Final Report (all chapters)

concerned about their public image. Individuals only mildly or not concerned about their
reputation are unlikely to feel compelled to comply with their group’s expectations.
Consider for example a scientist expressing the view that research cloning currently is not
critical to developing new medical treatments. This person is likely to be exposed to considerable
opprobrium by his colleagues, and his career could suffer greatly. Alternatively, consider an
evangelical Christian expressing some doubts about the wisdom of literally equating embryos to
human beings. It is fair to assume that this person would no longer be welcome in his or her
church. In these cases, reputational cascades shed considerable light on why we observe so much
conformity among the members of a social group, even though disagreement may be widespread.
Group polarization proper is the third and final phenomenon of import to institutional
design. The term itself is a bit of a misnomer, since it is not meant to suggest a process by which
a group breaks down into two distinct camps, or a phenomenon by which distinct groups shift
toward opposite views, although as we have seen in section 10.1, this can indeed be the case. In
its original meaning, group polarization identifies a rather puzzling phenomenon. After
deliberation, groups whose members hold similar views shift their opinions toward a more
extreme version of their initial positions. In other words, group polarization occurs when “an
initial tendency of individual group members toward a given direction is enhanced following
group deliberation.” 46 Group polarization is not synonymous with group radicalization. A group
of cautious individuals is very likely to become ever more cautious after deliberation. The
important point here is that deliberation tends to amplify the initial inclinations if a group
consists of individuals with similar views. In this case, deliberation contributes to shifting
individual views toward the extreme.
Group polarization is well-documented and is quite common in many deliberative settings.
For example, law professors sympathetic to affirmative action after deliberation are likely to
express a firmer support for this policy. Citizens somewhat favorable to gun control coming
together to discuss possible gun control measures in the aftermath of a nationally televised
shooting are likely to endorse stricter measures. And a group of women concerned about the
growing influence of feminism can be expected to develop a very strong opposition to feminism
as a result of deliberation. 47
A recently conducted study of jury deliberation offers a particularly convincing example of
group polarization. 48 To determine whether jury deliberation contributes to group polarization,
the study authors assembled more than 500 mock juries. The individuals were provided with
informational materials about a personal injury case and asked to rate the punishment on a scale
between 0 (no punishment) and 8. The participants were then randomly assigned to juries of six
46
47
48
Daniel J. Isenberg, "Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis," Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 50 (1986).
David G. Myers, "Discussion-Induced Attitude Polarization," Human Relations 28 (1975); Myers and Bishop,
"Enhancement of Dominant Attitudes in Group Discussion."
David Schkade, Cass R. Sunstein, and Daniel Kahneman, "Deliberating About Dollars: The Severity Shift,"
Columbia Law Journal 100 (2000).
267