Choice shift and group polarization: An analysis of the status of arguments and social decision schemes.

Abstract

Two Choice Dilemma Questionnaire items were used to investigate the influence of persuasive arguments and social decision schemes on group decisions. Furthermore, the predictions of the persuasive arguments theory on the polarization of individual preferences were tested. Ss were given lists of persuasive arguments and a 2nd individual decision was requested before the group discussion. The lists of persuasive arguments were compiled through a stepwise process of rating data gathered from the content analysis of former group discussions. In Condition 1, the Ss received the lists of arguments before the 1st individual decision; in Condition 2, between the 1st and 2nd individual measure; and in Condition 3 (control), they received no list at all. In all 3 conditions the reduced paired comparison median model showed the best fit and the highest hit rate in predicting the group decisions. The resulting choice shift could not be explained by the influence of arguments, whereas the best-fitting aggregation rule was able to clarify the choice shift.Choice shift has come to mean the difference between the arithmetic mean of the individual first preferences before discussion (prediscussion preferences) and the group decision. The concept of group polarization traditionally denotes the differences between the prediscussion preferences and the individual first preferences after group discussion (postdiscussion preferences; (Hinsz & Davis, 1984;Kaplan, 1987;Kaplan & Miller, 1983). Furthermore, we define individual polarization as the change in individual preferences between two measures without group discussion or decision.Choice shift and group polarization need not, however, be of equal magnitude. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between the group level (choice shift) and the individual level (individual polarization and group polarization). Contrary to many contemporary treatments, these two levels should not be considered equivalent.When one reviews the research on choice shift and group polarization over the last few years, the following tendency surfaces: Many of the abundant explanations for these phenomena (see the critical reviews from Cartwright 1971Cartwright , 1973Dion, Baron, & Miller, 1970; and Pruitt 1971a, 1971b) had to be discounted as inapplicable. According to the reviews of Kaplan and Miller (1983) and Kaplan (1987), only a few of the empiri-Research was carried out at the University of Freiburg, Federal Republic of Germany, with funds from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.We thank Judith Whittaker-Stemmler for her help with the transcription from German to English.

Independence and interdependence in collective decision making: an agent-based model of nest-site choice by honeybee swarms

“…Luskin et al 2002;Farrar et al in press), but on the other hand, they may also lead to the amplification of certain errors, such as in fads and informational cascades, as briefly discussed at the end of this paper (e.g. Bikhchandani et al 1992;Zuber et al 1992;Sunstein 2002Sunstein , 2006.…”

Persuasive Argument as a Determinant of Group Polarization: A study of Selected Kenyan Secondary School Disciplinary Panels

“…This finding is consistent with El-Shinnawy & Vinzes', (1998) study that, individuals share relevant and factual information during group discussions and that, the other group members offer information or opinions helping an individual to view a situation from completely a new perspective from the one the individual previously held. Similarly, Meyers ' (1989) ;Zuber, et al, (1992) (2012) and Albarracina, et al, (2012) all confirm that information shared in a group and perceived as novel or new, original, valid or if the information is perceived to be true and credible, is more likely to influence the opinions of group members about the issues being discussed leading to group polarization.…”

“…The findings indicated that, the discussion arguments were found to have increased the shifts in decisions after group discussions. Zuber, Crott & Werner, (1992) study reported that after arguments shared among group members the final group decisions showed a shift toward more extreme decision (3.39 vs. 3.59, P < 0.05), from the pre-group decisions, leading to group polarization. Tormala, Briñol & Petty, (2006) also found out that, the credibility of message determined how the message would be perceived by the people, for example, participants had greater confidence in their thoughts after learning that the source was high rather than low in credibility.…”

A Web Mining Based Measurement and Monitoring Model of Urban Mass Panic in Emergency Management

“…Johannes A. Zuber et al [2] define individual polarization as the change in individual preferences between two measures without group discussion or decision.…”