Editing Group polarization (section)

==Applications==

===The Internet===
The rising popularity and increased number of online social media platforms, such as [[Facebook]], [[Twitter]] and [[Instagram]], has enabled people to seek out and share ideas with others who have similar interests and common values, making group polarization effects increasingly  evident, particularly in [[generation Y]] and [[generation Z]] individuals.<ref>{{cite book|title=Influences of mediated violence: a brief research summary|last=Feilitzen|first=C.|publisher=International clearninghouse on children, youth and media|year=2009|isbn=978-91-89471-81-8}}</ref> Similar to the social media platforms, video streaming platforms like YouTube are forming groups unconsciously through intelligent algorithm seeking for extreme contents.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bastug|first1=Mehmet F.|last2=Douai|first2=Aziz|last3=Akca|first3=Davut|date=2020-07-02|title=Exploring the "Demand Side" of Online Radicalization: Evidence from the Canadian Context|journal=Studies in Conflict & Terrorism|volume=43|issue=7|pages=616–637|doi=10.1080/1057610X.2018.1494409|s2cid=115806907|issn=1057-610X}}</ref> Owing to this technology, it is possible for individuals to curate their sources of information and the opinions to which they are exposed, thereby reinforcing and strengthening their own views while effectively avoiding information and perspectives with which they disagree.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sunstein|first=Cass|year=2000|title=Deliberative Trouble? Why groups go to extremes.|url=https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4513&context=ylj|journal=The Yale Law Journal|volume=110|issue=1|pages=71–119|doi=10.2307/797587|jstor=797587}}</ref>

One study analyzed over 30,000 tweets on Twitter regarding the shooting of [[George Tiller]], a late term abortion doctor, where the tweets analyzed were conversations among supporters and opponents of abortion rights, post shooting. The study found that like-minded individuals strengthened group identity whereas replies between different-minded individuals reinforced a split in affiliation.<ref name="Yardi 316" />

In a study conducted by Sia et al. (2002), group polarization was found to occur with online ([[Computer-mediated communication|computer-mediated]]) discussions. In particular, this study found that group discussions, conducted when discussants are in a distributed (cannot see one another) or anonymous (cannot identify one another) environment, can lead to even higher levels of group polarization compared to traditional meetings. This is attributed to the greater numbers of novel arguments generated (due to persuasive arguments theory) and higher incidence of one-upmanship behaviors (due to social comparison).<ref>{{cite journal|last=Sia|first=C. L |author2=Tan, B |author3=Wei, K. K.|title=Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity|journal=Information Systems Research|year=2002|volume=13|pages=70–90|doi=10.1287/isre.13.1.70.92}}</ref>

However, some research suggests that important differences arise in measuring group polarization in laboratory versus field experiments. A study conducted by Taylor & MacDonald (2002) featured a realistic setting of a computer-mediated discussion, but group polarization did not occur at the level expected.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last1=Taylor|first1=J.|last2=MacDonald|first2=J.|year=2002|title=The effects of asynchronous computer-mediated group interaction of group processes|journal=Social Science Review|volume=20|issue=3|pages=260–274|doi=10.1177/089443930202000304|s2cid=220160579}}</ref> The study's results also showed that groupthink occurs less in computer-mediated discussions than when people are face to face. Moreover, computer-mediated discussions often fail to result in a group consensus, or lead to less satisfaction with the consensus that was reached, compared to groups operating in a natural environment. Furthermore, the experiment took place over a two-week period, leading the researchers to suggest that group polarization may occur only in the short-term.  Overall, the results suggest that not only may group polarization not be as prevalent as previous studies suggest, but group theories, in general, may not be simply transferable when seen in a computer-related discussion.<ref name=":0" />

{{see also|Echo chamber (media)}}

===Politics and law===
Group polarization has been widely discussed in terms of political behavior (see [[Polarization (politics)|political polarization]]). Researchers have identified an increase in affective polarization among the United States electorate, and report that hostility and discrimination towards the opposing political party has increased dramatically over time.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Iyengar|first1=Shanto|last2=Westwood|first2=Sean|year=2014|title=Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization|journal=American Journal of Political Science|volume=59|issue=3|pages=690–707|doi=10.1111/ajps.12152|s2cid=16242632 }}</ref>

Group polarization is similarly influential in legal contexts. A study that assessed whether Federal district court judges behaved differently when they sat alone, or in small groups, demonstrated that those judges who sat alone took extreme action 35% of the time, whereas judges who sat in a group of three took extreme action 65% of the time. These results are noteworthy because they indicate that even trained, professional decision-makers are subject to the influences of group polarization.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Walker|first=Thomas G.|author2=Main, Eleanor C.|title=Choice shifts and extreme behavior: Judicial review in the federal courts|journal=The Journal of Social Psychology|date=December 1973|volume=91|series=2|pages=215–221|doi=10.1080/00224545.1973.9923044|issue=2}}</ref>

===War and violent behavior===
Group polarization has been reported to occur during wartime and other times of conflict and helps to account partially for violent behavior and conflict.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Esteban|first1=Joan|last2=Schneider|first2=Gerald|year=2008|title=Polarization and Conflict: Theoretical and Empirical Issues|url=http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-opus-50564|journal=Journal of Peace Research|volume=45|issue=2|pages=131–141|doi=10.1177/0022343307087168|s2cid=5952676}}</ref> Researchers have suggested, for instance, that ethnic conflict exacerbates group polarization by enhancing identification with the ingroup and hostility towards the outgroup.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kunovich|first1=Robert|last2=Deitelbaum|first2=Catherine|year=2004|title=Ethnic Conflict, Group Polarization, and Gender Attitudes in Croatia|doi=10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00080.x|journal=Journal of Marriage and Family|volume=66|issue=5|pages=1089–1107}}</ref> While polarization can occur in any type of conflict, it has its most damaging effects in large-scale inter-group, public policy, and international conflicts.

===College life===
On a smaller scale, group polarization can also be seen in the everyday lives of students in [[higher education]]. A study by Myers in 2005 reported that initial differences among American college students become more accentuated over time. For example, students who do not belong to fraternities and sororities tend to be more liberal politically, and this difference increases over the course of their college careers. Researchers theorize that this is at least partially explained by group polarization, as group members tend to reinforce one another's proclivities and opinions.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Exploring Social Psychology: Fourth Edition|last=Myers|first=DG|publisher=McGraw Hill|year=2007}}</ref>