Biased processing and opinion polarization: experimental refinement of argument communication theory in the context of the energy debate

TL;DR

This study combines experimental and computational methods to examine how biased argument processing influences opinion polarization in energy debates, revealing that bias can both accelerate decision-making and cause persistent subgroup conflicts.

Contribution

It introduces a mathematical model linking biased argument processing to opinion change, providing new insights into polarization dynamics in social debates.

Findings

Moderate biased processing causes opinion polarization.

Weak bias accelerates group decision-making.

Strong bias leads to persistent subgroup polarization.

Abstract

In sociological research, the study of macro processes, such as opinion polarization, faces a fundamental problem, the so-called micro-macro problem. To overcome this problem, we combine empirical experimental research on biased argument processing with a computational theory of group deliberation in order to clarify the role of biased processing in debates around energy. The experiment reveals a strong tendency to consider arguments aligned with the current attitude more persuasive and to downgrade those speaking against it. This is integrated into the framework of argument communication theory in which agents exchange arguments about a certain topic and adapt opinions accordingly. We derive a mathematical model that allows to relate the strength of biased processing to expected attitude changes given the specific experimental conditions and find a clear signature of moderate biased processing. We further show that this model fits significantly better to the experimentally observed attitude changes than the neutral argument processing assumption made in previous models. Our approach provides new insight into the relationship between biased processing and opinion polarization. At the individual level our analysis reveals a sharp qualitative transition from attitude moderation to polarization. At the collective level we find (i.) that weak biased processing significantly accelerates group decision processes whereas (ii.) strong biased processing leads to a persistent conflictual state of subgroup polarization. While this shows that biased processing alone is sufficient for the emergence of polarization, we also demonstrate that homophily may lead to intra-group conflict at significantly lower rates of biased processing.