CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Social and Intergroup PsychologyPsychology of Social InfluenceSocial Power and Status Dynamics

Group Polarization Revisited: A Processing Effort Account

Open access
Sieber, Janusch, Ziegler, René·2019·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
DOI 10.1177/0146167219833389PMC PMC6732819
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Research has shown that processes of social comparison as well as persuasive argumentation are involved in group polarization. We propose a processing effort account according to which the role of these processes in determining group polarization is contingent on ability and motivation. The impact of information regarding others’ positions on group polarization should be higher given low (vs. high) ability or motivation. In contrast, the impact of persuasive argumentation should be higher given high (vs. low) ability and motivation. Results in line with these assumptions were obtained in two experiments in which individuals’ ability (Experiment 1) or motivation (Experiment 2), information regarding group average position, and argument persuasiveness were manipulated. Furthermore, consistent findings were also obtained in a third experiment testing the role of motivation in real group discussions. A processing effort account provides a novel perspective for investigating the development of group extremity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167219833389

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 is a dynamic property of a single social group, not strictly a property of individuals.

    “Thus, from a social psychological perspective, group polarization is a dynamic property of a single social group — a shifting of group behaviour over time in a more extreme direction, but in the same direction in which the group started. It is not, strictly speaking, a property of individuals”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Abstract (page not supplied) defines group polarization as a change in individual preferences from before to after group discussion, in the direction favored by the group's average prediscussion preferences. This supports the directional-shift aspect, but contradicts the claim that polarization is not, strictly speaking, a property of individuals. Experiment 3’s Results (page not supplied) also calculate polarization scores from individuals’ attitude changes. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Group polarization is the tendency for members of a social group to arrive at a consensus through group discussion and other social interaction that is more extreme but in the same direction as the average of their initial opinions on a given issue.

    “It refers to the oft-observed tendency for members of a social group to arrive at a consensus (through group discussion and other forms of social interaction) that is more extreme but in the same direction as the average of their initial opinions on a given issue19.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [19]

    The paper’s Abstract (page unavailable) defines group polarization as a postdiscussion shift in individual preferences toward the direction favored by the group’s average prediscussion preferences. Experiment 3’s Method says participants were asked to reach a consensus, but the paper does not define polarization as arriving at an extreme consensus; it measures individuals’ attitude changes. The consensus element of the citing sentence is therefore not supported as part of the definition. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Group polarization can be explained by persuasive argumentation: during group discussion, people are exposed to additional arguments in favour of the position that the average group member was already inclined to take.

    “The first has to do with persuasive argumentation: during group discussion, people are exposed to additional arguments in favour of the position that the average group member was already inclined to take19,20.”

    From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [19]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Axsom D. Yates S. Chaiken S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30- 40. 3612491
  2. Baron R. S. Roper G. (1976). Reaffirmation of social comparison views of choice shifts: Averaging and extremity effects in an autokinetic situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 521- 530.
  3. Burnstein E. Vinokur A. (1977). Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 315- 332.
  4. Burnstein E. Vinokur A. Trope Y. (1973). Interpersonal comparison versus persuasive argumentation: A more direct test of alternative explanations for group-induced shifts in individual choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 236- 245.
  5. Chaiken S. Liberman A. Eagly A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Uleman J. S. Bargh J. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212- 252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  6. Clark R. D. Willems E. P. (1969). Where is the risky shift? Dependence on instructions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 215- 221.
  7. Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  8. Collins L. M. Dziak J. J. Li R. (2009). Design of experiments with multiple independent variables: A resource management perspective on complete and reduced factorial designs. Psychological Methods, 14, 202- 224. 19719358 PMC2796056
  9. Deutsch M. Gerard H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629- 636. 13286010
  10. Ebbesen E. B. Bowers R. J. (1974). Proportion of risky to conservative arguments in a group discussion and choice shifts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 316- 327.
  11. Faul F. Erdfelder E. Buchner A. Lang A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149- 1160. 19897823
  12. Flint D. H. Hernandez-Marrero P. Wielemaker M. (2006). Polarization of perceived procedural justice. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 102, 35- 50. 16671595
  13. Hinsz V. B. Davis J. H. (1984). Persuasive arguments theory, group polarization, and choice shifts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 260- 268.
  14. Kaplan M. F. Miller C. E. (1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 306- 313.
  15. Krizan Z. Baron R. S. (2007). Group polarization and choice-dilemmas: How important is self-categorization? European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 191- 201.
  16. Kruglanski A. W. Freund T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448- 468.
  17. Mackie D. M. Worth L. T. Asuncion A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812- 822. 2348369
  18. Myers D. G. Wojcicki S. B. Aardema G. C. (1977). Attitude comparison: Is there ever a bandwagon effect? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1, 341- 347.
  19. Petty R. E. Cacioppo J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Berkowitz L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123- 205). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  20. Petty R. E. Cacioppo J. T. Goldman R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847- 855.
  21. Petty R. E. Wells G. L. Brock T. C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874- 884.
  22. Petty R. E. Wegener D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In Gilbert D. T. Fiske S. T. Lindzey G. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed, Vol. 2, pp. 323- 390). New York: Oxford University Press.
  23. Pierro A. Mannetti L. Erb H.-P. Spiegel S. Kruglanski A. W. (2005). Informational length and order of presentation as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 458- 469.
  24. Pierro A. Mannetti L. Kruglanski A. W. Sleeth-Keppler D. (2004). Relevance override: On the reduced impact of “cues” under high-motivation conditions of persuasion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 251- 264. 14769082
  25. Sanders G. S. Baron R. S (1977). Is social comparison irrelevant for producing choice shifts? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 303- 314.
  26. Sigall H. Mills J. (1998). Measures of independent variables and mediators are useful in social psychology experiments: But are they necessary? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 218- 226. 15647156
  27. 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.
  28. Vinokur A. Burnstein E. (1978). Novel argumentation and attitude change: The case of polarization following group discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 335- 348.
  29. Ziegler R. Diehl M. (2003). Is politician A or politician B more persuasive? Recipients’ source preference and the direction of biased message processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 623- 637.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sieber, J., & Ziegler, R.
Affiliations
  • Spraitbach, Germany
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Ziegler, René
ORCID
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-03-19
Volume
45
Issue
10
Pages
1482-1498
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
DOI
10.1177/0146167219833389
PMC
PMC6732819
OpenAlex
W2924019250
Cited by
21
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4
FWCI
3.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
group polarization, social comparison, persuasive argumentation, ability, motivation, argument persuasiveness, group discussion
MeSH terms
Cognition, Female, Group Processes, Humans, Male, Motivation, Persuasive Communication, Psychological Distance, Social Identification, Young Adult

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