Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization

Abstract

Several of our studies indicate that persuasive-arguments theory by itself is an adequate explanation of polarization. Sanders and Baron (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1977, 13, 303-314) criticize this research. More generally, they contend that both argumentation and comparison are involved, "with persuasive arguments facilitating the shifts motivated by social comparison." We feel that their critique is unconvincing. Relevant portions of the standard literature are reviewed to demonstrate that social comparison is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for polarization. Finally, we speculate about how persuasive-arguments theory could be extended to argument-poor settings (e.g., Asch's line comparison situation).