User:Psyhistorykn/sandbox

In a study conducted by Taylor & MacDonald in 2002,[26] the results were that even in a realistic setting of a computer-mediated discussion group polarization did not occur at the level expected. The study found that there are differences in laboratory work and field experiments. The researchers suggest that the effects of group polarization lessen when the group is operating in a more natural environment. The experiment took place over a longer amount of time and suggests that group polarization may occur only in the short-term. The study's results also showed that group think occurs less in computer-mediated discussions than when people are face to face. More so, computer-mediated discussions often lead to an inability to agree on a consensus than when groups are operating in a natural environment and there is usually less satisfaction with the consensus. 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 predictable when seen in a computer-related discussion.

Group polarization and choice shifts are similar in many ways; however, they differ in one distinct way. The term group polarization is used when discussing the attitude change on the individual level, where the term choice shift is used when discussing the attitude change of a group. Myers and Lam (1976) describe choice shift as the difference between the mean of group members' pre-discussion responses and the actual group decision on an issue. [22]

Risky and cautious shifts are both a part of a more generalized idea known as group-induced attitude polarization. Though group polarization deals mainly with risk-involving decisions and/or opinions, discussion-induced shifts have been shown to occur on several non-risk-involving levels. This suggests that a general phenomenon of choice-shifts exists apart from only risk-related decisions. Stoner [8] found that a decision is impacted by the values behind the circumstances of the decision. The study found that situations that normally favor the more risky alternative increased risky shifts. More so, situations that normally favor the cautious alternative increased cautious shifts. These findings also show the importance of previous group shifts. Choice shifts are mainly explained by largely differing human values and how highly these values are held by an individual. According to Moscovici et al.[23] within a group interaction and differences of opinion are necessary for group polarization to take place. While an extremist in the group may sway opinion, the shift can only occur with sufficient and proper interaction within the group. In other words, the extremist will have no impact without interaction. Also, Moscovici et al. [23] found individual preferences to be irrelevant; it is differences of opinion which will cause the shift.

Stoner, J.A.F. (1968). Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions: the influence of widely held values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 4, 442-459. 10.1016/0022-1031(68)90069-3

Risky and cautious shifts are both a part of a more generalized idea known as group-induced attitude polarization. Though group polarization deals mainly with risk-involving decisions and/or opinions, discussion-induced shifts have shown to occur on several non-risk-involving levels. This suggests that a general phenomenon of choice-shifts exists apart from only risk-related decisions. Choice shifts are mainly explained by the largely differing human values and how highly these values are held by an individual. According to Moscovici et al. (1972) interaction and differences of opinion are necessary for group polarization to take place. While an extremist in the group may sway opinion, the shift can only occur with sufficient and proper interaction within the group. The extremist will have no impact without interaction. Also, Moscovici et al. (1972) found individual preferences to be irrelevant; it is differences of opinion which will cause the shift.

In a study conducted by Taylor & MacDonald in 2002, the results found that even in a realistic setting of computer-mediated discussion group polarization did not occur at the level expected. Taylor and MacDonald Also, the experiment took place over a longer amount of time which suggests that group polarization may occur only in the short-term. According to Taylor & Macdonald (2002) The study's results also showed group think occurs less in computer mediated discussions than face to face. More so, computer mediated discussions often lead to an inability to agree on a consensus and there is usually less satisfaction with the consensus. 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 predictable when seen in a computer related discussion.

Choice shifts

Risky and cautious shifts are both a part of a more generalized idea known as group-induced attitude polarization. Though group polarization deals mainly with risk-involving decisions and/or opinions, discussion-induced shifts have shown to occur on several non-risk-involving levels. This suggests that a general phenomenon of choice-shifts exists apart from only risk-related decisions. Choice shifts are mainly explained by the largely differing human values and how highly these values are held by an individual. Another possible explanation for this choice shift is the idea of leadership theory, which holds that the opinions and decisions of the group shift significantly towards the most confident or socially powerful member.

The Internet The Internet has also served as a medium for group polarization as it provides individuals with a quick and easy means of connecting and communicating with an essentially unlimited amount of people. More specifically, with the increasing amount and popularity of online social media such as Facebook and Twitter, it is becoming much easier as well as highly encouraged for people to seek out and share ideas with others who have similar interests and values.

In a study conducted by Sia et al. in 2002, group polarization was found to occur with online (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).[20]

The connection between group polarization and the Internet also has significant applications for friend groups and online bullying. Because it is so easy to communicate with a large number of people, teenagers and young adults can quickly engage in conversation with friends, share opinions, and further strengthen these opinions post sharing them. For example, if a group of girls were discussing how they do not like a certain girl in their class, they could easily and quickly all discuss this online in a chat room. After discussing and sharing their opinions, their opinions would most likely strengthen and intensify. This could then result in the group of girls bullying and harassing the "ostracized" individual. Whether it is online social media or chat rooms, the Internet essentially fosters group polarization for individuals who are using the Internet to communicate. In a day where the Internet and online networking is a huge part of society, group polarization effects are becoming increasingly more evident, particularly in generation Y individuals.

Feilitzen, C.(2009). Influences of Mediated Violence: A Brief Research Summary. International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media. NORDICOM. University of Gothenburg. '''