Polarized Norms and Social Frames of Reference: A Test of the Self-Categorization Theory of Group Polarization
Abstract
Self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) explains group polarization as conformity to a polarized norem which defines one's own group in contrast to other groups within a specific social context. Whether the ingroup norm is polarized or not depends on the social comparative context within which the ingroup defines itself. It was predicted from self-categorization theory that an ingroup confronted by a risky outgroup will polarize toward caution, an ingroup confronted by a caution outgroup will polarize toward risk, and an ingroup in the middle of the social frame of reference, confronted by both risky and cautious outgroups, will not polarize but will converge on its pretest mean. Our experiment adopted a modified version of the risky-shift paradigm, in which subjects gave pretest, posttest, and group consensus recommendations on three choice dilemma item-types (risky, neutral, or risky). The frame of reference was manipulated by confronting the ingroup with an outgroup lying on one or the other side, or both sides, of the ingroup distribution. This procedure was successful in producing a polarized theoretical ingroup norm in the appropriate conditions. Subjects' posttest opinions converged on their estimations of the consensual ingroup position, which in turn was polarized or not in line with the theoretical norm. There was some evidence that the degree of behavioral convergence and estimations of the ingroup consensus were a…
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 [21]
Cites
The group polarization phenomenon.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602 · Cited by 1,102 · see citing works
Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141 · Cited by 1,044 · see citing works
Social identification effects in group polarization.
Mackie, D. M. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.720 · Cited by 280 · see citing works
Attitude polarization: Effects of group membership.
Mackie, D., & Cooper, J. (1984) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.575 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625 · Cited by 2,218 · see citing works
Haslam, S. A., Eggins, R. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1348/096317903321208907 · Cited by 362 · see citing works
Attitudes 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
‘Social Sharedness’ as a Unifying Theme for Information Processing in Groups
Tindale, R. S., & Kameda, T. (2000) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430200003002002 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Understanding Polarization: Meanings, Measures, and Model Evaluation
Bramson, A., Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Berger, W. J., Sack, G., Fisher, S., Flocken, C., & Holman, B. (2017) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/688938 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
So Right It's Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making
Baron, R. S. (2005) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(05)37004-3 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
The susceptible circle: a taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership.
Thoroughgood, C. N., Padilla, A., Hunter, S. T., & Tate, B. W. (2012) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.007 · Cited by 210 · see citing works
Systematic Review of Social Network Analysis in Adolescent Cigarette Smoking Behavior<sup>*</sup>
Seo, D., & Huang, Y. (2012) · Journal of School Health · doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00663.x · Cited by 132 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hogg, M. A., Turner, J. C., & Davidson, B.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Venue
- Basic and Applied Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1990-03
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 77-100
- ISSN
- 0197-3533 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-4834
- OpenAlex
- W2045041554
- Cited by
- 314
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 10.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Basic and Applied Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
- Keywords
- group polarization, self-categorization theory, group identification, choice dilemmas
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