Public discussions of political and social issues are often characterized by deep and persistent polarization. In social psychology, it's standard to treat belief polarization as the product of epistemic irrationality. In contrast, we argue that the persistent disagreement that grounds political and social polarization can be produced by epistemically rational agents, when those agents have limited cognitive resources. Using an agent-based model of group deliberation, we show that groups of deliberating agents using coherence-based strategies for managing their limited resources tend to polarize into different subgroups. We argue that using that strategy is epistemically rational for limited agents. So even though group polarization looks like it must be the product of human irrationality, polarization can be the result of fully rational deliberation with natural human limitations.
Drawing on uncertainty‐identity theory (Hogg, 2012), we explore the effects of uncertainty concerning a specific social identity on group identification and attitudes toward subgroup integration and separation in South Koreans' nested identity context (N = 148). All variables were measured. Path analysis revealed, as predicted, that superordinate identity uncertainty weakened superordinate identification and subgroup identity uncertainty weakened subgroup identification. We also found that subgroup identity uncertainty strengthened superordinate identification. This effect was stronger for those who perceived their superordinate group prototype and subgroup prototype to be distinct and nonoverlapping. Furthermore, superordinate identity uncertainty decreased reunification intentions by weakening superordinate identification. Subgroup identity uncertainty increased reunification intentions by strengthening superordinate identification only for those who perceived their superordinate group prototype and subgroup prototype to be distinct and nonoverlapping. Implications for uncertainty identity theory and intergroup relations are discussed.
Using the Global Trust Inventory, an integrated measure of trust toward 21 relationships and institutions, the structure of trust was explored in four East Asian societies (Mainland China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). The Western model, in which trust is distributed among seven factors representing different branches of society, did not generalize to these East Asian societies, perhaps due to differences in culture and institutional power structures. Instead, two unique structures of trust were identified. Mainland China had a top-down structure of trust (the China model), in which trust is hierarchically separated between the central government and subordinate implementing bodies. The other three democratic East Asian societies shared a hybrid structure of trust (the Democratic East Asian model) that has a degree of similarity to both the China model and the Western model. Having established two similar, but still distinct models, a crosscultural comparison was made on the proportions of trust profiles generated by latent profile analysis. Mainland China had the largest proportion of people with a high propensity to trust, followed by Japan and South Korea, and Taiwan was the least trusting. Implications of the structure of trust and this alternative approach to conducting cross-cultural comparisons are discussed.
Drawing on uncertainty-identity theory, we investigated how people respond differently to identity uncertainty at a superordinate (i.e., UK) or subgroup (i.e., Scottish) level depending on the subjective self-conceptual centrality of subgroup relative to superordinate group; altering superordinate and subgroup identification and attitude toward subgroup relations to the superordinate group in the context of Scotland's bid for independence from the UK (N = 115). Hierarchical regression analyses confirmed our prediction. Where the subgroup was self-conceptually more central than the superordinate group, subgroup identity uncertainty strengthened superordinate identification (H1) and weakened subgroup identification. Strengthened superordinate identification weakened support for subgroup separation. However, where the superordinate group was self-conceptually more central than the subgroup, superordinate identity uncertainty was not associated with superordinate and subgroup identification (H2).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.