Another View of Group Polarizing: The “Reasons for” One-Sided Oral Argumentation

Abstract

A synthesis based on persuasive arguments theory but including a revised social comparison component is proposed to account for group polarization. According to the proposal, group members choose between risky and cautious alternatives based on the proportion of known arguments supportive of each but argue exclusively for their chosen alternative during group discussion. This implies that the proportion of risky versus cautious arguments in discussion will be more extreme than the proportion in participants' lists of arguments on both sides of the issue, but no more extreme than the proportion in participants' lists of the “reasons for” their chosen alternative. Research results generally supported this implication.