Group polarization: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:44, 1 October 2020

Revision as of 16:13, 3 December 2020

Line 2:

== Overview ==

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|pmid=}}</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 the decision-making.<ref name="Myers_the group polarization" />

Line 9:

{{see also|Reinforcement theory|Selective exposure theory|Subjective validation}}

'''Attitude polarization''', also known as '''belief polarization''' and '''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|ref=harv }}</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 }}</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 [[Psychology|psychologists]], 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}}</ref>

Line 71:

===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|via=|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 pro-life and pro-choice advocates post shooting. The study found that like-minded individuals strengthened group identity whereas replies between different-minded individuals reinforced a split in affiliation.<ref name="Yardi 316" />

Line 80:

===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|url=|journal=American Journal of Political Science|volume=59|issue=3|pages=690–707|doi=10.1111/ajps.12152}}</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>

===War and violent behavior===

Group polarization has been reported to occur during wartime and other times of conflict and helps to account partially for violent behavior and conflict.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Esteban|first1=Joan|last2=Schneider|first2=Gerald|year=2008|title=Polarization and Conflict: Theoretical and Empirical Issues|url=http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-opus-50564|journal=Journal of Peace Research|volume=45|issue=2|pages=131–141|via=|doi=10.1177/0022343307087168|s2cid=5952676}}</ref> Researchers have suggested, for instance, that ethnic conflict exacerbates group polarization by enhancing identification with the ingroup and hostility towards the outgroup.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kunovich|first1=Robert|last2=Deitelbaum|first2=Catherine|year=2004|title=Ethnic Conflict, Group Polarization, and Gender Attitudes in Croatia|doi=10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00080.x|journal=Journal of Marriage and Family|volume=66|issue=5|pages=1089–1107}}</ref> While polarization can occur in any type of conflict, it has its most damaging effects in large-scale inter-group, public policy, and international conflicts.

===College life===

On a smaller scale, group polarization can also be seen in the everyday lives of students in [[higher education]]. A study by Myers in 2005 reported that initial differences among American college students become more accentuated over time. For example, students who do not belong to fraternities and sororities tend to be more liberal politically, and this difference increases over the course of their college careers. Researchers theorize that this is at least partially explained by group polarization, as group members tend to reinforce one another's proclivities and opinions.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Exploring Social Psychology: Fourth Edition|last=Myers|first=DG|publisher=McGraw Hill|year=2007|isbn=|___location=|pages=|quote=|via=}}</ref>

== See also ==