Polarization
Polarization is a tendency to reason only in terms of extremes or opposites. The most common type of polarization is group polarization. Group polarization in general refers to the notion that judgments made by a group tend to be more extreme than judgments made by individual members. The concept of group polarization developed from a notion of the “risky shift.” It was originally thought that after group discussion, individuals would make riskier decisions than before. However, researchers then realized tendency could also be to the other extreme; that decisions could shift to a more cautious judgment. Group polarization is an important phenomenon to study because it is relevant to our everyday lives. When people with similar opinions begin to talk about an issue, conflicts can increase because of the intensity of opinions. Group interaction is in our daily lives, thus it is extremely important to understand group polarization in order to understand and avoid dangerous situations. There are three theories that explain this principal: the persuasive arguments theory, the social comparison theory, and the social identity theory. The persuasive arguments theory generally states that group polarization results from an exchange of information, ideas, or facts among group members, thus providing each member more support for his or her position in the form of new ideas and arguments. Group members’ opinions will change if they are exposed to a variety of different opinions assuming it fits into the person’s preexisting opinions and how logical the information represents reality. The social comparison theory generally states that people change their opinions in order to conform to the social norms of the group. This theory compares self with others and a desire for acceptance. If group members find out others have the same opinions, they will usually intensify their views. People want to be socially accepted so they will constantly try to present themselves favorable to others. People do not only want to be accepted, but also want to be perceived more favorable than the other group members. This leads to group members altering opinions to better each other, thus leading to a more positive or negative outcome than would have happened individually. The social identity theory states that there are three steps to group polarization. The first step involves social categorization, this occurs when a person sees him/herself and others into diverse social groups. The second step is after this categorization people determine the characteristic qualities of each group, thus the third step of polarizing and each member adopts the stereotyped attributes of the group.
Because the most polarized individuals are often the most politically active, they have the most influence on the government, which results in the election of polarized candidates and policies.
Political Polarization is one of the most widely accepted causes of political gridlock, as the two sides continue to drift further and further apart. But why does the chasm keep growing? A few different theories call out the masses and the elites as being the principal actors in driving polarization. Fiorina says that the masses, or just average people, are not the ones that are polarizing. In fact she thinks that it is the elites who are driving polarization as they attempt to stay as far away
To remind people in an organization why they belong takes continued focus on a common goal or common belief. By having one main function, a group is generally more effective than if everyone has different ideas and outlooks on specific topics. However, to keep everyone on the same page, the members of a group need to accurately know where they stand in reference to their goal. One way to do this is through social facilitation. This is the concern of self image through the presence of other people. It's a concept that allows members to know the acceptable opinions of the group. Someone who agrees to the ideas set out from the organization. "Group polarization is the concept of changing personal opinions to extremities after a group discussion.(Johnson 13)" This concept eliminates members who aren't sure what they think of the group's purpose. They decide that either they agree completely or they disagree completely. Either way it means they decide if they are in or out after the group discussion. A common goal is one way to distinguish and separate the devoted members from the questionable individuals in a group.
John Chambers of the University of Florida measures the difference between "actual" and "perceived" polarizat...
According to Renée Grinnell, group polarization is “a phenomenon wherein the decisions and opinions of people in a group setting become more extreme than their actual, privately held beliefs” (Grinnell). This can be seen in the mass marches and chants of the
, attempts to convince the reader that there is polarization (a culture war) in the United States. Wilson does not define polarization by partisan disagreements solely, rather as “an intense commitment to a candidate, a culture, or an ideology that sets people in one group definitively apart from people in another, rival group” (Canon 205). This polarization stretches to the extent that one group’s set of beliefs is totally correct, and the rival is wholly wrong (Canon 206). Wilson provides three chief factors for the growth of polarization.
Groupthink was coined by Janis and is defined as “a psychological phenomenon in which people strive for consensus within a group”(Cherry). So people will essentially forgo their beliefs to conform to the group to obtain harmony or if they don’t agree with a group idea they will simply keep quiet about it rather than challenge ideas. Janis classified eight different “symptoms” of groupthink. They are Illusions of invulnerability, which leads the members of the group to take part in risk-taking and become overly optimistic. Unquestioned beliefs, leads the members to ignore the possible aftermath that their decisions can make. Rationalizing, hinders members from recognizing warning signs and from reexamining their own beliefs. Stereotyping, leads the members of the group to criticize or write off any other group who may have differing opinions. Self-censorship, makes group members who may have differing opinions not disclose them to the group. "Mindguards",certain members of the group who are self-appointed censors that withhold information they find may disrupt group consensus. Illusions of unanimity, leads the members of the group to think that everyone believes the same things. Direct pressure, this is put on members to conform when they do end up expressing their own opinions or the rest of the group feels as if they are having differing opinions. Janis’s work was influential because it helped us examine the
In the experiment, the group of individuals that were heavily influenced that their judgement was poor had no choice but to join the group’s decision despite having opposing views. Similarly, Eric Forman had to stop attending his disco roller-skating events because his friend group was totally against it. Lastly, Varun ended up telling his girlfriend he cheated because his respect from the group was on the line. All in all, this theory that people have to listen to other individual’s opinions to grade their worth has become obvious through these
to err in the direction of our own beliefs or behavior. For example, college students who
By comparing ourselves with other people we categorize and label those who are similar to us as the in-group and people who differ from our-self are categorized as the out-group (Duff & Peace, 2012). We act in ways to favor our in-group rather than out group, this is called in-group favoritism. In-groups and out-groups are evident in many social environments, for example, children form groups with those who like playing similar games to them. In a study that explains in-group favoritism, an experiment was conducted by allocating individuals into groups based on the result of a coin flip (Billing & Tajfel, 1973). After having been told their group members, the participants then had to allocate points to members of their own group (‘in-group’) and to the members of the other group (‘out-group’). These members of the in-group ...
There are eight symptoms of groupthink. The first symptom is when all or most of the group view themselves as invincible which causes them to make decisions that may be risky. The group has an enormous amount of confidence and authority in their decisions as well as in themselves. They see themselves collectively better in all ways than any other group and they believe the event will go well not because of what it is, but because they are involved. The second symptom is the belief of the group that they are moral and upstanding, which leads the group to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of the decisions. The group engages in a total overestimation of its morality. There is never any question that the group is not doing the right thing, they just act. The disregarding of information or warnings that may lead to changes in past policy is the third symptom. Even if there is considerable evidence against their standpoint, they see no problems with their plan. Stereotyping of enemy leaders or others as weak or stupid is the fourth symptom. This symptom leads to close-mindedness to other individuals and their opinions. The fifth symptom is the self-censorship of an individual causing him to overlook his doubts. A group member basically keeps his mouth shut so the group can continue in harmony. Symptom number six refers to the illusion of unanimity; going along with the majority, and the assumption that silence signifies consent. Sometimes a group member who questions the rightness of the goals is pressured by others into concurring or agreeing, this is symptom number seven. The last symptom is the members that set themselves up as a buffer to protect the group from adverse information that may destroy their shared contentment regarding the group’s ...
This essay concerns social influence in general. Aspects of social influence as such as majority influence and minority influence will be discussed in terms of their underlying psychological processes and how they differ. Majority influence or conformity refers to the desire to belong or to fit in within a particular group which involves adopting certain attributes, behaviour and attitudes of a particular group. As a result individuals consequently experience group pressure (in Baron, Branscombe & Byrne 2008). Minority influence on the other hand, refers to the influence that the minority exert over the majority in that the majority come to accept the beliefs and behaviours of a minority (in Baron et al. 2008).
Through the onset of peer pressure and family relations we see how these influence individuals into making certain decisions and acting in a way that will suit others. Meditations explains how even though it would be normal to want to follow our in-group that we must be able to break free of those confines that tie us down and become our own independent persons. It goes on to explain in a broad sense of group dynamics how our social norms and relations can cause individuals to sway in their own personal thoughts and feelings. An example of this would be discussing political preferences among friends and family. A person could change their own views based on what their family believes in and tells them about certain parties as they are growing up; this sways them to assimilate into group beliefs despite their own in order to blend in without any complications. This concept is not limited to family, but more common amongst peer groups and friendships. A good example would be when one wants to smoothly integrate into their desired group. Said group could have a political standpoint of conservatism while the individual’s personal views are liberal. To merge into the faction, they could state that their political party is the same as their peers, thus eventually altering their claims to being conservative. In “The Need to Belong can Motivate
Social psychology essentially became the focus on the individual rather than the group as a whole. Many thoughtful ideas are collected in response to the studies of social psychology. Human cognition is understood to arise from interacting socially, highlighting the importance of socialization. We use social cognition to develop our explanations and our ideas on why a person’s behavior is/does what it is/does. As explained in class, we may have a student who never completes assignments and from that viewpoint, we determine that the student is a lazy person and more than likely does not care about the class.
An example of this is when people form judgements about certain events or topics such as the news. When people form judgements they do not come out of thin air; people form judgements using shared and personal knowledge, reason, perspective, and emotions. Depending on the topic, emotions may or may not play a large role in the formation of people’s judgements. This past summer, the Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage which caused a huge controversy among many people. I remember seeing friends having large debates over social media about the court’s ruling. In summer school two people got into a heated argument when discussing the topic in my government class. When people asked me for my opinion on the ruling, I simply refused to comment so that I would not get into a debate with another person. Were people placing a large emphasis on their emotions when forming their judgements? There was a sense of confirmation bias among the people when they were debating. This confirmation bias stemmed from a strong emotional attachment to one’s opinions. It is up to the person to decide whether or not they act on their emotions. Because of my religious background, I felt discontent with the ruling. I began to think, “Was I too quick to come up with an opinion on the ruling?” Like the others, I could not repress my emotions towards the topic. But,