Four Models of Group Polarization

Author(s):  
Fernando Broncano-Berrocal ◽  
J. Adam Carter
Keyword(s):  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-29
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Wesołowska

In social psychology the group polarization refers to the tendency for groups to make decisionsthat are more extreme than the initial inclinations of its members. This phenomenon constitutesa potential obstacle to positive outcomes attributed to deliberative debates. A deliberative debateis a particular kind of a group discussion tasked with fi nding group consensus on controversialissues. The idea of deliberation originates from the writings of John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, AmyGutmann and Denis Thompson. Deliberative debate imposes numerous normative requirementson the communication, relationships among the disputants and their approach to the issue underdiscussion. These normative requirements make a big difference between deliberative debates andthe situations in which the phenomenon of polarization was observed. Thus, we presume that indeliberative debates conditions the phenomenon of group polarization may be limited.The paper investigates the following questions: would the normative conditions of deliberationlimit the occurrence of polarization in discussing groups? and What infl uence (if any) would thepolarization process have on the quality of group decision? In the light of the empirical data we concluded what follows: (1) In 50% of the analyzed casesof group discussion the phenomenon of group polarization was observed despite the normativeconditions of deliberation. (2) The occurrence of group polarization in some cases coincided withmaking the fi nal decisions which did not alter the initial preferences of the disputants (but did nottotally predestinated the fi nal outcome).


2014 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 690-707 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanto Iyengar ◽  
Sean J. Westwood

Grandstanding ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 67-96
Author(s):  
Justin Tosi ◽  
Brandon Warmke

This chapter presents some consequentialist considerations against moral grandstanding. Grandstanding contributes to group polarization. Relatedly, grandstanding leads people to hold false beliefs, and to be overconfident about their beliefs. Grandstanding also threatens to undercut the effectiveness of moral talk. It makes people increasingly cynical about moral discourse, and it may cause outrage exhaustion—an insensitivity to expressions of outrage by others, and an inability to muster outrage oneself. When grandstanding becomes too common in public discourse, moderates avoid discussions of morality and politics. In spite of these costs, the possibility that grandstanding may be socially beneficial is also considered.


2020 ◽  
pp. 116-129
Author(s):  
Fernando Broncano-Berrocal ◽  
J. Adam Carter
Keyword(s):  

1996 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murali Chandrashekaran ◽  
Beth A. Walker ◽  
James C. Ward ◽  
Peter H. Reingen

Organizational buying and strategic marketing decisions often emerge from a messy process of belief accommodation and compromise. In a longitudinal field study, the authors investigate how the beliefs and preferences of individual actors in a collective decision developed and changed. This provides a rare opportunity to relate beliefs and social influence to articulated preferences, as well as to evaluate the basic assumptions that underlie persuasive arguments theory, a prominent theory of group polarization. Econometric models are employed to test proposed relationships between group processes and outcomes. A model incorporating both cognitive and social process variables accurately predicts 95% of the actors’ top choices. The authors provide new insights for understanding the dynamics underlying group polarization and exploring group processes in marketing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document