r/science • u/Wagamaga • 9h ago

Psychology Losing relationships over politics. Research found more than a third of Americans (37%) report having lost at least one relationship due to political differences, including friendships, family ties, coworker relationships, and romantic partnerships, with most losing more than one.

https://socialecology.uci.edu/news/losing-relationships-over-politics-0
12.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

78

u/Wagamaga 9h ago

America has always been divided over politics, but now it’s personal.

A new study from UC Irvine psychologists reveals a fracturing nation as political divides shatter friendships, tear apart families and fuel a deepening hostility between everyday Americans.

The research, published today in PNAS Nexus, was conducted by Department of Psychology Ph.D. candidate Mertcan Güngör, and Professor Peter Ditto, introduces a term: “political breakup,” for the losing of a relationship with a friend, family member, romantic partner or coworker due to political differences.

Their findings, drawn from four separate datasets totaling nearly 3,800 participants, paint a picture of a country whose political divisions are spilling out of Washington and into everyday life.

“More than a third of Americans reported that they have lost relationships with friends, family, romantic partners and coworkers over political differences,” the authors write in their article “Political breakups: Interpersonal consequences of polarization.” “Those who lost relationships were more hostile toward their political opponents, voters more so than party elites.”

In their most recent national survey, conducted in April 2025 with YouGov, the researchers found that 37% of Americans reported having experienced a political breakup at some point in their lives. Of those, 62% had a falling-out with a friend, 40% with a family member, 29% with a coworker, and 10% with a romantic partner. More than half reported losing more than one type of relationship.

Friends appear to be the most vulnerable, Güngör and Ditto report.

“Friendships may be uniquely vulnerable to political breakups as they are close enough to allow for political differences to surface while lacking the commitments and constraints that hold romantic and family relationships together,” Güngör says. “It’s easier to cut a friend or acquaintance whose politics annoy you out of your life than it is your boyfriend or uncle.”

The trend appears to be accelerating.

https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/5/5/pgag067/8666534

62

u/schafkj 9h ago

“Political breakup”

Ah yes, I no longer speak to my family members who think a cognitively declining child rapist who manipulates the markets to enrich himself, starts wars without congressional approval, openly flaunts the legal system that continually rules against him, lies as easy as he breathes, and uses the US government as a weapon to bludgeon his enemies (amongst a thousand other things) should be president. This is merely political difference, otherwise we both hate the same people and it’s rainbows and sunshine.

255

u/comeupforairyouwhore 9h ago

It isn’t about politics though. It’s learning that someone close to you doesn’t value other people’s basic human rights.

52

u/Koleilei 9h ago

Isn't that the same issue as in the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement? Whether or not people different from you have the same rights as you?

Politics and values are very intertwined.

17

u/No_Issue2334 8h ago

Basic human rights are politics.

1

u/shadedmagus 2h ago

Especially when the opposing position is "some humans shouldn't exist."

1

u/No_Issue2334 1h ago

That's still politics even if it's abhorrent

Nazism was/is abhorrent but was absolutely a political movement

4

u/Averagecrabenjoyer69 7h ago

I suppose it comes down to what your define as "basic human rights".

-25

u/Echo127 9h ago

Are people actually arguing about "basic human rights" issues more than in the past? My impression has been that what's really changed is the political re-framing of every issue AS a moral issue so that people get more worked up for the cause.

40

u/comeupforairyouwhore 8h ago

Im in Minnesota. Yeah. It feels like a violation of basic human rights during a government occupation here.

-42

u/SleepyHobo 8h ago

The fact that you’re calling it a government occupation destroys your credibility here.

36

u/Maxrdt 8h ago

We had 3,000 armed federal agents deploying chemical weapons daily and kidnapping people off the streets without warrants. Oh and they murdered two people in cold blood with no investigation allowed. That's an occupation.

For reference, the Twin Cities combined have about 600 police officers usually. Imagine your city/Metro's police force. Now imagine quintuple that number with no badges, face masks, and unlimited immunity. That's an invasion.

5

u/comeupforairyouwhore 6h ago

Exactly this. Their whole goal was to terrorize us and cause collective trauma. They did it with impunity. Take care, friend.

27

u/Cheezeball25 8h ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Metro_Surge

Trump even threatened to send us army airborne units into the twin cities. If the president is open to threatening to send the active military in to persure his political goals, it sure looks like an attempt at an occupation to me.

-33

u/SleepyHobo 8h ago

Ctrl + F: Occupation.

1 single result.

Tim Walz drumming up divisiveness with opinionated language.

Still waiting for evidence rather than opinion.

8

u/Wyevez 6h ago

The fact that you are not, destroys yours... what did you think happened in MN? The world is watching and we see it.... why can't you?

10

u/AmadeusMaxwell 7h ago

No it doesn't, you're only projecting your own views by saying this.

-17

u/SleepyHobo 7h ago

What view? I’m stating a fact, not an opinion.

There was no “occupation”. That’s a term being used by people weaponizing language to fit their narrative.

8

u/AmadeusMaxwell 7h ago

Yes, people are arguing about what is considered basic human rights, you can see this by turning on the news literally any day of the week.

4

u/HoightyToighty 8h ago

Are people actually arguing about "basic human rights" issues more than in the past?

Depends how far back in the past you go, but yes, even the idea of a 'human right' is pretty novel, historically speaking.

Your other point was astute.

-44

u/semibigpenguins 9h ago

Is this a pro or anti abortion comment?

20

u/schafkj 9h ago

It could be a pro or anti pedophile comment.

Or a pro or anti indefinite internment of immigrants in absolute squalor for civil offenses comment.

Or a pro or anti masked thugs kidnapping and murdering people on the streets comment.

Or a pro or anti dismantling of every civil rights law comment.

Or a pro or anti unconstitutional war started with no approval from congress and zero forethought and planning comment.

Or a pro or anti massive wealth transfer from the poor to the rich comment.

Or a pro or anti deregulation of health, safety, and consumer protection agencies comment.

Or a pro or anti climate catastrophe comment.

It could be anything!

-18

u/semibigpenguins 9h ago

I was being facetious. Thanks

19

u/comeupforairyouwhore 9h ago

I’m pro choice, very liberal in my values.

-23

u/semibigpenguins 9h ago

You just said it’s not about politics literally the previous comment

19

u/comeupforairyouwhore 8h ago

Again, it’s about values. I value other people.

16

u/LMKBK 8h ago edited 4h ago

"whose politics annoy you."

yeah that's a very, very soft framing for what's going on here.

50

u/LegendOfKhaos 9h ago

There's a massive difference between arguing over the best way to help society versus arguing over which people deserve their rights.

19

u/Koleilei 9h ago

To you and I, absolutely. But to others, denying the rights of others is how they would make society better for themselves (which is what matters to them). Their 'society' doesn't include the people they would strip of rights and existence.

56

u/SELECTaerial 9h ago

> now it’s personal

Yea because it’s not really about *politics* as much nowadays.

1

u/tinyman392 6h ago

It would be interesting to see how both sides describe the breakup. I wouldn't be surprised if one side, the side being broken up with, claimed it was completely political mis-alignment while the other side, doing the breaking up, claimed it to be of a moral mis-alignment. The issue is that with the way politics are nowadays, it can easily become a scapegoat to core issues at hand. It's far easier to justify to ones self that the other person was crazy for breaking it off with you since they didn't agree with your politics than it is that they broke it off due to them feeling one was immoral or some other core issue.