In this blog post, we will examine why group decision-making becomes extreme, explore the causes, and seek practical solutions to prevent it.
It is easy to think that when several people gather and talk to each other, a more reasonable conclusion can be reached because various opinions are reflected. However, in reality, when making collective decisions, people tend to lean toward extreme directions rather than converging on various opinions. This phenomenon, in which the initial opinion of a group becomes more extreme, is called “group polarization.”
This phenomenon can occur surprisingly widely in the decision-making process. For example, when working on a team project at work, if the initial idea is presented in a way that involves taking a slight risk, the more the team members discuss it, the more they tend to accept and amplify that risk. Conversely, if the initial idea is very safe, the team members tend to stick with safer options as time goes on. This tendency can go beyond careful decision-making and lead to overly risky or overly conservative outcomes.
So what causes group polarization?
First, social comparison theory explains that group members tend to compare themselves to others and have a desire to be recognized by others. During group discussions, if people feel that their arguments are inferior to those of others, they unconsciously tend to present more extreme opinions. For example, even if you think that a movie you saw with your friends was just average, if more of your friends say that it was “really bad,” you will also start to think that it wasn’t very interesting, and you will tend to present more critical arguments in order to gain support from the group. In this way, the atmosphere within the group strongly influences individual opinions, causing the group’s opinion to become increasingly extreme.
Second, the “persuasion argument theory” explains that as group discussions progress, members are exposed to new information and opinions, which leads them to be attracted to diverse and persuasive opinions that they had not considered before. When someone in a group initially presents a somewhat exaggerated opinion, other members gradually agree with that opinion or make even stronger arguments, increasing the likelihood that the group as a whole will move in an extreme direction. In this process, if a persuasive argument emerges, that opinion will greatly influence the group’s decision.
Third, social identity theory explains group polarization as a phenomenon related to conformity to group norms. Members with a high level of social identity identify more strongly with their ingroup. As a result, differences of opinion within the ingroup are minimized, and members are strongly influenced by group norms and behave in accordance with them. In other words, differences in opinion among members of the ingroup are minimized, while differences between the ingroup and outgroup are maximized. Over time, the opinions of the ingroup become differentiated from those of other groups and shift toward extremes that are different from those of the outgroup. An example of this is when two political parties with different political tendencies fail to reach agreement over time and their differences in opinion become more pronounced.
This can be easily observed in online communities, where groups with the same political orientation discuss specific issues and their opinions become increasingly extreme over time. This phenomenon of group polarization leads to a flawed decision-making process called “groupthink,” in which group members fail to consider other alternatives or think diversely.
This negative tendency toward groupthink is reinforced in groups with high cohesion, groups that exclude opinions or criticism from outside, groups with overly authoritarian leaders, groups without democratic procedures for proposing and evaluating alternatives, and groups under high stress. Therefore, it is necessary to consider what conditions are necessary for a group to make rational decisions.
It is also necessary to consider various strategies to prevent group polarization and groupthink. For example, you can assign roles to intentionally present opposing opinions to maintain diverse perspectives within the group, or you can establish procedures to thoroughly review various alternatives by structuring the decision-making process. These strategies help groups avoid extremes and make more balanced decisions.
