The article will cover the following points:
- Group dynamics
- What is group polarization?
- Why Polarization?: theories and mechanisms
- Opinion dynamics and drivers
- Still relevant!
Group Dynamics
Group dynamics is a central topic of social psychology research [3]. Experiments have shown many times that any form of group membership, even if someone identifies with the group solely based on the slightest features (e.g., the tendency to see one line bigger than another in experimental settings), triggers both positive feelings towards the in-group, and negative evaluations of the out-group.
Social identity theorists believe that identity salience [3] is the basis for in-group affiliation or out-group prejudice. The more salient the affiliation, the more biased the individual’s beliefs about in-group and out-group members. Salience depends on either dispositional factors i.e., the strength of the individual’s loyalty to the group, or characteristics of the information environment i.e., the time when the person is reminded from cues in their environment that they are part of this group.
Group Polarization
Generally, ‘’If like-minded people are talking with one another, they are likely to end up thinking a more extreme version of what they thought before they started to talk’’ [4]. Imagine a situation where people who think that climate activists are right and that the planet is in serious trouble: they will become way more radicalized if they talk all the time with people that think the same! It is possible that they will also move to organizing actions to support their belief. This phenomenon is known as group polarization.
Group polarization can become quite dangerous especially when the individuals that make up the group are already extreme about their singular opinions. Terrifying directions and results of extreme polarization can be observed in examples such as the Holocaust or Ku Klux Klan [4].
Why polarization?
Theories
- Social comparison theory (normative influence) [1] This view explains that people are trying all the time to both perceive and present themselves as socially desirable and likable. In terms of group polarization, the theory posits that individuals usually change their opinions when they are part of a team or group in order to better fit in or to be accepted and liked by others. New members of the group, namely outsiders, may promote a more extreme view of a topic than the rest of the group previously had. This may drive the whole group towards the more extreme or if not that, more to where the group leader agrees more with
- Informational influence [1] This concept states “that people tend to enter a discussion with favorable information for both sides of the argument, and then change their opinion favoring that side which provides more information in its arguments.” This tactic is commonly used when someone is unsure of their beliefs or hasn’t stabilized their opinions, beliefs, or/ and ideas yet. Therefore, these people will tend to go along with whatever side has the more seemingly supporting information for it.
Sociophysics research paved the emergence of opinion dynamics [2]. It is explained through this view that ‘’the opinion of the population is limited to a binary range: 0 and 1 (or − 1 and + 1)’’. A very classic example, that Prasetya and Murata mention in their work on group polarization, is that of the ‘’voter model’’, where an individual asks their neighbors what they will vote at the election, and tries to adopt a similar opinion. They mention that a really common situation where polarization occurs is when there are at least two individuals in a group that have fixed opinions i.e. opinions that cannot be easily changed.
We can also understand polarization through the notion of Drivers of Polarisation [2]. These can be divided into two categories:
- The first is the micro-level behavior of individuals, that collectively causes a macro-level phenomenon i.e. polarisation
- The second are external factors originating from the system that governs the interaction between individuals.
Factors that belong and explain the first category (from the micro to the macro level) originate from a familiar phenomenon, called cognitive dissonance [2]. It refers to the uneasiness and possible discomfort that individuals experience when they are faced with information or facts that challenge their initial beliefs or thoughts they hold dearly. This discomfort places them in a position where they have to stand strong and come forward for the protection of their beliefs, thus making them behave in ways that might be even more radical, in turn leading to polarization.
One of those behaviors that is studied within the field of psychology is called selective exposure [2]. It is the tendency for people to expose themselves only to information that ties closely with their existing beliefs. Sounds similar to cognitive dissonance, right? Only that here, no discomfort is involved. Individuals just ignore the rest of the information that they are exposed to and they do whatever it takes for their beliefs to not be challenged! Selective exposure is really present on social media such as Facebook, where people tend to like only pages or follow people that post content similar to what they stand for.
Confirmation bias [2] is another form of those behaviors and has to do with the cognition of people. It explains the phenomenon where people, regardless of the information that they receive (if it is supportive or contradictory of their beliefs), they most of the time interpret it in such a way that has to fit with their beliefs. As you can see, there are a bunch of behaviors and cognitive tricks that people hold to be able to support their ideas and if they are faced with a situation where they have to defend them or in a situation where they get the chance to discuss them with more people, it is easy for polarization to be born.
The second category of drivers, explains the environmental or else external factors that drive people to the opposing ends [2]. Here again, social media poses an excellent example for us to understand what is going on. You may have heard that algorithms of social media become personalized meaning that the ads or content appearing to your Facebook home page are curated by machines specifically interested to support marketing corporations based on your preferences. This notion to its extent, can also serve political propaganda for example. A common phenomenon is the existence of ‘’political Twitter bots’’ those being fake profiles on Twitter that comment, like or promote the posts of specific politicians to maximize their appearance on others profiles thus to maybe vote them when the time comes. However, one aspect of those agents that leads to polarization is their extremity in content. Those bots for example would always shift to the extremes when commenting trying to make others follow them in their propaganda and polarization efforts.
Still relevant!
Group polarization occurs when discussion leads a group to adopt attitudes or actions that are more extreme than the initial attitudes or actions of the individual group members according to Stoner, a PhD student who tested people in an alone and a group situation [4]. It is not uncommon that group polarization happens in either the direction of riskiness (that was called ‘’risky shift’’ by Stoner) or conservativeness. One example that holds great relevance for the Netherlands, are the incidents following some protests opposing the Corona curfew measures imposed by the government in February this year [6]. Mobs in the South of Rotterdam and all around the city committed a number of crimes including breaking and stealing from small businesses or even jewelry shops in groups. Those acts however, would not happen nor spread across the city if only one or two people were involved.
Another example comes from the law discipline [7] and involves verdicts of judges. Multiple studies show that judges’ decision making in groups can differ from when it happens individually. When in groups, judges tend to give more punitive or lighter verdicts depending on the group then what they would give on their own. This can be proven dangerous and unfair and law studies should shed their light on the topic.
The Holocaust, the climate change movement that has lately arose e.g. Fridays for Future or Extinction Rebellion, even elections results are also examples of group polarization that have affected millions of people and still do in everyday life. Political propaganda is also an example of positional polarization specifically meaning that social media may decrease participants’ awareness to competing views and challenging, possibly corrective information [5]. Next time that you like something on Facebook or Instagram that focuses on only one specific aspect of view without mentioning the downsides of it or at least some oppositional points, think twice about it.
Additional Sources:
- There are great examples of group polarization in many movies, but we choose a classic to include, American History X.
- Netflix: The Social Dilemma is a documentary explaining how social media function and in between other topics they explain Social Media and Polarization. Super interesting! The link is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQAGWFkYhQk&ab_channel=ProfessorRoss
- TedTalk: by Rabbi Elchanan Poupko explaining the high price we all pay because of the political polarizations, for being divided, and speaks his take on a more united humanity. You can find it here: https://www.ted.com/talks/rabbi_elchanan_poupko_the_high_price_of_political_polarization
References
- Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group Polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1141–1151.
- Prasetya, H.A., Murata, T. A model of opinion and propagation structure polarization in social media. Comput Soc Netw 7, 2 (2020). https://doi-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/10.1186/s40649-019-0076-z
- Shanto Iyengar, Gaurav Sood, Yphtach Lelkes, Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization, Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 76, Issue 3, Fall 2012, Pages 405–431, https://doi-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
- Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Why they hate us: The role of social dynamics. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 25(2), 429-440.
- Moran Yarchi, Christian Baden & Neta Kligler-Vilenchik (2020) Political Polarization on the Digital Sphere: A Cross-platform, Over-time Analysis of Interactional, Positional, and Affective Polarization on Social Media, Political Communication, DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/netherlands-third-night-riots-covid-curfew-lockdown-protester
- https://www.whatispsychology.net/what-is-a-common-group-polarization-example/
- Social Dilemma – Social Media and Polarization, YouTube video