Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
A Logical Framework for Graded Predicates Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

The Dynamics of Group Polarization

verfasst von : Carlo Proietti

Erschienen in: Logic, Rationality, and Interaction

Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Exchange of arguments in a discussion often makes individuals more radical about their initial opinion. This phenomenon is known as Group-induced Attitude Polarization. A byproduct of it are bipolarization effects, where the distance between the attitudes of two groups of individuals increases after the discussion. This paper is a first attempt to analyse the building blocks of information exchange and information update that induce polarization. I use Argumentation Frameworks as a tool for encoding the information of agents in a debate relative to a given issue a. I then adapt a specific measure of the degree of acceptability of an opinion (Matt and Toni 2008). Changes in the degree of acceptability of a, prior and posterior to information exchange, serve here as an indicator of polarization. I finally show that the way agents transmit and update information has a decisive impact on polarization and bipolarization.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Quotient Dynamics: The Logic of Abstraction
Nächstes Kapitel Doing Without Nature
Fußnoten
1
According to social comparison explanations, such as [26], polarization may arise in a group because individuals are motivated to perceive and present themselves in a favorable light in their social environment. To this end, they take a position which is similar to everyone else but a bit more extreme. This kind of explanation assumes a lot. Indeed, models that explain bipolarization effects by social comparison mechanisms usually postulate both positive influence by ingroup members and negative influence by outgroup members [12, 16]. However, a number of criticisms have been addressed towards the accuracy of empirical research showing the presence of negative influence in social interaction [19].
 
2
This explanation assumes that individuals become more convinced of their view when they hear novel and persuasive arguments in favor of their position, and therefore “Group discussion will cause an individual to shift in a given direction to the extent that the discussion exposes that individual to persuasive arguments favoring that direction” [15]. Typically, models inspired by persuasive arguments theory do not assume negative influence of any kind, but presuppose homophily, i.e. stronger interaction with like-minded individuals [23], or biased assimilation of arguments [21].
 
3
Admissibility is the basis of most of the solution concepts in the standard Dung’s framework such as preferredness, stability and groundedness. For our present purposes we don’t need to introduce them.
 
4
A similar approach is taken by [1, 8, 25]. There too the information base of an agent is encoded by a subset of a larger universe [8] or universal argumentation framework [1, 25].
 
5
Being unaware that b attacks c is the case when one lacks the warrant for b to undermine c (see also [29]). To give an example, let c be the argument “Phosphorus is not visible in the sky tonight” and b be the argument “Look, Hesperus is there!”. Clearly b constitutes an attack to c only if one is aware that Hesperus and Phosphorus are the same planet.
 
6
As pointed out by Reviewer 1, modelling information transmission and update in cheap talk situations is a highly interesting venue, which we must leave for future research.
 
7
Thanks to Reviewer 1 for raising this issue.
 
Literatur
1.
Caminada, M., Sakama, C.: On the issue of argumentation and informedness. In: 2nd International Workshop on Argument for Agreement and Assurance (AAA 2015) (2015)
2.
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS, vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.​1007/​11518655_​33 CrossRef
3.
Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Bipolarity in argumentation graphs: Towards a better Understanding. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 54(7), 876–899 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
4.
Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Marquis, P.: On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171, 730–753 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
5.
6.
Delobelle, J., Konieczny, S., Vesic, S.: On the aggregation of argumentation frameworks. IJCAI 2015, 2911–2917 (2015)
7.
Delobelle, J., Haret, A., Konieczny, S., Mailly, J., Rossit, J., Woltran, S.: Merging of abstract argumentation frameworks. In: KR 2016, pp. 33–42 (2016)
8.
Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F., Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Argumentation update in YALLA (Yet Another Logic Language for Argumentation). Int. J. Approx. Reason. 75, 57–92 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
9.
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
10.
Farrell, J.: Cheap talk, coordination, and entry. RAND J. Econ. 18(1), 34–39 (1987)CrossRef
11.
Festinger, L.: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA (1957)
12.
13.
Gilovich, T.: How we know what isnt so. The Free Press, New York (1991)
14.
Grossi, D., Modgil, S.: On the graded acceptability of arguments. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI 2017, pp. 868–874 (2015)
15.
Isenberg, D.J.: Group polarization: a critical review and a meta-analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50(6), 1141–1151 (1986)CrossRef
16.
Jager, W., Amblard, F.: Uniformity, bipolarization and pluriformity captured as generic stylized behavior with an agent-based simulation model of attitude change. Comput. Math. Organiz. Theor. 10, 295–303 (2004)CrossRef
17.
Jern, A., Chang, K.K., Kemp, C.: Belief Polarization is not always irrational. Psychol. Rev. 121(2), 206–224 (2014)CrossRef
18.
Kelly, T.: Disagreement, dogmatism, and belief polarization. J. Philos. 105(10), 611–633 (2008)CrossRef
19.
Krizan, Z., Baron, R.S.: Group polarization and choice-dilemmas: How important is self-categorization? Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 37, 191–201 (2007)CrossRef
20.
21.
Liu, Q., Zhao, J., Wang, X.: Multi-agent model of group polarisation with biased assimilation of arguments. IET Control Theor. Appl. 9(3), 485–492 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRef
22.
Lord, C., Ross, L., Lepper, M.: Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37(11), 2098–2109 (1979)CrossRef
23.
Mäs, M., Flache, A.: Differentiation without distancing. explaining bi-polarization of opinions without negative influence. PLoS ONE 8(11), e74516 (2013)CrossRef
24.
Matt, P.-A., Toni, F.: A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) JELIA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5293, pp. 285–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-540-87803-2_​24 CrossRef
25.
Sakama, C.: Dishonest arguments in debate games. COMMA 2012(75), 177–184 (2012)
26.
Sanders, G.S., Baron, R.S.: Is social comparison irrelevant for producing choice shifts? J. Exper. Soc. Psychol. 13, 303–314 (1977)CrossRef
27.
Stoner, J.A.: A comparison of individual and group decision involving risk MA thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1961)
28.
Sunstein, C.: Why societies need Dissent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2003)
29.
Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1958)
30.
Vinokur, A., Burnstein, E.: Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 29(3), 305–15 (1974)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The Dynamics of Group Polarization
verfasst von
Carlo Proietti
Copyright-Jahr
2017
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Buch
Logic, Rationality, and Interaction

Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55664-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-662-55665-8

Copyright-Jahr: 2017

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_14