Polarizing decision by cardinals predictable
News commentators are atwitter about Pope Benedict XVI, the new leader of the Roman Catholic Church. After just two days of meetings in the historic Sistine Chapel, the conclave of 115 cardinals named Cardinal Josef Ratzinger of Germany to be the successor to John Paul II who died on April 2 at the age of 84.
Vatican experts in tune with the views of the new Pope have variously characterized him as “unstintingly conservative,” “archconservative,” “neoconservative,” “authoritarian,” “a tough disciplinarian,” “a hard-line guardian of conservative doctrine,” even “divisive,” “a polarizing person,” “a doctrinal watchdog,” and “God's Rottweiler.” In his former position as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger had staunchly defended church doctrine against attempts by dissidents to promote liberal reforms from within.
The selection of a Pope in the conservative tradition of John Paul II was undoubtedly gratifying to the more traditionalist members of the Roman Catholic Church. It was, however, a crushing blow to many moderates among the faithful who had been hoping and praying for a more progressive papacy.
It wasn’t long after Ratzinger was named before observers and commentators were advancing various theories to explain why the cardinals had selected a man with such extreme and rigidly conservative views, over his more moderate or progressive rivals. The decision to select a theological conservative was, however, highly predictable, in view of a principle from the archives of social psychology.
Well over 300 psychological studies have produced compelling evidence of an interesting group phenomenon known as the group polarization effect. According to this research, if individuals are initially inclined toward a particular viewpoint or ideology, decisions made by them as a group are likely to be more extreme than decisions they would have each made individually. If individuals are initially inclined to take risks, for example, a decision by a group comprising those individuals is likely to be riskier than their individual decisions might suggest. If cautious individuals make a collective decision, the decision of the group is likely to be even more cautious than their mean individual decisions. The group process, then, tends to enhance members’ preexisting tendencies.
Obviously, groups usually consist of people whose views are somewhat similar. That is because people are attracted to groups that reflect attitudes and values similar to their own. A person holding libertarian views, for example, would seem more likely to join a group that values and promotes individual freedom than one that promotes authoritarianism. Likewise, views of the members of the conclave of cardinals would be expected to reflect the conservatism and orthodoxy characteristic of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. But why would group decisions be more polarized than individual decisions of the group members? Three explanations have emerged.
According to the persuasive arguments explanation, during group discussion a greater number of arguments favoring the predominant point of view are presented, and with a greater degree of persuasiveness, reflecting the dominant bias of group members. These arguments, in turn, influence individuals’ positions in the direction of the extreme.
Researchers have found that group polarization occurs even when specific arguments are not presented. According to the social comparison explanation, as members of the group are exposed to the positions of other group members, they discover more support for their own opinion than they had initially expected. This creates a new perspective of the group norm, implicitly providing members permission to move to a more radical extreme. Thus, in the event that the cardinals did nothing more than vote, making the results known to the group would have a further polarizing effect.
A third explanation known as social categorization is based upon the tendency of people to identify themselves as members of social groups. Members of a group are generally inclined to want to distinguish themselves from other people and groups. In doing so, they may emphasize the distinguishing characteristics of the group, often moving to a more extreme position in order to distance themselves from others. Each of these three arguments receives some support in the literature.
The cardinals, of course, would prefer to think that the Holy Spirit guided their decision. If so, the influence of the Holy Spirit appears strikingly similar to social processes at work in secular decision-making groups. Further, if group polarization holds true, it seems highly unlikely that a theologically liberal Pope could ever emerge from a conclave of conservative cardinals.
Vatican experts in tune with the views of the new Pope have variously characterized him as “unstintingly conservative,” “archconservative,” “neoconservative,” “authoritarian,” “a tough disciplinarian,” “a hard-line guardian of conservative doctrine,” even “divisive,” “a polarizing person,” “a doctrinal watchdog,” and “God's Rottweiler.” In his former position as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger had staunchly defended church doctrine against attempts by dissidents to promote liberal reforms from within.
The selection of a Pope in the conservative tradition of John Paul II was undoubtedly gratifying to the more traditionalist members of the Roman Catholic Church. It was, however, a crushing blow to many moderates among the faithful who had been hoping and praying for a more progressive papacy.
It wasn’t long after Ratzinger was named before observers and commentators were advancing various theories to explain why the cardinals had selected a man with such extreme and rigidly conservative views, over his more moderate or progressive rivals. The decision to select a theological conservative was, however, highly predictable, in view of a principle from the archives of social psychology.
Well over 300 psychological studies have produced compelling evidence of an interesting group phenomenon known as the group polarization effect. According to this research, if individuals are initially inclined toward a particular viewpoint or ideology, decisions made by them as a group are likely to be more extreme than decisions they would have each made individually. If individuals are initially inclined to take risks, for example, a decision by a group comprising those individuals is likely to be riskier than their individual decisions might suggest. If cautious individuals make a collective decision, the decision of the group is likely to be even more cautious than their mean individual decisions. The group process, then, tends to enhance members’ preexisting tendencies.
Obviously, groups usually consist of people whose views are somewhat similar. That is because people are attracted to groups that reflect attitudes and values similar to their own. A person holding libertarian views, for example, would seem more likely to join a group that values and promotes individual freedom than one that promotes authoritarianism. Likewise, views of the members of the conclave of cardinals would be expected to reflect the conservatism and orthodoxy characteristic of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. But why would group decisions be more polarized than individual decisions of the group members? Three explanations have emerged.
According to the persuasive arguments explanation, during group discussion a greater number of arguments favoring the predominant point of view are presented, and with a greater degree of persuasiveness, reflecting the dominant bias of group members. These arguments, in turn, influence individuals’ positions in the direction of the extreme.
Researchers have found that group polarization occurs even when specific arguments are not presented. According to the social comparison explanation, as members of the group are exposed to the positions of other group members, they discover more support for their own opinion than they had initially expected. This creates a new perspective of the group norm, implicitly providing members permission to move to a more radical extreme. Thus, in the event that the cardinals did nothing more than vote, making the results known to the group would have a further polarizing effect.
A third explanation known as social categorization is based upon the tendency of people to identify themselves as members of social groups. Members of a group are generally inclined to want to distinguish themselves from other people and groups. In doing so, they may emphasize the distinguishing characteristics of the group, often moving to a more extreme position in order to distance themselves from others. Each of these three arguments receives some support in the literature.
The cardinals, of course, would prefer to think that the Holy Spirit guided their decision. If so, the influence of the Holy Spirit appears strikingly similar to social processes at work in secular decision-making groups. Further, if group polarization holds true, it seems highly unlikely that a theologically liberal Pope could ever emerge from a conclave of conservative cardinals.
posted by Michael | Friday, April 22, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home