Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The social comparison theory, or normative influence theory, has been widely used to explain group polarization. According to the social comparison interpretation, group polarization occurs as a result of individuals' desire to gain acceptance and be perceived in a favorable way by their group.
The size of the group also has an effect on how susceptible the group will be to polarization. The greater the number of people in a group, the greater the tendency toward deindividuation. In other words, deindividuation is a group-size-effect. As groups get larger, trends in risk-taking are amplified. [3]
Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of those with differing political views (such as "conservatism" and "liberalism" in the U.S. political context [7] or the purported benefits of team work vs. work conducted in solitude). [8]
Group polarization refers to the finding that following group discussion, individuals tend to endorse a more extreme position in the direction already favored by the group. In Lee's study subjects were either assigned to a deindividuation or individuation condition.
Another theory contends that religion does not contribute to full-group polarization, but rather, coalition and party activist polarization causes party shifts toward a political extreme. [65] In some post-colonial countries, the public may be polarized along ethnic divides that remain from the colonial regime. [66]
The social identity model of deindividuation effects (or SIDE model) is a theory developed in social psychology and communication studies. SIDE explains the effects of anonymity and identifiability on group behavior. It has become one of several theories of technology that describe social effects of computer-mediated communication.
Animosity between partisan voters has grown in recent years. Gutzemberg/Shutterstock.comPoliticians and pundits from all quarters often lament democracy’s polarized condition. Similarly ...
A group utilises information in their decision-making that has already been deemed inaccurate. Sunk cost bias A group remains committed to a given plan primarily due to the investment already made in that plan, regardless of how inefficient and/or ineffective it may have become. Extra-evidentiary bias