In this study, groups who could not reach a consensus were investigated using the group polarization paradigm. The purpose was to explore the conditions leading to intragroup disagreement and attitude change following disagreement among 269 participants. Analysis indicated that the probability of consensus was low when the group means differed from the grand mean of the entire sample. When small differences among group members were found, depolarization (reverse direction of polarization) followed disagreement. These results suggested the groups which deviated most from the population tendency were the most likely to cause within-group disagreement, while within-group variances determined the direction of attitude change following disagreement within the group.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsD.WetherellM.CochraneS.HoggM. A.TurnerJ. C. (1990) Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97–119.
2.
BurnsteinE.VinokurA. (1977) Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 315–332.
3.
ClarkR. D. (1990) Minority influence: the role of argument refutation of the majority position and social support for the minority position. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 489–497.
4.
CvetkovichG.BaumgardnerS. R. (1973) Attitude polarization: the relative influence of discussion group structure and reference group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 159–165.
5.
DavisJ. H. (1973) Group decision and social interaction: a theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97–125.
6.
DavisJ. H.KamedaT.StassonM. F. (1992) Group risk taking: selected topics. In YatesJ. F. E. (Ed.), Risk-taking behavior. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Pp. 163–200.
7.
HoggM. A.TurnerJ. C.DavidsonB. (1990) Polarized norms and social frames of reference: a test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 77–100.
8.
KerrN. L.DavisJ. H.MeekD.RssmanK. (1975) Group position as a function of member attitudes: choice shift effects from the perspective of social decision scheme theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 574–593.
9.
LammH.MyersD. G. (1978) Group-induced polarization of attitudes and behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 145–195.
10.
LaughlinP. R.EarleyP. C. (1982) Social combination models, persuasive arguments theory, social comparison theory, and choice shift. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 273–280.
11.
LaughlinP. R.EllisA. L. (1986) Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177–189.
12.
MackieD.CooperJ. (1984) Attitude polarization: effects of group membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 575–585.
13.
MackieD. M. (1986) Social identification effects in group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 720–728.
14.
McGartyC.TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.DavidB.WetherellM. S. (1992) Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 1–19.
15.
MoscoviciS. (2001) Social representations. In DuveenG. (Ed.), Explorations in social psychology. New York: New York Univer. Press.
16.
MoscoviciS.DoiseW. (1994) Disagreement and consensus: a general theory of collective decision. London: Sage.
MoscoviciS.ZavalloniM. (1969) The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125–135.
19.
MyersD.BachP. (1974) Discussion effects on militarism-pacifism: a test of the group polarization hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 741–747.
20.
MyersD. G. (1975) Discussion-induced attitude polarization. Human-Relations, 28, 699–714.
21.
NemethC. (1985) Dissent, group processes, and creativity: the contribution of minority influence. In LawlerE. E. (Ed.), Advances in group processes. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp. 57–75.
22.
OakesP. J.TurnerJ. C.HaslamA. (1991) Perceiving people as group members: the role of fit in the salience of social categorization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 125–144.
23.
PaichelerG. (1976) Norms and attitude change: I. Polarization and styles of behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 405–427.
24.
PaichelerG. (1977) Norms and attitude change: II. The phenomenon of bipolarization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 5–14.
25.
PaichelerG. (1979) Polarization of attitudes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 85–96.
26.
SandersG. S.BaronR. S. (1977) Is social comparison irrelevant for producing choice shift?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 303–314.
27.
SmithC. M.Dykema-EngbladeA.WalkerA.NivenT. S.McGoughT. (2000) Asymmetrical social influence in freely interacting groups discussing the death penalty: a shared representations interpretation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 387–401.
28.
TindaleR. S.KamedaT. (2000) “Social sharedness” as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 123–140.
29.
TindaleR. S.MeisenhelderH. M.Dykema-EngbladeA. A.HoggM. A. (2001) Shared cognition in small groups. In HoggM. A.TindaleR. S. (Eds.), Group processes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Pp. 1–30.
30.
VinokurA.BurnsteinE. (1978) Depolarization of attitudes in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 872–885.
31.
ZuberJ. A.CrottH. W.WernerJ. (1992) Choice shift and group polarization: an analysis of the status of arguments and social decision schemes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 50–61.
