Group risk‐taking and group polarization

Fraser, Colin

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010407

Cited by 40 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the first article, we emphasized the special and particular relations which exist between the normative climate and polarization. As different authors did before us (Moscovici and Zavalloni, 1969; Myers and Bishop, 1970;Fraser, 1971; Fraser, Gouge and Billig, 1971), by 'polarization' we are referring to the fact that, during and following an interaction, groups tend to adopt more extreme positions than those held by its members initially, that is, before the interaction. The change of positions moves in a particular direction which is the reflection of norms existing on a more global level in the group or groups to which the individuals belong.…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Norms and attitude change II: The phenomenon of bipolarization

Paicheler

1977

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a preceding article we discussed the links between n o r m and attitude change: a particular phenomenon in this relation will be developed in the present article. In the general framework of attitude change in collective or group situations, we shall discuss here some results which emerged from an experiment presented in a preceding article (cf. Paicheler, 1976). The importance and novelty of the phenomenon called for a separate examination and confirmation by means of specific procedures. In the first article, we emphasized the special and particular relations which exist between the normative climate and polarization. As different authors did before us (Moscovici and Zavalloni, 1969; Myers and Bishop, 1970;Fraser, 1971; Fraser, Gouge and Billig, 1971), by 'polarization' we are referring to the fact that, during and following an interaction, groups tend to adopt more extreme positions than those held by its members initially, that is, before the interaction. The change of positions moves in a particular direction which is the reflection of norms existing on a more global level in the group or groups to which the individuals belong. The initial tendency of the group, biasedEur.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Norms and attitude change II: The phenomenon of bipolarization

Paicheler

1977

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a tentative explanation of group polarization effects, Moscovici and Zavalloni (1969) suggested that group discussion may increase the meaningfulness of the task or the subjects' involvement in the task. A somewhat different approach which relates group polarization to 'existing variations within a group on an item' has been taken by Fraser, Gouge and Billig (1971) and Fraser (1971). As one basis for group polarization, they suggested that polarization may follow a discussion 'amongst individuals who vary with regard to involvement, perception of meaningfulness, or confidence.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between riskiness and confidence in choice dilemma decisions

Stroebe

Fraser

1971

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between riskiness of decisions and confidence in decisions was examined using Choice Dilemma items. Graphs o n e of the best known and most frequently replicated findings of social psychology for nearly a decade has been that group discussion of the Wallach and Kogan (1959) Choice Dilemma problems induces group members to shift from their initial positions to positions of greater riskiness. Less well-known has been the finding of a consistent group induced 'cautious shift' on two of the 12 Choice Dilemma problems, and on certain items devised by subsequent investigators (e.g. NordhGy, 1962;Stoner, 1968). A closer inspection of subjects' responses to those 'cautious' items indicates that the items differ not only in the effects of group discussions. Subjects' initial decisions on such items are also generally less risky than initial decisions on the other 10 items of the Kogan and Wallach Choice Dilemma questionnaire.The finding that initial decisions on 'cautious' items are less risky than initial decisions on 'risky' items fits very nicely with recent findings by Moscovici and Zavalloni (1969) and Doise (1969). Moscovici and his colleagues measured their subjects' agreement or disagreement with statements of attitudes on several issues.

show abstract

“…Group polarization is a phenomenon that has been discussed and studied in both the social psychological literature and the opinion dynamics literature [57][58][59]. Group polarization is when a group of individuals arrives at an consensus view that is more extreme than their average initial beliefs.…”

Section: Group Polarization the Recalcitrant Extremist And The Negamentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive perspectives on opinion dynamics: the role of knowledge in consensus formation, opinion divergence, and group polarization

Tan

2017

J Comput Soc Sc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two phenomena that are central to simulation research on opinion dynamics are opinion divergence-the result that individuals interacting in a group do not always collapse to a single viewpoint, and group polarization-the result that average group opinions can become more extreme after discussions than they were to begin with. Standard approaches to modeling these dynamics have typically assumed that agents have an influence bound, such that individuals ignore opinions that differ from theirs by more than some threshold, and thus converge to distinct groups that remain uninfluenced by other distinct beliefs. Additionally, models have attempted to account for group polarization either by assuming the existence of recalcitrant extremists, who draw others to their view without being influenced by them, or negative reaction-movement in opinion space away from those they disagree with. Yet these assumptions are not well supported by existing social/ cognitive theory and data, and insofar as there are data, it is often mixed. Moreover, an alternative cognitive assumption is able to produce both of these phenomena: the need for consistency within a set of related beliefs. Via simulation, we show that assumptions about knowledge or belief spaces and conceptual coherence naturally produce both convergence to distinct groups and group polarization, providing an alternative cognitively grounded mechanism for these phenomena.

show abstract

Group risk‐taking and group polarization

Cited by 40 publications

References 28 publications

Norms and attitude change II: The phenomenon of bipolarization

Norms and attitude change II: The phenomenon of bipolarization

The relationship between riskiness and confidence in choice dilemma decisions

Cognitive perspectives on opinion dynamics: the role of knowledge in consensus formation, opinion divergence, and group polarization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About