Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T23:56:41.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Group Epistemology and Structural Factors in Online Group Polarization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2020

Kenneth Boyd Open the ORCID record for Kenneth Boyd [Opens in a new window]
Kenneth Boyd*
Affiliation:
Department for the Study of Culture, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
*
Email: kenneth.boyd@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There have been many discussions recently from philosophers, cognitive scientists, and psychologists about group polarization, with online and social media environments in particular receiving a lot of attention, both because of people's increasing reliance on such environments for receiving and exchanging information and because such environments often allow individuals to selectively interact with those who are like-minded. My goal here is to argue that the group epistemologist can facilitate understanding the kinds of factors that drive group polarization in a way that has been overlooked by the existing research. Specifically, I argue that polarization can occur in part because of the ways that members of a group treat the group itself (as opposed to an individual member within that group) as a source of information, and in doing so makes their own position, as well as that of the group, more extreme. I refer to this as a structural factor in driving polarization, and argue that such factors can contribute to explanations of polarization that occurs specifically in an important subset of groups, namely online and social media groups in which little is known about other members within the group, what I refer to as anonymous, semi-anonymous and pseudonymous (ASAP) groups.

Keywords

Group polarizationgroup epistemologysocial mediasocial epistemology
Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2023 , pp. 57 - 72
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. and Turner, J. (1990). ‘Knowing What to Think by Knowing Who You Are: Self-categorization and the Nature of Norm Formation, Conformity and Group Polarization.’ British Journal of Social Psychology 29, 97–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, L.R. and Holt, C.A. (1997). ‘Information Cascades in the Laboratory.’ American Economic Review 87(5), 847–62.Google Scholar
Bail, C.A., Argyle, L.P., Brown, T.W., Bumpus, J.P., Chen, H, Hunzaker, M.F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F. and Volfovsky, A. (2018). ‘Exposure to Opposing Views on Social Media can Increase Political Polarization.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 115(37), 9216–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bessi, A., Petroni, F., Del Vicario, M., Zollo, F., Anagnostopoulos, A., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G. and Quattrociocchi, W. (2016 a). ‘Homophily and Polarization in the Age of Misinformation.’ European Physical Journal Special Topics 225(10), 2047–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Del Vicario, M., Puliga, M., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Uzzi, B. and Quattrociocchi, W. (2016 b). ‘Users Polarization on Facebook and Youtube.’ PLoS ONE 11(8), e0159641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bramson, A., Grim, P., Singer, D.J., Berger, W.J., Sack, G., Fisher, S., Flocken, C. and Holman, B. (2017). ‘Understanding Polarization: Meanings, Measures, and Model Evaluation.’ Philosophy of Science 84, 115–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandtzaeg, P.B. and Haugstveit, I.M. (2014). ‘Facebook Likes: A Study of Liking Practices for Humanitarian Causes.’ International Journal of Web Based Communities 10(3), 258–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M.B. (1979). ‘In-group Bias in the Minimal Intergroup Situation: A Cognitive Motivational Analysis.’ Psychological Bulletin 86, 307–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broncano-Berrocal, F. and Carter, J.A. (2020). The Philosophy of Group Polarization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Burnstein, E. and Vinokur, A. (1977). ‘Persuasive Argumentation and Social Comparison as Determinants of Attitude Polarization.’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13(4), 315–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, M. and Lallijee, M. (1972). ‘Verbal Substitutes for Visual Signals in Interaction.’ Semiotica 6, 212–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H. and Trevino, L.K. (1987). ‘Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems.’ MIS Quarterly 11(3), 355–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Vicario, M., Vivaldo, G., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G. and Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). ‘Echo Chambers: Emotional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook.’ Scientific Reports 6, art. no. 37825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flanagin, A.J. and Metzger, M.J. (2013). ‘Trusting Expert- Versus User-Generated Ratings Online: The Role of Information Volume, Valence, and Consumer Characteristics.’ Computers in Human Behavior 29, 1626–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, M. (2012). ‘Group Testimony? The Making of a Collective Good Informant.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84(2), 249–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garibay, I., Mantzaris, A.V., Rajabi, A. and Taylor, C.E. (2019). ‘Polarization in Social Media Assists Influencers to Become More Influential: Analysis and Two Inoculation Strategies.’ Scientific Reports 9(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garimella, K., De Francisci Morales, G., Gionis, A. and Mathioudakis, M. (2017). ‘Reducing Controversy by Connecting Opposing Views.’ In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp. 81–90. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Guerra, P.C., Meira, W., Cardie, C. and Kleinberg, R. (2013). ‘A Measure of Polarization on Social Media Networks Based on Community Boundaries.’ In Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Palo Alto, CA: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Guy, I., Ronen, I., Zwerdling, N., Zuyev-Grabovitch, I. and Jacovi, M. (2016). ‘What is Your Organization ‘Like’? A Study of Liking Activity in the Enterprise.’ In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3025–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, M.A., Turner, J.C. and Davidson, B. (1990). ‘Polarized Norms and Social Frames of Reference: A Test of the Self-categorization Theory of Group Polarization.’ Basic and Applied Social Psychology 11(1), 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, F.H. (2013). ‘Motivations of Facebook Users for Responding to Posts on a Community Page.’ In International Conference on Online Communities and Social Computing, pp. 33–9. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isenberg, D.J. (1986). ‘Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(6), 1141–51.10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, G.C., Fichman, R.G., Gallaugher, J. and Glaser, J. (2009). ‘Community Relations 2.0: With the Rise of Real-Time Social Media, the Rules About Community Outreach Have Changed.’ Harvard Business Review 87(11), 45–50.Google Scholar
Kane, G.C., Alavi, M., Labianca, G. and Borgatti, S.P. (2014). ‘What's Different about Social Media Networks? A Framework and Research Agenda.’ MIS Quarterly 38(1), 274–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. (2014). ‘A Deflationary Account of Group Testimony.’ In Lackey, J. (ed.), Essays in Collective Epistemology, pp. 64–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. (2018). ‘Group Assertion.’ Erkenntnis 83(1), 21–42.10.1007/s10670-016-9870-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J.K., Choi, J., Kim, C. and Kim, Y. (2014). ‘Social Media, Network Heterogeneity, and Opinion Polarization.’ Journal of Communication 64(4), 702–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, Y. and Van Der Heide, B. (2015). ‘Evaluating the Wisdom of Strangers: The Perceived Credibility of Online Consumer Reviews on Yelp.’ Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20, 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linstone, H. and Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Marino, C., Vieno, A., Pastore, M., Albery, I.P., Frings, D. and Spada, M.M. (2016). ‘Modeling the Contribution of Personality, Social Identity and Social Norms to Problematic Facebook Use in Adolescents.’ Addictive Behaviors 63, 51–56.10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.07.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCright, A.M. and Dunlap, R.E. (2011). ‘The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public's Views of Global Warming, 2001–2010.’ Sociological Quarterly 52(2), 155–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J. and Medders, R.B. (2010). ‘Social and Heuristic Approaches to Credibility Evaluation Online.’ Journal of Communication 60, 413–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munson, S.A., Lee, S.Y. and Resnick, P. (2013). ‘Encouraging Reading of Diverse Political Viewpoints with a Browser Widget.’ In Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Palo Alto, CA: The AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Myers, D. (1978). ‘Polarizing Effects of Social Comparison.’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 14, 554–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, D. and Lamm, H. (1976). ‘The Group Polarization Phenomenon.’ Psychological Bulletin 83(4), 602–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunamaker, J.F., Dennis, A.R., George, J.F., Valacich, J.S. and Vogel, D.R. (1991). ‘Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work.’ Communications of the ACM 34(7), 40–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, E.J. (2013). ‘A Bayesian Simulation Model of Group Deliberation and Polarization.’ In Bayesian Argumentation, pp. 113–33. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallavicini, J., Hallsson, B. and Kappel, K. (2018). ‘Polarization in Groups of Bayesian agents.’ Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01978-w.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PEW Research Center. (2018). ‘Social Media Outpaces Print Newspapers in the U.S. as a News Source.’ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/social-media-outpaces-print-newspapers-in-the-u-s-as-a-news-source/.Google Scholar
Poole, M.S. and Jackson, M.H. (1993). ‘Communication Theory and Group Support Systems.’ In Jessup, L.M. and Valacich, J.S. (eds), Group Support Systems: New Perspectives, pp. 281–93. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Prasetya, H.A. and Murata, T. (2020). ‘A Model of Opinion and Propagation Structure Polarization in Social Media.’ Computational Social Networks 7(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, A.L., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Betsch, C. and Quattrociocchi, W. (2018). ‘Polarization of the Vaccination Debate on Facebook.’ Vaccine 36(25), 3606–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Short, J., Williams, E. and Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunication. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Sia, C.L., Tan, B.C.Y. and Wei, K.K. (2002). ‘Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity.’ Information Systems Research 13(1), 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S.B. and McGuire, T.W. (1986). ‘Group Processes in Computer-mediated Communication.’ Organic Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37(2), 157–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, D.J., Bramson, A., Grim, P., Holman, B., Jung, J., Kovaka, K. and Ranginani, A. (2019). ‘Rational Social and Political Polarization.’ Philosophical Studies 176, 2243–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. (2002). ‘The Law of Group Polarization.’ Journal of Political Philosophy 10(2), 175–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollefsen, D. (2007). ‘Group Testimony.’ Social Epistemology 21(3), 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollefsen, D.P. (2009). ‘Wikipedia and the Epistemology of Testimony.’ Episteme 6(1), 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, J.A., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D. and Nyhan, B. (2018). ‘Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature.’ http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J.C. (1985). ‘Social Categorization and the Self-concept: A Social Cognitive Theory of Group Behaviour.’ In Lawler, E.J. (ed.), Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research, Vol. 2 pp. 77–122. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Valacich, J.S., Dennis, A.R. and Connolly, T. (1994). ‘Idea Generation in Computer-based Groups: A New Ending to an Old Story.’ Organic Behavior and Human Decision Processes 57(3), 448–67.10.1006/obhd.1994.1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J.B. (2011). ‘Theories of Computer-mediated Communication and Interpersonal Relations.’ In Knapp, M.L. and Daly, J.A. (eds), The Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 4th edition, pp. 443–79. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Walther, J.B. and Parks, M.R. (2002). ‘Cues Filtered Out, Cues Filtered In: Computer-mediated Communication and Relationships.’ In Knapp, M.L. and Daly, J.A. (eds), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, pp. 529–63. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Walther, J.B., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L. and Shulman, H. (2009). ‘Self-generated Versus Other-generated Statements and Impressions in Computer-mediated Communication: A Test of Warranting Theory using Facebook.’ Communication Research 36, 229–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willemsen, L.M., Neijens, P.C. and Bronner, F. (2012). ‘The Ironic Effect of Source Identification on the Perceived Credibility of Online Product Reviewers.’ Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18, 16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yardi, S. and Boyd, D. (2010). ‘Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on Twitter.’ Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30(5), 316–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar