Effects of Persuasive Arguments on Group Polarization and Risky Shift
Matthew Bresnahan
November 26, 2013
The following research article is about the group polarization theory and the risky shift
phenomenon. Through my research, it can be concluded the most probable cause of group
polarization and risky shift effects to be the persuasive arguments in group communication.
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 2
Abstract
This study served as a replication of Myers and Bishop (1971) with minor modifications
to the methodology to account for additional variables. This study examined the persuasive
arguments explanation of group polarization and the risky shift phenomenon, the tendency of a
group to make a more extreme decision than its members have made, in individual and group
discussion settings. Fourteen undergraduate students (7 female, 7 male) were given a
questionnaire with two choice dilemmas from Kogan and Wallach (1964). Individuals indicated
the probability of success of the subject in the dilemmas. Participants were divided into two male
and female groups, consisting of three and four participants respectively. After the choice
dilemmas were rated again, means for both the individual and group conditions were calculated.
Results indicated risky shift conditions in the smaller 3-subject groups and cautious shifts in the
4-person subject group, while the individual condition produced a neutralization effect on choice
shifts. The present study’s findings supported both of the researcher’s hypotheses. It can be
concluded in group discussion context, a greater emphasis is placed on the quality of the novel
persuasive arguments, rather than the mere quantity of novel persuasive arguments, while in the
larger subject group discussion context, a greater emphasis is placed on the quantity of the novel
persuasive arguments, rather than the quality of novel persuasive arguments. Implications of the
present study’s findings can be applicable in peer pressure situations due to group polarization
and risky shift effects strengthening attitudes and behavior. These contributions may be of
significant value to teachers, parents, guidance counselors and individual group members
charged with reducing these effects. Suggestions for future research include a larger sample with
a wider variety of participants from all undergraduate campus communities and further attempts
to differentiate the social comparison and the persuasive arguments hypotheses.
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 3
Research Problem
The goal of this paper is to examine the effects of group polarization and risky shift on
communication. For years, researchers have been confounded to pinpoint the exact cause of the
two phenomena. The conclusions of the present study will be done through a replication of the
Myers and Bishop (1971) study with some additional variables. This paper will shed light on the
absolute cause of these effects. In order to properly discuss these perplexing concepts, the
consensus has to be reached about what constitutes the appearance of these effects. The basis for
this will be covered by three definitions: choice shift, group polarization and risky shift. Boster
and Mayer (1980) asserted, “a choice shift results to the extent that group members who had not
previously considered these partially shared arguments are convinced of their merits" (p. 394).
Group polarization can be defined as “an increase in the extremity of the average response of the
subject population” (Rothwell, 1986, p. 187). The risky shift phenomenon occurs “when the
average of individuals' decisions made prior to discussion was compared to the decision made by
those same persons in a group discussion context, the group decision (tends) to be riskier” (Cline
& Cline, 1980, p. 26). Although the census is that the effects, if apparent, occur in group
communication, many researchers differ on what mechanism or prospective produces the effect
of group polarization and risky shift. With no clear explanation of the effects, there are a myriad
of perspectives, two of which will be detailed further in the review of the literature, that try to
explain what yields group polarization and risky shift effects. As will be demonstrated, group
polarization and the risky shift phenomenon play in an influential role in the power of persuasion
that impact group communication and thought. Two hypotheses are proposed by the researcher
about this experiment. Hypothesis 1: Subjects in smaller formed groups during discussions will
produce better quality novel persuasive arguments and the addition of subjects to smaller formed
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 4
groups during discussions will yield more novel persuasive arguments, creating risky and
cautious shift conditions respectively in those settings. Hypothesis 2: Individuality in these
conditions will produce a neutralization effect regardless of gender or the effects produced by the
introduction of a confederate.
Review of Literature
The following review of literature focuses on three areas: First, background and
misconceptions; second, an examination of the competing research perspectives as an
ideological backing for the group polarization and risky shift effects, third, how the competing
research perspectives of the social comparison theory, the persuasive arguments theory coexist.
History and misconceptions
As Cline and Cline (1980) noted, the risky shift phenomenon was born when Stoner
(1961) “discovered that, contrary to popular belief, groups take greater risks in decision making
than do individuals (p. 26). This opened a new area of research, as researchers flocked to it trying
to replicate and explain the phenomenon. In some attempts to explain the phenomenon,
researchers’ findings have been easily conflicted. As Rothwell (1986) points out, while Teger
and Pruitt conclude that "a risky shift is almost always found,” some studies have found shifts
that favor conservatism (p. 182). It can be shown, then, that risky shift is only part of the more
general phenomenon of group polarization. Even after thousands of experiments, researchers
struggle to isolate the theoretical mechanism for group polarization or more specifically the risky
shift phenomenon. As a result, there have been numerous perspectives, none more prevalent than
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 5
the social comparison theory or the persuasive arguments theory, proposed to try to make sense
of this decision making phenomenon.
Social comparison theory
In group discussion, individuals have different opinions on what or how something should be
done. Every member of the group wants to fit in to avoid being blackballed for being different.
The social comparison theory proposes “…any action that allows one to discover, either
implicitly or explicitly, others' positions on an issue leads to a choice shift, with the direction of
the shift dependent upon the way others respond” (Mayer, 1985, p. 92). Boster and Mayer
(1980) explain that group members seek to compare themselves with other group members on
characteristics such as risk or caution. Going into the group discussion, individuals believe that
they are in agreement on those characteristics, however, if they are not, they view themselves as
incorrect. Mayer (1985) argues under the social comparison theory, “risk is valued and that
people perceive themselves as riskier than others” (p. 92). Lamm (1988) notes college students
tend to underestimate how much risk the other members are going to take in their decisions. At
that point in the group discussion, Kogan and Wallach (1964) argue that in attempt to save face
and preserve their image in the group, individuals seek consistency in making a decision and
their confidence in it. “Whichever is preferred, the person's introspections concerning judgmental
confidence seem to follow suit in a reflective fashion“(Kogan & Wallach, 1964, p. 195). Lamm
(1988) notes this is an example of the self-presentation theory, in which individual change their
positions to present a more favorable image of themselves to the group. Whitney and Smith
(1983) found “…bidirectional attitude polarization will follow interactions between groups in
which cohesiveness is emphasized…” (p. 172). Pavitt (1994) argues social comparison theorists
have disregarded “the basic psychological processes involved in what is basically a problem in
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 6
attitude formation and change” (p. 642). With individuals going with the majority opinion of the
group, social comparison creates “conditions [that] would reduce the individual member's
receptivity of information (Whitney & Smith, 1983, p. 167). There also exists the release theory
within social comparison. This theory asserts those groups members are afraid to voice radical
opinions until they see others supporting it, then it becomes acceptable to voice such an extreme
position (Lamm, 1988). Isenberg (1986) argues that under the guise of pluralistic ignorance,
group members compromise so that their decision lands close to their decision, while still
remaining close to the majority opinion of the group. Sometimes, individuals feel the effects of
social comparison by just being exposed to viewpoints of others in the group to compare to under
the mere exposure effect (Boster & Hale, 1988). Boster and Hale (1988) found mere exposure is
“is assumed to be necessary and sufficient to produce choice shifts discussion were consistently
larger than those resulting from mere exposure” (p. 182). They also noted a correlation between
ambiguity and the impact social comparison had on decisions (Boster & Hale, 1988). The other
research prospective examined in this review to explain the effects of group polarization and the
risky shift is the persuasive arguments theory.
Persuasive arguments theory
Groups can make their members change their opinions, causing a choice shift, based on
the persuasive arguments other group members make for their position. The persuasive
arguments theory predicts “group members modify their initial opinions because they are
persuaded by arguments presented during group discussions” (Boster & Hale, 1988, p. 180).
Boster and Mayer (1980) claim these arguments start out from a larger group of arguments
deciding between alternatives, and certain arguments are advocated during group discussion.
Isenberg (1986) notes the presence of a choice shift and how a group polarization function is
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 7
dependent how novel persuasive arguments are presented to the group. Isenberg (1986) states if
the arguments are old information, a choice shift will occur in the direction of the one who is
arguing for it, however, “If novel persuasive arguments are presented that are opposite to the
direction initially favored by the group member, their position will shift in the opposite direction
and depolarize” (p. 1145). Mayer (1985) argued persuasive arguments are more effective when
they support the eventual choice shift than when not. Boster and Mayer (1980) found that the
perception of quality of persuasive arguments influenced attitudes and strongly influenced post
message attitudes. The persuasive arguments theory is not solely based on argument quality; it
can also be based on the number of arguments. “Participants in group polarization research
decide on a prediscussional recommendation based on the proportion of arguments on either side
of the issue” (Pavitt, 1994, p. 640). “Subjects perceived the quality of risky arguments to be
higher when the majority was risky than when the majority was cautious“(Boster & Mayer,
1980, p. 401). Research has found “that novelty leads to persuasiveness only when perceived
validity is high” (Isenberg, 1986, p. 1148). The persuasive arguments theory takes into the
psychological, but disregards the social factors that the social comparison theory covers (Pavitt,
1994). Even though the social comparison theory and persuasive arguments theory try to serve as
standalone theories for explaining the effects of group polarization and the risky shift.
Two theories intertwined
On the surface, it would appear that the social comparison theory and the persuasive
arguments theory, while similar, are able to be distinguished from one another. Isenberg (1986)
argues the two theories coexist. His meta-analysis found a moderate composite relationship
amongst the two theories and polarization. Boster and Mayer (1980) note the possibility for both
theories to influence a choice shift’s direction and magnitude. Majority, which played a
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 8
significant role in both theories, is interrelated. “…Majority manipulation induces a social
comparison process. The social comparison process, in turn, affects perceptions of the quality of
persuasive arguments (Boster & Mayer, 1980, p. 405). Boster and Hale (1988) found the choice
shifts, both cautious and risky, were supported by the explanation that the social comparison and
persuasive arguments theories operate at the same time in explaining group polarization and the
risky shift. Mongeau and Garlick (1988) stated how Boster and Mayer found …”social
comparison information became the basis on which to judge persuasive argument information”
(p. 121). However, in their study they refuted Boster and Mayer’s (1980) findings because the
participants disregarded the information when attitudes were formed.
Critical Evaluation
Ever since group polarization and the risky shift phenomenon were proposed, it has been
a fertile area of research. Even though there are still the competing explanations of social
comparison theory and the persuasive arguments, research within the perspectives has been
commendable. In the social comparison perspective, Kogan and Wallach (1964) and Boster and
Hale (1988) need to be recognized for their important contributions to this important perspective
of group polarization and risky shift. In addition to their landmark study that created the choice
dilemma questionnaire, which has become the standard instrument in group polarization and
risky shift studies, their emphasis on the social cognition function of the social comparison
theory is an area lacking sufficient research. With further research, the social cognition function
might be what separates these two theories in this area of research. Bolster and Hale (1988)
subcategorized what can cause a risky shift in the social comparison theory and how they differ
from each other.
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 9
In the persuasive arguments prospective, Boster and Mayer’s (1980) findings have to be
recognized. Boster and Mayer (1980) found the important link of the perception of the quality of
the arguments and post message attitudes. This validates the theory as a whole in the realm of
group polarization and risky shift effects. This is due to quality of the arguments being a more
reliable persuasive factor than merely the quantity of the persuasive arguments.
The examination of group polarization and the risky shift phenomenon has become too
muddled to isolate one explanation that some researchers have turned to trying to validate dual
processes as a valid explanation for the confounding phenomenon. Boster and Hale’s (1988)
examination use of dual models facilitates a need for the process to be replicated for future
research. The dual model finally allowed researchers to examine real-world explanations of those
results, rather than just theoretical backing, as made clear in previous research.
The body of the group polarization and risky shift research provides limitations that need to
be corrected for future studies. The proliferation of the Kogan and Wallach (1964) choice
dilemma questionnaire has created a problem that plagues the spectrum of group polarization and
risky shift research. The proliferation creates two problems for studies using it. Due to the
widespread use of the choice dilemma questionnaire as the universal instrument for such studies,
with the majority of the field using it, there cannot be many distinctions between studies because
the results are derived from the same universal instrument. The second problem the Kogan and
Wallach (1964) choice dilemma questionnaire creates is its lack of consideration for the more
complex psychological and social factors behind decision making and its lack of real-world
variables in its scenarios, such as money. As Rothwell (1986) argues, since the participants in the
studies are not active participants in the choice dilemmas, making conclusions based on data
from hypothetical scenarios is rather difficult. The present study seeks to reduce these limitations
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 10
by asking fewer choice dilemmas. With the reduction in the number of choice dilemmas, it will
allow the participants to more critically evaluate the choice dilemmas using persuasive
arguments.
Method
The experiment consisted of 14 participants (7 females, 7 males) that were recruited from
Edinboro University of Pennsylvania. Ten of the fourteen undergraduate participants were part
of the disabled community on the campus. Participants were volunteers and received no
incentive for participation. All participants were native English speakers and had the physical
ability to print.
Participants were given an activity worksheet based off of the Kogan and Wallach (1964)
choice-dilemma questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of two real-world scenarios, in which
individuals had to rate the chances of success for the person in the given scenarios. The students
were then divided into two groups of three and two groups of four. The groups were divided by
gender. In addition, one group member in the male subject group of three and the female subject
group of four was a confederate. The groups engaged in a discussion on the choice dilemmas
until a census was reached.
The researcher encountered a problem in the collection of the data. First, the students did
not follow the activity’s directions correctly. There was also a concern for the validity of the data
collected given the small sample size. In regards to the sample size, the 14 subjects were
randomly sampled.
Even though the questionnaire has been previously developed, it still provided valid and
reliable responses because the scenarios are realistic and had some reliability with the subject
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 11
population. The study utilized scenarios derived from the Kogan and Wallach (1964)
questionnaire because that is the standard measurement in similar studies. The subjects were
monitored during the activity to ensure the activity’s instructions were followed properly. In this
experiment, the controlled variable was the questionnaire. Several variables were being
measured and manipulated to access their effect on group polarization and risky shift. These
variables include: gender, group size and majority opinion. The gender variable was measured by
having two male and female subject groups. The group size variable was measured by having
two groups of three and two groups of four. The experiment also sought to determine if putting
confederates in two of the four groups affected majority opinion and induced greater effects of
group polarization and risky shift.
The limitations on the methodology are the limited sample size and the inability to eliminate
complete rival hypothesizes, but it reduced the effects of the rival hypothesizes with the use of
the confederates in the use of experiment. The confederates tried to go against the majority
opinion, opting for either more extreme or cautious decisions, which tried to reduce the effects of
the rival hypothesizes during the experiment. Group discussion has a possibility of affecting
external and internal validity. Subjects may shift their opinions during and after the group
discussion. The confederated might have an impact on the external validity because they might
skew the results and give group polarization and risky shift more pronounced effects. If there
was to be any bias in this experiment, it would be personal bias towards subject or scenario. This
will be controlled by the group discussion since discussion is made on the basis of group
consensus. In this experiment, ethics might come into play when dealing with the confederates
because they actively were trying to manipulate the group discussions, so the effects of group
polarization can become more pronounced. This was controlled by two of the groups not having
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 12
a confederate. They were debriefed when they are needed for an opinion questionnaire on social
issues and that the questionnaire activity should take between 30-45 minutes. It remained ethical
because the debriefing is not lying nor is restricting their right to consent.
Data Analysis
Fourteen undergraduate students were gathered for a group polarization exercise where they
answered two choice dilemmas from Kogan and Wallach (1964) on the basis of probability of
success in the given scenarios. Ten of the fourteen undergraduate participants were part of the
disabled community on the campus. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.
The choices provided to the participants were 1, 3,5,7, and 9, with 1 being the most limited
probability of success and 9 being the most probable to happen. Let it be stressed that there is
also a choice for there to be zero chance for it working. Subjects were first given the
questionnaire individually, and then they were divided into groups, two male and female groups
with group sizes of three and four subjects. After the first section of the experiment, the
individual totals were calculated. This was also done for the group discussion totals. Results of
the individual and group mean calculations can be seen in Table 1 in Appendix A. Anything that
resulted above 5 indicated varying degrees of risk. Conversely, anything below 5 indicated
varying degrees of caution. The individual mean was 5.2. This data indicates no shift in either
the cautious or risky direction. This is because the mean lies just beyond the neutral point of 5 of
the scoring. This supports the second hypothesis. Hypothesis 2 stated: Individuality in these
conditions will produce a neutralization effect regardless of gender or the effects produced by the
introduction of a confederate. The male and female groups, as well as the results based on group
size and natural vs. manipulated groups, where compared against each other to see if the
variables have any correlation with group polarization and risky shift. The three subject male
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 13
group mean was 6.7 and the four person male group mean was 4.5. The data indicated a
moderate shift in the risky direction for the three subject male group. This is due to the three
subject male group mean being noticeably greater than the individual mean in the risky direction.
The three person female group mean was 7.6 and the four person female group mean was 3.5.
The data indicated a shift in the risky direction for the three subject female group. This is due to
the three subject female group mean being noticeably greater than the individual mean in the
risky direction. The data also indicated cautious shifts for both the four subject male and the four
subject female groups. This is due to the four subject male and the female group ranges being
more cautious than the individual mean in the risky direction. The data indicate that gender did
not play a role in signifying a risky or cautious shift. While the data signal a risky shift for the
three subject male and female groups and a more cautious shift in the four subject male and
female groups, based on the research and empirical observation, this can be attributed to the
group size and its effects on novel persuasive arguments in group discussion. The data indicated
that the natural vs. manipulated group conditions did not play a role in signifying a risky or
cautious shift. This is due to the manipulated groups, which were the three subject male group
and the four subject female group, had confederates, who advocated or the minority opinion
position based on individual means, had the three subject male group moderately shift in the
risky direction, while the data for the our subject female group indicated a cautious shift.
Therefore, there was no correlation between the manipulated groups.
The data was used to test the first hypothesis due to the shifts in this experiment that were
affected more by the persuasive arguments theory. Hypothesis 1 stated: Subjects in smaller
formed groups during discussions will produce better quality novel persuasive arguments and the
addition of subjects to smaller formed groups during discussions will yield more novel
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 14
persuasive arguments, creating risky and cautious shift conditions respectively in those settings.
In the two three subject groups, one of which was male and the other female, the responses
became more polarized, causing a risky shift. Based on empirical observation and the research,
this is due to an individual member’s novel arguments carrying more weight in a smaller subject
group. Since there were shifts indicated in these situations, the explanation indicated persuasive
arguments and not social comparison theory. The statistics used in this experiment were the
initial (individual) mean for the choice dilemmas and the group mean for the choice dilemmas.
Discussion
The results of the present study indicate a significant correlation between persuasive
arguments theory and the group polarization phenomenon. The results become more polarized in
the two, three subject group conditions in relation to the individual mean of the two Kogan and
Wallach (1964) choice dilemmas provided in the questionnaire located in Appendix B.
Participants rated the probably of success of the given scenarios significantly higher in the three
subject group condition than in the individual or four subject group conditions, which indicated a
risky shift. Conversely, participants rated the probable success of the given scenarios
significantly lower in the four subject group condition than in the individual or three subject
group conditions, which indicated a cautious shift. These findings suggest that an individual’s
novel persuasive arguments have more influence on group discussion in smaller subject groups
than in larger subject groups. In other words, in the smaller subject group discussion context, a
greater emphasis is placed on the quality of the novel persuasive arguments, rather than the mere
quantity of novel persuasive arguments. Conversely, an individual’s novel persuasive arguments
have less influence on group discussion in larger subject groups than in smaller subject groups.
In other words, in the larger subject group discussion content, a greater emphasis is placed on the
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 15
quantity of the novel persuasive arguments, rather than the quality of novel persuasive
arguments. The hypotheses for this experiment were that smaller subject group discussions
would produce better quality novel arguments and larger subject group discussions would
produce a greater number of novel persuasive arguments leading risky and cautious choice shift
conditions respectively. The experimenter also theorized that individuality would have a
neutralization effect on choice shifts. The present findings support these hypotheses as
participants in the three subject groups ranked a significantly higher probably of success for the
given scenarios than the individual mean results, while participants in the four subject groups
ranked a significantly lower probably of success for the given scenarios than the individual mean
results. While the participants in group discussion produced risky and cautious shifts, individual
mean results indicated no choice shift in either direction.
The present findings are in agreement with Boster and Mayer (1980), who found that the
perception of quality of persuasive arguments influenced attitudes and strongly influenced post
message attitudes. Their findings also indicate that social comparison also played a factor in the
experiment because “…majority manipulation induces a social comparison process. The social
comparison process, in turn, affects perceptions of the quality of persuasive arguments (Boster &
Mayer, 1980, p. 405). This is concurrent with the present findings because in the three subject
male and female group where the risky shift was induced, the majority position already leaned in
the risky direction due to the group members in those subject groups initially had risky
individual means. This underscores the difficulty of isolating a research prospective that fits the
group polarization and risky shift phenomenon. The present study also supports Mayer (1985)
that persuasive arguments are more effective when they support the eventual choice shift than
when not. The present findings further support hypothesis 2 and Boster and Mayer (1980) who
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 16
found that “Subjects perceived the quality of risky arguments to be higher when the majority was
risky than when the majority was cautious“ (p. 401). The present findings support hypothesis 2
and Lamm (1972) that group means were higher and more polarized than individual means. The
present findings also support Billig (1976) because “It has been found repeatedly that group
attitudes and judgments will be more polarized than individual attitudes and judgments “(p. 495).
The present findings indicated that there were no gender effects that contributed to either a risky
or cautious shift, which supports Myers and Bishop (1971). However, the present findings refute
Myers and Bishop (1971) and Boster and Mayer (1980) assertions that there were no significant
group size effects on choice shifts. In the present study, the results indicated group size effects
influenced the persuasive argument quality, which the greater the argument quality the riskier the
shift was. The present findings do not support the Boster and Mayer (1980) finding that
persuasive argument manipulation was successful in causing and determining the direction of a
choice shift. In the present study, there was no correlation found between argument manipulation
and choice shift because the two groups, the three subject male group and the four subject female
group, which were being manipulated by a confederate indicated a risky and a cautious shift for
the two groups respectively. Therefore, no correlation could be made between persuasive
argument manipulation and the direction of the choice shift.
Conclusion
Two potential problems with this study are the limited population from which the
participants were sampled from and the coexistence of both the social comparison and
persuasive arguments theories as explanation for the group polarization and risky shift
phenomenon in the present study’s findings. An experiment consisting of fourteen
participants is not a representative sample of a more general population. Ten of the
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 17
fourteen undergraduate participants were part of the disabled community on the campus.
This affected the perspective during the group discussion. The relational status between
participants affected the diversity of novel persuasive arguments during group
discussion. A way to eliminate this confound is by doing the experiment again using a
larger sample with a wider variety of participants from all undergraduate campus
communities. One of the present study’s findings indicated the coexistence of the social
comparison and persuasive arguments theories as an explanation for the effects of group
polarization and risky shift. The coexistence of these theories makes it difficult to for
future research to isolate the theories to determine their effects in causing group
polarization and the risky shift phenomenon. A way to eliminate this confound is by
doing the experiment again using pre-taped group discussions for participants to listen to
in place of authentic group discussions.
In general, the present study’s findings prove to be applicable for groups engaging in peer
pressure. First, there would be stronger peer pressure effects in smaller groups due to an
emphasis on the quality of persuasive arguments. As Boster and Mayer noted, individuals view
risky persuasive as higher when the majority position of the group shift towards riskier decisions.
This would apply to the real-world context by the majority position of the group is to engage in
juvenile delinquency behavior so, individual members of the group think it is a good plan due to
it being the majority position of the group. Second, the lack of gender effects on choice shifts
indicates that the implications of the present study’s findings on peer pressure can be applied
universally because gender will not significantly affect peer pressure effects. A third implication
of the present study‘s findings on peer pressure is being in a group will consistently polarize
group decisions more than individual decisions, as consistent with Billig (1976) findings. The
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 18
more bipolarized decision has a tendency to lead to more extreme behaviors because polarization
reinforces and strengthens attitudes. This is applicable in peer pressure settings because what
starts out as juvenile delinquency behaviors evolves into more serious criminal offenses due to
group attitudes being strengthened as a result of the polarization effects in group discussion and
behavior. The influence of this process on peer pressure is such that these contributions may be
of significant value to teachers, parents, guidance counselors and individual group members
charged with reducing the effects of group polarization and risky shift on peer pressure.
References
Boster, F. J., & Mayer, M. (1980). Choice shifts: Argument qualities or social comparison. In D.
Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 393-410). New Brunswick,
N.J.: International Communication Association.
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 19
Billig, M. (1976). Judgments of values and group polarization: Tests of the value-for-risk
hypothesis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6(4), 495-501.
Boster, F. Hale, J. (1988). Comparing effect coded models of choice shifts. Communication Research
Reports, 5(2), 180-186.
Cline, R., & Cline, T. (1980). A structural analysis of risky-shift and cautious-shift discussions:
The diffusion-of-responsibility theory. Communication Quarterly, 28(4), 26-36.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality
& Social Psychology, 50(6), 1141-1151.
Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. (1964). Risk taking: A study in cognition and personality. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
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, 62807-813.
Lamm, H. (1972). Self-image, perception of peers' risk acceptance and risky shift. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 2(3), 255-272.
Mayer, M. E. (1985). Explaining choice shift: An effect’s coded model. Communication
Monographs, 52, 92-101. doi:10.1080/03637758509376097
Mongeau, P., & Garlick, R. (1988). Social comparison and persuasive arguments as determinants of
group polarization. Communication Research Reports, 5(2), 120-125.
Myers, D. G., & Bishop, G. D. (1971). Enhancement of dominant attitudes in group discussion. Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, 20(3), 386-391.
Pavitt, C. (1994). Another view of group polarizing: the “reasons for” one-sided oral
argumentation. Communication Research, 21625-642. doi:10.1177/009365094021005004
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 20
Rothwell, J. (1986). Risk-taking and polarization in small group communication. Communication
Education, 35(2), 182-185.
Whitney, J. C., & Smith, R. A. (1983). Effects of group cohesiveness on attitude polarization and the
acquisition of knowledge in a strategic planning context. Journal of Marketing Research
(JMR), 20(2), 167-176.
Appendix A.
Table 1: Ind. & Group Means
Subjects
Individual
Male Group
Female Group
Male Group
Female Group
(Means)*
3**
3*
4*
4*
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 21
1
4
2
4
3
5
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
8
8
3
9
3
10
3
11
6
12
8
13
8
14
7
6.7
7.6
OVR IND
AVG=5.2
*Data represents means of two choice dilemmas combined
**Included a confederate
4.5
3.5
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 22
Appendix B.
Group Polarization and Risky Shift 23