Discussing prejudiced views with likeminded peers intensifies rather than moderates them.

Evidence

Finally, specific unfavorable impressions of an outgroup might not only be a common topic of discussion with other ingroup members; they could become even more extreme after the discussion. As succinctly summarized by Isenberg (1986), “on decisions in which group members have, on the average, a moderate proclivity in a given direction, group discussion results in a more extreme average proclivity in the same direction” (p. 1141), a process known as group polarization. Indeed, Myers and Bishop (1970) found that White participants’ attitudes towards Blacks polarized after discussion when they had talked about their attitudes with likeminded people (i.e., with people who were either low or high in prejudice). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2369 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Political disengagement is socially produced in conversation, not just held in beliefs — Nina Eliasoph, “Close to home”: The work of avoiding…, 30; The internet lets like-minded communities confirm prejudices instead of confronting difference — Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No…, 158; Deliberation among like-minded peers pushes groups to more extreme positions. — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 437 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Discussing outgroup attitudes with like-minded people makes them more extreme #corroborates (0.98)
• Discussion with likeminded peers pushes group attitudes further in their initial direction #expands (0.95) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2369