Exchange of arguments in a discussion often makes individuals more radical about their initial opinion. This phenomenon is known as Group-induced Attitude Polarization. A byproduct of it are bipolarization effects, where the distance between the attitudes of two groups of individuals increases after the discussion. This paper is a first attempt to analyse the building blocks of information exchange and information update that induce polarization. I use Argumentation Frameworks as a tool for encoding the information of agents in a debate relative to a given issue a. I then adapt a specific measure of the degree of acceptability of an opinion (Matt and Toni 2008). Changes in the degree of acceptability of a, prior and posterior to information exchange, serve here as an indicator of polarization. I finally show that the way agents transmit and update information has a decisive impact on polarization and bipolarization.

The Dynamics of Group Polarization

Proietti;Carlo
2017

Abstract

Exchange of arguments in a discussion often makes individuals more radical about their initial opinion. This phenomenon is known as Group-induced Attitude Polarization. A byproduct of it are bipolarization effects, where the distance between the attitudes of two groups of individuals increases after the discussion. This paper is a first attempt to analyse the building blocks of information exchange and information update that induce polarization. I use Argumentation Frameworks as a tool for encoding the information of agents in a debate relative to a given issue a. I then adapt a specific measure of the degree of acceptability of an opinion (Matt and Toni 2008). Changes in the degree of acceptability of a, prior and posterior to information exchange, serve here as an indicator of polarization. I finally show that the way agents transmit and update information has a decisive impact on polarization and bipolarization.
Campo DC Valore Lingua
dc.authority.people Proietti it
dc.authority.people Carlo it
dc.collection.id.s 71c7200a-7c5f-4e83-8d57-d3d2ba88f40d *
dc.collection.name 04.01 Contributo in Atti di convegno *
dc.contributor.appartenenza Istituto di linguistica computazionale "Antonio Zampolli" - ILC *
dc.contributor.appartenenza.mi 918 *
dc.date.accessioned 2024/02/20 08:37:28 -
dc.date.available 2024/02/20 08:37:28 -
dc.date.issued 2017 -
dc.description.abstracteng Exchange of arguments in a discussion often makes individuals more radical about their initial opinion. This phenomenon is known as Group-induced Attitude Polarization. A byproduct of it are bipolarization effects, where the distance between the attitudes of two groups of individuals increases after the discussion. This paper is a first attempt to analyse the building blocks of information exchange and information update that induce polarization. I use Argumentation Frameworks as a tool for encoding the information of agents in a debate relative to a given issue a. I then adapt a specific measure of the degree of acceptability of an opinion (Matt and Toni 2008). Changes in the degree of acceptability of a, prior and posterior to information exchange, serve here as an indicator of polarization. I finally show that the way agents transmit and update information has a decisive impact on polarization and bipolarization. -
dc.description.affiliations Lund Univ -
dc.description.allpeople Proietti; Carlo -
dc.description.allpeopleoriginal Proietti, Carlo -
dc.description.fulltext none en
dc.description.numberofauthors 1 -
dc.identifier.doi 10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_14 -
dc.identifier.isbn 978-3-662-55664-1 -
dc.identifier.isi WOS:000576961600014 -
dc.identifier.scopus 2-s2.0-85029406914 -
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14243/459222 -
dc.language.iso eng -
dc.relation.conferencedate 11-14/09/2017 -
dc.relation.conferencename LORI 2017 -
dc.relation.conferenceplace Sapporo -
dc.relation.firstpage 195 -
dc.relation.lastpage 208 -
dc.relation.numberofpages 14 -
dc.relation.volume 10455 -
dc.subject.keywords abstract argumentation -
dc.subject.keywords opinion dynamics -
dc.subject.keywords polarization -
dc.subject.singlekeyword abstract argumentation *
dc.subject.singlekeyword opinion dynamics *
dc.subject.singlekeyword polarization *
dc.title The Dynamics of Group Polarization en
dc.type.driver info:eu-repo/semantics/conferenceObject -
dc.type.full 04 Contributo in convegno::04.01 Contributo in Atti di convegno it
dc.type.miur 273 -
dc.type.referee Sì, ma tipo non specificato -
dc.ugov.descaux1 483664 -
iris.isi.extIssued 2017 -
iris.isi.extTitle The Dynamics of Group Polarization -
iris.orcid.lastModifiedDate 2025/04/24 01:21:46 *
iris.orcid.lastModifiedMillisecond 1745450506679 *
iris.scopus.extIssued 2017 -
iris.scopus.extTitle The dynamics of group polarization -
iris.scopus.ideLinkStatusDate 2024/06/22 23:35:56 *
iris.scopus.ideLinkStatusMillisecond 1719092156117 *
iris.sitodocente.maxattempts 5 -
iris.unpaywall.doi 10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_14 *
iris.unpaywall.isoa false *
iris.unpaywall.journalisindoaj false *
iris.unpaywall.metadataCallLastModified 18/06/2025 05:03:02 -
iris.unpaywall.metadataCallLastModifiedMillisecond 1750215782177 -
iris.unpaywall.oastatus closed *
isi.authority.anceserie LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE###0302-9743 *
isi.category EX *
isi.category QL *
isi.category PN *
isi.contributor.affiliation Lund University -
isi.contributor.country Sweden -
isi.contributor.name Carlo -
isi.contributor.researcherId DLT-4783-2022 -
isi.contributor.subaffiliation -
isi.contributor.surname Proietti -
isi.date.issued 2017 *
isi.description.abstracteng Exchange of arguments in a discussion often makes individuals more radical about their initial opinion. This phenomenon is known as Group-induced Attitude Polarization. A byproduct of it are bipolarization effects, where the distance between the attitudes of two groups of individuals increases after the discussion. This paper is a first attempt to analyse the building blocks of information exchange and information update that induce polarization. I use Argumentation Frameworks as a tool for encoding the information of agents in a debate relative to a given issue a. I then adapt a specific measure of the degree of acceptability of an opinion (Matt and Toni 2008). Changes in the degree of acceptability of a, prior and posterior to information exchange, serve here as an indicator of polarization. I finally show that the way agents transmit and update information has a decisive impact on polarization and bipolarization. *
isi.description.allpeopleoriginal Proietti, C; *
isi.document.sourcetype WOS.ISTP *
isi.document.type Proceedings Paper *
isi.document.types Proceedings Paper *
isi.identifier.doi 10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_14 *
isi.identifier.eissn 1611-3349 *
isi.identifier.isi WOS:000576961600014 *
isi.journal.journaltitle LOGIC, RATIONALITY, AND INTERACTION, LORI 2017 *
isi.journal.journaltitleabbrev LECT NOTES COMPUT SC *
isi.language.original English *
isi.publisher.place HEIDELBERGER PLATZ 3, D-14197 BERLIN, GERMANY *
isi.relation.firstpage 195 *
isi.relation.lastpage 208 *
isi.relation.volume 10455 *
isi.title The Dynamics of Group Polarization *
scopus.authority.anceserie LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE###0302-9743 *
scopus.category 2614 *
scopus.category 1700 *
scopus.contributor.affiliation Lund University -
scopus.contributor.afid 60029170 -
scopus.contributor.auid 35148455900 -
scopus.contributor.country Sweden -
scopus.contributor.dptid -
scopus.contributor.name Carlo -
scopus.contributor.subaffiliation -
scopus.contributor.surname Proietti -
scopus.date.issued 2017 *
scopus.description.abstracteng Exchange of arguments in a discussion often makes individuals more radical about their initial opinion. This phenomenon is known as Group-induced Attitude Polarization. A byproduct of it are bipolarization effects, where the distance between the attitudes of two groups of individuals increases after the discussion. This paper is a first attempt to analyse the building blocks of information exchange and information update that induce polarization. I use Argumentation Frameworks as a tool for encoding the information of agents in a debate relative to a given issue a. I then adapt a specific measure of the degree of acceptability of an opinion (Matt and Toni 2008). Changes in the degree of acceptability of a, prior and posterior to information exchange, serve here as an indicator of polarization. I finally show that the way agents transmit and update information has a decisive impact on polarization and bipolarization. *
scopus.description.allpeopleoriginal Proietti C. *
scopus.differences scopus.authority.anceserie *
scopus.differences scopus.publisher.name *
scopus.differences scopus.relation.conferencedate *
scopus.differences scopus.description.allpeopleoriginal *
scopus.differences scopus.relation.conferencename *
scopus.differences scopus.identifier.isbn *
scopus.differences scopus.relation.conferenceplace *
scopus.differences scopus.relation.volume *
scopus.document.type cp *
scopus.document.types cp *
scopus.funding.funders 501100004472 - Riksbankens Jubileumsfond; *
scopus.funding.ids P16-0596:1; *
scopus.identifier.doi 10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_14 *
scopus.identifier.eissn 1611-3349 *
scopus.identifier.isbn 9783319649993 *
scopus.identifier.pui 618315634 *
scopus.identifier.scopus 2-s2.0-85029406914 *
scopus.journal.sourceid 25674 *
scopus.language.iso eng *
scopus.publisher.name Springer Verlag *
scopus.relation.conferencedate 2017 *
scopus.relation.conferencename 15th International Conference on Business Process Management, BPM 2017 *
scopus.relation.conferenceplace esp *
scopus.relation.firstpage 195 *
scopus.relation.lastpage 208 *
scopus.relation.volume 10445 *
scopus.title The dynamics of group polarization *
scopus.titleeng The dynamics of group polarization *
Appare nelle tipologie: 04.01 Contributo in Atti di convegno
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14243/459222
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 6
social impact