Attitude Polarization State
(Redirected from attitude polarization)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
An Attitude Polarization State is an attitude state where group beliefs become more polarized.
- AKA: Belief Polarization.
- …
- Counter-Example(s):
- See: Confirmation Bias, Confirming Evidence.
References
2015
- (Wikipedia, 2015) ⇒ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/attitude_polarization Retrieved:2015-3-8.
- Attitude polarization, also known as belief polarization and polarization effect, is a phenomenon in which a disagreement becomes more extreme as the different parties consider evidence on the issue. It is one of the effects of confirmation bias: the tendency of people to search for and interpret evidence selectively, to reinforce their current beliefs or attitudes. [1] When people encounter ambiguous evidence, this bias can potentially result in each of them interpreting it as in support of their existing attitudes, widening rather than narrowing the disagreement between them.[2] The effect is observed with issues that activate emotions, such as political "hot button" issues. For most issues, new evidence does not produce a polarization effect. For those issues where polarization is found, mere thinking about the issue, without contemplating new evidence, produces the effect. Social comparison processes have also been invoked as an explanation for the effect, which is increased by settings in which people repeat and validate each other's statements. This apparent tendency is of interest not only to psychologists, but also to sociologists [3] and philosophers. [4]
1979
- (Lord et al., 1979) ⇒ Charles G. Lord, Lee Ross, and Mark R. Lepper. (1979). “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence..” In: Journal of personality and social psychology, 37(11). doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
- QUOTE: People who hold strong opinions on complex social issues are likely to examine relevant empirical evidence in a biased manner. They are apt to accept "confirming" evidence at face value while subjecting "disconfirming" evidence to critical evaluation, and, as a result, draw undue support for their initial positions from mixed or random empirical findings. Thus, the result of exposing contending factions in a social dispute to an identical body of relevant empirical evidence may be not a narrowing of disagreement but rather an increase in polarization. To test these assumptions, 48 undergraduates supporting and opposing capital punishment were exposed to 2 purported studies, one seemingly confirming and one seemingly disconfirming their existing beliefs about the deterrent efficacy of the death penalty.