. 1–42). Ablex Publishing.
9.
HunterJ.E.DanesJ.E.CohenS.H. (2014). Mathematical models of attitude change:Volume 1.Academic Press.
10.
KleinE. (2020). Why we’re polarized. Simon & Schuster.
11.
LagerwerfL. (2007). Irony and sarcasm in advertisements: Effects of relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(10), 1702–1721.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.002
LaustenL. (2021). Candidate evaluations through the lens of adaptive followership psychology: How and why voters prefer leaders based on character traits. Advances in Political Psychology, 42(51), 109–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops2738
14.
LewinK. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics II: Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations, 1(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100201
15.
LewinK. (1953). Studies in group decision. In CartwrightD.ZanderA. (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (pp. 287–301). Row, Peterson & Co.
16.
MaassA.SalviC.ArcuriL.SeminG. R. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 981–993.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.981
17.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
18.
MoscoviciS.ZavalloniM. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027568
19.
MusolffA. (2017). Truths, lies and figurative scenarios: Metaphors at the heart of Brexit. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(5), 641–657.https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.16033.mus
20.
OetzelJ.Ting-ToomeyS.MasumotoT.YokochiY.PanX.TakaiJ.WilcoxR. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 235–258.https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750128061
21.
O'keefeD. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
22.
RoganR. G. (2010). Jihad against infidels and democracy: A frame analysis of jihadist ideology and jurisprudence for martyrdom and violent jihad. Communication Monographs, 77(3), 393–413.https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.495949
23.
SimchonA.GileadM. (2018). A psychologically informed approach to CLPsych shared task 2018. In Proceedings of the fifth workshop on computational linguistics and clinical psychology: From keyboard to clinic (pp. 113–118). Association for Computational Linguistics.
24.
SmithL. G. E.ThomasE. F.BliucA.-M.McGartyC. (2024). Polarization is the psychological foundation of collective engagement. Communications Psychology, 2(1), Article 41. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00089-2
25.
SmithT. S.HouwerJ. D.NosekB. A. (2012). Consider the source: Persuasion of implicit evaluations is moderated by source credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 193–205.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212472374
26.
SnyderM.Swann JrW. B. (1978). Behavioral confirmation in social interaction: From social perception to social reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(2), 148–162.https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(78)90021-5
27.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In M.J. Hatch 7 M. Schultz, organizational identity: A reader (pp. 56–65). Oxford University Press.
28.
WilsonS. R.AlemanC. G.LeathamG. B. (1998). Identity implications of influence goals: A revised analysis of face-threatening acts and application to seeking compliance with same-sex friends. Human Communication Research, 25(1), 64–96.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1998.tb00437.x
