Political Polarization Test (PPT)

Tribalism is the instinct to prioritize loyalty to your political group over reason or fairness, often turning politics into a team sport. It’s that gut-level pull to stick with “your people,” even when their ideas don’t hold up under scrutiny. This can show up as cheering for a flawed policy just because it’s your side’s or shunning friends who vote differently. It strains relationships, blinds you to your team’s flaws, and makes compromise feel like treason. Mason’s research highlights how this tribal vibe has roots in social identity—like sports fandom gone rogue—where winning matters more than what’s right, and the other side becomes the enemy, not just a rival.

Ideological Rigidity reflects an unwillingness to question or adapt your beliefs, even when faced with new evidence. It’s the brick wall of political thinking—solid, but sometimes brittle. You might dig in because your views feel like part of who you are, not just opinions. Think of it as refusing a policy that works because it’s from “them” or dismissing data that doesn’t fit your narrative. Mason ties this to how our political identities get locked in early, making flexibility rare. It’s less about reason and more about pride—debate becomes pointless when you’re already certain, and bending feels like breaking.

Intolerance of Dissent measures how you handle disagreement—whether you spar with ideas or shut them down. It’s the difference between enjoying a good argument and unfollowing someone for daring to differ. High scores mean you see dissent as a personal attack, maybe even questioning someone’s morals over their politics. Low scores show you can stomach—or even seek out—opposing views, like listening to that podcast you hate just to get it. Mason’s work suggests this intolerance grows when politics fuses with identity; disagreement isn’t just intellectual, it’s emotional, pushing you to silence the noise rather than wrestle with it.

Distrust in Institutions shows how much faith you have in systems like media, science, or government—or if you see them as tools of the enemy when they don’t align with you. It’s that nagging feeling the news is fake unless it’s your flavor, or that science is bunk when it contradicts your gut. High scores mean you’re skeptical of elections you lose or assume experts are shills if they disagree. Mason notes this distrust spikes as polarization deepens—when “your side” isn’t in charge, institutions feel rigged. It’s less about evidence and more about allegiance, turning neutral systems into battlegrounds.

Overall Polarization measures your overall degree of political polarization. It’s the big-picture view, averaging out how tribal, rigid, intolerant, and distrustful you lean. A low score paints you as a rare bird—open, flexible, and trusting even in a divided world. A high score means you’re bunkered down, seeing politics as a zero-sum game where your side’s survival trumps all. Mason’s lens shows this as the endgame of identity-driven politics: not just disagreement, but a chasm where the other side—and the systems around them—feels alien, hostile, and unworthy of trust.