Another View of Group Polarizing: The “Reasons for” One-Sided Oral Argumentation

Abstract

A synthesis based on persuasive arguments theory but including a revised social comparison component is proposed to account for group polarization. According to the proposal, group members choose between risky and cautious alternatives based on the proportion of known arguments supportive of each but argue exclusively for their chosen alternative during group discussion. This implies that the proportion of risky versus cautious arguments in discussion will be more extreme than the proportion in participants' lists of arguments on both sides of the issue, but no more extreme than the proportion in participants' lists of the “reasons for” their chosen alternative. Research results generally supported this implication.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Auld, F., Jr. , & White, A. M. (1956). Rules for dividing interviews into sentences. Journal of Psychology, 42, 273-281.

Baron, R. S. , Roper, G. , & Baron, P. H. (1974). Group discussion and the stingy shift. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 538-545.

Boster, F. J. , Mayer, M. E. , Hunter, J. E. , & Hale, J. L. (1980). Expanding the persuasive arguments explanation of the polarity shift: A linear discrepancy model. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 165-176). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Ebbesen, E. B. , & Bowers, R. J. (1974). Proportion of risky to conservative arguments in a group discussion and choice shift. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 316-327.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.

Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47-58.

Hale, J. L. , Boster, F. J. , & Mongeau, P. A. (1991). The validity of choice dilemma response scales. Communication Reports, 4, 30-34.

Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141-1151.

Kellermann, K. , & Jarboe, S. (1987). Conservatism in judgment: Is the risky shift-ee really risky, really? In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 259-282). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

10.

Kogan, N. , & Dorros, K. (1978). Sex differences in risk taking and its attribution. Sex Roles, 4, 755-765.

11.

Kogan, N. , & Wallach, M. A. (1964). Risk taking. New York: Holt.

12.

Lamm, H. , & Myers, D. G. (1978). Group-induced polarization of attitudes and behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 227-299). New York: Academic Press.

13.

Meyers, R. A. (1989a). Testing persuasive argument theory's predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence. Communication Monographs, 56, 112-132.

14.

Meyers, R. A. (1989b). Persuasive arguments theory: A test of assumptions. Human Communication Research, 15, 357-381.

15.

Miller, N. (1978). A questionnaire in search of a theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Group processes (pp. 301-312). New York: Academic Press.

16.

Stasser, G. , & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478.

17.

Vinokur, A. , & Burnstein, E. (1974). Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts: A group-problem-solving approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 305-315.

18.

Vinokur, A. , Trope, Y. , & Burnstein, E. (1975). A decision-making analysis of persuasive argumentation and the choice-shift effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 127-148.

19.

Wallach, M. A. , Kogan, N. , & Bem, D. J. (1962). Group influence on individual risk taking. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 75-86.