Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member
Abstract
Self‐categorization theory hypothesizes that group polarization arises from an intragroup process of conformity to a polarized in‐group norm, i.e. a norm more extreme than the mean of members' initial opinions but in the same direction. It argues that the in‐group norm is embodied in the prototypical response of members, which is not necessarily their average position. Polarization occurs when the prototype is more extreme than the mean in the same direction and when mutual influence leads members to conform to the norm. Convergence on the mean occurs when the prototype coincides with the mean position. Whether the prototype and the mean coincide or differ depends on whether group responses are moderate or extreme in terms of the comparative social context. A computer simulation (Study 1, N = 1000 groups) and two semi‐naturalistic group discussion studies (Studies 2 and 3, Ns = 32 and 44 groups respectively over five items) were conducted to test this analysis. All three studies found significant correlational support for the hypothesis (H1) that in‐group prototypes become more polarized as the group becomes more extreme in the social context and Studies 2 and 3 also found a significant empirical correlation (H2) between polarization and the extent to which group members conformed to a polarized prototype.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Group polarization can be explained by social comparison processes and conformity to perceived group norms.
“The second focuses on social comparison processes and conformity to perceived group norms: individuals in a group conform to what they perceive as the group norm.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [22]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Social Identity Theory of Leadership
Hogg, M. A. (2001) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0503_1 · Cited by 2,298 · see citing works
Self-citationAttitudes in social context: A social identity perspective
Hogg, M. A., & Smith, J. R. (2007) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/10463280701592070 · Cited by 286 · see citing works
Self-citationCognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Mäs, M., & Flache, A. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074516 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Identity, beliefs, and political conflict
Bonomi, G., Gennaioli, N., & Tabellini, G. (2021) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjab034 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
The politics of interpersonal trust and reciprocity: An experimental approach
Carlin, R. E., & Love, G. J. (2013) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-011-9181-x · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Bouman, T., Steg, L., & Perlaviciute, G. (2021) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.04.010 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
- Authors
- McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., David, B., & Wetherell, M. S.
- Affiliations
- Australian National University (AU)
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- The Open University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- McGarty, Craig
- Venue
- British Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-03
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-19
- ISSN
- 0144-6665 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8309
- OpenAlex
- W2075751438
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 7.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Open Research Online (The Open University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Keywords
- group polarization, self-categorization theory, ingroup norms, conformity, group discussion, social environment, computer simulation, group decision making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review