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.

In my opinion you are wrong! Adding a model statement to the Devil's Advocate Approach to detect true and false opinions.

Use of the model statement in determining the veracity of opinions

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

Debating with More Persuasive LLMs Leads to More Truthful Answers

Cognitive Dissonance: Why Do Language Model Outputs Disagree with Internal Representations of Truthfulness?

The epistemic-teleologic model of deliberate self-persuasion

Validating argument-based opinion dynamics with survey experiments

Co-Writing with Opinionated Language Models Affects Users' Views

Argument Strength is in the Eye of the Beholder: Audience Effects in Persuasion

Attentive Interaction Model: Modeling Changes in View in Argumentation

Ideologically Motivated Biases in a Multiple Issues Opinion Model

Opinion Network Modeling and Experiment

The effectiveness of refutation with logic vs. indignation in restoring the credibility of and trust in a government organization: A heuristic‐systematic model of crisis communication processing

Modeling the Ellsberg Paradox by Argument Strength

How Does Persuasion Happen? A Novel Bounded Confidence Opinion Dynamics Model Based on Social Judgment Theory

Remembering the truth or falsity of advertising claims: A preregistered model-based test of three competing theoretical accounts

Towards "Differential AI Psychology" and in-context Value-driven Statement Alignment with Moral Foundations Theory

Opinion dynamics beyond social influence

A Model of Justification

Some Issues in Predictive Ethics Modeling: An Annotated Contrast Set of "Moral Stories"

A Psychologically-Motivated Model of Opinion Change with Applications to American Politics