CHAPTER1

Polarization

Whatexplainstheriseoffascisminthe1930s?Theemergenceofstudentradicalisminthe1960s?ThegrowthofIslamicterrorisminthe1990s?TheRwandangenocidein1994?EthnicconflictintheformerYugoslaviaandinIraq?ActsoftortureandhumiliationbyAmericansoldiersatAbuGhraibprison?TheAmericanfinancialcrisisof2008?Thewidespreadbelief,insomepartsoftheworld,thatIsraelortheUnitedStateswasresponsiblefortheattacksofSeptember11,2001?Andwhat,ifanything,dothesequestionshavetodowithoneanother?

Hereisaclue.Someyearsago,anumberofcitizensofFrancewereassembledintosmallgroupstoexchangeviewsabouttheirpresidentandaboutthe

intentionsoftheUnitedStateswithrespecttoforeignaid.1Beforetheystartedtotalk,theparticipantstendedtoliketheirpresidentandtodistrusttheintentionsoftheUnitedStates.Aftertheytalked,somestrangethingshappened.Thosewhobeganbylikingtheirpresidentendeduplikingtheirpresidentsignificantlymore.AndthosewhoexpressedmilddistrusttowardtheUnitedStatesmovedinthedirectionoffargreaterdistrust.ThesmallgroupsofFrenchcitizensbecamemoreextreme.Asaresultoftheirdiscussions,theyweremoreenthusiasticabouttheirleader,andfarmoreskepticaloftheUnitedStates,thansimilarpeopleinFrancewhohadnotbeenbroughttogethertospeakwithoneanother.

Thistalerevealsageneralfactofsociallife:Muchofthetime,groupsofpeopleendupthinkinganddoingthingsthatgroupmemberswouldneverthinkordoontheirown.Thisistrueforgroupsofteenagers,whoarewillingtorunrisksthatindividualswouldavoid.Itiscertainlytrueforthosepronetoviolence,includingterroristsandthosewhocommitgenocide.Itistrueforinvestorsandcorporate

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

executives.Itistrueforgovernmentofficials,neighborhoodgroups,socialreformers,politicalprotestors,policeofficers,studentorganizations,laborunions,andjuries.Someofthebestandworstdevelopmentsinsociallifeareaproductofgroupdynamics,inwhichmembersoforganizations,bothsmallandlarge,moveoneanotherinnewdirections.

Ofcourse,thebestexplanationsoffascismarenotadequatetoexplainstudentrebellions,andevenifweunderstandbothofthese,wewillnotbeabletoexplainethnicconflictinIraq,theRwandangenocide,abuseandbrutalityatAbuGhraib,conspiracytheoriesinvolvingIsrael,orthesubprimecrisis.Forparticularevents,generalexplanationscanuncoveronlypartsofthepicture.ButIdoaimtoshowstrikingsimilaritiesamongawiderangeofsocialphenomena.Theunifyingthemeissimple:Whenpeoplefindthemselvesingroupsoflike-mindedtypes,theyareespeciallylikelytomovetoextremes.Andwhensuchgroupsincludeauthoritieswhotellgroupmemberswhattodo,orwhoputthemintocertainsocialroles,verybadthingscanhappen.

Inexploringwhythisisso,Ihopetoseewhatmightbedoneaboutunjustifiedextremism—athreattosecurity,topeace,toeconomicdevelopment,andtosensibledecisionsinallsortsofdomains.Myemphasisthroughoutisonthephenomenonofgrouppolarization.Thisphenomenonofferslargelessonsaboutthebehaviorofconsumers,interestgroups,therealestatemarket,religiousorganizations,politicalparties,liberationmovements,executiveagencies,legislatures,racists,judicialpanels,thosewhomakepeace,thosewhomakewar,andevennationsasawhole.

GROUPSANDEXTREMISM

Whenpeopletalktogether,whathappens?Dogroupmemberscompromise?Dotheymovetowardthemiddleofthetendenciesoftheirindividualmembers?Theanswerisnowclear,anditisnotwhatintuitionwouldsuggest:Groupsgotoextremes.Moreprecisely,membersofadeliberatinggroupusuallyendupata

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

moreextremepositioninthesamegeneraldirectionastheirinclinationsbefore

deliberationbegan.2

Thisisthephenomenonknownasgrouppolarization.Grouppolarizationisthetypicalpatternwithdeliberatinggroups.Itisnotlimitedtoparticularperiods,nations,orcultures.Onthecontrary,grouppolarizationhasbeenfoundinhundredsofstudiesinvolvingmorethanadozencountries,includingtheUnited

States,France,Afghanistan,NewZealand,Taiwan,andGermany.3Itprovidesacluetoextremismofmanydifferentkinds.

Considerfourexamples:

1.Whitepeoplewhotendtoshowsignificantracialprejudicewillshowmoreracialprejudiceafterspeakingwithoneanother.Bycontrast,whitepeoplewhotendtoshowlittleracialprejudicewillshowlessprejudiceafter

speakingwithoneanother.4

2.Feminismbecomesmoreattractivetowomenaftertheytalktooneanother—atleastifthewomenwhoaretalkingbeginwithaninclinationinfavorof

feminism.5

3.Thosewhoapproveofanongoingwareffort,andthinkthatthewarisgoingwell,becomestillmoreenthusiasticaboutthateffort,andstillmoreoptimistic,aftertheytalktogether.

4.Ifinvestorsbeginwiththebeliefthatitisalwaysbesttoinvestinrealestate,theireagernesstoinvestinrealestatewillgrowasaresultofdiscussionswithoneanother.

Intheseandcountlessothercases,like-mindedpeopletendtomovetoamoreextremeversionofwhattheythoughtbeforetheystartedtotalk.Supposeinthislightthatenclavesofpeopleareinclinedtorebellionorevenviolenceandthattheyareseparatedfromothergroups.Theymightmovesharplyinthedirectionofviolenceasaconsequenceoftheirself-segregation.Politicalextremismisoftena

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

productofgrouppolarization,6andsocialsegregationisausefultoolforproducingpolarization.

Infact,agoodwaytocreateanextremistgroup,oracultofanykind,istoseparatemembersfromtherestofsociety.Theseparationcanoccurphysicallyorpsychologically,bycreatingasenseofsuspicionaboutnonmembers.Withsuchseparation,theinformationandviewsofthoseoutsidethegroupcanbediscredited,andhencenothingwilldisturbtheprocessofpolarizationasgroupmemberscontinuetotalk.Deliberatingenclavesoflike-mindedpeopleareoftenabreedinggroundforextrememovements.Terroristsaremade,notborn,andterroristnetworksoftenoperateinjustthisway.Asaresult,theycanmove

otherwiseordinarypeopletoviolentacts.7Butthepointgoeswellbeyondsuchdomains.Grouppolarizationoccursinourdailylives;itinvolvesoureconomicdecisions,ourevaluationsofourneighbors,evenourdecisionsaboutwhattoeat,whattodrink,andwheretolive.

Tounderstandthenatureofthebasicphenomenonanditspowerandgenerality,letmeoutlinethreestudiesinwhichIhavepersonallybeeninvolved.

REDSTATES,BLUESTATES

In2005,ReidHastie,DavidSchkade,andIconductedasmallexperimentin

democracyinColorado.8AboutsixtyAmericancitizenswerebroughttogetherandassembledintotengroups,usuallyconsistingofsixpeople.Membersofeachgroupwereaskedtodeliberateonthreeofthemostcontroversialissuesoftheday.

Shouldstatesallowsame-sexcouplestoenterintocivilunions?

Shouldemployersengagein“affirmativeaction”bygivingapreferencetomembersoftraditionallydisadvantagedgroups?

ShouldtheUnitedStatessignaninternationaltreatytocombatglobalwarming?

Astheexperimentwasdesigned,thegroupsconsistedof“liberal”andSunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

“conservative”members—theformerfromBoulder,thelatterfromColoradoSprings.ItiswidelyknownthatBouldertendstobeliberalandthatColoradoSpringstendstobeconservative.Thegroupswerescreenedtoensurethattheirmembersgenerallyconformedtothesestereotypes.Forexample,groupmemberswereaskedtoreportontheirassessmentofVicePresidentDickCheney.InBoulder,thosewholikedhimwerecordiallyexcusedfromtheexperiment.InColoradoSprings,thosewhodislikedhimweresimilarlyexcused.

Inthisway,theexperimentinvolvedgroupsoflike-mindedpeople.IntheparlanceofelectionyearsintheUnitedStates,theexperimentcreatedfive“BlueState”groupsandfive“RedState”groups—fivegroupswhosemembersinitiallytendedtowardliberalpositionsingeneralandfivewhosememberstendedtowardconservativepositions.Onthethreeissuesthatinterestedus,however,participantswerenotscreenedatall.Therewasnowayofknowingtheirpreciseviewsoncivilunions,affirmativeaction,andclimatechange.Participantswereaskedtostatetheiropinionsanonymouslybothbeforeandafterfifteenminutesofgroupdiscussion,andalsototrytoreachapublicverdictbeforethefinalanonymousstatement.Theiropinionswereregisteredonascaleof0–10,where0meant“disagreeverystrongly,”5meant“disagreeslightly,”and10meant“agreeverystrongly”withtherelevantproposition(statesshouldallowcivilunionsforsame-sexcouples,employersshouldmaintainaffirmativeactionprograms,theUnitedStatesshouldsignaninternationalagreementtocontrolglobalwarming).Wewereespeciallyinterestedinasinglequestion:Howwouldpeople’sprivate,anonymousstatementsoftheirviewschangeasaresultofabriefperiodofdiscussion?

Astheexperimentunfolded,peopleinbothBoulderandColoradoSpringswerepolite,engaged,andsubstantive.Theytreatedeachotherwithcivilityandrespect.Ihaveseenthevideosofseveralofthesediscussions,anditisfairtosaythatformostoftheparticipants,therewasanefforttothinkhard,tolistentoothers,andtobereasonable.Whatwastheeffectofdiscussion?Therewerethreecritical

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

findings.

MoreExtremism

Inalmosteverygroup,membersendedupwithmoreextremepositionsaftertheyspokewithoneanother.MostoftheliberalsinBoulderfavoredaninternationaltreatytocontrolglobalwarmingbeforediscussion;theirenthusiasmincreasedafterdiscussion.MostoftheconservativesinColoradowereneutralonthattreatybeforediscussion;theystronglyopposeditafterdiscussion.Discussionmadesame-sexcivilunionsmorepopularamongtheliberalsinBoulder;discussionmadecivilunionslesspopularamongconservativesinColoradoSprings.Mildlyfavorabletowardaffirmativeactionbeforediscussion,liberalsbecamestronglyfavorabletowardaffirmativeactionafterdiscussion.Firmlynegativeaboutaffirmativeactionbeforediscussion,conservativesbecameevenmorenegativeaboutaffirmativeactionafterdiscussion.

MuchLessInternalDiversity

Theexperimenthadaseparateeffect,onethatisequallyimportant:Itmadebothliberalgroupsandconservativegroupssignificantlymorehomogeneous—andthussquelcheddiversity.Beforemembersstartedtotalk,manygroupsdisplayedafairbitofinternaldisagreement.Thegroupdisagreementswerereducedasaresultofamerefifteen-minutediscussion.Notethattheprimarytesthereinvolveswhathappenedtotheiranonymousstatements.Howdiversewerepeople’spredeliberationviews,ontheseissues,comparedwiththeirpostdeliberationviews?Intheirprivatestatements,groupmembersshowedfarmoreconsensusafterdiscussionthanbefore.

GreaterRifts

Itfollowsthatdiscussionhelpedtowidentheriftbetweenliberalsandconservativesonallthreeissues.Beforediscussion,someliberalgroupswere,on

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

someissues,fairlyclosetosomeconservativegroups.Theresultofdiscussionwastodividethemfarmoresharply.

Here,then,isaninitialindicationofwhygroupsgotoextremes.Whenpeopletalktolike-mindedothers,theytendtoamplifytheirpreexistingviews,andtodosoinawaythatreducestheirinternaldiversity.Weseethishappeninpolitics;ithappensinfamilies,businesses,churchesandsynagogues,andstudentorganizationsaswell.

FEDERALJUDGESANDPOLARIZEDDIFFERENCES

Formanydecades,theUnitedStateshasbeenconductingatrulyextraordinarynaturalexperimentinvolvinggroupbehavior,moderation,andextremism.Theexperimentinvolvesfederaljudges,whoarerandomlyassignedintogroupsthatlookabitlikeBoulderandColoradoSprings.Whatcanwelearnfromthisexperiment?Thesimplestlessonisthatnolessthanordinarycitizens,like-mindedjudgesgotoextremes.Thisisastrikingfinding,becausejudgesarespecialistsandlearnedinthelaw;theyarenotsupposedtobesovulnerabletothepoliticalinclinationsoftheircolleagues.

Onfederalcourtsofappeals,judicialpanelsconsistofthreejudges.Thepossiblepanelcompositionsarejustfour:(a)threeRepublicanappointees,(b)threeDemocraticappointees,(c)twoRepublicanappointeesandoneDemocraticappointee,and(d)twoDemocraticappointeesandoneRepublicanappointee.Panelassignmentsarerandom,andthesampleisverylarge.Forthisreason,itispossibletotestwhetherjudicialvotesareaffectedbypanelcomposition—thatis,whetherRepublicanandDemocraticappointeesvotedifferentlydependingonwhethertheyaresittingwithRepublicanorDemocraticappointees.Doweobserveanythinglikegrouppolarizationamongfederaljudges?

Forpresentpurposes,thekeyquestionsarethese:HowdoRepublicanappointeesvoteonpanelsconsistingsolelyofRepublicanappointees(RRRpanels)?HowdoDemocraticappointeesvoteonpanelsconsistingsolelyof

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Democraticappointees(DDDpanels)?RRRpanelsareabitlikeColoradoSprings,andDDDpanelsareabitlikeBoulder.DofederaljudgesbehaveascitizensdointheColoradoexperiment?Morespecifically,wemightaskwhetherRepublicanappointees,onRRRpanels,behavedifferentlyfromRepublicanappointeesonRRDpanelsorRDDpanels,andwhetherDemocraticappointees,onDDDpanels,behavedifferentlyfromDemocraticappointeesonDDRorDRRpanels.Dolike-mindedjudgesshowespeciallydistinctivevotingpatterns?

Thephenomenonofgrouppolarizationtellsuswhattoexpect.BothDemocraticandRepublicanappointeesshouldshowextremebehavioronpanelsthatareunified,thatis,onDDDandRRRpanels.WhereverDemocraticappointeesandRepublicanappointeesshowageneraldifferenceinvotingpatterns,thatdifferencewillbeamplifiedifwecompareDemocraticappointeesonDDDpanelswithRepublicanappointeesonRRRpanels.Totestthisclaim,wemightwanttocomparetwofigures:(a)thetotaldifferencebetweentheliberalvotingratesofDemocraticappointeesandthatofRepublicanappointeesand(b)thedifferencebetweentheliberalvotingratesofDemocraticappointeesonall-DemocraticpanelsandtheliberalvotingratesofRepublicanappointeesonall-Republicanpanels.Thelatterdifference—betweenDemocraticappointeesonDDDpanelsandRepublicanappointeesonRRRpanels—mightbecalledthepolarizeddifference.

Incountlessareas,Democraticappointeesshowespeciallyliberalvotingpatternsonall-Democraticpanels.Republicanappointeesshowespeciallyconservativevotingpatternsonall-Republicanpanels.Ifweaggregateallcasesshowinganideologicaldifferencebetweenthetwogroups,wefinda15percentdifferencebetweenRepublicanandDemocraticappointeesinliberalvotingrates.Thatisaprettybigdifference.Butthepolarizeddifferenceisfarhigher—34percent!

Ourmethodwasquitesimple.Wecollectedtensofthousandsofjudicialvotes,mostlyinideologicallycontestedcases,includingracediscrimination,sexdiscrimination,disabilitydiscrimination,affirmativeaction,campaignfinance,

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

environmentalprotection,labor,andfreespeech.Weusedsimple,relativelyuncontroversialteststocodedecisionsas“liberal”or“conservative.”Forexample,ajudicialrulinginfavorofanAfricanAmericanplaintiff,allegingracediscrimination,wascodedasliberal.Similarly,wecharacterizedasliberalavotethatfitstheusualpoliticalstereotypes—toupholdanaffirmativeactionprogram,acampaignfinancerestriction,anenvironmentalregulationchallengedastooaggressive,oradecisionoftheNationalLaborRelationsBoardinfavorofemployees.True,thesetestsofwhetherajudicialdecisionisliberalareprettycrude.Butbecausethesampleissobig,weareabletodiscernclearandilluminatingpatterns;thecrudenessofthetestsdoesnotseemtohaveintroduceddistortions.

Considerjustafewkeyexamples.9

•Ingayrightscases,theoverallspreadbetweenRepublicanappointeesandDemocraticappointeesis41percent—Republicanappointeesvoteinfavorofgayrights16percentofthetimecomparedwitha57percentrateforDemocraticappointees.ButifwecomparehowDemocraticappointeesvoteonDDDpanelstohowRepublicanappointeesvoteonRRRpanels,thepolarizeddifferenceturnsouttobemorethandouble—86percent!Inourdataset,Republicanappointeesvotepro–gayrights14percentofthetimeonRRRpanels—comparedwith100percentforDemocraticappointeesonDDDpanels.

•Incasesinvolvingdisabilitydiscrimination,theoveralldifferenceis18percent;thepolarizeddifferenceisnearlydouble,at33percent.

•IncasesinvolvingdecisionsbytheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,theoveralldifferenceinvotingis15percent;thepolarizeddifferenceisnolessthan36percent.

•Inaffirmativeactioncases,theoveralldifferenceisasignificant28percent;thepolarizeddifferenceisawhopping49percent.

•Insexdiscriminationcases,theoveralldifferenceis17percent;thepolarizedSunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

differenceisnearlytriple,at46percent.

Ifalloftheevidenceistakenasawhole,thelessonisunmistakable.ItisnotexactlyshockingtofindthatRepublicanandDemocraticappointeesshowsignificantlydifferentvotingpatterns.Buttheoveralldifferenceismuchsmallerthanthepolarizeddifference—thedifferencebetweenhowRepublicanappointeesvotewhensittingonlywithRepublicanappointeesandhowDemocraticappointeesvotewhensittingonlywithDemocraticappointees.Onthisscore,judgesdonotlookawholelotdifferentfromcitizensinColoradoSpringsandBoulder.Whentheysitwithlike-mindedothers,theybecomemoreextreme.

Onequalification:Whilethisisthecentralpatterninmanyareasofthelaw,therearethreeareasinwhichjudgesarenotaffectedbythepanel’scomposition.Inthoseareas,bothRepublicanandDemocraticappointeesvotethesamewhethertheyareintheminorityorpartofaunifiedpanel.Thethreeareasareabortion,capitalpunishment,andnationalsecurity.Apparentlyjudgeshavesuchstrongconvictionsinsuchcasesthattheyarenotaffectedbywhattheircolleaguessayordo.Iwillreturntothispointlater;itoffersanimportantcautionarynoteaboutmycentralclaims.Sometimespeoplefeelreallystrongly,andtheviewsofothersdonotmovethem.

PUNISHINGWRONGDOERS

Nowletusturntothebehaviorofjuriesand,inparticular,totheeffectsofdeliberationonpunitivedamageawards.Thisisaprettytechnicalarea,butanunderstandingofthoseeffectswill,Ihope,illuminateanumberofissuesincludingbutextendingwellbeyondpoliticsandlaw.

InAmericanlaw,punitivedamageawardsareofmajorimportanceintheirownright.Companiesaregreatlyconcernedaboutunpredictableandsometimesveryhighawards,inthehundredsofmillionsofdollars.Manypeoplehavetriedtodevelopwaystodisciplinejurydecisions,andtheSupremeCourthastakenan

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

activeinterestintheproblem.Moreimportantstill,punitivedamageawardsprovideanexcellentareainwhichtostudytheconsequencesofdiscussionongroupbehavior,especiallyforpeoplewhodisplayadegreeofoutrage—andoutrageisoneofmycentralconcernshere.

Ifgroupmembersbeginwithadegreeofoutrage,dodeliberatinggroupsbecomemoreoutragedorlessso?Theanswerbearsonsocialmovementsandpoliticalprotestsofmanydifferentkinds.Asweshallsee,italsobearsonfeuds,ethnicconflict,andevenfamilybehavior.Whenachildisupsetatunfairbehavioratschool,howareparentslikelytoreact?Whenahusbandisangryaboutunfairnessdirectedathimatwork,howwillawifereact,andhowwillhiswife’sreactionaffecthim?

Tounderstandthejuryexperiments,conductedwithDanielKahnemanandDavidSchkade,wemustbeginwithastudyofindividuals,notgroups,involvingabout1,000people,whowereaskedtoregistertheirjudgmentsaboutmisconduct

byacorporatedefendant.10Thegoalwastounderstandwhypunitivedamageawardsaresovariable:Whydosomejuriescomeupwithawardsof$100,000andotherswithawardsof$1million,incasesthatseemprettysimilar?Weaskedpeopletorecordtheirjudgmentsonthreedifferentscales.Thefirstwasaboundedscaleof0to6,involvingtheoutrageousnessofthecompany’sbehavior.Eachofthepointsalongthescalewasclearlymarked,sothat0meant“notatalloutrageous”and6meant“exceptionallyoutrageous.”Thesecondwasalsoaboundedscaleof0to6,butthisscalemeasuredthedesiredlevelofpunishment;0meant“none”and6meant“extremelysevere”punishment.Thethirdscalewastheunboundedoneofdollars.Shouldthecompanyhavetopay$10,000?$100,000?$1million?More?

Ourcentralfindings,involvingpersonalinjurycases,werestraightforward.Peopleagreeonhowoutrageouscorporatemisconductis.Theyalsoagreeontheappropriateseverityofpunishmentontheboundedscale.Butthedollarscalecreatesalotoftroubleandconfusion.

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Toestablishthesepoints,weusedasimpletechnique,inwhichindividualresponsesarepooledtoproduce“statisticaljuries,”whoseverdictisthejudgmentofthemedianmember.Havingdonethis,wefoundthatsmallgroupsofsixpeople,orstatisticaljuries,usuallyagreeaboutoutrageousnessandappropriatepunishment.Importantly,theagreementcutsacrossdemographicdifferences.Withthemagicofthecomputer,wecancreatestatisticaljuriesofanyimaginablekind—allmale,allfemale,allwhite,allHispanic,allAfricanAmerican,allrich,allpoor,allold,allyoung,allwelleducated,allpoorlyeducated.Demographydoesnotmatter.Allthesegroupsessentiallyagreewithoneanother!

Bycontrast,statisticaljuriesshowalotofvariabilitywithrespecttodollarawards.Thedollarjudgmentofonejuryisnotagoodpredictorofthedollarjudgmentsofotherjuries.Butdemographyisnotthesourceofthevariability;itisnotasifrichpeopledisagreewithpoorpeople,oroldpeopledisagreewithyoungpeople,ormendisagreewithwomen.Theproblemisthedollarscale.Thereasonforthevariabilityisthatwhatevertheirdemographicgroup,peopledonothaveaclearsenseofhowtotranslatetheirpunitiveintentions,onaboundedscale,ontothescaleofdollars.Doesa“6”meanapunishmentof$50,000,or$100,000,or$1million,or$10million,ormore?Peoplejustdon’tknow.Thedollarscale,boundedatthelowerend($0)andessentiallyunboundedattheupperend,lackssignpoststhatgivemeaningtothevarious“points”onthescale.Forthisreason,peoplewhoagreethatthecaseisa“4”onascaleof0–6maynotagreeontheappropriatetranslationofthatfigureintosomemonetaryequivalent.

ThestudyIhavejustdescribedinvolvedanefforttopoolindividualresponses;itdidnotinvolvegroupdiscussion.Ifwewanttounderstandhowjuriesactuallybehave,orhowoutragedevelopsintherealworld,thisisabigdefect.

Henceweconductedafollow-upexperiment,involvingabout3,000jury-eligiblecitizensand500deliberatingjuries,eachwithsixpeople.Ourgoalwastolearnhowpeoplewouldbeinfluencedbyseeinganddiscussingtheviewsofothers.Hereishowtheexperimentworked.Peoplereadaboutapersonalinjury

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

case,includingtheargumentsmadebybothsides.Theywerealsoaskedtorecord,inadvanceofdeliberation,anindividual“punishmentjudgment,”nowonascaleof0to8,where(again)0indicatedthatthedefendantshouldnotbepunishedatall,and8indicatedthatthedefendantshouldbepunishedextremelyseverely.Aftertheindividualjudgmentswererecorded,jurorsweresortedintosix-persongroupsandaskedtodeliberatetoreachaunanimous“punishmentverdict.”Youmightpredict(aswedid)thatpeoplewouldcompromiseandthattheverdictsofjurieswouldbethemedianofpunishmentjudgmentsofjurors.Butyourpredictionwouldbebadlywrong.

Instead,theeffectofdeliberationwastocreatebothaseverityshiftforhigh-punishmentjurorsandaleniencyshiftforlow-punishmentjurors.Whenthemedianjudgmentofindividualjurorswas4orhigheronthe8-pointscale,thejury’sverdictendeduphigherthanthatmedianjudgment.Consider,forexample,acaseinvolvingamanwhonearlydrownedonadefectivelyconstructedyacht.Jurorstendedtobeoutragedbytheideaofadefectivelybuiltyacht,andgroupsweresignificantlymoreoutragedthantheirmedianmembers.Highlevelsofoutrageandseverepunitivejudgmentsbecamehigherandmoresevereasaresultofgroupinteractions.

Butwhenthemedianjudgmentofindividualjurorswasbelow4,thejury’sverdictwastypicallybelowthatmedianjudgment.Consideracaseinvolvingashopperwhowasinjuredinafallwhenanescalatorsuddenlystopped.Individualjurorswerenotgreatlybotheredbytheincident,seeingitasagenuineaccidentratherthanacaseofseriouswrongdoing.Insuchcases,juriesweremorelenientthanindividualjurors.Here,then,isalessonaboutwhathappenswhenpeoplediscusswrongdoing.Ifgroupmembersareupset,theywillprobablygetmoreupsetaftertalkingtoeachother.Ifgroupmembersthinkthatwhathappenedisnotabigdeal,theywillusuallythinkthatwhathappenedisbasicallynothingafteraperiodofdiscussion.

Withdollarawards,bycontrast,juriesweresystematicallymoresevereintheir

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

awardsthanthemedianjuror.Eventhesmallawardsweretypicallyhigherthantheawardselectedbythemedianjurorbeforepeoplestartedtotalk.Hereisthemoststrikingfinding:In27percentofthecases,thejury’sawardwasatleastashighasthatofthehighestpredeliberationjudgmentofthemembersofthatparticularjury!Hencetheshifttowardmoreseverity,andmoreextremism,wasespeciallypronouncedwithdollars.Itfollows,bytheway,thatthemonetaryawardsbydeliberatingjurieswereevenmoreunpredictablethanthemonetaryawardsbystatisticaljuries.

Letmeunderlineourtwokeyfindings.Thefirstisthatwhenpeoplebeginwithahighlevelofoutrageandfavorsomekindofaggressiveresponses,groupsaremoreaggressivethanindividuals.Thesecondisthatformonetaryawards,juriesaresignificantlymoreextremethanjurors.

TAKINGRISKS

Whathappenswhenpeoplewhoareinclinedtotakeriskstalkwithotherpeoplewhoareinclinedtotakerisks?Theansweristhattheybecomestillmoreinclined

totakerisks.11

Consider,forexample,thequestionswhethertotakeanewjob,toinvestinaforeigncountry,toescapefromaprisoner-of-warcamp,ortorunforpolitical

office.12Withrespecttomanydecisions,membersofdeliberatinggroupsbecamesignificantlymoredisposedtotakerisksafterabriefperiodofcollectivediscussion.Onthebasisofsuchevidence,itbecamestandardtobelievethatdeliberationproducedasystematic“riskyshift.”Forasignificantperiod,themajorconsequenceofgroupdiscussion,itwasthought,wastoproducethatriskyshift—athoughtthatwouldbearonmanypartsofsociallife,becausegroupsareoftenaskedtodecidewhethertotakeagambleor,instead,totakeprecautions.

Butlaterstudiesdrewthisconclusionintoseriousquestion.Theyevenraisedthequestionwhetherculture,ratherthangroupdynamics,isresponsiblefortheriskyshift.OnmanyofthesamequestionsonwhichAmericansdisplayedariskyshift,

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Taiwanesesubjectsshoweda“cautiousshift.”13Onmostofthetopicsjustlisted,deliberationledcitizensofTaiwantobecomesignificantlylessrisk-inclinedthantheywerebeforetheystartedtotalk.NorwasthecautiousshiftlimitedtotheTaiwanese.AmongAmericans,deliberationsometimesproducedacautiousshiftaswell,asrisk-aversepeoplebecamemorereluctanttotakecertainrisksafterthey

talkedwithoneanother.14Therearetwomajorexamplesofcautiousshifts:thedecisionwhethertomarry(!)andthedecisionwhethertoboardaplanedespitesevereabdominalpain,possiblyrequiringmedicalattention.Inthesecases,themembersofdeliberatinggroupsmovedtowardgreatercaution.

Atfirstglance,itseemedhardtoreconcilethesecompetingfindings,butthereconciliationturnedouttobesimple:Thepredeliberationmedianisthebest

predictorofthedirectionoftheshift.15Whengroupmembersaredisposedtowardrisk-taking,ariskyshiftisobserved.Whenmembersaredisposedtowardcaution,acautiousshiftisobserved.ItfollowsthatthestrikingdifferencebetweenAmericanandTaiwanesesubjectsisnotaproductofanyculturaldifferenceinhowpeoplebehaveingroups.Itresultsfromadifferenceinthepredeliberation

mediansoftheAmericansandtheTaiwaneseonthekeyquestions.16WhenAmericansshowapre-deliberationmedianinfavorofcaution,discussionmovesthemtowardgreatercaution;thesameistrueofTaiwanese.WhenAmericangroupsshowariskyshift,andTaiwaneseacautiousshift,itissimplybecauseofadifferenceintheirinitialinclinations.Thustheriskyshiftandthecautiousshiftarebothsubsumedunderthegeneralrubricofgrouppolarization.

Itistemptingtowonderwhethergrouppolarizationisaproductofparticularculturesandparticular“types.”ButasIhavenoted,thereisnonationonearthinwhichgrouppolarizationhasbeenfoundnottooccur.Iwillreturn,however,tosomewaysofcounteractingit.

Inthebehaviorallaboratory,grouppolarizationhasbeenshownina

remarkablywiderangeofcontexts.17Howgood-lookingarecertainpeople?Groupdeliberationproducesmoreextremejudgmentsaboutthatquestion:If

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

individualsthinkthatsomeoneisgood-looking,thegroupislikelytothinkthat

personisdevastatinglyattractive.18(Moviestarsundoubtedlybenefitfromthisprocess.)Grouppolarizationalsooccursforobscurefactualquestions,suchashow

farSodom(ontheDeadSea)isbelowsealevel.19Evenburglarsshowashiftinthe

cautiousdirectionwhentheydiscussprospectivecriminalendeavors.20Inarevealingfindingattheintersectionofcognitiveandsocialpsychology,groupshavebeenfoundtomakemore,ratherthanfewer,“conjunctionerrors”(believingthatAandBaremorelikelytobetruethanAalone)thanindividualswhenindividualerrorratesarehigh—thoughfewerwhenindividualerrorratesare

low.21

Togetasenseofthepowerofgrouppolarizationinthedomainsoflawandpolitics,considerjustafewmorestudies.Afterdeliberation,groupsofpeopleturnouttobefarmoreinclinedtoprotestapparentlyunfairbehaviorthanwastheir

medianmemberbeforediscussionbegan.22Consider,forexample,theappropriateresponsetothreedifferentevents:policebrutalityagainstAfricanAmericans,anapparentlyunjustifiedwar,andsexdiscriminationbyalocalcitycouncil.Ineveryoneofthesecontexts,deliberationmadegroupmembersfarmorelikelytosupportaggressiveprotestaction.Groupmembersmoved,forexample,fromsupportforapeacefulmarchtosupportforanonviolentdemonstration,suchasasit-inatapolicestationorcityhall.Interestingly,thesizeoftheshifttowardamoreextremeresponsewascorrelatedwiththeinitialmean.Whenpeopleinitiallysupportedastrongresponse,groupdiscussionproducedagreatershiftinthedirectionofsupportforastillstrongerresponse.Asweshallsee,thisfindingisstandardwithintheliterature:Theshifttowardextremismisoftenlargerwhenthe

averagepersonstartswithaprettyextremeposition.23

Peopleoftenmakeindividualjudgmentsaboutfairnessandunfairness;theyalsomakethosejudgmentsingroups.Whathappenstoourjudgmentsaboutunfairnesswhenwespeakwithoneanother?Theanswershouldnowbeclear:Whenweareindividuallyinclinedtobelievethatunfairnesshasoccurred,our

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.

discussionwillintensifyourbeliefsandmakeusveryangry.24Therelevantstudieswerequiterealistic.Peoplewereaskedtoengageintasksdesignedtosimulateactivitiesthatmightactuallybeundertakeninabusinesssetting—suchasclassifyingbudgetitems,schedulingmeetings,androutingaphonemessagethroughtheproperchannelswithassignmentoftheproperlevelofpriority.Goodperformancecouldproducefinancialrewards.Aftercompletingthetasks,peoplewereabletoaskfortheirsupervisors’judgmentsandreceivefeedbackfromthem.Someoftheanswersseemedrudeandunfair,suchas“I’vedecidednottoreadyourmessage.Theinstructionssayit’suptome...sodon’tbothersendingmeanyothermessagesorexplanationsaboutyourperformanceonthistask”and“Ifyouwouldhaveworkedharder,thenyou’dhavescoredhigher.Iwillnotacceptyourmessageonthisround!”

Peoplewereaskedtoratetheirsupervisorsalongvariousdimensions,includingfairness,politeness,bias,andgoodleadership.Theratingsoccurredinthreeperiods.Thefirstincludedindividualratings,thesecondincludedagroupconsensusjudgment,andthethirdincludedindividualratingsaftergroupjudgment.Itturnedoutthatgroupjudgmentswerefarmorenegativethanthe

averageofindividualjudgments.25Inmanycases,groupmembersdecidedthatthebehaviorwasreallyveryunfair,eventhoughindividualsbelievedthatthebehaviorwasonlymildlyunfair.Interestingly,thegroups’conclusionsweretypicallymoreextremethanwerepeople’sindividualjudgmentsafterdeliberation.Butsuchjudgmentswerenonethelessmorenegative,andthusmoreextreme,thanpredeliberationindividualjudgments.

Thesefindingsareremarkablysimilartothoseinvolvingjuroroutrage,where,aswehaveseen,groupsaremoreoutragedthantheirmedianmember.Wenowhaveastrongclueaboutthesourcesofprotestmovements,atopicthatIexploreinduecourse.Forthemoment,letustrytoexplaingrouppolarization.

Sunstein, Cass R.. Going to Extremes : How Like Minds Unite and Divide, Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/brown/detail.action?docID=431309.Created from brown on 2017-08-15 18:08:45.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

9. O

xfor

d U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss, U

SA

. All

right

s re

serv

ed.