MODERN PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDENTITY
Keywords:
political identity, political consciousness, social identity theory, system justification, moral foundations, discursive psychology, narrative
Abstract
Contemporary social and political psychology is undergoing a fundamental paradigmatic shift. Traditional conceptions of political consciousness as a rational and logical structure, grounded in explicit interests and clear ideological preferences, are being replaced by more complex models. These models take into account the influence of affective states, unconscious motivations, moral intuitions, and discursive practices. The global crisis of democratic institutions, the intensification of political polarization, the rise of populism, and the pervasive digitalization of the communicative sphere highlight the urgent need to reconsider the mechanisms of political identity formation. Under conditions of transitivity and uncertainty, political identity emerges not merely as a reflection of social status but as a dynamic instrument of psychological adaptation and existential security. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive theoretical analysis and systematization of leading psychological approaches to the study of political consciousness and identity. The research seeks to integrate cognitive, motivational, discursive, and narrative paradigms into a coherent conceptual framework capable of explaining contemporary phenomena of political behavior.
References
1. Васютинський В. О. Психологічні координати українського світу : монографія. Київ : Талком, 2024. 178 c.
2. Кухарук О. Ю. Теорія соціальної ідентичності та прогнозування соціальної поведінки: основні підходи. Наукові студії із соціальної та політичної психології : зб. наук. праць. 2021. Вип. 48 (51). С. 16–23.
3. Слюсаревський М. М. Динаміка уявлень українців про національні символи як відображення спротиву російській агресії. Insight: the psychological dimensions of society. 2025. № 13. С. 374–407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32999/2663-970X/2024-13-16.
4. Ткаченко Г. Психологічні особливості громадянської ідентичності студентської молоді. Вісник Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка. Психологія. 2025. Т. 1, № 21. С. 122–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/BPSY.2025.1(21).17.
5. Bakker B. N., Lelkes Y. Putting the affect into affective polarisation. Cognition and Emotion. 2024. Vol. 38, Issue 4. P. 418–436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2362366.
6. Clough P. T. The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social. Durham : Duke University Press, 2007. 328 p.
7. Cole J. C., Gillis A. J., van der Linden S. [et al.] Social Psychological Perspectives on Political Polarization: Insights and Implications for Climate Change. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2025. Vol. 20, No. 1. P. 3–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231186409.
8. Curry O. S. What’s Wrong with Moral Foundations Theory, and How to get Moral Psychology Right. Behavioral Scientist. 2019. URL: https://behavioralscientist.org/whats-wrong-with-moralfoundations-theory-and-how-to-get-moral-psychology-right/ (дата звернення: 22.11.2025).
9. Dvornyk M., Sliusarevskyi M. Digital well-being of Ukrainians experiencing full-scale war: A cross-sectional study. Scientific Studios on Social and Political Psychology. 2025. Vol. 31, No. 1. P. 16–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61727/sssppj/1.2025.16.
10. Erdoğan E., Uyan-Semerci P. Othering in politics: how affective polarization undermines democratic philia? Frontiers in Political Science. 2025. Vol. 7. Article 1553889. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1553889.
11. Finkel E. J., Bail C. A., Cikara M. et al. Political Sectarianism in America. Science. 2020. Vol. 370, Issue 6516. P. 533–536. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715.
12. Garzia D., Reiljan A., Ferreira da Silva F., Trechsel A. H. Affective Polarization. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.2293.
13. Graham J., Nosek B. A., Haidt J. et al. Liberals and conservatives rely on very similar sets of foundations when comparing moral violations. American Political Science Review. 2017. Vol. 111, Issue 4. P. 943–956. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000291.
14. Haslam S. A., Reicher S. D., Platow M. J. The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power. 2nd ed. London : Routledge, 2020. 288 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351108232.
15. Hunt N. Master Narratives. Applied Narrative Psychology. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2023. P. 42–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009245333.005.
16. Jia N., Fee L. Y. The influence of social media content on political identity with corruption perception as a moderator. Frontiers in Political Science. 2025. Vol. 7. Article ID 1659804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1659804.
17. Jost J. T., Langer M., Badaan V. et al. Ideology and the limits of self-interest: System justification motivation and conservative advantages in mass politics. Translational Issues in Psychological Science. 2017. Vol. 3, No. 3. P. e1–e26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000127.
18. Lau V. W., Tse D. C. K., Bligh M. C. et. Al. Not “My” crisis: Social identity and followers’ crisis responses to COVID-19. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 2022. Online ahead of print. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12316.
19. Lloyd N. New research reveals algorithms’ hidden political power. Northeastern Global News. 2025. November 27. URL: https://news.northeastern.edu/2025/11/27/social-media-politicalpolarization-research/ (дата звернення: 29.11.2025).
20. Lugtigheid C. E., van Stekelenburg J., Boutellier H. J. C. J. One of Us: Identity-Claims and Discursive Strategies of Dutch Party Leaders in Political Speech. Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 2025. Vol. 13, No. 1. P. 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.14837.
21. Mason L. Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2018. Vol. 82, Issue S1. P. 866–887. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy005.
22. Nordbrandt M. Affective polarization in the digital age: Testing the direction of the relationship between social media and users’ feelings for out-group parties. New Media & Society. 2021. P. 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211044393.
23. Potter J., Wetherell M. Potter and Wetherell in Discourse Analysis. Discourse Analyzer AI Toolkit. 2024. URL: https://discourseanalyzer.com/potter-and-wetherell-in-discourse-analysis/ (дата звернення: 22.11.2025).
24. Qin J., Du Q., Deng Y. et. al. How does short video use generate political identity? Intermediate mechanisms with evidence from China’s small-town youth. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023. Vol. 14. Article 1107273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1107273.
25. Silva C., Pedrero V., Barrientos J. et. al. Just-World Beliefs, System Justification, and Their Relationship with People’s Health-Related Well-Being: A Narrative Review. Behavioral Sciences. 2024. Vol. 14, No. 10. Article 941. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14100941.
26. Vaara E., Aranda A. M., Etchanchu H. Discursive Legitimation: An Integrative Theoretical Framework and Agenda for Future Research. Journal of Management. 2024. Vol. 50, No. 6. P. 2343–2373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241230511.
27. Zmigrod L. A psychology of ideology: unpacking the psychological structure of ideological thinking. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2022. Vol. 17, No. 4. P. 1072–1092. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211044140.
2. Кухарук О. Ю. Теорія соціальної ідентичності та прогнозування соціальної поведінки: основні підходи. Наукові студії із соціальної та політичної психології : зб. наук. праць. 2021. Вип. 48 (51). С. 16–23.
3. Слюсаревський М. М. Динаміка уявлень українців про національні символи як відображення спротиву російській агресії. Insight: the psychological dimensions of society. 2025. № 13. С. 374–407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32999/2663-970X/2024-13-16.
4. Ткаченко Г. Психологічні особливості громадянської ідентичності студентської молоді. Вісник Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка. Психологія. 2025. Т. 1, № 21. С. 122–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/BPSY.2025.1(21).17.
5. Bakker B. N., Lelkes Y. Putting the affect into affective polarisation. Cognition and Emotion. 2024. Vol. 38, Issue 4. P. 418–436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2362366.
6. Clough P. T. The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social. Durham : Duke University Press, 2007. 328 p.
7. Cole J. C., Gillis A. J., van der Linden S. [et al.] Social Psychological Perspectives on Political Polarization: Insights and Implications for Climate Change. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2025. Vol. 20, No. 1. P. 3–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231186409.
8. Curry O. S. What’s Wrong with Moral Foundations Theory, and How to get Moral Psychology Right. Behavioral Scientist. 2019. URL: https://behavioralscientist.org/whats-wrong-with-moralfoundations-theory-and-how-to-get-moral-psychology-right/ (дата звернення: 22.11.2025).
9. Dvornyk M., Sliusarevskyi M. Digital well-being of Ukrainians experiencing full-scale war: A cross-sectional study. Scientific Studios on Social and Political Psychology. 2025. Vol. 31, No. 1. P. 16–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61727/sssppj/1.2025.16.
10. Erdoğan E., Uyan-Semerci P. Othering in politics: how affective polarization undermines democratic philia? Frontiers in Political Science. 2025. Vol. 7. Article 1553889. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1553889.
11. Finkel E. J., Bail C. A., Cikara M. et al. Political Sectarianism in America. Science. 2020. Vol. 370, Issue 6516. P. 533–536. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715.
12. Garzia D., Reiljan A., Ferreira da Silva F., Trechsel A. H. Affective Polarization. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.2293.
13. Graham J., Nosek B. A., Haidt J. et al. Liberals and conservatives rely on very similar sets of foundations when comparing moral violations. American Political Science Review. 2017. Vol. 111, Issue 4. P. 943–956. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000291.
14. Haslam S. A., Reicher S. D., Platow M. J. The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power. 2nd ed. London : Routledge, 2020. 288 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351108232.
15. Hunt N. Master Narratives. Applied Narrative Psychology. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2023. P. 42–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009245333.005.
16. Jia N., Fee L. Y. The influence of social media content on political identity with corruption perception as a moderator. Frontiers in Political Science. 2025. Vol. 7. Article ID 1659804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1659804.
17. Jost J. T., Langer M., Badaan V. et al. Ideology and the limits of self-interest: System justification motivation and conservative advantages in mass politics. Translational Issues in Psychological Science. 2017. Vol. 3, No. 3. P. e1–e26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000127.
18. Lau V. W., Tse D. C. K., Bligh M. C. et. Al. Not “My” crisis: Social identity and followers’ crisis responses to COVID-19. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 2022. Online ahead of print. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12316.
19. Lloyd N. New research reveals algorithms’ hidden political power. Northeastern Global News. 2025. November 27. URL: https://news.northeastern.edu/2025/11/27/social-media-politicalpolarization-research/ (дата звернення: 29.11.2025).
20. Lugtigheid C. E., van Stekelenburg J., Boutellier H. J. C. J. One of Us: Identity-Claims and Discursive Strategies of Dutch Party Leaders in Political Speech. Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 2025. Vol. 13, No. 1. P. 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.14837.
21. Mason L. Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2018. Vol. 82, Issue S1. P. 866–887. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy005.
22. Nordbrandt M. Affective polarization in the digital age: Testing the direction of the relationship between social media and users’ feelings for out-group parties. New Media & Society. 2021. P. 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211044393.
23. Potter J., Wetherell M. Potter and Wetherell in Discourse Analysis. Discourse Analyzer AI Toolkit. 2024. URL: https://discourseanalyzer.com/potter-and-wetherell-in-discourse-analysis/ (дата звернення: 22.11.2025).
24. Qin J., Du Q., Deng Y. et. al. How does short video use generate political identity? Intermediate mechanisms with evidence from China’s small-town youth. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023. Vol. 14. Article 1107273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1107273.
25. Silva C., Pedrero V., Barrientos J. et. al. Just-World Beliefs, System Justification, and Their Relationship with People’s Health-Related Well-Being: A Narrative Review. Behavioral Sciences. 2024. Vol. 14, No. 10. Article 941. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14100941.
26. Vaara E., Aranda A. M., Etchanchu H. Discursive Legitimation: An Integrative Theoretical Framework and Agenda for Future Research. Journal of Management. 2024. Vol. 50, No. 6. P. 2343–2373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241230511.
27. Zmigrod L. A psychology of ideology: unpacking the psychological structure of ideological thinking. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2022. Vol. 17, No. 4. P. 1072–1092. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211044140.
Published
2026-03-18
How to Cite
Kersanov, O. V., & Kononenko, O. I. (2026). MODERN PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDENTITY. Psychology and Social Work, (1), 72-83. https://doi.org/10.32782/2707-0409.2026.1.7
Section
Статті
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
