A jury begins deliberations with most members leaning slightly toward acquittal. After extended discussion, which outcome does group polarization theory predict?
AThe jury will converge toward a balanced split as moderate members persuade extremists
BThe jury will shift further toward acquittal than the average of individual pre-discussion positions
CThe jury will shift toward conviction, because deliberation exposes the weaknesses of each juror's initial reasoning
DThe jury will remain near the average initial position, as group discussion cancels out individual extremism
Group polarization predicts a shift in the direction of the pre-existing lean, more extreme than the average initial position. If the group already leans toward acquittal, both mechanisms (social comparison and persuasive arguments) will push members further in that direction. Option D is the intuitive but wrong prediction — the 'group averaging' folk theory — which is precisely the assumption the original risky-shift research overturned.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
A researcher wants to test whether social comparison alone (without any exchange of arguments) can produce group polarization. Which design best isolates this mechanism?
AHave participants deliberate openly and track how often they change positions
BShow participants a distribution of other group members' positions, with no arguments exchanged, and measure subsequent position shifts
CHave participants write arguments anonymously and submit them without learning others' positions
DUse a control group that sees no other positions and compare their shifts to the deliberating group
To isolate social comparison, you need participants to see where others stand without receiving any arguments. Simply displaying the distribution of positions is enough to trigger social comparison: members infer the group norm and shift to affirm their commitment to that direction. If polarization still occurs without argument exchange, it is driven by comparison alone. Option C isolates persuasive arguments (no position information), which is the complementary manipulation.
Question 3 True / False
Group polarization can shift a group toward greater risk-taking or greater caution, depending on the initial lean of the group — not just toward risk.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
The 'risky shift' label from early research was misleading. Follow-up studies showed that groups initially leaning toward caution polarize toward greater caution. The consistent finding is amplification of the pre-existing lean, not a universal shift toward risk. This is why the phenomenon was renamed 'group polarization' — it generalizes to any attitudinal dimension.
Question 4 True / False
Group polarization occurs because group discussion tends to attract already-extreme individuals, so the shift reflects who participates rather than what discussion does to participants.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Polarization is produced by the discussion process itself, not by selection of extreme members. Studies that measure individuals' positions before and after discussion — holding group composition constant — consistently show that post-discussion positions are more extreme than pre-discussion positions. Both social comparison (learning the group norm triggers a race to endorse it more strongly) and persuasive arguments (novel pro-attitudinal arguments heard in discussion) operate on the same individuals and pull them further in their original direction.
Question 5 Short Answer
Why does group discussion tend to produce polarization rather than moderation? Explain using both the social comparison and persuasive arguments mechanisms.
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Social comparison: group members learn where others stand, infer the group norm, and shift to affirm their alignment with (or exceed) that norm — a competitive process that drives positions further in the favored direction. Persuasive arguments: discussion surfaces novel arguments, and in a group that already leans one way, most novel arguments statistically support that direction, moving members beyond their pre-discussion positions. Both mechanisms independently produce polarization and reinforce each other in natural group settings.
The key insight is that neither mechanism produces moderation. Social comparison does not average positions — it makes people compete to endorse the dominant norm. Persuasive arguments do not introduce balanced information — they expose members to arguments they had not generated privately, and the preponderance of those arguments favor the direction the group already leans. Moderation would require opposing forces that neither mechanism provides.