This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Group polarization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Group polarization was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. |
The contents of the Polarization (psychology) page were merged into Group polarization on 14:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yaluys.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's an irrelevant observation to say that the Federalist papers support the idea of Risky Shift. Risky shift is the idea that a group will make a different risk/benefit decision than an individual acting alone, that the group will take more risk than an individual acting alone. Yet if we take that group, and put them in charge of another group or an individual, they will always make a riskier decision for that group than they would themselves. In addition, if an individual is put in charge of a group, or even another individual, they will always make a more risky decision than they would for themselves. It's not a valid comparison - Risky shift is comparing a group/an individual making a decision for THEMSELVES, whereas the comparison with the Federalist Papers/Gov't, is a group/individual making a risk decision FOR OTHERS. The two simply are not comparable - the group may take greater risks than the individual when making a decision for themselves, but both the individual and group will take even greater risks when "their ass isn't on the line". To compare the two scenarios is just not a fair or equitable comparison, which is why I took it out Xmacro ( talk) 16:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
This sentence cannot possibly be correct:
It is more accurate to say that following discussion, a group's actions will be a more extreme version of each individual's preferred action.
since "each individual" may have a completely different preferred action. I'm not sure what was intended, but I think it was "...a more extreme version of the generally preferred action of the majority of the group members" or something similar. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There are several sections of this article that have no citations, like the section on the Holocaust and in the section about group-induced attitude polarization. Citations would help with the validity of this article.
Czarinaoftokyo ( talk) 04:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Czarinaoftokyo
Hello I am a student in a Dickinson College Psychology Class and I am interested in working on this article. One change that I think would be beneficial is changing the layout of the article so that the empirical findings are listed with the theory they support, instead of having a separate "major empirical findings" section later on in the article. Hollidaa ( talk) 16:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the Welcome Andrew! Hollidaa ( talk)
I am planning to edit this article, focusing on adding citations. Below is a list of articles that I am reading and hoping to use to edit this page. Hollidaa ( talk)
Brauer, M., Judd, C. M., & Gliner, M. D. (1995). The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6). - I plan to use this article to provide additional info to the informational influence section.
Hinsz, V.B. (1984). Persuasive arguments theory, group polarization, and choice shifts. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(2). -I plan to use this article to provide additional info to the informational influence section.
Isenberg, D.J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6).This article provides a lot of info about group polarization, much of which as already been included in the article. I plan to use this source to provide citations for the article. Lamm, H. (1988). A review of our research on group polarization: Eleven experiments on the effects of group discussion on risk acceptance, probability estimation, and negotiation positions. Psychological Reports, 62(3). -I plan to use this article to provide additional info to the informational influence section.
Ledgerwood, A., Chaiken, S. (2007). Priming us and them: Automatic assimilation and contrast in group attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 940-956.-I plan to use this article to provide additional info to the social comparison theory section.
Mackie, D.M. (1986). Social identification effects in group polarization. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50(4) 720-728. -I plan to use this article to provide additional info to the social comparison theory section.
Van Swol, L.M. (2009). Extreme members and group polarization. Social Influence, 4(3), 185-199. - I plan to use this source to provide additional info for both theories Zuber, J.A., Crott, H.W., Werner, J. (1992). Choice shift and group polarization: An analysis of the status of arguments and social decision schemes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1). - I plan to use this article to provide additional info to the informational influence section.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollidaa ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Above I have added how I plan to use each source beside the source name. In editing the page, I am planning to focus on the social comparison theory and informational influence theory sections of the article. I believe that the current layout of the page is somewhat confusing to read, so I plan to re-organize the sections. My plan is to keep the overview and history and orgins sections in the beginning as they are. However, under the major theoretical approaches section I would like to go through both the social comparison theory and informational influence theory, including the major empirical findings for both theories with this section. Readers would then be able to read about the theory and the research backing it in one section instead of having to jump around. -- Hollidaa ( talk) 15:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I also am working on this article for a class assignment. I am a psychology major at the University of Dayton. I plan to look at the internet sub-heading to add both supporting and challenging references. I plan on looking for studies relating to the online bullying example in the internet. I also plan on adding information regarding cautious shift. Psyhistorykn ( talk) 16:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)psyhistorykn
Some editors were wondering why I had removed the "empirical evidence" section from my edits to the article. I believe that the current layout of the article is confusing. You present the soical influence and informational influence theories, but then have to jump half-way down the page to get to the research in support of these theories. I think that the evidence supporting each theory should be under the heading for that theory. I preserved all of the information from the empirical evidence section and simply re-organized it, in what I believed was a more logical order. Please feel free to provide feedback. Hollidaa ( talk) 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
There has been some concerns about the sources that I have added to the article. In the field of Psychology, peer-reviewed journal articles are used to confirm information. We no longer use books or mongraphs because that is simply not how scientists communicate nowadays. There is an article on "confirmation bias" that was awarded good article status, which also references scientific peer-reviewed journals. In regards to the unpublished thesis, the first time the phenomenon of group polarization was ever mentioned was by James Stoner in his unpublished masters thesis of 1961. While I realize this is not an ideal source, I decided to include this citation in case readers want to read his first words on group polarization. Hollidaa ( talk) 03:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that groupshift be merged into group polarization. The former article seems to be pretty clearly covering the same topic. In terms of the direction of the merge, in my experience group polarization is the term used in contemporary academia, and in my view it better captures the phenomenon. What do others think? Cheers Andrew ( talk) 02:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Group polarization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Group polarization was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. |
The contents of the Polarization (psychology) page were merged into Group polarization on 14:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yaluys.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's an irrelevant observation to say that the Federalist papers support the idea of Risky Shift. Risky shift is the idea that a group will make a different risk/benefit decision than an individual acting alone, that the group will take more risk than an individual acting alone. Yet if we take that group, and put them in charge of another group or an individual, they will always make a riskier decision for that group than they would themselves. In addition, if an individual is put in charge of a group, or even another individual, they will always make a more risky decision than they would for themselves. It's not a valid comparison - Risky shift is comparing a group/an individual making a decision for THEMSELVES, whereas the comparison with the Federalist Papers/Gov't, is a group/individual making a risk decision FOR OTHERS. The two simply are not comparable - the group may take greater risks than the individual when making a decision for themselves, but both the individual and group will take even greater risks when "their ass isn't on the line". To compare the two scenarios is just not a fair or equitable comparison, which is why I took it out Xmacro ( talk) 16:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
This sentence cannot possibly be correct:
It is more accurate to say that following discussion, a group's actions will be a more extreme version of each individual's preferred action.
since "each individual" may have a completely different preferred action. I'm not sure what was intended, but I think it was "...a more extreme version of the generally preferred action of the majority of the group members" or something similar. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There are several sections of this article that have no citations, like the section on the Holocaust and in the section about group-induced attitude polarization. Citations would help with the validity of this article.
Czarinaoftokyo ( talk) 04:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Czarinaoftokyo
Hello I am a student in a Dickinson College Psychology Class and I am interested in working on this article. One change that I think would be beneficial is changing the layout of the article so that the empirical findings are listed with the theory they support, instead of having a separate "major empirical findings" section later on in the article. Hollidaa ( talk) 16:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the Welcome Andrew! Hollidaa ( talk)
I am planning to edit this article, focusing on adding citations. Below is a list of articles that I am reading and hoping to use to edit this page. Hollidaa ( talk)
Brauer, M., Judd, C. M., & Gliner, M. D. (1995). The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6). - I plan to use this article to provide additional info to the informational influence section.
Hinsz, V.B. (1984). Persuasive arguments theory, group polarization, and choice shifts. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(2). -I plan to use this article to provide additional info to the informational influence section.
Isenberg, D.J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6).This article provides a lot of info about group polarization, much of which as already been included in the article. I plan to use this source to provide citations for the article. Lamm, H. (1988). A review of our research on group polarization: Eleven experiments on the effects of group discussion on risk acceptance, probability estimation, and negotiation positions. Psychological Reports, 62(3). -I plan to use this article to provide additional info to the informational influence section.
Ledgerwood, A., Chaiken, S. (2007). Priming us and them: Automatic assimilation and contrast in group attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 940-956.-I plan to use this article to provide additional info to the social comparison theory section.
Mackie, D.M. (1986). Social identification effects in group polarization. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50(4) 720-728. -I plan to use this article to provide additional info to the social comparison theory section.
Van Swol, L.M. (2009). Extreme members and group polarization. Social Influence, 4(3), 185-199. - I plan to use this source to provide additional info for both theories Zuber, J.A., Crott, H.W., Werner, J. (1992). Choice shift and group polarization: An analysis of the status of arguments and social decision schemes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1). - I plan to use this article to provide additional info to the informational influence section.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollidaa ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Above I have added how I plan to use each source beside the source name. In editing the page, I am planning to focus on the social comparison theory and informational influence theory sections of the article. I believe that the current layout of the page is somewhat confusing to read, so I plan to re-organize the sections. My plan is to keep the overview and history and orgins sections in the beginning as they are. However, under the major theoretical approaches section I would like to go through both the social comparison theory and informational influence theory, including the major empirical findings for both theories with this section. Readers would then be able to read about the theory and the research backing it in one section instead of having to jump around. -- Hollidaa ( talk) 15:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I also am working on this article for a class assignment. I am a psychology major at the University of Dayton. I plan to look at the internet sub-heading to add both supporting and challenging references. I plan on looking for studies relating to the online bullying example in the internet. I also plan on adding information regarding cautious shift. Psyhistorykn ( talk) 16:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)psyhistorykn
Some editors were wondering why I had removed the "empirical evidence" section from my edits to the article. I believe that the current layout of the article is confusing. You present the soical influence and informational influence theories, but then have to jump half-way down the page to get to the research in support of these theories. I think that the evidence supporting each theory should be under the heading for that theory. I preserved all of the information from the empirical evidence section and simply re-organized it, in what I believed was a more logical order. Please feel free to provide feedback. Hollidaa ( talk) 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
There has been some concerns about the sources that I have added to the article. In the field of Psychology, peer-reviewed journal articles are used to confirm information. We no longer use books or mongraphs because that is simply not how scientists communicate nowadays. There is an article on "confirmation bias" that was awarded good article status, which also references scientific peer-reviewed journals. In regards to the unpublished thesis, the first time the phenomenon of group polarization was ever mentioned was by James Stoner in his unpublished masters thesis of 1961. While I realize this is not an ideal source, I decided to include this citation in case readers want to read his first words on group polarization. Hollidaa ( talk) 03:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that groupshift be merged into group polarization. The former article seems to be pretty clearly covering the same topic. In terms of the direction of the merge, in my experience group polarization is the term used in contemporary academia, and in my view it better captures the phenomenon. What do others think? Cheers Andrew ( talk) 02:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)