Group Polarization

Growing out of research on the effect of group processes on decision-making, group polarization theories explore the tendency of people in groups to shift their opinions toward the extreme pole of popular opinion. This research was pioneered by James A. F. Stoner (1961), who first found the tendency in groups who were considering risk-taking behaviors; the phenomenon was thus initially labeled "risky shift." Theorists believe that group polarization is caused by either social comparisons, persuasive arguments, or a combination of the two. Group polarization has been applied to understand behavior cases ranging from political and financial decision-making to gambling.

Keywords Consensus; Conformity; Group Polarization; Groupthink; Incestuous Amplification; Minority Influence; Persuasive Argumentation; Risky Shift; Social Comparison Theory

Social Interaction in Groups & Organizations > Group Polarization

Overview

One of the basic quests of sociology is to discover the effect of groups on individual action. One area that has attracted much research in both sociology and psychology is the question of how groups can influence the decision-making of individuals.

Risky Shift

Group polarization is the phenomenon that occurs when the consensus opinion of a group is more extreme than opinions previously held by the individuals in it. James A. F. Stoner (1961) was the first to identify and write about what he initially called risky shift. Stoner conducted a study in which participants were asked to advise fictional characters. Participants had to make decisions while they were alone, then five people were put into a group with the task of reaching consensus. Stoner found that each participant's opinion became more extreme as a result of the group conversation; the group opinion encouraged riskier behavior than the individual opinions had before group discussion. Stoner's study launched many other empirical studies that further specified and clarified this phenomenon.

For example, Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1964) discovered that individuals may seek greater risks if there is a belief that the risk associated with a decision is shared by all members of the group. Given the shared responsibility, the level of anxiety associated with making the decision lessens. Collins and Guetzkow (1964) found that individuals who thrive on taking risks tend to be extremely confident and have the ability to convince other members of the group to take risks. Bateson (1966) found that individuals will continuously evaluate the level of risk associated with a decision. As a result, they can become comfortable with the risk associated with a decision and underestimate it.

Risky shift eventually became known as group polarization or group-induced attitude polarization (Isenberg, 1986). The change in name arose from discoveries about the dynamics of this tendency. People in groups would shift their opinions away from the average and toward the extreme version of the opinion favored by the group. Thus, if individuals in the group favored risk on average, then after discussion, they would each favor even riskier behavior. The same would be true if the average tendency was toward caution; after discussion, members would shift their opinions toward a more cautious level. Polarization refers to the shift of opinion toward an extreme, and is analyzed as a group phenomenon; it is the average of the groups' opinions that reliably shifts toward the extreme (Myers & Lamm, 1976).

Conformity

Group members tend to be alike and hold the same values, and members are encouraged to conform to the rules and norms of the group. The discovery of group polarization contradicted previous findings about group behavior. Earlier studies suggested that group opinions tended to fall into a middle ground and that groups reached decisions that were the average of the opinions of the individuals in the group, revealing a trend toward conformity (Allport, 1924; Farnsworth & Behner, 1931; Sherif, 1935). Conformity occurs when members of the group give in to perceived pressures from the other group members. In one famous study, Asch (1952) found that the majority of subjects would conform to other group members' opinions, even when these directly contradicted the evidence of their own senses. Group conformity is common and follows regular patterns. For example, as a group gets larger, more people tend to conform. However, once the group reaches a certain size, the members' need to conform will plateau. Also, people tend to conform if the other members in the group agree unanimously; dissent from just one member is enough to splinter previous consensus (Henslin, 2002). There are many reasons why people may feel the need to conform to the standards of a group. Some of the reasons include

• A need to feel liked and accepted by the group,
• A desire to be a part of the "in" group,
• A fear of rejection by the group,
• A perceived access to information, or
• A desire to obtain a reward from the group.

Group polarization would thus seem to contradict or at least problematize the findings of earlier studies, a fact that led researchers on a quest to specify under what circumstances this tendency toward greater extremes appeared. Some have theorized that the earlier studies showing a preference for conformity toward an average may have been overstated. Because earlier experiments that revealed a tendency toward conformity did not consider the impact of the subject matter that participants discussed, the tendency toward conformity might have revealed a lack of commitment to the subject at hand. For example the Asch experiment asked subjects to pick which lines matched other lines; this was not a subject over which many would have invested emotions or felt a deep commitment. Moscovici and Zavalloni (1969) found that if the subject of an experiment is anything that will cause participants to become personally involved — that is, if it is something that evokes meaning among group members — then group polarization is likely to result.

Applications

How Does Group Polarization Work?

There are two competing theories of the mechanism behind group polarization: social comparison processes (Isenberg, 1986; Sanders & Baron, 1977) and persuasive argumentation (Burnstein & Vinokur, 1977; Isenberg 1986).

Social Comparison

Social comparison theorists have developed two explanations for group polarization, both of which emphasize that individuals constantly compare themselves to the group to judge how they appear to others and to develop a sense of how they are doing socially. One line of social comparison theory believes that observed polarization arises because individuals are ignorant of the beliefs of others. Thus, when they initially state their opinions to the group they may soften their opinions in an attempt to strike a balance between their own views and their (wrongly estimated) assumptions about others' opinions. When they discover that the groups' opinions are different than assumed, they then adjust their own stated views to be closer to their actual beliefs, and therefore more extreme. Other social comparison theorists believe that polarization arises from one-upmanship. They think that individuals want to be unique and to stand apart from others, but in socially desirable ways. When a group expresses a mild preference in a certain direction, then some individuals will shift their opinions in the direction of group opinion, but will take a more extreme stance than before to stand out conspicuously in the favored direction (Isenberg, 1986).

Persuasive Argumentation

Proponents of persuasive argumentation argue that the opinion shifts in group polarization arise from the group's exposure to more compelling arguments on one side or another. Arguments can become persuasive if they seem especially valid or novel (Ebbeson & Bowers, 1974; Isenberg, 1986).

Group polarization effects can develop without any persuasive discussion at all — at times, merely receiving information about the opinions of other group members is enough to bring about a shift to extremes (Isenberg, 1986). Some basic group dynamics can also help explain polarization. For example, groups are closer knit when they are small. However, as they grow, there tends to be more conflict in the groups and a few people will end up with the majority of the power.

Group Polarization Dynamics

Friedkin (1999) argues that not enough attention has been paid to the structural influences on group decisions in group polarization theory. Since people in groups have different levels of influence within the group, he believes that much choice shift can be explained as a result of people wielding their influence in groups.

Group polarization is not present in every group situation. For example, a study that contrasted the influence of alcohol consumption on decision making in groups versus individuals found that groups that consumed alcohol together engaged in group monitoring rather than group polarization. That is, after consuming alcohol, participants in groups were more likely to watch out for each other and consider risks before making decisions when compared to individuals in the study (Abrams, Hopthrow, Hulbert & Frings, 2006). Also, depolarization can happen under certain circumstances. If the people in a group do not believe that they have things in common and share an identity, then there is less likelihood that polarization will develop. Groups will also depolarize if there is divided opinion within the group and both sides have about the same amount of power and commitment to their opinions (Sunstein, 2002). Gandossy and Sonnenfeld (2005) point out that group polarization dynamics can support corrupt corporate governance, and suggest that one way to cut down on white collar crimes would be to proactively encourage the use of strategies that interfere with polarization — for example, encouraging a corporate or boardroom culture in which people regularly play devil's advocate.

Sunstein (2002) argues that group polarization is found in many institutions in modern society. For example, religious groups intensify their religious commitment because of its effects. Isolated out-groups can also polarize — an effect which can help explain the tendency toward extremism in terrorist groups. Blood feuds, racial and ethnic tension, and wars also show group polarization.

Polarization on the Internet

The Internet is a place where polarization can be especially pronounced. Internet users often self-segregate into groups of like-minded individuals. Websites often are created to display only one point of view. Many people feel a sense of group identity when communicating with others online, and these characteristics can play a role in polarization (Sunstein, 2002). The anonymity of the online experience also contributes to this effect. Sia, Tan, and Wei (2002) have studied the impact of online anonymity on polarization and suggest that polarization effects may be even more extreme in anonymous online settings than in face to face groups. This was also discussed by Yzer and Southwell, who have studied group dynamics online (2008).

Viewpoints

Group polarization tends to cycle in and out of popularity as a subject of research. While much of the initial work on the phenomenon focused on experimental work, later studies applied group polarization to real-world settings. For example, in addition to the topics discussed above, studies have been conducted examining whether group polarization influences gambling behaviors (Rockloff & Dyer, 2007) and investment choices (Cheng & Chiou, 2008).

Some sociologists have critiqued the widespread acceptance of the concept without accurate definition of terms, believing that at least some of the uneven results in experimental studies — inability to replicate results, for example — arise from a failure to stringently operationalize concepts (Meeker, 2007). Group polarization studies are also sometimes criticized for their inability to explain with confidence why the phenomenon occurs (Myers & Kaplan, 1976).

Sunstein (2002) points out that group polarization research led to a disturbing and unusual question: if group deliberations are known to cause polarization in such a predictable fashion, then should we reevaluate how we use deliberation in our social institutions? Polarization in itself is value-neutral; it can fuel both anti-slavery movements and terrorist activities. Negative examples abound and have been discussed popularly using such terms as incestuous amplification, which is generally used to refer to poorly thought-out decisions made by the military, or groupthink (Janis, 1972), which is often applied to disastrously planned political decisions like the Bay of Pigs invasion. Both of these terms refer to a situation in which group members suppress contrary evidence and opinions and thereby amplify the opinion of the group leaders, and both illustrate the potentially harmful consequences of group polarization.

Many examples of a more mundane variety are available. Palmer and Loveland (2008) have examined the impact of group polarization on performance reviews. Many companies use group performance reviews in an attempt to generate more fair assessments. Unfortunately for these goals, Palmer and Loveland's study suggests that group ratings of subjects are more inaccurate than individual ratings if group discussion is a feature of the ratings and if there is a general consensus before discussion about the subject's performance.

Kaarbo (2008) has studied the influence of group polarization on foreign policy decisions made by coalition cabinets. In Parliamentary systems, decisions are made by small groups, often groups of different political parties who have created a coalition government. Interestingly enough, in such governments the influence of minority parties can be strong; it is possible for minority parties with strong beliefs to change the opinions of majority party members. Kaarbo believes that there is still a lack of data about the effect of group polarization on the workings of the world's governments.

Terms & Concepts

Conformity: Action or behavior that adapts in order to correspond with accepted standards supplied by a group.

Group Polarization: The phenomenon that occurs when the consensus opinion of a group is more extreme than opinions previously held by the individuals in it.

Groupthink: Decision-making behavior which attempts to reduce conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas.

Minority Influence: A form of social influence, which takes place when a social majority is convinced to accept the beliefs or behavior of a social minority.

Persuasive Argumentation: The belief that the opinion shifts in group polarization arise from the group's exposure to more compelling arguments on one side.

Risky Shift: The term originally used by Stoner to describe group polarization, which changed when theorists realized that the polarizing shifts in opinion encompassed areas besides risk-taking behaviors.

Social Comparison Theory: A set of explanations for group polarization that believe it arises from the tendency of individuals to constantly compare themselves to the group as a form of self-assessment.

Bibliography

Abrams, D., Hopthrow, T., Hulbert, L., & Frings, D. (2006). Groupdrink? The effect of alcohol on risk attraction among groups versus individuals. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 12 179–190.

Aikin, S. F. (2013). Poe's Law, group polarization, and argumentative failure in religious and political discourse. Social Semiotics, 23, 301–317. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88089283

Allport, H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Asch, S. (1952). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In G. Swansom, T.M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bateson, N. (1966). Familiarization, group discussion, and risk taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 119–129.

Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.

Brown, R. (1965). Social Psychology. New York: Free Press.

Cheng, P., & Chiou, W. (2008). Framing effects in group investment decision making: role of group polarization. Psychological Reports 102, 283–292.

Collins, B. E., & Guetzkow, H. (1964). A social psychology of group processes for decision-making. New York: Wiley.

Ebbesen, E., & Bowers, R. (1974). Proportion of risky to conservative arguments in a group discussion and choice shift. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29, 316–327.

Farnsworth, P. R. & Behner, A. (1931) . A note on the attitude of social conformity. Journal of Social Psychology 2, 126–128. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=16871368&site=ehost-live

Friedkin, N. E. (1999). Choice shift and group polarization. American Sociological Review 64 , 856–875. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=2735334&site=ehost-live

Gandossy, R. & Sonnenfeld, J. (2005). 'I see nothing, I hear nothing'; Culture, corruption and apathy. International Journal of Disclosure & Governance 2, 228–243.

Harris, J. (1995). Where is the child's environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458–489.

Henslin, J.M. (2002). Essentials of sociology (4th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Isenberg, D. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50, 1141–1151.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kaarbo, J. (2008). Coalition cabinet decision making: Institutional and psychological factors. International Studies Review, 10, 57–86.

Landemore, H., & Mercier, H. (2012). Talking it out with others vs. deliberation within and the law of group polarization: Some implications of the argumentative theory of reasoning for deliberative democracy. Analise Social, 47, 910–934. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89096744

Meeker, B. (2007). The science of group processes: Getting it wrong, getting it right. Conference Papers — American Sociological Association. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=34595862&site=ehost-live

Moscovici, S. & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125–135.

Myers, D. & Kaplan, M. F. (1976). Group-induced polarization in simulated juries. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 63–66.

Myers, D., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602–627.

Palmer, J., & Loveland, J. (2008). The influence of group discussion on performance judgments: Rating accuracy, contrast effects, and halo. Journal of Psychology, 142, 117–130. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31594848&site=ehost-live

Rockloff, M., & Dyer, V. (2007). An experiment on the social facilitation of gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23, 1–12.

Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27, 187.

Sia, C; Tan, B.C.Y. & Wei, K. (2002). Group polarization and computer-mediated communications: effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity, Information Systems Research 13 pp. 70–90.

Stoner, J. A. F. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Sunstein, C.R. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy 10 175–195. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=6528437&site=ehost-live

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology Vol. 21. (pp. 81–227). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Trezzini, B. (2013). A measure of multidimensional polarization for categorical diversity data. Quality & Quantity, 47, 313–333. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=84784407

Turner, J. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

Yzer, M., & Southwell, B. (2008). New communication technologies, old questions. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 8–20.

Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1964). Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taking in groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 263–274.

Suggested Reading

Burton, F., Coller, M., & Tuttle, B. (n.d.). Market responses to qualitative information from a group polarization perspective. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 31, 107–127.

Guandong, S., Qinhai, M., Fangfei, W., & Lin, L. (2012). The psychological explanation of conformity. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 40, 1365–1372. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=79967290

Lee, E. (2007). Deindividuation effects on group polarization in computer-mediated communication: the role of group identification, public-self-awareness, and perceived argument quality. Journal of Communication, 57, 385–403.

Luskin, R. (2005). Consensus and polarization in small group deliberations. Conference Papers — Midwestern Political Science Association.

Straus, S. G., Parker, A. M., & Bruce, J. B. (2011). The group matters: A review of processes and outcomes in intelligence analysis. Group Dynamics, 15, 128–146. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=61778922