The Effects of Group Polarization
Brad Bradshaw, Ph.D.

Cite as 4 Litigation Commentary & Rev. 180 (November/December 2011)

Group polarization is the tendency for arguments and decisions to be more extreme in a group than what was initially experienced as an individual. That is, opinions become more radicalized after discussing an issue. This is counterintuitive because one would think that extreme opinions would be minimized when subjected to the rigors of other opinions. Instead, extreme opinions become more extreme after learning that other people support your beliefs.

We see group polarization rather clearly when discussing politics. The more a person expresses his love or hate for a particular administration, especially around like-minded people, the stronger he feels about the issue. The validation of his opinion serves as a reinforcement of his beliefs, and his beliefs become more extreme. Within the context of jury deliberations, polarization can occur for either liability or damages. If all twelve jurors agree on liability, they will move forward with great confidence. Hearing that the other eleven jurors agree will reinforce each individual opinion, and they polarize in that direction. However, if the jury is split on liability (say, six to six), it is likely that the two groups will polarize on opposite ends of the spectrum. Each group of six will reinforce each other within each group, driving the groups further apart and possibly leading to a hung jury.

With regard to damages, group polarization only occurs if all members of the jury agree on an extreme award. That is, they have found the defendant liable, and all twelve jurors favor an extreme award. This is the most troublesome situation for the defense because having heard that everyone else wants to award a lot of money, extreme opinions become more extreme. In the end, the final award may be higher than any specific juror originally proposed.

The one exception where polarization is unlikely to occur is when the jury agrees on liability but is split on damages. In this scenario, groups will form (one favoring a high verdict and one favoring a low verdict) and each side will try to convince the other to award more or less money. However, these groups will be able to reach a compromise because the dispute is financial, which is continuous, unlike liability, which is dichotomous. With liability there is not a lot of room for compromise. The defendant is either liable or not. But when discussing the award, jurors can negotiate the same way attorneys negotiate prior to trial. So debate regarding the award minimizes extreme opinions and the two factions will work towards a resolution that is somewhere in the middle.

One possible explanation for group polarization is a phenomenon that Leon Festinger called social comparison. According to Festinger, people feel the need to evaluate their abilities and opinions. When there are no set rules or guidelines in place, they compare themselves to others. So if you take a test and receive a grade on a one to 100 scale, you have a general idea of how you did. However, if it is an essay that is graded on a random scale, say one to 45, you will want to compare your score to others who were graded on the same scale. For most of us, if we learn that our score was lower than others, we will make the necessary adjustments on the next assignment to maintain a more desirable position within a group.

If an individual juror considers himself “middle of the road” but then finds out his opinion is rather conservative as compared to others in the group, he will likely adjust to a more liberal position to keep himself in the middle. The problem is, like most things, shifts can be affected by arbitrary information or events. For example, people tend to speak in proportion to their status in the group. However, status is not necessarily determined by knowledge or expertise. Just because someone is quick to express his opinion does not necessarily mean he has something intelligent to say. But if the extreme opinion is expressed early in deliberations, it can cause everyone else in the group to shift in that direction. According to social comparison, jurors gauge the position of others and then shift to maintain the desired position in the group.

The best way to prevent group polarization is to encourage dissenting opinions. In a group, congruent opinions are much less valuable than incongruent opinions. Unfortunately, people are less likely to share an opinion if it is not in agreement with the majority. Because juries tend to be hierarchical, a small group of leaders can quickly silence all dissenters. When groups make poor decisions it is almost always because the leaders did not allow others to express their opinions. For this reason, partners on the trial team should get the opinions of junior associates before making their own opinion known. Doing so reduces the likelihood of conformity because of in-group pressures. If you really what to know what a subordinate thinks, get his opinion before giving your own.

Brad Bradshaw, Ph.D. is a national litigation consultant based in Austin, Texas. Dr. Bradshaw conducts research and develops strategy in preparation of mediation, arbitration or trial. His book, “The Science of Persuasion: A Litigator’s Guide to Juror Decision-Making” is available through the American Bar Association. For more information please visit www.bradshawlitigation.com.