Content deleted Content added
→See also: Removing DAB link |
added Category:Radicalization using HotCat |
||
| (23 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Tendency of a group to make more extreme decisions than the inclinations of its members}}
{{redirect|Polarization (psychology)|other uses|Polarization (disambiguation)#Social sciences}}
In [[social psychology]], '''group polarization''' refers to the tendency for a group to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members. These more extreme decisions are towards greater risk if individuals' initial tendencies are to be risky and towards greater caution if individuals' initial tendencies are to be cautious.<ref>{{cite book|last=Aronson|first=Elliot|title=Social Psychology|url=https://archive.org/details/Social_Psychology_7th_edition_by_Elliot_Aronson_Timothy_D._Wilson_R_M._Akert|year=2010|publisher=Prentice Hall|___location=Upper Saddle River, NJ|pages=[https://archive.org/details/Social_Psychology_7th_edition_by_Elliot_Aronson_Timothy_D._Wilson_R_M._Akert/page/n304 273]}}</ref> The phenomenon also holds that a group's [[attitude (psychology)|attitude]] toward a situation may change in the sense that the individuals' initial attitudes have strengthened and intensified after group discussion, a phenomenon known as '''attitude polarization'''.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Myers|first=D.G.|author2=H. Lamm|title=The polarizing effect of group discussion|journal=American Scientist|year=1975|volume=63|pages=297–303|pmid=1147368|issue=3|bibcode = 1975AmSci..63..297M }}</ref>
Line 4 ⟶ 6:
Group polarization is an important phenomenon in social psychology and is observable in many social contexts. For example, a group of women who hold moderately feminist views tend to demonstrate heightened pro-feminist beliefs following group discussion.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Myers|first1=D.G.|title=Discussion-induced attitude polarization.|journal=Human Relations|date=1975|volume=28|issue=8|pages=699–714|doi=10.1177/001872677502800802|s2cid=145480929}}</ref> Similarly, studies have shown that after deliberating together, mock jury members often decided on punitive damage awards that were either larger or smaller than the amount any individual juror had favored prior to deliberation.<ref name="Isenberg_group polarization">{{cite journal|last=Isenberg|first=D.J.|year=1986|title=Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=50|issue=6|pages=1141–1151|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141}}</ref> The studies indicated that when the jurors favored a relatively low award, discussion would lead to an even more lenient result, while if the jury was inclined to impose a stiff penalty, discussion would make it even harsher.<ref name="Bray_authoritarianism">{{cite journal|last=Bray|first=R. M.|author2=A. M. Noble|title=Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=1978|volume=36|pages=1424–1430|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1424|issue=12}}</ref> Moreover, in recent years, the Internet and online [[social media]] have also presented opportunities to observe group polarization and compile new research. Psychologists have found that social media outlets such as [[Facebook]] and [[Twitter]] demonstrate that group polarization can occur even when a group is not physically together. As long as the group of individuals begins with the same fundamental opinion on the topic and a consistent dialogue is kept going, group polarization can occur.<ref name="Yardi 316">{{cite journal|last=Yardi|first=Sarita|author2=Danah Boyd|title=Dynamic Debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter|journal=Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society|year=2010|volume=30|issue=5|pages=316–27|doi=10.1177/0270467610380011 |s2cid=144371141|url=http://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/TEKN/article/view/58511}}</ref>
Research has suggested that well-established groups suffer less from polarization, as do groups discussing problems that are well known to them. However, in situations where groups are somewhat newly formed and tasks are new, group polarization can demonstrate a more profound influence on
== Attitude polarization ==
{{see also|Reinforcement theory|Selective exposure theory|Subjective validation}}
'''Attitude polarization''', also known as '''belief polarization''' and the '''polarization effect''', is a phenomenon in which a disagreement becomes more extreme as the different parties consider evidence on the issue. It is one of the effects of
The effect is observed with issues that activate emotions, such as political
=== Empirical findings ===
Line 56 ⟶ 58:
===Social comparison theory===
The [[social comparison theory]], or normative influence theory, has been widely used to explain group polarization. According to the social comparison interpretation, group polarization occurs as a result of individuals' desire to gain acceptance and be perceived in a favorable way by their group. The theory holds that people first compare their own ideas with those held by the rest of the group; they observe and evaluate what the group values and prefers. In order to gain acceptance, people then take a position that is similar to everyone else's but slightly more extreme. In doing so, individuals support the group's beliefs while still presenting themselves as admirable group "leaders". The presence of a member with an extreme viewpoint or attitude does not further polarize the group.<ref name=[23]>{{cite journal|last=Van Swol|first=Lyn M.|title=Extreme members and group polarization|journal=Social Influence|year=2009|volume=4|issue=3|pages=185–199|doi=10.1080/15534510802584368|s2cid=219697757}}</ref> Studies regarding the theory have demonstrated that normative influence is more likely with judgmental issues, a group goal of harmony, person-oriented group members, and public responses.<ref name="Isenberg_group polarization"/>
===Informational influence===
Line 68 ⟶ 70:
Support for the [[self-categorization theory]], which explains group polarization as conformity to a polarized norm, was found by Hogg, Turner, and Davidson in 1990. In their experiment, participants gave pre-test, post-test, and group consensus recommendations on three choice dilemma item-types (risky, neutral, or cautious). The researchers hypothesized that an [[ingroup]] confronted by a risky outgroup will polarize toward caution, an ingroup confronted by a caution outgroup will polarize toward risk, and an ingroup in the middle of the social frame of reference, confronted by both risky and cautious outgroups, will not polarize but will converge on its pre-test mean.<ref name="Hogg1990" /> The results of the study supported their hypothesis in that participants converged on a norm polarized toward risk on risky items and toward caution on cautious items.<ref name="Hogg1990" /> Another similar study found that in-group prototypes become more polarized as the group becomes more extreme in the social context.<ref>{{cite journal|last=McGarty|first=Craig|author2=John C. Turner, Michael A., Barbara David|title=Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member|journal=British Journal of Social Psychology|date=March 1992|volume=31|pages=1–19|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00952.x|display-authors=etal}}</ref> This further lends support to the self-categorization explanation of group polarization.
==Applications==
===The Internet===
The rising popularity and increased number of online social media platforms, such as [[Facebook]], [[Twitter]] and [[Instagram]], has enabled people to seek out and share ideas with others who have similar interests and common values, making group polarization effects increasingly evident, particularly in [[generation Y]] and [[generation Z]] individuals.<ref>{{cite book|title=Influences of mediated violence: a brief research summary|last=Feilitzen|first=C.|publisher=International clearninghouse on children, youth and media|year=2009|isbn=978-91-89471-81-8}}</ref> Similar to the social media platforms, video streaming platforms like YouTube are forming groups unconsciously through intelligent algorithm seeking for extreme contents.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bastug|first1=Mehmet F.|last2=Douai|first2=Aziz|last3=Akca|first3=Davut|date=2020-07-02|title=Exploring the "Demand Side" of Online Radicalization: Evidence from the Canadian Context|journal=Studies in Conflict & Terrorism|volume=43|issue=7|pages=616–637|doi=10.1080/1057610X.2018.1494409|s2cid=115806907|issn=1057-610X}}</ref> Owing to this technology, it is possible for individuals to curate their sources of information and the opinions to which they are exposed, thereby reinforcing and strengthening their own views while effectively avoiding information and perspectives with which they disagree.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sunstein|first=Cass|year=2000|title=Deliberative Trouble? Why groups go to extremes.|url=https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4513&context=ylj|journal=The Yale Law Journal|volume=110|issue=1|pages=71–119|doi=10.2307/797587|jstor=797587}}</ref>
One study analyzed over 30,000 tweets on Twitter regarding the shooting of [[George Tiller]], a late term abortion doctor, where the tweets analyzed were conversations among
In a study conducted by Sia et al. (2002), group polarization was found to occur with online ([[Computer-mediated communication|computer-mediated]]) discussions. In particular, this study found that group discussions, conducted when discussants are in a distributed (cannot see one another) or anonymous (cannot identify one another) environment, can lead to even higher levels of group polarization compared to traditional meetings. This is attributed to the greater numbers of novel arguments generated (due to persuasive arguments theory) and higher incidence of one-upmanship behaviors (due to social comparison).<ref>{{cite journal|last=Sia|first=C. L |author2=Tan, B |author3=Wei, K. K.|title=Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity|journal=Information Systems Research|year=2002|volume=13|pages=70–90|doi=10.1287/isre.13.1.70.92}}</ref>
However, some research suggests that important differences arise in measuring group polarization in laboratory versus field experiments. A study conducted by Taylor & MacDonald (2002) featured a realistic setting of a computer-mediated discussion, but group polarization did not occur at the level expected.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last1=Taylor|first1=J.|last2=MacDonald|first2=J.|year=2002|title=The effects of asynchronous computer-mediated group interaction of group processes|journal=Social Science Review|volume=20|issue=3|pages=260–274|doi=10.1177/089443930202000304|s2cid=220160579}}</ref> The study's results also showed that groupthink occurs less in computer-mediated discussions than when people are face to face. Moreover, computer-mediated discussions often fail to result in a group consensus, or lead to less satisfaction with the consensus that was reached, compared to groups operating in a natural environment. Furthermore, the experiment took place over a two-week period, leading the researchers to suggest that group polarization may occur only in the short-term. Overall, the results suggest that not only may group polarization not be as prevalent as previous studies suggest, but group theories, in general, may not be simply transferable when seen in a computer-related discussion.<ref name=":0" />
{{see also|Echo chamber (media)}}
===Politics and law===
Group polarization has been widely discussed in terms of political behavior (see [[Polarization (politics)|political polarization]]). Researchers have identified an increase in affective polarization among the United States electorate, and report that hostility and discrimination towards the opposing political party has increased dramatically over time.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Iyengar|first1=Shanto|last2=Westwood|first2=Sean|year=2014|title=Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization|journal=American Journal of Political Science|volume=59|issue=3|pages=690–707|doi=10.1111/ajps.12152|s2cid=16242632 }}</ref>
Group polarization is similarly influential in legal contexts. A study that assessed whether Federal district court judges behaved differently when they sat alone, or in small groups, demonstrated that those judges who sat alone took extreme action 35% of the time, whereas judges who sat in a group of three took extreme action 65% of the time. These results are noteworthy because they indicate that even trained, professional decision-makers are subject to the influences of group polarization.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Walker|first=Thomas G.|author2=Main, Eleanor C.|title=Choice shifts and extreme behavior: Judicial review in the federal courts|journal=The Journal of Social Psychology|date=December 1973|volume=91|series=2|pages=215–221|doi=10.1080/00224545.1973.9923044|issue=2}}</ref>
Line 98 ⟶ 102:
* [[Herd behavior]] and [[herd mentality]]
* [[Identity politics]]
* [[Groupshift]]
==References==
Line 106 ⟶ 111:
[[Category:Social psychology]]
[[Category:Motivation]]
[[Category:Sectarianism]]
[[Category:Radicalization]]
| |||