The authors study the phenomenon of strategic group polarization, in which members take more extreme actions than their preferences. The analysis is relevant for a broad range of formal and informal group settings, including social media, online platforms, sales teams, corporate and academic committees, and political action committees. In the model, agents with private preferences choose a public action (voice opinions), and the mean of their actions represents the group’s realized outcome. The agents face a trade-off between influencing the group decision and truth-telling. In a simultaneous-move game, agents strategically shade their actions toward the extreme. The strategic group influence motive can create substantial polarization in actions and group decisions even when the preferences are relatively moderate. Compared with a simultaneous game, a randomized-sequential-actions game lowers polarization when agents’ preferences are relatively similar. Sequential actions can even lead to moderation if the later agents have moderate preferences. Endogenizing the order of moves (through a first-price sealed-bid auction) always increases polarization, but it is also welfare enhancing. These findings can help group leaders, firms, and platforms design mechanisms that moderate polarization, such as the choice of speaking order, the group size, and the knowledge members have of others’ preferences and actions.
AcemogluDaronChernozhukovVictorYildizMuhamet (2009), “Fragility of Asymptotic Agreement Under Bayesian Learning,”unpublished paper, Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
AmaldossWilfredJainSanjay (2005), “Pricing of Conspicuous Goods: A Competitive Analysis of Social Effects,”Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (1), 30–42.
Austen-SmithDavid (1990), “Information Transmission in Debate,”American Journal of Political Science, 34 (1) 124–52.
6.
BailChristopher A.ArgyleLisa P.BrownTaylor W.BumpusJohn P.ChenHaohanFallin HunzakerM.B., et al. (2018), “Exposure to Opposing Views on Social Media Can Increase Political Polarization,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1150 (37), 9216–21.
7.
BaligaSandeepHananyEranKlibanoffPeter (2013), “Polarization and Ambiguity,”American Economic Review, 103 (7), 3071–83.
8.
BaronRobert S. (2005), “So Right It’s Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making,”Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 219–53.
9.
BénabouRoland (2012), “Groupthink: Collective Delusions in Organizations and Markets,”Review of Economic Studies, 80 (2), 429–62.
10.
BernheimB. Douglas (1994), “A Theory of Conformity,”Journal of Political Economy, 102 (5), 841–77.
11.
BhattacharyaSouravMukherjeeArijit (2013), “Strategic Information Revelation When Experts Compete to Influence,”RAND Journal of Economics, 44 (3), 522–44.
12.
BordleyRobert F. (1983), “A Pragmatic Method for Evaluating Election Schemes Through Simulation,”American Political Science Review, 77 (1), 123–41.
13.
Campus Carry Policy (2015), “Campus Carry Policy Working Group—Final Report,”University of Texas at Austin. Online, retrieved 27-March-2016.
14.
CheYeon-KooGaleIan L. (1998), “Caps on Political Lobbying,”American Economic Review, 88 (3), 643–51.
15.
ChevalierJudith A.MayzlinDina (2006), “The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews,”Journal of Marketing research, 43 (3), 345–54.
CorfmanKimLehmannDonald (1987), “Models of Cooperative Group Decision-Making and Relative Influence: An Experimental Investigation of Family Purchase Decisions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (1), 1–13.
18.
DaiWeijiaLeeJungminJinGingerLucaMichael (2018), “Aggregation of Consumer Ratings: An Application to Yelp.com,”Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 160 (3), 289–339.
19.
DelmasMagaliLimJinghuiNairn-BirchNicholas (2016), “Corporate Environmental Performance and Lobbying,”Academy of Management Discoveries, 20 (2), 175–97.
ElisahbergJehoshuaLaTourStephenRangaswamyArvindLouisStern (1986), “Assessing the Predictive Accuracy of Two Utility-Based Theories in a Marketing Channel Negotiation Context,”Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (2), 101–10.
24.
EliashbergJehoshuaWinklerRobert (1981), “Risk Sharing and Group Decision Making,”Management Science, 27 (11), 1221–35.
25.
EstebanJoanSchneiderGerald (2008), “Polarization and Conflict: Theoretical and Empirical Issues,”Journal of Peace Research, 45 (2), 131–41.
GilliganThomas W.KrehbielKeith (1989), “Asymmetric Information and Legislative Rules with a Heterogeneous Committee,”American Journal of Political Science, 33 (2), 459–90.
28.
GlaeserEdward L.SunsteinCass R. (2009), “Extremism and Social Learning,”Journal of Legal Analysis, 10 (1), 263–324.
29.
GodesDavidSilvaJosé C. (2012), “Sequential and Temporal Dynamics of Online Opinion,”Marketing Science, 31 (3), 448–73.
30.
HarstadBårdSvenssonJakob. (2006), “Bribes, Lobbying, and Development,”CEPR Discussion Papers 5759.
31.
HartmannWesley R.ManchandaPuneetNairHarikeshBothnerMatthewDoddsPeterGodesDavid (2008), “Modeling Social Interactions: Identification, Empirical Methods and Policy Implications,”Marketing Letters, 19 (3/4), 287–304.
KondorPéter (2012), “The More We Know About the Fundamental, the Less We Agree on the Price,”Review of Economic Studies, 79 (3), 1175–1207.
38.
KrishnaVijayMorganJohn (2001), “A Model of Expertise,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116 (2), 747–75.
39.
LordCharles G.RossLeeLepperMark R. (1979), “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (11), 2098–2109.
40.
MainEleanor C.WalkerThomas G. (1973), “Choice Shifts and Extreme Behavior: Judicial Review in the Federal Courts,”Journal of Social Psychology, 910 (2), 215–21.
41.
MyersDavid G. (1975), “Discussion-Induced Attitude Polarization,”Human Relations, 28 (8), 699–714.
42.
MyersDavid G. (1982), “Polarizing Effects of Social Interaction,”Group Decision Making, 125, 137–38.
43.
NielsenMichaelStewartRush T. (2020), “Persistent Disagreement and Polarization in a Bayesian Setting,”British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72 (1), 51–78.
StonerJames Arthur Finch (1961), “A Comparison of Individual and Group Decisions Involving Risk,”doctoral thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
51.
SunMonicZhangXiaoquanZhuFeng (2019), “U-Shaped Conformity in Online Social Networks,”Marketing Science, 38 (3), 461–80.
52.
SunsteinCass R. (2002), “The Law of Group Polarization,”Journal of Political Philosophy, 10 (2), 175–95.
YoganarasimhanHema (2012), “Cloak or Flaunt? The Fashion Dilemma,”Marketing Science, 31 (1), 74–95.
56.
ZimperAlexanderLudwigAlexander (2009), “On Attitude Polarization Under Bayesian Learning with Non-Additive Beliefs,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39 (2), 181–212.
57.
ZuberJohannes A.CrottHelmut W.WernerJoachim (1992), “Choice Shift and Group Polarization: An Analysis of the Status of Arguments and Social Decision Schemes,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (1), 50–61.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
