Hubbry Logo
Group polarizationGroup polarizationMain
Open search
Group polarization
Community hub
Group polarization
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Group polarization
Group polarization
Group polarization
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In social psychology, group polarization refers to the tendency for a group to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members. These more extreme decisions are towards greater risk if individuals' initial tendencies are to be risky and towards greater caution if individuals' initial tendencies are to be cautious.[1] The phenomenon also holds that a group's attitude toward a situation may change in the sense that the individuals' initial attitudes have strengthened and intensified after group discussion, a phenomenon known as attitude polarization.[2]

Overview

[edit]

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.[3] 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.[4] 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.[5] 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.[6]

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 decision-making.[7]

Attitude polarization

[edit]
See also: Reinforcement theory, Selective exposure theory, and 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 confirmation bias: the tendency of people to search for and interpret evidence selectively, to reinforce their current beliefs or attitudes.[8] 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.[9]

The effect is observed with issues that activate emotions, such as political "hot-button" issues.[10] For most issues, new evidence does not produce a polarization effect.[11] For those issues where polarization is found, mere thinking about the issue, without contemplating new evidence, produces the effect.[11] 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.[12] This apparent tendency is of interest not only to psychologists, but also to sociologists[13] and philosophers.[14]

Empirical findings

[edit]

Since the late 1960s, psychologists have carried out a number of studies on various aspects of attitude polarization.

In 1979, Charles Lord, Lee Ross and Mark Lepper[9] performed a study in which they selected two groups of people, one group strongly in favor of capital punishment, the other strongly opposed. The researchers initially measured the strength with which people held their position. Later, both the pro- and anti-capital punishment people were put into small groups and shown one of two cards, each containing a statement about the results of a research project written on it. For example:

Kroner and Phillips (1977) compared murder rates for the year before and the year after adoption of capital punishment in 14 states. In 11 of the 14 states, murder rates were lower after adoption of the death penalty. This research supports the deterrent effect of the death penalty.[15]

or:

Palmer and Crandall (1977) compared murder rates in 10 pairs of neighboring states with different capital punishment laws. In 8 of the 10 pairs, murder rates were higher in the state with capital punishment. This research opposes the deterrent effect of the death penalty.[15]

The researchers again asked people about the strength of their beliefs about the deterrence effect of the death penalty, and, this time, also asked them about the effect that the research had had on their attitudes.

In the next stage of the research, the participants were given more information about the study described on the card they received, including details of the research, critiques of the research, and the researchers' responses to those critiques. The participants' degree of commitment to their original positions were re-measured, and the participants were asked about the quality of the research and the effect the research had on their beliefs. Finally, the trial was rerun on all participants using a card that supported the opposite position to that they had initially seen.

The researchers found that people tended to believe that research that supported their original views had been better conducted and was more convincing than research that didn't.[16] Whichever position they held initially, people tended to hold that position more strongly after reading research that supported it. Lord et al. point out that it is reasonable for people to be less critical of research that supports their current position, but it seems less rational for people to significantly increase the strength of their attitudes when they read supporting evidence.[17] When people had read both the research that supported their views and the research that did not, they tended to hold their original attitudes more strongly than before they received that information.[18] These results should be understood in the context of several problems in the implementation of the study, including the fact the researchers changed the scaling of the outcome of the variable, so measuring attitude change was impossible, and measured polarization using a subjective assessment of attitude change and not a direct measure of how much change had occurred.[19]

Choice shifts

[edit]

Group polarization and choice shifts are similar in many ways; however, they differ in one distinct way. Group polarization refers to attitude change on the individual level due to the influence of the group, and choice shift refers to the outcome of that attitude change; namely, the difference between the average group members' pre-group discussion attitudes and the outcome of the group decision.[7]

Risky and cautious shifts are both a part of a more generalized idea known as group-induced attitude polarization. Though group polarization deals mainly with risk-involving decisions and/or opinions, discussion-induced shifts have been shown to occur on several non-risk-involving levels. This suggests that a general phenomenon of choice-shifts exists apart from only risk-related decisions.[clarification needed] Stoner (1968) found that a decision is impacted by the values behind that circumstances of the decision.[20] The study found that situations that normally favor the more risky alternative increased risky shifts. More so, situations that normally favor the cautious alternative increased cautious shifts. These findings also show the importance of previous group shifts. Choice shifts are mainly explained by largely differing human values and how highly these values are held by an individual. According to Moscovici et al. (1972) interaction within a group and differences of opinion are necessary for group polarization to take place.[21] While an extremist in the group may sway opinion, the shift can only occur with sufficient and proper interaction within the group. In other words, the extremist will have no impact without interaction. Also, Moscovici et al. found individual preferences to be irrelevant; it is differences of opinion which will cause the shift.[21] This finding demonstrates how one opinion in the group will not sway the group; it is the combination of all the individual opinions that will make an impact.

History and origins

[edit]

The study of group polarization can be traced back to an unpublished 1961 Master's thesis by MIT student James Stoner, who observed the so-called "risky shift".[22] The concept of risky shift maintains that a group's decisions are riskier than the average of the individual decisions of members before the group met.

In early studies, the risky-shift phenomenon was measured using a scale known as the Choice-Dilemmas Questionnaire. This measure required participants to consider a hypothetical scenario in which an individual is faced with a dilemma and must make a choice to resolve the issue at hand. Participants were then asked to estimate the probability that a certain choice would be of benefit or risk to the individual being discussed. Consider the following example:

"Mr. A, an electrical engineer, who is married and has one child, has been working for a large electronics corporation since graduating from college five years ago. He is assured of a lifetime job with a modest, though adequate, salary and liberal pension benefits upon retirement. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that his salary will increase much before he retires. While attending a convention, Mr. A is offered a job with a small, newly founded company which has a highly uncertain future. The new job would pay more to start and would offer the possibility of a share in the owner- ship if the company survived the competition of the larger firms."

Participants were then asked to imagine that they were advising Mr. A. They would then be provided with a series of probabilities that indicate whether the new company that offered him a position is financially stable. It would read as following

"Please check the lowest probability that you would consider acceptable to make it worthwhile for Mr. A to take the new job."

____The chances are 1 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____The chances are 3 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____The chances are 5 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____The chances are 7 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____The chances are 9 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound.

____Place a check here if you think Mr. A should not take the new job no matter what the probabilities.

Individuals completed the questionnaire and made their decisions independently of others. Later, they would be asked to join a group to reassess their choices. Indicated by shifts in the mean value, initial studies using this method revealed that group decisions tended to be relatively riskier than those that were made by individuals. This tendency also occurred when individual judgments were collected after the group discussion and even when the individual post-discussion measures were delayed two to six weeks.[23]

The discovery of the risky shift was considered surprising and counter-intuitive, especially since earlier work in the 1920s and 1930s by Allport and other researchers suggested that individuals made more extreme decisions than did groups, leading to the expectation that groups would make decisions that would conform to the average risk level of its members.[20] The seemingly counter-intuitive findings of Stoner led to a spurt of research around the risky shift, which was originally thought to be a special case exception to the standard decision-making practice. Many people had concluded that people in a group setting would make decisions based on what they assumed to be the overall risk level of a group; because Stoner's work did not necessarily address this specific theme, and because it does seem to contrast Stoner's initial definition of risky shift, additional controversy arose leading researchers to further examine the topic. By the late 1960s, however, it had become clear that the risky shift was just one type of many attitudes that became more extreme in groups, leading Moscovici and Zavalloni to term the overall phenomenon "group polarization."[24]

Subsequently, a decade-long period of examination of the applicability of group polarization to a number of fields in both lab and field settings began. There is a substantial amount of empirical evidence demonstrating the phenomenon of group polarization. Group polarization has been widely considered as a fundamental group decision-making process and was well established, but remained non-obvious and puzzling because its mechanisms were not fully understood.

Major theoretical approaches

[edit]

Almost as soon as the phenomenon of group polarization was discovered, a number of theories were offered to help explain and account for it. These explanations were gradually narrowed down and grouped together until two primary mechanisms remained, social comparison and informational influence.

Social comparison theory

[edit]

The social comparison theory, or normative influence theory, has been widely used to explain group polarization. According to the social comparison interpretation, group polarization occurs as a result of individuals' desire to gain acceptance and be perceived in a favorable way by their group. The theory holds that people first compare their own ideas with those held by the rest of the group; they observe and evaluate what the group values and prefers. In order to gain acceptance, people then take a position that is similar to everyone else's but slightly more extreme. In doing so, individuals support the group's beliefs while still presenting themselves as admirable group "leaders". The presence of a member with an extreme viewpoint or attitude does not further polarize the group.[25] Studies regarding the theory have demonstrated that normative influence is more likely with judgmental issues, a group goal of harmony, person-oriented group members, and public responses.[4]

Informational influence

[edit]

Informational influence, or persuasive arguments theory, has also been used to explain group polarization, and is most recognized by psychologists today. The persuasive arguments interpretation holds that individuals become more convinced of their views when they hear novel arguments in support of their position. The theory posits that each group member enters the discussion aware of a set of items of information or arguments favoring both sides of the issue, but lean toward that side that boasts the greater amount of information. In other words, individuals base their individual choices by weighing remembered pro and con arguments. Some of these items or arguments are shared among the members while some items are unshared, in which all but one member has considered these arguments before. Assuming most or all group members lean in the same direction, during discussion, items of unshared information supporting that direction are expressed, which provides members previously unaware of them more reason to lean in that direction. Group discussion shifts the weight of evidence as each group member expresses their arguments, shedding light onto a number of different positions and ideas.[26] Research has indicated that informational influence is more likely with intellective issues, a group goal of making correct decision, task-oriented group members, and private responses.[4] Furthermore, research suggests that it is not simply the sharing of information that predicts group polarization. Rather, the amount of information and persuasiveness of the arguments mediate the level of polarization experienced.[27]

In the 1970s, significant arguments occurred over whether persuasive argumentation alone accounted for group polarization. Daniel Isenberg's 1986 meta-analysis of the data gathered by both the persuasive argument and social comparison camps succeeded, in large part, in answering the questions about predominant mechanisms. Isenberg concluded that there was substantial evidence that both effects were operating simultaneously, and that persuasive arguments theory operated when social comparison did not, and vice versa.[4]

Self-categorization and social identity

[edit]

While these two theories are the most widely accepted as explanations for group polarization, alternative theories have been proposed. The most popular of these theories is self-categorization theory. Self-categorization theory stems from social identity theory, which holds that conformity stems from psychological processes; that is, being a member of a group is defined as the subjective perception of the self as a member of a specific category.[28] Accordingly, proponents of the self-categorization model hold that group polarization occurs because individuals identify with a particular group and conform to a prototypical group position that is more extreme than the group mean. In contrast to social comparison theory and persuasive argumentation theory, the self-categorization model maintains that inter-group categorization processes are the cause of group polarization [29]

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.[29] 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.[29] Another similar study found that in-group prototypes become more polarized as the group becomes more extreme in the social context.[30] This further lends support to the self-categorization explanation of group polarization.

Applications

[edit]

The Internet

[edit]

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.[31] Similar to the social media platforms, video streaming platforms like YouTube are forming groups unconsciously through intelligent algorithm seeking for extreme contents.[32] 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.[33]

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 supporters and opponents of abortion rights, post shooting. The study found that like-minded individuals strengthened group identity whereas replies between different-minded individuals reinforced a split in affiliation.[6]

In a study conducted by Sia et al. (2002), group polarization was found to occur with online (computer-mediated) discussions. In particular, this study found that group discussions, conducted when discussants are in a distributed (cannot see one another) or anonymous (cannot identify one another) environment, can lead to even higher levels of group polarization compared to traditional meetings. This is attributed to the greater numbers of novel arguments generated (due to persuasive arguments theory) and higher incidence of one-upmanship behaviors (due to social comparison).[34]

However, some research suggests that important differences arise in measuring group polarization in laboratory versus field experiments. A study conducted by Taylor & MacDonald (2002) featured a realistic setting of a computer-mediated discussion, but group polarization did not occur at the level expected.[35] The study's results also showed that groupthink occurs less in computer-mediated discussions than when people are face to face. Moreover, computer-mediated discussions often fail to result in a group consensus, or lead to less satisfaction with the consensus that was reached, compared to groups operating in a natural environment. Furthermore, the experiment took place over a two-week period, leading the researchers to suggest that group polarization may occur only in the short-term. Overall, the results suggest that not only may group polarization not be as prevalent as previous studies suggest, but group theories, in general, may not be simply transferable when seen in a computer-related discussion.[35]

See also: Echo chamber (media)

Politics and law

[edit]

Group polarization has been widely discussed in terms of political behavior (see 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.[36]

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.[37]

War and violent behavior

[edit]

Group polarization has been reported to occur during wartime and other times of conflict and helps to account partially for violent behavior and conflict.[38] Researchers have suggested, for instance, that ethnic conflict exacerbates group polarization by enhancing identification with the ingroup and hostility towards the outgroup.[39] 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

[edit]

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.[40]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Group polarization

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Group polarization is a social psychological phenomenon in which the attitudes or decisions of individuals within a like-minded group tend to become more extreme in the direction of the group's initial leaning following discussion or deliberation, surpassing the pre-discussion average of members' positions. Originally identified in the 1960s as the "risky shift," where groups favored riskier choices than individuals alone, the effect was subsequently extended to attitudinal domains beyond risk, demonstrating consistent enhancement of dominant tendencies across empirical studies. Explanatory accounts emphasize two complementary mechanisms: persuasive arguments, wherein participants encounter novel rationales supporting the prevailing view that were underrepresented in their prior individual considerations, and social comparison, through which members infer and conform to perceived normative pressures by adopting positions perceived as more prototypically aligned with the group, often amplifying extremity to signal commitment. Meta-analytic evidence confirms the robustness of this dynamic across laboratory and field settings, though effect sizes vary by task type and group composition, with stronger polarization in homogeneous groups deliberating value-laden issues. In real-world applications, group polarization manifests in political enclaves, advisory committees, and digital forums, fostering intensified advocacy, policy extremism, and intergroup antagonism by reinforcing selective exposure to consonant information and normative escalation, independent of ideological valence.

Core Concepts

Definition and Distinctions

Group polarization denotes the tendency for the average post-discussion response of group members to become more extreme than the average pre-discussion response, in the direction of the group's initial dominant inclination. This effect manifests when like-minded individuals engage in deliberation, amplifying shared attitudes, beliefs, or decision preferences through mechanisms such as selective exposure to supporting arguments and social comparison. Empirical studies, including those on choice dilemmas and ethical judgments, consistently demonstrate this shift across diverse domains, with groups adopting positions further from neutrality than individuals would alone. The concept generalizes the earlier "risky shift" phenomenon, identified by Stoner in 1961, where groups endorsed greater risk in hypothetical scenarios than individuals; subsequent findings revealed symmetrical "cautious shifts" when initial tendencies leaned conservative, prompting the broader framing as polarization rather than direction-specific bias. Unlike mere conformity, which aligns individuals to a group norm without necessarily exaggerating it, or simple informational averaging, polarization involves a disproportionate move beyond the initial mean due to persuasive and normative pressures. Group polarization differs from groupthink, as the former reinforces extremity via open exchange of reinforcing rationales and social validation, whereas the latter suppresses dissent to achieve premature consensus, often yielding suboptimal outcomes irrespective of initial leanings. It also contrasts with intergroup attitude divergence, focusing instead on intragroup homogenization toward intensified uniformity rather than heightened cleavage or diversity.

Attitude Polarization

Attitude polarization refers to the process in which like-minded individuals, upon engaging in group discussion, shift their attitudes toward greater extremity in the direction of their initial leanings, compared to their pre-discussion positions. This phenomenon, a core component of group polarization, contrasts with the earlier "risky shift" findings by emphasizing attitudinal domains beyond risk preferences, such as moral, political, or social issues. Experimental evidence from the 1970s established this through controlled studies where participants' average attitude scores on scales measuring support for topics like feminism or racial desegregation moved predictably outward after deliberation among predisposed groups. David G. Myers' 1975 experiments provided foundational empirical support, testing the hypothesis that the initial average attitude within a group forecasts the direction and magnitude of post-discussion polarization. In one study involving 32 groups of female undergraduates, those initially favoring feminist positions showed increased support after discussion, with attitude scores shifting from moderate to strongly pro-feminist; conversely, groups leaning against showed amplified opposition. A second experiment replicated this across diverse issues, including capital punishment and student freedoms, confirming that polarization occurs reliably when groups are homogeneous in outlook, with shifts averaging 0.5 to 1 standard deviation on Likert scales. These results held across 37 prior studies reviewed by Myers and Lamm in 1976, indicating attitude polarization as a general tendency rather than anomaly. Subsequent research identified contributing factors, such as repeated expression of views during discussion, which amplifies extremity even without novel arguments. Brauer, Judd, and Gliner's 1995 experiments demonstrated that participants exposed to the group's attitudinal distribution—via feedback on others' positions—exhibited polarization comparable to full discussion, suggesting informational convergence on directional norms drives the effect. For instance, in simulated group settings, initial moderate supporters of environmental policies shifted to stronger advocacy after viewing aggregated pro-environmental responses from peers, with effect sizes around d=0.4. This mechanism underscores how mere awareness of collective leanings, independent of persuasive content, reinforces polarization. Attitude polarization has been observed in real-world analogs, though laboratory controls reveal its boundaries: it requires initial homogeneity and does not occur in diverse groups exposed to balanced views. Cass Sunstein's 1999 analysis of deliberative settings, drawing on Myers' data, noted that homogeneous discussions on issues like affirmative action or gun control yield extremism, with pre-discussion majorities (e.g., 60% support) often becoming near-unanimous post-discussion. Empirical robustness is evident in meta-analyses confirming consistent shifts across cultures and eras, though recent critiques highlight that individual-level biased assimilation—where counter-evidence is discounted—can mimic group effects without interaction. Nonetheless, discussion uniquely amplifies through social dynamics, distinguishing it from solitary attitude entrenchment.

Risky and Cautious Shifts

The risky shift denotes the observation that group decisions following discussion tend to favor riskier options than the average of members' initial individual choices. This effect was first identified in James A.F. Stoner's 1961 master's thesis at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where participants evaluated hypothetical "choice dilemmas"—scenarios pitting a safe but suboptimal outcome against a risky one with higher potential reward, such as advising a friend on career or medical gambles. Stoner's analysis of over 100 such items revealed that groups consistently shifted toward greater risk acceptance, with average group responses 12-15% more risky on a standardized scale compared to pre-discussion individual medians. Subsequent replications in the 1960s, using the same Choice-Dilemmas Questionnaire developed by Kogan and Wallach, confirmed this pattern across diverse samples, including students and professionals, attributing it to the amplification of initially moderate risk preferences through interaction. The cautious shift, by contrast, occurs when groups move toward more conservative or risk-averse positions after deliberation, particularly in dilemmas where initial individual leanings already tilt toward caution. Stoner himself documented this in a 1968 study, finding cautious shifts in items perceived as inherently safe or value-laden, such as ethical decisions influenced by widely held societal norms favoring prudence; for instance, groups discussing conservative financial or familial risks shifted an average of 10% toward caution relative to individual baselines. Empirical reviews indicate that cautious shifts emerge reliably when pre-discussion averages favor safety, as in scenarios involving potential loss or moral restraint, whereas risky shifts predominate in gain-framed or adventurous contexts; a meta-analysis of 31 studies from the 1960s-1970s reported effect sizes of d=0.40 for risky shifts and d=0.35 for cautious ones, with directionality tied to the group's starting point rather than discussion per se. These bidirectional shifts underscore that neither is anomalous but both exemplify the broader mechanism of polarization, where extremity increases in the prevailing direction without requiring unanimous initial agreement. Methodologically, both shifts are quantified by comparing pre- and post-discussion medians on scaled items (e.g., probability thresholds for accepting risk, from 1-99%), controlling for statistical artifacts like regression to the mean; laboratory experiments consistently show shifts persisting even in anonymous voting to rule out mere conformity. Real-world analogs appear in jury deliberations or investment committees, though field data is sparser due to ethical constraints on manipulation. Critics note that early risky shift findings may overstate universality, as item selection biased toward risk-appealing Western samples, yet cross-cultural replications affirm the core dynamic when initial tendencies are accounted for.

Historical Development

Origins in Early Experiments

The concept of group polarization emerged from observations of choice shifts in group decision-making during the early 1960s. In 1961, James A. F. Stoner conducted an unpublished master's thesis at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, examining differences between individual and group risk preferences using the Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire, a set of 12 hypothetical scenarios involving risky decisions, such as whether a patient should undergo a life-saving but dangerous surgery. Stoner's study involved MBA students who first provided individual responses on a 10-point probability scale for accepting risk in each dilemma, then discussed and reached consensus in small groups of five. The results showed that group consensus positions were consistently riskier than the average of pre-discussion individual choices, with shifts averaging about 7% toward greater risk across scenarios. This unexpected finding, initially anticipated to reveal greater group caution, was termed the "risky shift" phenomenon. Stoner's work, stemming from a term project in a leadership course taught by Warren Bennis, prompted rapid replication and extension by other researchers. By 1962, studies by Wallach and Kogan using similar methods confirmed the risky shift in undergraduate samples, reporting average shifts of 1.5 to 2 points on the scale toward risk in dilemmas like entrepreneurial ventures or medical treatments. These early experiments typically involved homogeneous groups of young adults, with discussions lasting 15-30 minutes, and measured shifts via median or mean comparisons between initial individual medians and final group decisions. However, the focus remained narrow on risk-taking, attributing shifts to normative pressures or diffusion of responsibility rather than broader attitudinal extremism. The recognition of bidirectional shifts broadened the phenomenon beyond mere risk. In the mid-1960s, researchers like David G. Myers identified "cautious shifts" in scenarios where initial leanings favored conservatism, such as ethical business decisions, where groups adopted even more cautious stances than individuals, with shifts mirroring risky ones in magnitude but opposite in direction. Stoner's 1968 publication formalized this duality, analyzing data from over 1,000 participants across 38 studies and linking shifts to widely held cultural values, such as valorizing boldness in uncertain contexts, evidenced by greater risky shifts in pro-risk dilemmas and cautious ones in anti-risk ones. These findings shifted theoretical emphasis from unidimensional risk to polarization, where group discussion amplifies prevailing tendencies, setting the stage for integrative explanations in social psychology. Early methodological critiques noted potential demand characteristics, as participants might infer experimenter expectations for extremity, though consistent replication across labs supported the robustness of the observed effects.

Key Milestones and Refinements

The risky shift phenomenon, an early precursor to group polarization research, was first documented in 1961 by James Stoner in his master's thesis at MIT, where he observed that group decisions on hypothetical dilemmas tended to favor greater risk compared to the average of individual prediscussion choices. This finding, initially termed the "risky shift," prompted extensive replication studies throughout the 1960s, revealing consistent patterns in laboratory settings using choice-dilemma questionnaires, though early explanations focused on diffusion of responsibility or value diffusion rather than broader attitudinal dynamics. A key refinement emerged with the identification of "cautious shifts" in the mid-1960s, demonstrating that groups could also move toward conservatism on issues where individuals initially leaned cautious, thus establishing that shifts were not unidirectionally toward risk but aligned with the group's preexisting moderate tendency. By 1969, Serge Moscovici and Marisa Zavalloni introduced the term "group polarization" to encompass these bidirectional extremity shifts beyond risk-taking, based on experiments showing French students' mildly negative views of Americans intensifying after group discussion, marking a pivot from narrow decision-making paradigms to general attitude polarization. In the 1970s, David G. Myers and Helmut Lamm synthesized over a decade of findings in a comprehensive review, defining group polarization as the tendency for postdiscussion group member attitudes to become more extreme in the direction of the pregroup average, while integrating early mechanisms like persuasive arguments—where unshared rationales amplify dominant views—and normative social comparison, where individuals adjust to match or exceed perceived group norms. This period's refinements emphasized empirical controls for factors such as group homogeneity and discussion content, with studies confirming polarization in diverse domains like ethical judgments and policy preferences, though replicability varied across cultures and issue types. By the 1980s, further theoretical advancements distinguished informational influences (e.g., novel arguments surfacing in discussion) from identity-based pressures, refining models to predict boundary conditions like depolarization under cross-cutting information exposure.

Theoretical Frameworks

Social Comparison Theory

Social comparison theory, proposed by psychologist Leon Festinger in 1954, posits that individuals possess a drive to evaluate their own opinions and abilities by comparing them to those of others, particularly similar others, in situations where objective standards are unavailable. This process serves to reduce uncertainty and establish self-worth, with comparisons tending toward those perceived as relevant benchmarks. In group settings, such evaluations occur dynamically during interactions, influencing shifts in attitudes as members gauge their standing relative to the emerging group norm. Applied to group polarization, social comparison theory explains the phenomenon as a normative pressure wherein discussants, upon hearing others' views, infer the group's predominant direction and adjust their positions to differentiate positively—typically by adopting a stance more extreme than the perceived average to signal superiority or alignment with valued traits like boldness or caution. This mechanism was particularly invoked in the 1960s to account for the "risky shift," where early experiments, such as those by James Stoner in 1961 using choice dilemmas, revealed groups endorsing riskier options than pre-discussion individual averages, attributed to members striving to appear less risk-averse than peers. Subsequent refinements, including by Sanders and Baron in 1977, emphasized that polarization arises from public expressions of views calibrated to exceed the normative midpoint, enhancing perceived favorability within the group. Empirical support for this application includes controlled studies where manipulating perceived group norms—without introducing new arguments—induced polarization-like shifts; for instance, informing participants of a group's average leaning prompted individuals to move beyond it in mock jury or decision tasks. However, evidence also indicates that social comparison effects are stronger under conditions of high self-presentational motivation, such as when opinions are voiced publicly rather than privately, distinguishing it from purely informational influences. While less dominant than persuasive arguments theory in explaining attitudinal polarization, social comparison remains a key framework for understanding how identity concerns amplify group tendencies toward extremity, as seen in meta-analyses confirming its role in choice shifts across diverse domains.

Persuasive Arguments and Informational Influence

The persuasive arguments theory (PAT) posits that group polarization arises from members' exposure to a disproportionate number of novel, compelling arguments favoring their preexisting leanings during discussion, which were not fully considered individually beforehand. In homogeneous groups, where initial attitudes align, participants articulate and encounter primarily pro-attitudinal rationales, enhancing conviction and shifting positions toward extremity without necessitating normative pressure. This informational mechanism contrasts with mere repetition of known views, emphasizing the persuasive impact of new justifications that outweigh counterarguments, often due to the group's shared informational biases. Empirical support for PAT derives from controlled experiments manipulating argument exposure. For instance, a 1984 study found that groups presented with high-persuasiveness pro-risk arguments shifted more extremely on choice-dilemma tasks than those receiving balanced or low-persuasiveness inputs, mirroring polarization effects independent of interaction. Similarly, pre-discussion provision of biased argument pools to individuals produced shifts comparable to group deliberation, indicating that informational asymmetry—rather than social dynamics alone—drives the effect. Myers and Lamm's 1976 review synthesized over 30 studies, concluding that persuasive arguments consistently explain both risky and cautious shifts across domains like ethical decisions and negotiations, with effect sizes amplified in value-laden topics. Informational influence extends PAT by framing polarization as reliance on collectively pooled knowledge, where groups infer validity from the prevalence and endorsement of supporting claims. This process assumes rational updating based on perceived informational consensus, yet in practice, it favors extremity because members withhold or downplay dissonant facts, creating an illusion of robust evidence for the dominant view. Laboratory evidence, such as simulated jury deliberations, shows that informational convergence on case-specific arguments correlates with verdict polarization, with shifts persisting even when participants later receive corrective data. Critics note, however, that PAT's efficacy diminishes in diverse groups or when arguments are scrutinized for quality, suggesting boundary conditions tied to discussion depth and participant expertise.

Social Identity Approaches

Social identity theory posits that individuals categorize themselves and others into social groups, deriving self-esteem from positive evaluations of their ingroup relative to outgroups, which motivates conformity to ingroup norms to maintain distinctiveness and positivity. In the context of group polarization, this framework explains post-discussion extremism as arising from members' alignment with a perceived group prototype—a normative position often more extreme than average individual attitudes—to affirm social identification and differentiate from rivals. This contrasts with informational or comparison-based accounts by emphasizing identity-driven motivations over mere information exchange or relative deprivation. Empirical support for this approach comes from experiments demonstrating that polarization intensifies under conditions of strong group identification and salient norms. In Mackie's 1986 study involving 120 undergraduates discussing topics like capital punishment and affirmative action, participants who strongly identified with their discussion group shifted attitudes toward the group's normative stance, which they rated as significantly more extreme than their own pre-discussion views or those of non-members; this effect was absent in low-identification conditions. A follow-up experiment confirmed that perceived ingroup norms, rather than outgroup positions alone, drove the shift, with polarization occurring even without direct intergroup competition. The presence of a rival outgroup further amplifies identity-based polarization by heightening the need for normative conformity to enhance ingroup superiority. Mackie (1986, Experiment 2) found that groups aware of an opposing outgroup on the same issue polarized more than those without such awareness, as members assimilated to a prototypical position that maximized intergroup differentiation. This mechanism aligns with broader social identity predictions that outgroup threats activate depersonalized self-perception, where individuals adopt the group's most emblematic stance to signal loyalty and cohesion. Subsequent research extends these findings to self-categorization processes, a derivative of social identity theory, where group discussion fosters assimilation to a context-specific prototype that embodies extremity for identity maintenance. For instance, Hogg and Turner (1987) argued that polarization reflects not attitude change per se but reconfiguration of self-definition around a polarized ingroup norm, supported by studies showing greater shifts in high- versus low-consensus groups. Critics note potential overemphasis on identity at the expense of cognitive factors, yet meta-analyses affirm that identification moderates polarization effects across diverse topics, with effect sizes stronger in identity-salient settings like political debates. This approach underscores causal realism in group dynamics, where polarization serves adaptive functions for collective identity rather than mere error in deliberation.

Empirical Foundations

Laboratory Evidence

James Stoner's 1961 experiment provided initial laboratory evidence for what would later be termed group polarization, initially observed as a "risky shift." Participants individually rated the minimum acceptability of risky choices in 12 hypothetical dilemmas, such as career or ethical decisions involving potential failure; groups then discussed and collectively decided, yielding average post-discussion positions that were significantly riskier than pre-discussion individual averages across most scenarios. Subsequent replications confirmed this pattern, with groups shifting toward greater risk acceptance compared to individual baselines, prompting broader investigation beyond risk domains. Myers and Lamm's 1976 comprehensive review synthesized over 40 laboratory studies demonstrating group polarization as a general phenomenon, where discussion amplifies the dominant initial tendency within homogeneous groups toward more extreme attitudes or judgments. In attitude domains, such as racial desegregation or ethical evaluations, pre-discussion individual opinions were measured via scales; post-discussion group consensuses shifted further in the direction of the group's initial lean, often by 20-30% on standardized scales, with effects consistent across topics like jury simulations and person perceptions. For instance, in experiments on ethical decisions, groups initially favoring leniency toward moral lapses became more permissive after deliberation, while those cautious grew more conservative. Laboratory paradigms typically involved small groups of 3-5 like-minded participants to isolate discussion effects, controlling for diffusion of responsibility or mere exposure by comparing group outcomes to aggregated individual responses without interaction. Persuasive arguments theory was tested by having participants list novel rationales during discussion, correlating the extremity of generated arguments with polarization magnitude; social comparison manipulations, such as public versus private ratings, further showed shifts driven by normative influences, with public conditions enhancing extremity by up to 15% more than private ones. More recent controlled experiments have refined these findings, incorporating cognitive load or neuroimaging to dissect mechanisms. A 2019 study induced polarization in minimal attitude tasks (e.g., evaluations of abstract policies) under high versus low processing effort conditions, finding greater shifts when participants actively rehearsed comparative standards, supporting integrated social comparison and informational models over singular explanations. Risky and cautious shifts were elicited in 2022 lab setups using advantage-disadvantage frames, with fMRI revealing inter-brain synchrony during polarized deliberations, indicating coordinated neural patterns for extreme consensus formation. These studies affirm the robustness of polarization in sterile lab settings, though effect sizes vary (Cohen's d ≈ 0.5-1.0) depending on group homogeneity and topic relevance.

Real-World and Political Applications

In political deliberation, like-minded groups often shift toward more extreme positions after discussion, amplifying initial tendencies and contributing to partisan entrenchment. Empirical studies confirm this pattern, with deliberation moving groups further in the direction of their predeliberation leanings, as observed in analyses of party dynamics and ideological enclaves. For example, internal party discussions have been linked to heightened policy extremism, where moderate proposals evolve into uncompromising stances, evident in cases like the radicalization of factions during the French Revolution or modern legislative gridlock. This process underlies affective polarization, where emotional hostility between parties intensifies beyond policy disagreements, supported by surveys showing partisan cues influencing nonpolitical judgments. Judicial applications demonstrate group polarization in jury settings, where collective deliberation frequently produces verdicts more punitive or lenient than the average of individual predeliberation opinions. Mock-jury experiments reveal that discussions enhance the initially dominant response, such as favoring conviction when a majority leans that way, with authoritarian traits exacerbating bias toward harsher outcomes. Real-world implications include risks of miscarriages of justice in homogeneous juries, as polarization can override dissenting views, paralleling dynamics in the film 12 Angry Men where group pressures align verdicts with majority predispositions. Group polarization also facilitates radicalization in extremist networks, where repeated interactions within ideologically aligned groups escalate moderate sympathies into commitments to violence. Social psychological research identifies this through identity fusion and reinforcement mechanisms, as seen in terrorist cells where shared narratives intensify over time, drawing on evidence from case studies of groups like ISIS affiliates. In conflict zones, such dynamics have propelled escalatory acts, with wartime deliberations polarizing participants toward aggression beyond initial inclinations. These applications highlight how unchecked group processes undermine moderation, though heterogeneous deliberation can mitigate shifts by introducing counterarguments.

Criticisms and Limitations

Methodological and Replicability Issues

Early studies on group polarization predominantly relied on laboratory experiments using hypothetical scenarios, such as choice dilemmas or mock jury deliberations, which prioritized experimental control but distanced findings from real-world dynamics lacking genuine stakes or consequences. These artificial settings often involved small groups like dyads or triads composed of university students, raising concerns about ecological validity and generalizability to diverse populations or natural group interactions. Measurement of polarization has faced challenges, including imprecise quantification of opinion shifts through methods like probability density functions or attitude scales, which struggle to capture nuanced distributions or long-term changes beyond immediate post-discussion assessments. Reliance on self-reported attitudes or subjective evaluations in these paradigms can introduce biases, such as demand characteristics or context-specific self-presentation, potentially inflating observed effects in controlled environments. Replicability appears robust overall, with the core phenomenon consistently observed across hundreds of studies employing varied measures and cultural contexts since the 1960s, including reliable shifts in both risky and cautious directions. However, exceptions occur under certain conditions, such as inconsistent norm exposure or heterogeneous groups, yielding mixed or null results that highlight variability sensitive to procedural details. Broader concerns in social psychology, including small sample sizes and over-reliance on WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) participants, apply here, though direct replication failures specific to group polarization remain rare compared to other effects. Meta-analyses from the 1980s confirmed moderate effect sizes but noted methodological heterogeneity complicating direct comparisons.

Alternative Interpretations and Boundary Conditions

Some researchers propose that group polarization may arise from rational inference processes rather than purely social influences, where individuals engage in Bayesian updating with prior beliefs and selectively encountered evidence, leading to increasingly extreme positions even in isolation. This interpretation challenges dominant social psychological accounts by emphasizing cognitive mechanisms like confirmation bias and information processing heuristics over interpersonal dynamics. Alternative frameworks integrate motivational factors, such as perceived intergroup threats, which amplify affective polarization by heightening emotional distancing from outgroups, particularly in multi-party systems where ideological divides are salient. In this view, polarization reflects adaptive responses to perceived competition rather than normative social comparison or persuasive argumentation alone. Collective vice models further posit polarization as an epistemic failure stemming from group-level flaws in reasoning, contrasting with individualistic explanations. Empirical boundary conditions indicate that group polarization requires an initial collective lean toward risk or caution; without such predisposition, discussions yield convergence rather than extremity. It is attenuated or reversed in settings with enforced deliberative norms, such as requirements for considering opposing arguments, which promote balanced information exchange over unchecked advocacy. Intergroup contact interventions reduce affective polarization under typical conditions but fail among individuals with strong partisan identities, highlighting identification strength as a moderator. Polarization effects diminish in diverse groups lacking ideological fault lines or when discussions involve high-effort processing that counters biased sampling of arguments. In organizational contexts, such as corporate boards facing performance declines, it manifests selectively in strategic decisions but is bounded by external pressures like regulatory oversight. Meta-analytic reviews confirm these limits, noting weaker effects in non-value-laden tasks or when pre-discussion attitudes are already maximal.

Modern Implications

Social Media and Echo Chambers

The decline of traditional media outlets, such as local newspapers and broadcast networks, has amplified group polarization by diminishing shared informational environments and cross-cutting exposure to diverse viewpoints, thereby facilitating retreat into ideologically homogeneous online clusters. As local news coverage erodes, communities experience reduced common factual bases, leading to nationalized discourse and intensified partisan divides. Empirical studies link local newspaper closures to increased electoral and affective polarization, with difference-in-differences analyses showing heightened extremism in affected areas due to fragmented information agendas and diminished bridging of group differences. Social media platforms facilitate group polarization by enabling users to form and interact within ideologically homogeneous networks, often termed echo chambers, where repeated exposure to congruent viewpoints intensifies attitudes through mechanisms like persuasive arguments and social comparison. These chambers arise from user-driven selective exposure, where individuals preferentially follow like-minded accounts, compounded by algorithmic recommendations that prioritize content maximizing engagement, such as emotionally charged or confirmatory material. A 2021 PNAS study analyzing Twitter discussions found that echo chambers emerge from human tendencies like selective exposure and contagion, amplifying group polarization by reinforcing extreme positions within clusters. Empirical investigations reveal mixed evidence on the extent to which social media echo chambers drive polarization. Laboratory and field experiments, such as a 2023 study in the American Political Science Review, demonstrated that partisan echo chambers—simulated via controlled online discussions—increased both policy and affective polarization compared to mixed groups, with participants shifting attitudes more extremely after homogeneous interactions. Similarly, a 2021 analysis of U.S. Twitter discourse on COVID-19 identified distinct echo chambers correlating with polarized sentiments, where Republican-leaning clusters expressed higher skepticism toward vaccines and lockdowns. However, broader reviews challenge the prevalence of total isolation; a 2022 Reuters Institute literature review of over 100 studies concluded that echo chambers are rarer than popularly assumed, with most users encountering cross-cutting viewpoints, and no robust evidence linking filter bubbles to mass polarization. Algorithmic curation plays a nuanced role, often exacerbating polarization not through deliberate isolation but via incentives for virality. A 2023 Science experiment on 35,000 U.S. Facebook users, which varied feed algorithms including chronological sorting, found that reducing algorithmic personalization did not decrease polarization, suggesting user choices and pre-existing divides contribute more than feeds alone. Conversely, a 2023 Northwestern University study modeled how algorithms exploit social learning biases, oversaturating feeds with peer-validated extreme content, thereby accelerating group polarization in simulations. These findings underscore that while social media amplifies polarization via echo-like dynamics in subsets of users—particularly on platforms like Twitter during events like the 2016 U.S. election—systemic overstatement ignores evidence of heterogeneous exposure and the primacy of offline influences.

Political Polarization and Deliberative Processes

Group polarization in political contexts often intensifies through deliberative processes among like-minded participants, as members shift toward more extreme positions following discussion. Cass Sunstein's "law of group polarization," articulated in 1999, describes this phenomenon where prediscussion leanings within a group become amplified postdeliberation, driven by mechanisms such as the sharing of persuasive arguments that highlight overlooked rationales favoring the group's direction and social comparison, whereby individuals moderate their views to match or surpass perceived group norms. In political settings, this dynamic manifests in homogeneous groups like partisan legislative committees or advocacy organizations, where initial moderate support for a policy—such as risk regulation or affirmative action—evolves into stronger endorsements of radical variants after internal debate. Such effects contribute to broader political polarization by entrenching ideological divides within institutions. Sunstein notes implications for legislatures, courts, and regulatory bodies, where deliberation among ideologically aligned actors can produce outcomes more extreme than individual preferences, potentially leading to gridlock or volatile policy shifts as groups on opposing sides radicalize in parallel. Empirical laboratory analogs, including mock jury deliberations on politically charged issues like climate change, demonstrate this shift: groups initially leaning skeptical toward human-caused warming adopted more dismissive stances after discussion, with verdicts reflecting heightened extremism via both informational and normative influences. Yet, structured deliberative processes incorporating diversity and procedural safeguards can counteract polarization. In James Fishkin's 2021 "America in " experiment, a stratified random sample of 220 U.S. citizens engaged in weekend deliberations on issues like and healthcare; participants exhibited substantial depolarizing shifts, with affective polarization dropping by an of 10-15 points and attitude gaps narrowing across partisan lines due to exposure to balanced and respectful exchange. A 2023 multidisciplinary review of 82 studies found that 59% of political science research reported deliberation reducing polarization when framed by deliberative democracy principles—such as inclusive participation, fact-based argumentation, and mutual justification—contrasting with polarizing outcomes in unstructured, homogeneous settings. These findings underscore that while group polarization theory predicts extremism in insular political deliberations, engineered diversity and norms can promote convergence, though real-world partisan environments often deviate from such ideals, sustaining risks of entrenchment.

Group Dynamics in Institutions and Conflict

In deliberative bodies such as legislatures, courts, and regulatory commissions, group polarization manifests when discussions among like-minded members shift collective judgments toward more extreme positions than the predeliberation median, potentially yielding policies that amplify initial biases rather than moderate them. This dynamic arises from mechanisms like persuasive arguments—where group members encounter novel rationales supporting the prevailing view—and social comparison, whereby individuals adjust to align with or exceed perceived group norms. Empirical observations from mock jury deliberations, for instance, show verdicts becoming harsher or more lenient post-discussion, depending on the group's starting leanings, with shifts averaging 10-20% more extreme on rating scales in controlled studies. Within organizational contexts, such as corporate boards or administrative agencies, polarization can entrench risky or conservative decisions; for example, homogeneous executive teams deliberating on strategic investments often endorse options riskier than members' private assessments, as documented in analyses of business simulations where post-group risk acceptance rose by up to 15% from baseline. Institutional structures exacerbate this when insulated from dissent, as in regulatory panels insulated from public input, leading to amplified enforcement or deregulation aligned with internal ideologies. Countermeasures, including mandated devil's advocacy or heterogeneous membership, have mitigated effects in experiments, reducing extremity shifts by introducing corrective arguments. In intergroup conflicts, intragroup polarization intensifies ideological entrenchment, fostering outgroup derogation and barriers to resolution; studies of protracted disputes, such as those modeled in laboratory intergroup simulations, reveal that cohesive factions discussing threats adopt positions 25-30% more uncompromising, heightening perceived incompatibilities. This process contributes to escalation, as polarized groups interpret concessions as weakness, perpetuating cycles observed in historical analyses of ethnic or ideological standoffs where initial grievances evolve into absolutist demands post-internal deliberation. Negative normative contexts amplify division, with group talks reinforcing hostility toward outgroups under majority disapproval norms, as evidenced in field experiments where local subgroups polarized against broader categories, increasing intergroup distance by 18% on attitudinal measures. Such dynamics underscore causal links between internal cohesion and external antagonism, where unchecked polarization sustains conflict inertia absent external depolarizing interventions.

References

  1. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-24477-001
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065260108600076
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6732819/
  4. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/7312037d-39a8-6bd4-e053-0100007fdf3b/download
  5. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-26005-001
  6. https://www.simplypsychology.org/group-polarization.html
  7. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-group-polarization-phenomenon.-Myers-Lamm/3d20e757aa402632d574801181b23292981e3e51
  8. https://www.verywellmind.com/group-polarization-theories-and-examples-7547335
  9. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1541&context=law_and_economics
  10. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.69.5.806
  11. https://psych.wisc.edu/Brauer/BrauerLab/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Brauer-Judd-_-Gliner-1995-JPSP.pdf
  12. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-05421-001
  13. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/11330
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103168900693
  15. https://dictionary.apa.org/cautious-shift
  16. http://fmwww.bc.edu/repec/esNASM04/up.20949.1075222510.pdf
  17. https://pub-fb5027e0bdfb4fc4ab71242ed2116543.r2.dev/uploads/GroupPolarizationRiskyShift.pdf
  18. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/48923/riskycautiousshi00ston.pdf
  19. https://www.zimbardo.com/group-polarization-psychology-definition-history-examples/
  20. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED132639.pdf
  21. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1969-12889-001
  22. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-5172/6/3/144
  23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232600113_Social_Comparison_and_Influence_in_Groups
  24. https://irle.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2004/04/Influence-and-Persuasion-in-Small-Groups.pdf
  25. https://www.humanscience.org/docs/Festinger%2520%25281954%2529%2520A%2520Theory%2520of%2520Social%2520Comparison%2520Processes.pdf
  26. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/context/jepson-faculty-publications/article/1190/viewcontent/Social_comparison_and_influence_in_groups.pdf
  27. https://vialogue.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/groupinducedpolarattitudesbehavior.pdf
  28. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/1986-24477-001.pdf
  29. https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/cogsci20/papers/0153/0153.pdf
  30. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167284102012
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103177900026
  32. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-39687-001
  33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/249394
  34. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-21915-001
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811922008606
  36. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics/542/
  37. https://pcl.sites.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj22066/files/media/file/iyengar-degruyter-partisanship.pdf
  38. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/group-induced-polarization-simulated-juries
  39. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1424
  40. https://hls.harvard.edu/bibliography/group-polarization-and-12-angry-men/
  41. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13684302241240704
  42. https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/understanding-violent-extremism-the-social-psychology-of-identity-and-group-dynamics/
  43. https://helpfulprofessor.com/group-polarization-examples/
  44. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/09/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-the-united-states-what-the-research-says?lang=en
  45. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11389-0
  46. https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/view/7539/7539.html
  47. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-22006-000
  48. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/encyclopedia-of-management-theory/chpt/group-polarization-the-risky-shift
  49. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.641215/full
  50. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/management-and-organization-review/article/group-polarization-in-board-decisions-about-strategic-change-evidence-from-chinese-publicly-listed-companies-20082018/554E1F83692ED1EEED391D291155901D
  51. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/local-newspaper-decline-and-political-polarization-evidence-from-a-multiparty-setting/C672161DC8EF72E990B88DACD5088BEB
  52. https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/governance-unlv/vol6/iss2/2/
  53. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
  54. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp9364
  55. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/polarizing-effect-of-partisan-echo-chambers/5044B63A13A458A97CA747E9DCA07228
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8371575/
  57. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/echo-chambers-filter-bubbles-and-polarisation-literature-review
  58. https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2023/08/social-media-algorithms-exploit-how-humans-learn-from-their-peers
  59. https://pacscenter.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Partisan_Selective_Exposure_Paper.pdf
  60. https://www.nber.org/papers/w29458
  61. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=199668
  62. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/one-reason-groups-fail-polarization
  63. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/is-deliberation-an-antidote-to-extreme-partisan-polarization-reflections-on-america-in-one-room/5DEFB6F8D944ECDE77A5E80C3346D4DE
  64. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2023.1127372/full
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352154619301317
  66. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00089-2
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6585756/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.