Polarization is a phenomenon that often plays a crucial role within the program of corporation communication or negotiations. Even though polarization has been studies broadly from the academia, practical applications of the scholarly knowledge about polarization remain limited. Maybe probably the most definition of polarization is given by Michelle Maiese and Tova Norlen (2003) in their essay with the reasons of and right responses to this phenomenon:
“Polarization may be the technique that factors neutral parties to consume sides inside a conflict. It also factors individuals on either side in the conflict to take in increasingly extreme positions which are far more and additional opposed to every other” (“What is Polarization?”, para. 1).
As for your history with the discover of polarization, it was witnessed within the early 1960s that groups of people tend to be additional risk searching for than their members if the latter occur at choice alone and independently (Stoner, 1961; cited in Isenberg, 1986). These findings were counter-intuitive, simply because earlier search pointed for the moderating effect of groups on individuals’ propensity to maintain extreme views. The tendency of groups to arrive at far more radical collective choice than their members would do individually has been referred to as a “risky shift”.
However, look for during here decades has discovered that sometimes groups tend to become additional cautious than their members. Thus, an overarching term for this type of group dynamics was introduced: choice shift. In case pre-exiting inclinations of folks towards the a particular view or decision are strengthened inside program of group discussion, the so-called group-induced attitude polarization (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969, Myers & Lamm, 1976; cited in Isenberg, 1986) is stated to occur. For instance, as Myers’ (1975; cited in Isenberg, 1986) look for shows, feminist sentiment among moderately pro-feminist women is enhanced by group discussion.
The debate has ensued as to the causes of this phenomenon. From the mid-1970s, the conceptual disagreements among the proponents of 2 major theories, namely the social comparison theory (Sanders & Baron, 1977; cited in Isenberg, 1986) and persuasive argumentation theory (Burnstein & Vinokur, 1977; cited in Isenberg, 1986), have reached their peak. The social comparison theory is based on the fact that folks are willing to each perceive and provide themselves inside a socially desirable light. A couple of several socio-psychological mechanisms within this theory have been used to explain group polarization. The first, known as pluralistic ignorance (Levinger & Schneider, 1969, Pruitt, 1971, Schroeder. 1973; cited in Isenberg, 1986), holds that individuals’ alternatives are the result of a compromise in between one’s unique ideas and willingness not to deviate as well significantly from what they consider will be the central tendency from the group. In most groups, there's a lack of accurate details about the genuine beliefs of the majority, thus overall polarization takes place. Coming back on the illustration of the moderately pro-feminist group, individual members may well consider there's a powerful feminist consensus existing inside the group and alter their choice accordingly to gain conformity, although actually feminist sentiment on individual level is weaker than it is idea to be.
The second mechanism, referred to as one-upmanship or bandwagon effect, implies that individuals are willing to supply themselves inside a favorable light but also as a variety of from other group members. As Brown (1974) famously put it, “[t]o be virtuous, in any of an indefinite range of dimensions, is to be different from the mean – in the right direction and towards the appropriate degree” (p. 469). Turing towards the example of the moderately pro-feminist group again, advocates of this mechanism would argue that each group member would be willing to supply himself or herself as slightly far more feminist than average, guided by the belief that feminist attitude is really a socially desirable significance from the group.
The major criticism of the social comparison theory is that it does not explain why groups sometimes arrive at decisions that are additional moderate than individuals taken by their members alone. The persuasive arguments theory has succeeded in explaining choice shifts happening in each directions, i.e. polarizing and depolarizing option shifts. The theory holds that individuals’ options are produced on the basis of the range and persuasiveness of pro and con arguments individuals have in their memory at the time in the decision, and group discussion can influence members’ alternatives by exposing them to persuasive arguments favoring either option.
Awareness in the phenomenon of group polarization can be really very good for group leaders and managers. Sia, Tan and Wei (2002) bring quite a few examples from previous research about polarization’s negative effects in this kind of fields as business, social cohesion, and foreign policy. Examples include escalation in the Vietnam War by the Johnson administration (McCauley 1989), race riots from the wake of Martin Luther King’s assassination (Riley and Pettigrew 1976), risk taking at NASA that culminated from the Challenger disaster (Janis 1989), gang crime (Cartwright 1975) and increasing investment in failing businesses (Brockner 1992, Whyte 1993).
No comments:
Post a Comment