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.

The underlying mechanisms of the persuasiveness of different types of satirical news messages

Humor in Satirical News Headlines: Analyzing Humor Form and Content, and Their Relations with Audience Engagement

Investigating satirical discourse processing and comprehension: the role of cognitive, demographic, and pragmatic features

From Punchlines to Punches: A Meta-Analysis of the Persuasive Effects of Horatian and Juvenalian Political Satires

The persuasiveness of persuasive discourse

Reverse-Engineering Satire, or "Paper on Computational Humor Accepted Despite Making Serious Advances"

Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion.

Challenging Moral Attitudes With Moral Messages

Perceptions of (in)sincerity in satirical discourse: A study of word reading times using minimally different texts.

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

The influence of humor in advertising: Explaining the effects of humor in two‐sided messsages

Metaphorical Humor in Satirical News Shows: A Content Analysis

The psychological mechanisms of persuasive impact from narrative communication

The effects of humor in health promotional messages on a college campus

The persuasive effects of social cues and source effects on misinformation susceptibility

Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility.

Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience.

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

Nonverbal Behavior of Persuasive Sources: A Multiple Process Analysis

Persuasion knowledge and third-person perceptions in advertising: the moderating effect of regulatory competence

Examining a conceptual framework of aggressive and humorous styles in science YouTube videos about climate change and vaccination