Content deleted Content added
RhymeWrens (talk | contribs) |
m Open access bot: url-access updated in citation with #oabot. |
||
Line 13:
'''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 [[confirmation bias]]: the tendency of people to search for and interpret evidence selectively, to reinforce their current beliefs or attitudes.<ref>{{wikicite|id=idFine2006a|reference=Fine, Cordelia (2006a). ''A Mind of its Own - How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives''. [[W. W. Norton]]. {{ISBN|0-393-06213-9}}}}</ref> When people encounter ambiguous evidence, this bias can potentially result in each of them interpreting it as in support of their existing attitudes, widening rather than narrowing the disagreement between them.<ref name = lordrosslepper>{{cite journal|title = Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence |last1= Lord|first1 = C. G.|last2=Ross|first2= L.|last3= Lepper|first3 = M. R.|date =1979|journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume= 37|number=11|pages= 2098–2109|doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098|s2cid= 7465318}}</ref>
The effect is observed with issues that activate emotions, such as political "[[Hot-button issue|hot-button]]" issues.<ref>{{cite journal|title = Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs|journal = American Journal of Political Science|volume = 50|issue = 3|date = July 2006|pages = 755–769 |first1 = Charles S.|last1 = Taber|first2= Milton|last2= Lodge|doi = 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x | s2cid=3770487 }}</ref> For most issues, new evidence does not produce a polarization effect.<ref name = KuhnLao>{{cite journal|title = Effects of Evidence on Attitudes: Is Polarization the Norm?|first1= Deanna|last1= Kuhn|first2= Joseph|last2= Lao|date = 1996|journal = Psychological Science|doi = 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00340.x |volume=7|issue =2|pages = 115–120 |s2cid= 145659040}}</ref> For those issues where polarization is found, mere thinking about the issue, without contemplating new evidence, produces the effect.<ref name = KuhnLao/> Social comparison processes have also been invoked as an explanation for the effect, which is increased by settings in which people repeat and validate each other's statements.<ref>{{cite journal|last1= Brauer |first1 =Mark J. |last2= Judd|first2= Charles Mosley|last3=Gliner|first3= M D|date=1995|title = The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions|journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume = 68|number = 6|pages = 1014–1029|doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1014|pmid =7608855 }}</ref> This apparent tendency is of interest not only to [[psychologist]]s, but also to [[sociologist]]s<ref>{{cite journal|title= Dynamics of Political Polarization|first1=Delia |last1=Baldassarri |first2=Peter|last2= Bearman|journal=American Sociological Review |date=October 2007|volume =72|number =5|pages =784–811|jstor=25472492 |doi=10.1177/000312240707200507|s2cid=10156795 }}</ref> and [[philosopher]]s.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.5840/jphil20081051024 | title=Disagreement, Dogmatism, and Belief Polarization| journal=Journal of Philosophy| volume=105| issue=10| pages=611–633| year=2008| last1=Kelly| first1=Thomas|url=https://philpapers.org/rec/KELDDA| url-access=subscription}}</ref>
=== Empirical findings ===
| |||