Editing Group polarization (section)

== Major theoretical approaches ==
Almost as soon as the phenomenon of group polarization was discovered, a number of theories were offered to help explain and account for it. These explanations were gradually narrowed down and grouped together until two primary mechanisms remained, [[Social comparison theory|social comparison]] and [[social proof|informational influence]].

===Social comparison theory===
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 theory holds that people first compare their own ideas with those held by the rest of the group; they observe and evaluate what the group values and prefers. In order to gain acceptance, people then take a position that is similar to everyone else's but slightly more extreme. In doing so, individuals support the group's beliefs while still presenting themselves as admirable group "leaders". The presence of a member with an extreme viewpoint or attitude does not further polarize the group.<ref name=[23]>{{cite journal|last=Van Swol|first=Lyn M.|title=Extreme members and group polarization|journal=Social Influence|year=2009|volume=4|issue=3|pages=185–199|doi=10.1080/15534510802584368|s2cid=219697757}}</ref> Studies regarding the theory have demonstrated that normative influence is more likely with judgmental issues, a group goal of harmony, person-oriented group members, and public responses.<ref name="Isenberg_group polarization"/>

===Informational influence===
Informational influence, or persuasive arguments theory, has also been used to explain group polarization, and is most recognized by psychologists today. The persuasive arguments interpretation holds that individuals become more convinced of their views when they hear novel arguments in support of their position. The theory posits that each group member enters the discussion aware of a set of items of information or arguments favoring both sides of the issue, but lean toward that side that boasts the greater amount of information. In other words, individuals base their individual choices by weighing remembered pro and con arguments. Some of these items or arguments are shared among the members while some items are unshared, in which all but one member has considered these arguments before. Assuming most or all group members lean in the same direction, during discussion, items of unshared information supporting that direction are expressed, which provides members previously unaware of them more reason to lean in that direction. Group discussion shifts the weight of evidence as each group member expresses their arguments, shedding light onto a number of different positions and ideas.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Vinokur|first=A.|author2=Burnstein, E.|title=Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group induced shifts: A group problem-solving approach|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|year=1974|pages=305–315|doi=10.1037/h0036010|volume=29|issue=3}}</ref> Research has indicated that informational influence is more likely with intellective issues, a group goal of making correct decision, task-oriented group members, and private responses.<ref name="Isenberg_group polarization" /> Furthermore, research suggests that it is not simply the sharing of information that predicts group polarization. Rather, the amount of information and persuasiveness of the arguments mediate the level of polarization experienced.<ref name="Hinsz_persuasive">{{cite journal|last2=Davis|first2=J.H.|year=1984|title=Persuasive Arguments Theory, Group Polarization, and Choice Shifts|journal=Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin|volume=10|issue=2|pages=260–268|doi=10.1177/0146167284102012|last1=Hinsz|first1=V.B.|s2cid=145085635}}</ref>

In the 1970s, significant arguments occurred over whether persuasive argumentation alone accounted for group polarization. [[Daniel Isenberg]]'s 1986 meta-analysis of the data gathered by both the persuasive argument and social comparison camps succeeded, in large part, in answering the questions about predominant mechanisms. Isenberg concluded that there was substantial evidence that both effects were operating simultaneously, and that persuasive arguments theory operated when social comparison did not, and vice versa.<ref name="Isenberg_group polarization"/>

===Self-categorization and social identity===
While these two theories are the most widely accepted as explanations for group polarization, alternative theories have been proposed. The most popular of these theories is [[self-categorization theory]]. Self-categorization theory stems from [[social identity theory]], which holds that conformity stems from psychological processes; that is, being a member of a group is defined as the subjective perception of the self as a member of a specific category.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Abrams|first=D. |author2=M. Wetherell |author3=S. Cochrane |author4=M.A. Hogg |author5=J.C. Turner|title=Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization|journal=British Journal of Social Psychology|year=1990|volume=29|pages=97–119|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00892.x|pmid=2372667|issue=2|doi-access=free}}</ref> Accordingly, proponents of the self-categorization model hold that group polarization occurs because individuals identify with a particular group and conform to a prototypical group position that is more extreme than the group mean. In contrast to social comparison theory and persuasive argumentation theory, the self-categorization model maintains that inter-group categorization processes are the cause of group polarization <ref name="Hogg1990">{{cite journal|last=Hogg|first=M.A. |author2=Turner, J.C. |author3=Davidson, B.|title=Polarized norms and social frames of reference: A test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization|journal=Basic and Applied Social Psychology|year=1990|pages=77–100|doi=10.1207/s15324834basp1101_6|volume=11}}</ref>

Support for the [[self-categorization theory]], which explains group polarization as conformity to a polarized norm, was found by Hogg, Turner, and Davidson in 1990. In their experiment, participants gave pre-test, post-test, and group consensus recommendations on three choice dilemma item-types (risky, neutral, or cautious). The researchers hypothesized that an [[ingroup]] confronted by a risky outgroup will polarize toward caution, an ingroup confronted by a caution outgroup will polarize toward risk, and an ingroup in the middle of the social frame of reference, confronted by both risky and cautious outgroups, will not polarize but will converge on its pre-test mean.<ref name="Hogg1990" /> The results of the study supported their hypothesis in that participants converged on a norm polarized toward risk on risky items and toward caution on cautious items.<ref name="Hogg1990" /> Another similar study found that in-group prototypes become more polarized as the group becomes more extreme in the social context.<ref>{{cite journal|last=McGarty|first=Craig|author2=John C. Turner, Michael A., Barbara David|title=Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member|journal=British Journal of Social Psychology|date=March 1992|volume=31|pages=1–19|doi=10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00952.x|display-authors=etal}}</ref> This further lends support to the self-categorization explanation of group polarization.