Key Takeaways学习要点：群体极化

Learning Objective 7: Explain how group polarization affects decision making. 学习目标 7：解释群体极化如何影响决策。

Carefully consider each of the key takeaways.  They can be helpful when preparing for the upcoming cumulative quiz.
仔细考虑每个关键要点。它们在准备即将到来的综合测验时可能会有所帮助。

1. Group decision making is a process by which a group of people identify a problem to be addressed or goal to be achieved followed by proposing, discussing, and comparing possible solutions before selecting and executing the most reasonable solution. There are many benefits to group decision making:
   群体决策是一个过程，其中一组人确定需要解决的问题或需要实现的目标，然后提出、讨论和比较可能的解决方案，最后选择并执行最合理的解决方案。群体决策有许多好处：
   1. Diverse groups can generate different ways of  thinking about a problem or more strategies for approaching a solution. 
      不同群体可以产生对问题思考的不同方式或更多解决问题的策略。
   2. There are more advocates for the final decision, which can help persuade those who were not involved in the decision process. 
      有更多人支持最终决定，这有助于说服那些未参与决策过程的人。
   3. Group decision-making reduces the risk of individual bias; increases the likelihood of identifying logistical problems in the process; and increases the number of options for a solution under consideration.
      集体决策降低了个人偏见的风险；增加了在过程中识别后勤问题的可能性；并增加了考虑解决方案的选项数量。
   4. However, decision-making in groups does not always produce the best outcome.
      然而，集体决策并不总是产生最佳结果。
2. Group polarization is the tendency for members of a group discussing an issue to move toward a more extreme version of their original positions once exposed to the opinions of others in the group, which can cause the group to become more extreme.
   群体极化是指在一个群体讨论问题时，成员在接触到其他成员的观点后，倾向于向他们原始立场更极端的方向移动，这可能导致群体变得更加极端。
   1. Group polarization occurs whenever a person is exposed to information and then later discusses it with others. 
      群体极化发生在一个人接触到信息后，随后与他人讨论该信息时。
   2. Group polarization can occur when someone reads an article or a post online, forms a judgment about it, and then reads other readers’  comments.
      群体极化可能发生在某人阅读一篇文章或在线帖子后，对其形成判断，然后阅读其他读者的评论时。
   3. If a majority of group members’ individual decisions are initially risky, then the group will likely make a decision that is more risky following group discussion, which is referred to as a risky shift.
      如果大多数小组成员的初始决策具有风险，那么在小组讨论后，该小组很可能会做出一个更具风险的决策，这被称为风险偏移。
   4. If a majority of group members’ individual decisions are initially cautious, then the group will likely make a decision that is more cautious following group discussion, which is referred to as a cautious shift.
      如果大多数小组成员的初始决策是谨慎的，那么在小组讨论后，该小组很可能会做出更加谨慎的决定，这被称为谨慎转变。
3. Two theories explain group polarization: persuasive arguments theory and social comparison theory.
   两种理论解释群体极化：说服性论点理论和社交比较理论。
   1. Persuasive arguments theory states that the opinions of group members discussing an issue tend to become more extreme when a majority of the members favor a particular position because the group will generate more arguments favoring the majority position.
      说服性论点理论认为，当讨论一个问题时，大多数成员倾向于支持某一特定立场时，成员们的观点往往会变得更加极端，因为群体将产生更多支持多数派立场的论点。
   2. According to social comparison theory, people evaluate their abilities and attitudes in relation to those of others in a process that plays a significant role in self-image and subjective well-being. Some members may have lower social standing and unconsciously or consciously shift their positions to improve their social standing within the group.
      根据社会比较理论，人们在自我形象和主观幸福感的过程中，会根据他人来评价自己的能力和态度。一些成员可能社会地位较低，会无意识地或有意地改变自己的位置，以在群体中提高自己的社会地位。
4. Both persuasive arguments theory and social comparison theory explain group polarization depending on the context of the situation. 
   两种说服性论证理论和社交比较理论都根据情境的背景解释群体极化。
   1. Douglas Flint and his colleagues applied both theories to the organizational management concept of procedural justice. Procedural justice addresses whether performance is fairly evaluated and rules are fairly administered, such as when awarding pay or reviewing performance. The researchers found that when procedural justice is high, social comparison theory predicts group polarization and that when procedural justice is low, persuasive argument theory predicts group polarization. 
      道格拉斯·弗林特和他的同事将这两种理论应用于程序正义的组织管理概念。程序正义关注绩效是否得到公平评估以及规则是否得到公平执行，例如在发放工资或审查绩效时。研究人员发现，当程序正义程度高时，社会比较理论预测会出现群体极化；而当程序正义程度低时，说服性论证理论预测会出现群体极化。
   2. Janusch Sieber and Rene Ziegler proposed that the level of effort a person invests in understanding a situation may determine which theory better predicts the results. Persuasive arguments require more cognitive effort than making a social comparison. If a group member has limited ability to process the argument, then social comparison theory may be a better predictor of group polarization. 
      Janusch Sieber 和 Rene Ziegler 提出，一个人在理解一种情况所投入的努力程度可能决定哪种理论能更好地预测结果。有说服力的论点比进行社会比较需要更多的认知努力。如果小组成员处理论点的能力有限，那么社会比较理论可能成为预测群体极化的更好指标。
5. An ingroup is any group of which a person is a member, particularly a group characterized by intense bonds of affiliation such that each member feels a sense of kinship and some degree of loyalty to other members by virtue of their common group membership. An outgroup is any group of which a person is not a member. Ingroups and outgroups play a central role in intergroup relations.
   内群体是指任何一个人是其中一员的群体，尤其是那些以强烈的归属感为特征的群体，每个成员都感到一种家族感，并因共同的群体成员身份而对其他成员有一定的忠诚度。外群体是指任何一个人不是其中一员的群体。内群体和外群体在群体间关系中扮演着核心角色。
   1. An ingroup might share commonalities such as  race or ethnicity, gender, culture, language, religion, class, political views, sports teams, schools attended, dietary preferences, or anything that can be recognizable as distinct from one another.
      一个群体可能共享一些共同点，例如种族或民族、性别、文化、语言、宗教、阶级、政治观点、体育队伍、就读的学校、饮食偏好，或者任何可以被识别为彼此不同的东西。
   2. Because people tend to favor the group with which they identify or belong, members of a group often display ingroup favoritism, which is awarding preference, acknowledgment, and benefits to members of their group.  
      因为人们倾向于喜欢与他们认同或归属的群体，所以一个群体中的成员通常会表现出对内群体的偏好，即给予他们群体成员优先权、认可和利益。
   3. Favoring the ingroup leads to outgroup bias, in which people in the outgroup do not receive preference, acknowledgment, and benefits. 
      偏好内群体会导致对外群体的偏见，其中外群体的人得不到优先权、认可和利益。
6. Identification with an ingroup can influence thoughts and feelings about other people based on their membership in a particular group, and decisions about how to act based on these thoughts and feelings. People may develop beliefs about the characteristics a group possesses, or stereotypes, and even negative feelings about certain groups, or prejudice. 
   认同群体可能会影响人们对其他人的看法和感受，这些看法和感受又基于他们在特定群体中的成员身份，进而影响他们如何行动的决定。人们可能会形成关于群体特性的信念，或者形成刻板印象，甚至对某些群体产生负面情绪或偏见。
   1. Stereotypes are beliefs and expectations about the qualities and characteristics of the members of a group or social category. Stereotypes simplify information processing by allowing us to categorize individuals into groups about which we already have information.
      刻板印象是对一个群体或社会类别成员的品质和特征的信念和期望。刻板印象通过允许我们将个体分类到我们已有信息的群体中，从而简化信息处理。
   2. Prejudice is a negative feeling or emotion toward another person or group formed in advance of any experience with that person or group. 
      偏见是在与某个人或群体有任何经验之前，对该个人或群体形成的负面情感或情绪。
   3. Stereotypes and prejudice influence how people treat people from other groups and can lead to discrimination, or negative and hostile behavior toward people in outgroups. Stereotypes can be positive or negative beliefs, but prejudice is always negative.
      刻板印象和偏见影响人们对待其他群体成员的方式，可能导致歧视或对群体外成员的负面和敌对行为。刻板印象可以是正面或负面的信念，但偏见总是负面的。
   4. Discrimination is the differential treatment of members of different ethnic, religious, national, or other groups. Discrimination is usually the behavioral manifestation of prejudice and involves negative, hostile, and injurious treatment of the members of rejected groups. Acting upon feelings of prejudice can result in hate crimes. 
      歧视是对不同民族、宗教、国家或其他群体成员的差别对待。歧视通常是偏见的言行表现，涉及对被排斥群体成员的负面、敌对和有害待遇。基于偏见的行动可能导致仇恨犯罪。
   5. A hate crime involves acts of violence motivated by hatred or prejudice toward the group to which the victims of the violence belong.
      仇恨犯罪涉及由仇恨或偏见驱使的暴力行为，这些行为针对的是暴力行为的受害者所属的群体。
7. Social media is viewed by some as a tool that connects people and promotes positive social exchanges and democratization. However, many online groups are made up of like-minded people who express their beliefs, attitudes, and arguments and are only exposed to similar beliefs, attitudes, and arguments. Viewing information that only confirms preexisting opinions may contribute to misinformation and social division.
   社交媒体被一些人视为一种连接人们并促进积极社会交流和民主化的工具。然而，许多在线群体由志同道合的人组成，他们表达自己的信仰、态度和论点，并且只接触到类似的信仰、态度和论点。只看到证实已有观点的信息可能会助长错误信息和社会分裂。
   1. Echo chambers are online environments that feed users only information that reinforces their views while blocking opposing or alternative viewpoints.
      回声室是只向用户推送强化他们观点的信息，同时屏蔽对立或不同观点的在线环境。
   2. Members of echo chambers are selective in terms of the information they consume, generally choosing information that supports and confirms their beliefs, a phenomenon called confirmation bias. 
      回声室成员在信息消费方面具有选择性，通常选择支持并证实他们信念的信息，这种现象被称为确认偏误。
   3. Echo chambers reinforce confirmation bias and produce social media environments that increase group polarization. 
      回声室强化了确认偏误，并产生加剧群体极化的社交媒体环境。
   4. Many social media platforms use algorithms to feed users similar content based on what people viewed, read, “liked,” or purchased in the past. These algorithms create filter bubbles where a person’s viewpoints are confirmed while suppressing opposing information from diverse sources. 
      许多社交媒体平台使用算法根据人们过去查看、阅读、“点赞”或购买的内容来向用户推送类似的内容。这些算法创建了过滤泡泡，其中一个人的观点得到确认，同时抑制来自不同来源的反对信息。
   5. Because of filter bubbles, social media users are more likely to encounter content that does not confront them with alternative views or explanations and less likely to encounter alternatives that might dispute misinformation or fake news. 
      由于过滤泡泡，社交媒体用户更有可能遇到不与他们对抗的替代观点或解释的内容，而不太可能遇到可能质疑错误信息或假新闻的替代内容。

Source: https://www.coursera.org/learn/psychology-of-group-behaviors/supplement/CA34d/key-takeaways