Content deleted Content added
→The Internet: replaced political marketing slogan with neutral POV definition |
added Category:Radicalization using HotCat |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 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 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===
Line 84:
===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 102:
* [[Herd behavior]] and [[herd mentality]]
* [[Identity politics]]
* [[Groupshift]]
==References==
Line 111 ⟶ 112:
[[Category:Motivation]]
[[Category:Sectarianism]]
[[Category:Radicalization]]
| |||