Misplaced Pages

#812187

66-479: An enemy or foe is an individual or group that is seen as forcefully adverse or threatening. Enemy or The Enemy may refer to: Enemy Enemy comes from the 9th century Latin word inimi , derived from Latin for "bad friend" ( Latin : inimicus ) through French. "Enemy" is a strong word, and "emotions associated with the enemy would include anger , hatred , frustration , envy , jealousy , fear , distrust , and possibly grudging respect ". As

132-642: A call to war may later have changed to ideological and conceptual based claims. During the Cold War , the terms "Communists" or "Reds" were believed by many in American society to mean "the enemy," and the meaning of the two terms could be extremely pejorative, depending on the political context, mood, or state of fear and agitation within the society at the time. There are many terms and phrases that allude to overlooking or failing to notice an enemy, such as Trojan horse or wolf in sheep's clothing . Generally,

198-422: A card that supported the opposite position to that they had initially seen. The researchers found that people tended to believe that research that supported their original views had been better conducted and was more convincing than research that didn't. Whichever position they held initially, people tended to hold that position more strongly after reading research that supported it. Lord et al. point out that it

264-508: A check here if you think Mr. A should not take the new job no matter what the probabilities. Individuals completed the questionnaire and made their decisions independently of others. Later, they would be asked to join a group to reassess their choices. Indicated by shifts in the mean value, initial studies using this method revealed that group decisions tended to be relatively riskier than those that were made by individuals. This tendency also occurred when individual judgments were collected after

330-405: A dilemma and must make a choice to resolve the issue at hand. Participants were then asked to estimate the probability that a certain choice would be of benefit or risk to the individual being discussed. Consider the following example: "Mr. A, an electrical engineer, who is married and has one child, has been working for a large electronics corporation since graduating from college five years ago. He

396-565: A distributed (cannot see one another) or anonymous (cannot identify one another) environment, can lead to even higher levels of group polarization compared to traditional meetings. This is attributed to the greater numbers of novel arguments generated (due to persuasive arguments theory) and higher incidence of one-upmanship behaviors (due to social comparison). However, some research suggests that important differences arise in measuring group polarization in laboratory versus field experiments. A study conducted by Taylor & MacDonald (2002) featured

462-411: A general phenomenon of choice-shifts exists apart from only risk-related decisions. Stoner (1968) found that a decision is impacted by the values behind that circumstances of the decision. The study found that situations that normally favor the more risky alternative increased risky shifts. More so, situations that normally favor the cautious alternative increased cautious shifts. These findings also show

528-402: A goal. The enemy may not even know they are being regarded as such, since the concept is one-sided. Thus, in order to achieve peace, one must eliminate the threat. This can be achieved by: Personal conflicts are frequently either unexamined (one's goals are not well defined) or examined only from one point of view. This means it is often possible to resolve conflict (to eliminate the cause of

594-460: A group is not physically together. As long as the group of individuals begins with the same fundamental opinion on the topic and a consistent dialogue is kept going, group polarization can occur. Research has suggested that well-established groups suffer less from polarization, as do groups discussing problems that are well known to them. However, in situations where groups are somewhat newly formed and tasks are new, group polarization can demonstrate

660-418: A member of a group is defined as the subjective perception of the self as a member of a specific category. Accordingly, proponents of the self-categorization model hold that group polarization occurs because individuals identify with a particular group and conform to a prototypical group position that is more extreme than the group mean. In contrast to social comparison theory and persuasive argumentation theory,

726-611: A more profound influence on decision-making. Attitude polarization , also known as belief polarization and the polarization effect , is a phenomenon in which a disagreement becomes more extreme as the different parties consider evidence on the issue. It is one of the effects of confirmation bias : the tendency of people to search for and interpret evidence selectively, to reinforce their current beliefs or attitudes. When people encounter ambiguous evidence, this bias can potentially result in each of them interpreting it as in support of their existing attitudes, widening rather than narrowing

SECTION 10

#1732802218813

792-584: A natural environment. Furthermore, the experiment took place over a two-week period, leading the researchers to suggest that group polarization may occur only in the short-term. Overall, the results suggest that not only may group polarization not be as prevalent as previous studies suggest, but group theories, in general, may not be simply transferable when seen in a computer-related discussion. Group polarization has been widely discussed in terms of political behavior (see political polarization ). Researchers have identified an increase in affective polarization among

858-400: A number of different positions and ideas. Research has indicated that informational influence is more likely with intellective issues, a group goal of making correct decision, task-oriented group members, and private responses. Furthermore, research suggests that it is not simply the sharing of information that predicts group polarization. Rather, the amount of information and persuasiveness of

924-467: A phenomenon known as attitude polarization . Group polarization is an important phenomenon in social psychology and is observable in many social contexts. For example, a group of women who hold moderately feminist views tend to demonstrate heightened pro-feminist beliefs following group discussion. Similarly, studies have shown that after deliberating together, mock jury members often decided on punitive damage awards that were either larger or smaller than

990-430: A political concept, an enemy is likely to be met with hate , violence , battle and war . The opposite of an enemy is a friend or ally . Because the term "the enemy" is a bit bellicose and militaristic to use in polite society, informal substitutes are more often used. Often the substituted terms become pejoratives in the context that they are used. In any case, the designation of an "enemy" exists solely to denote

1056-424: A realistic setting of a computer-mediated discussion, but group polarization did not occur at the level expected. The study's results also showed that groupthink occurs less in computer-mediated discussions than when people are face to face. Moreover, computer-mediated discussions often fail to result in a group consensus, or lead to less satisfaction with the consensus that was reached, compared to groups operating in

1122-535: A risky outgroup will polarize toward caution, an ingroup confronted by a caution outgroup will polarize toward risk, and an ingroup in the middle of the social frame of reference, confronted by both risky and cautious outgroups, will not polarize but will converge on its pre-test mean. The results of the study supported their hypothesis in that participants converged on a norm polarized toward risk on risky items and toward caution on cautious items. Another similar study found that in-group prototypes become more polarized as

1188-449: A share in the owner- ship if the company survived the competition of the larger firms." Participants were then asked to imagine that they were advising Mr. A. They would then be provided with a series of probabilities that indicate whether the new company that offered him a position is financially stable. It would read as following "Please check the lowest probability that you would consider acceptable to make it worthwhile for Mr. A to take

1254-480: A sign of a psychological dysfunction. For example, group polarization may devolve into groupthink , which may lead members of the "in" group to perceive nonmembers or other groups as enemies even where the others present neither antagonism nor an actual threat. Paranoid schizophrenia is characterized by the irrational belief that other people, ranging from family members and personal acquaintances to celebrities seen on television, are personal enemies plotting harm to

1320-481: A study in which they selected two groups of people, one group strongly in favor of capital punishment , the other strongly opposed. The researchers initially measured the strength with which people held their position. Later, both the pro- and anti-capital punishment people were put into small groups and shown one of two cards, each containing a statement about the results of a research project written on it. For example: Kroner and Phillips (1977) compared murder rates for

1386-733: A substantial amount of empirical evidence demonstrating the phenomenon of group polarization. Group polarization has been widely considered as a fundamental group decision-making process and was well established, but remained non-obvious and puzzling because its mechanisms were not fully understood. Almost as soon as the phenomenon of group polarization was discovered, a number of theories were offered to help explain and account for it. These explanations were gradually narrowed down and grouped together until two primary mechanisms remained, social comparison and informational influence . The social comparison theory , or normative influence theory, has been widely used to explain group polarization. According to

SECTION 20

#1732802218813

1452-468: Is a natural impulse of primitive peoples", while "willingness to forgive an enemy is a mark of advanced moral development". It contends that the teaching of the Bible, Talmud, and other writings, "gradually educates the people toward the latter stage", stating that "indications in the Bible of a spirit of hatred and vengeance toward the enemy... are for the most part purely nationalistic expressions—hatred of

1518-403: Is assured of a lifetime job with a modest, though adequate, salary and liberal pension benefits upon retirement. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that his salary will increase much before he retires. While attending a convention, Mr. A is offered a job with a small, newly founded company which has a highly uncertain future. The new job would pay more to start and would offer the possibility of

1584-579: Is most recognized by psychologists today. The persuasive arguments interpretation holds that individuals become more convinced of their views when they hear novel arguments in support of their position. The theory posits that each group member enters the discussion aware of a set of items of information or arguments favoring both sides of the issue, but lean toward that side that boasts the greater amount of information. In other words, individuals base their individual choices by weighing remembered pro and con arguments. Some of these items or arguments are shared among

1650-533: Is no room for an enemy". In 1 Corinthians 15:25-26 in the New Testament , Saint Paul refers to Christ 's reign with all his enemies under his feet, until finally death , the last enemy, is destroyed. Methodist writer Joseph Benson notes from this text that this enemy, death, "continues, in some measure, to hold the subjects of Christ under his dominion" until the end. Group polarization In social psychology , group polarization refers to

1716-468: Is reasonable for people to be less critical of research that supports their current position, but it seems less rational for people to significantly increase the strength of their attitudes when they read supporting evidence. When people had read both the research that supported their views and the research that did not, they tended to hold their original attitudes more strongly than before they received that information. These results should be understood in

1782-702: The Lord shall reward thee". The Jewish Encyclopedia contends that the opinion that the Old Testament commanded hatred of the enemy derives from a misunderstanding of the Sermon on the Mount , wherein Jesus said: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you". The Jewish Encyclopedia also cites passages in

1848-579: The Sun and Moon, as god and goddess of Day and Night, had already acquired the characters of the great friend and enemy of man, the Good and Evil Deity". Conversely, some religions describe a monotheistic God as an enemy; for example, in 1 Samuel 28:16, the spirit of Samuel tells a disobedient Saul: "Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the LORD is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?" "The enemy," as

1914-675: The Talmud stating: "If a man finds both a friend and an enemy requiring assistance he should assist his enemy first in order to subdue his evil inclination", and: "Who is strong? He who converts an enemy into a friend". The concept of Ahimsa , found in Hinduism , Jainism and Buddhism , also captures this sentiment, requiring kindness and non-violence towards all living things on the basis that they all are connected. Indian leader Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi strongly believed in this principle, stating that "[t]o one who follows this doctrine there

1980-471: The United States electorate, and report that hostility and discrimination towards the opposing political party has increased dramatically over time. Group polarization is similarly influential in legal contexts. A study that assessed whether Federal district court judges behaved differently when they sat alone, or in small groups, demonstrated that those judges who sat alone took extreme action 35% of

2046-646: The amount any individual juror had favored prior to deliberation. The studies indicated that when the jurors favored a relatively low award, discussion would lead to an even more lenient result, while if the jury was inclined to impose a stiff penalty, discussion would make it even harsher. Moreover, in recent years, the Internet and online social media have also presented opportunities to observe group polarization and compile new research. Psychologists have found that social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter demonstrate that group polarization can occur even when

Enemy (disambiguation) - Misplaced Pages Continue

2112-419: The arguments mediate the level of polarization experienced. In the 1970s, significant arguments occurred over whether persuasive argumentation alone accounted for group polarization. Daniel Isenberg 's 1986 meta-analysis of the data gathered by both the persuasive argument and social comparison camps succeeded, in large part, in answering the questions about predominant mechanisms. Isenberg concluded that there

2178-417: The ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and thou wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him." The Book of Proverbs similarly states: "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth and let not thy heart be glad when he stumbleth", and: "If thine enemy be hungry give him bread to eat, and if he be thirsty give him water to drink. For thus shalt thou heap coals of fire upon his head, and

2244-610: The average risk level of its members. The seemingly counter-intuitive findings of Stoner led to a spurt of research around the risky shift, which was originally thought to be a special case exception to the standard decision-making practice. Many people had concluded that people in a group setting would make decisions based on what they assumed to be the overall risk level of a group; because Stoner's work did not necessarily address this specific theme, and because it does seem to contrast Stoner's initial definition of risky shift, additional controversy arose leading researchers to further examine

2310-483: The conflict) by redefining goals such that the frustration (not the person) is eliminated, obvious, negotiated away, or decided upon. In literature , stories are often developed by presenting a primary character, the protagonist , as overcoming obstacles presented by an antagonist who is depicted as a personal enemy of the protagonist. Serial fictional narratives of heroes often present the hero contending against an archenemy whose capabilities match or exceed those of

2376-492: The context of several problems in the implementation of the study, including the fact the researchers changed the scaling of the outcome of the variable, so measuring attitude change was impossible, and measured polarization using a subjective assessment of attitude change and not a direct measure of how much change had occurred. Group polarization and choice shifts are similar in many ways; however, they differ in one distinct way. Group polarization refers to attitude change on

2442-437: The counterpoint to an enemy is a friend or ally, although the term frenemy has been coined to capture the sense of a relationship wherein the parties are allied for some purposes and at odds with one another for other purposes. The existence or perceived existence of a collective enemy tends to increase the cohesiveness of the group. However, the identification and treatment of other entities as enemies may be irrational, and

2508-413: The disagreement between them. The effect is observed with issues that activate emotions, such as political " hot-button " issues. For most issues, new evidence does not produce a polarization effect. For those issues where polarization is found, mere thinking about the issue, without contemplating new evidence, produces the effect. Social comparison processes have also been invoked as an explanation for

2574-408: The effect, which is increased by settings in which people repeat and validate each other's statements. This apparent tendency is of interest not only to psychologists , but also to sociologists and philosophers . Since the late 1960s, psychologists have carried out a number of studies on various aspects of attitude polarization. In 1979, Charles Lord , Lee Ross and Mark Lepper performed

2640-506: The group becomes more extreme in the social context. This further lends support to the self-categorization explanation of group polarization. The rising popularity and increased number of online social media platforms, such as Facebook , Twitter and Instagram , has enabled people to seek out and share ideas with others who have similar interests and common values, making group polarization effects increasingly evident, particularly in generation Y and generation Z individuals. Similar to

2706-430: The group discussion and even when the individual post-discussion measures were delayed two to six weeks. The discovery of the risky shift was considered surprising and counter-intuitive, especially since earlier work in the 1920s and 1930s by Allport and other researchers suggested that individuals made more extreme decisions than did groups, leading to the expectation that groups would make decisions that would conform to

Enemy (disambiguation) - Misplaced Pages Continue

2772-487: The group's beliefs while still presenting themselves as admirable group "leaders". The presence of a member with an extreme viewpoint or attitude does not further polarize the group. Studies regarding the theory have demonstrated that normative influence is more likely with judgmental issues, a group goal of harmony, person-oriented group members, and public responses. Informational influence, or persuasive arguments theory, has also been used to explain group polarization, and

2838-503: The group. In other words, the extremist will have no impact without interaction. Also, Moscovici et al. found individual preferences to be irrelevant; it is differences of opinion which will cause the shift. This finding demonstrates how one opinion in the group will not sway the group; it is the combination of all the individual opinions that will make an impact. The study of group polarization can be traced back to an unpublished 1961 Master's thesis by MIT student James Stoner, who observed

2904-482: The hero, thereby establishing tension as to whether the hero will be able to defeat this enemy. The enemy may be displayed as an evil character who plans to harm innocents, so that the reader will side with the protagonist in the need to battle the enemy. Various legal and theological regimes exist governing the treatment of enemies. Many religions have precepts favoring forgiveness and reconciliation with enemies. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that "[h]atred of an enemy

2970-429: The importance of previous group shifts. Choice shifts are mainly explained by largely differing human values and how highly these values are held by an individual. According to Moscovici et al. (1972) interaction within a group and differences of opinion are necessary for group polarization to take place. While an extremist in the group may sway opinion, the shift can only occur with sufficient and proper interaction within

3036-561: The individual level due to the influence of the group, and choice shift refers to the outcome of that attitude change; namely, the difference between the average group members' pre-group discussion attitudes and the outcome of the group decision. Risky and cautious shifts are both a part of a more generalized idea known as group-induced attitude polarization. Though group polarization deals mainly with risk-involving decisions and/or opinions, discussion-induced shifts have been shown to occur on several non-risk-involving levels. This suggests that

3102-591: The ingroup and hostility towards the outgroup. While polarization can occur in any type of conflict, it has its most damaging effects in large-scale inter-group, public policy, and international conflicts. On a smaller scale, group polarization can also be seen in the everyday lives of students in higher education . A study by Myers in 2005 reported that initial differences among American college students become more accentuated over time. For example, students who do not belong to fraternities and sororities tend to be more liberal politically, and this difference increases over

3168-466: The members while some items are unshared, in which all but one member has considered these arguments before. Assuming most or all group members lean in the same direction, during discussion, items of unshared information supporting that direction are expressed, which provides members previously unaware of them more reason to lean in that direction. Group discussion shifts the weight of evidence as each group member expresses their arguments, shedding light onto

3234-644: The national enemy being quite compatible with an otherwise kindly spirit". According to the Dalai Lama , virtually all major religions have "similar ideals of love, the same goal of benefiting humanity through spiritual practice, and the same effect of making their followers into better human beings". It is therefore widely expressed in world religions that enemies should be treated with love, kindness, compassion, and forgiveness. The Book of Exodus states: "If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see

3300-410: The new job." ____The chances are 1 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound. ____The chances are 3 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound. ____The chances are 5 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound. ____The chances are 7 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound. ____The chances are 9 in 10 that the company will prove financially sound. ____Place

3366-467: The object of social anger or repulsion, has throughout history been used as the prototypical propaganda tool to focus the fear and anxiety within a society toward a particular target. The target is often general , as with an ethnic group or race of people, or it can also be a conceptual target, as with an ideology which characterizes a particular group. In some cases the concept of the enemy have morphed; whereas once racial and ethnic claims to support

SECTION 50

#1732802218813

3432-483: The people . The characterization of an individual or/and group as an enemy is called demonization . The propagation of demonization is a major aspect of propaganda . An "enemy" may also be conceptual; used to describe impersonal phenomena such disease , and a host of other things. In theology , "the Enemy" is typically reserved to represent an evil deity , devil or a demon . For example, "in early Iroquois legend,

3498-508: The self-categorization model maintains that inter-group categorization processes are the cause of group polarization Support for the self-categorization theory , which explains group polarization as conformity to a polarized norm, was found by Hogg, Turner, and Davidson in 1990. In their experiment, participants gave pre-test, post-test, and group consensus recommendations on three choice dilemma item-types (risky, neutral, or cautious). The researchers hypothesized that an ingroup confronted by

3564-554: The shooting of George Tiller , a late term abortion doctor, where the tweets analyzed were conversations among supporters and opponents of abortion rights, post shooting. The study found that like-minded individuals strengthened group identity whereas replies between different-minded individuals reinforced a split in affiliation. In a study conducted by Sia et al. (2002), group polarization was found to occur with online ( computer-mediated ) discussions. In particular, this study found that group discussions, conducted when discussants are in

3630-492: The so-called "risky shift". The concept of risky shift maintains that a group's decisions are riskier than the average of the individual decisions of members before the group met. In early studies, the risky-shift phenomenon was measured using a scale known as the Choice-Dilemmas Questionnaire. This measure required participants to consider a hypothetical scenario in which an individual is faced with

3696-483: The social comparison interpretation, group polarization occurs as a result of individuals' desire to gain acceptance and be perceived in a favorable way by their group. The theory holds that people first compare their own ideas with those held by the rest of the group; they observe and evaluate what the group values and prefers. In order to gain acceptance, people then take a position that is similar to everyone else's but slightly more extreme. In doing so, individuals support

3762-498: The social media platforms, video streaming platforms like YouTube are forming groups unconsciously through intelligent algorithm seeking for extreme contents. Owing to this technology, it is possible for individuals to curate their sources of information and the opinions to which they are exposed, thereby reinforcing and strengthening their own views while effectively avoiding information and perspectives with which they disagree. One study analyzed over 30,000 tweets on Twitter regarding

3828-407: The state with capital punishment. This research opposes the deterrent effect of the death penalty. The researchers again asked people about the strength of their beliefs about the deterrence effect of the death penalty, and, this time, also asked them about the effect that the research had had on their attitudes. In the next stage of the research, the participants were given more information about

3894-423: The status of a particular group of people as a threat, and to propagate this designation within the local context. Substituted terms for an enemy often go further to meaningfully identify a known group as an enemy, and to pejoratively frame that identification. A government may seek to represent a person or group as a threat to the public good by designating that person or group to be a public enemy , or an enemy of

3960-415: The study described on the card they received, including details of the research, critiques of the research, and the researchers' responses to those critiques. The participants' degree of commitment to their original positions were re-measured, and the participants were asked about the quality of the research and the effect the research had on their beliefs. Finally, the trial was rerun on all participants using

4026-439: The sufferer. Irrational approaches may extend to treating impersonal phenomena not merely as conceptual enemies, but as sentient actors intentionally bringing strife to the sufferer. The concept of the enemy is well covered in the field of peace and conflict studies , which is available as a major at many major universities. In peace studies, enemies are those entities who are perceived as frustrating or preventing achievement of

SECTION 60

#1732802218813

4092-491: The tendency for a group to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members. These more extreme decisions are towards greater risk if individuals' initial tendencies are to be risky and towards greater caution if individuals' initial tendencies are to be cautious. The phenomenon also holds that a group's attitude toward a situation may change in the sense that the individuals' initial attitudes have strengthened and intensified after group discussion,

4158-527: The time, whereas judges who sat in a group of three took extreme action 65% of the time. These results are noteworthy because they indicate that even trained, professional decision-makers are subject to the influences of group polarization. Group polarization has been reported to occur during wartime and other times of conflict and helps to account partially for violent behavior and conflict. Researchers have suggested, for instance, that ethnic conflict exacerbates group polarization by enhancing identification with

4224-401: The topic. By the late 1960s, however, it had become clear that the risky shift was just one type of many attitudes that became more extreme in groups, leading Moscovici and Zavalloni to term the overall phenomenon "group polarization." Subsequently, a decade-long period of examination of the applicability of group polarization to a number of fields in both lab and field settings began. There is

4290-410: The year before and the year after adoption of capital punishment in 14 states. In 11 of the 14 states, murder rates were lower after adoption of the death penalty. This research supports the deterrent effect of the death penalty. or: Palmer and Crandall (1977) compared murder rates in 10 pairs of neighboring states with different capital punishment laws. In 8 of the 10 pairs, murder rates were higher in

4356-516: Was substantial evidence that both effects were operating simultaneously, and that persuasive arguments theory operated when social comparison did not, and vice versa. While these two theories are the most widely accepted as explanations for group polarization, alternative theories have been proposed. The most popular of these theories is self-categorization theory . Self-categorization theory stems from social identity theory , which holds that conformity stems from psychological processes; that is, being

#812187