Skip to Main Content

Experimental Psychology (Russia)
2025. Vol. 18, no. 1, 169–180
doi:10.17759/exppsy.2025180111
ISSN: 2072-7593 / 2311-7036 (online)

Method of provocative group discussion to study the value-affective polarization of a social group

 
Audio is AI-generated
119

PDF (RUS)
Online translation in english
GS
Information
in Google Scholar
Metrics

Abstract

Context and relevance. The article describes the method of provocative group discussion, which was developed to study the phenomenon of value-affective polarization of a social group. This method is based on the classic version of the focus group discussion, proposed in the 50s of the twentieth century by R. Merton and widely used today both for solving practical problems and for sociological and socio-psychological research. Methods and materials. The article provides a comparative analysis of both methods. Some questions of validity and reliability of the method of provocative group discussion are considered, which are illustrated by references to empirical data. The peculiarity and novelty of the method consists in changing the goals and objectives of the study, a fundamentally different strategy of moderator behavior and a significant increase in the role of independent experts analyzing the interaction of participants when discussing topics that cause value-affective polarization of the group. Results. It is shown that the proposed method can be used not only to study the polarization of a group, but also to study how it affects large groups of respondents. In particular, the involvement of experts or so-called "observers" (up to several hundred) turns the method into a convenient tool for quantitative study of the dynamics of opinions.

General Information

Keywords: group polarization, value-affective polarization, small and large social groups, irrationality of judgments, focus group discussion method, provocative group discussion method

Journal rubric: Methodology of Psychological Research

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2025180111

Funding. The reported study was funded by Russian Science Foundation (RSF) № 23-18-00422, https://rscf. ru/project/23-18-00422/.

Received 18.04.2024

Accepted

Published

For citation: Lebedev, A.N. (2025). Method of provocative group discussion to study the value-affective polarization of a social group. Experimental Psychology (Russia), 18(1), 169–180. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2025180111

© Lebedev A.N., 2025

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

References

  1. Андреева, Г.М. (2017). Социальная психология. М.: Аспект Пресс.
    Andreeva, G.M. (2017). Social psychology. Moscow: Aspekt Press. (In Russ.).
  2. Белановский, С.А. (1996). Метод фокус-групп. М.: Магистр.
    Belanovskij, S.A. (1996). The method of focus groups. Moscow: Magistr. (In Russ.).
  3. Гордякова, О.В., Ванин, А.В. (2023). Обзор публикаций по теме: «Ценностно-аффективная поляризация социальных групп». Ученые записки Института психологии Российской академии наук, 3(3), 74—80. https://doi.org/10.38098/proceedings_2023_03_03_07
    Gordyakova, O.V., Vanin, A.V. (2023). Review of publications on the topic: "Value-affective polarization of social groups". Proceedings of the Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences, 3(3), 74—80. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.38098/proceedings_2023_03_03_07
  4. Дмитриева, Е.В. (1999). Метод фокус-групп: проблемы подготовки, проведения, анализа.Социологические исследования, (8), 133—138.
    Dmitrieva, E.V. (1999). The focus group method: problems of preparation, conduct, analysis. Sociological research, (8), 133—138. (In Russ.).
  5. Колесников, Ю.С. (2001). Прикладная социология. Ростов-на-Дону.
    Kolesnikov, Yu.S. (2001). Applied Sociology. Rostov-na-Donu. (In Russ.).
  6. Крюгер, Р., Кейси, М. (2003). Фокус-группы. Практическое руководство. М.: Издательский дом «Вильямс».
    Kryuger, R., Kejsi, M. (2003). Focus groups. Practical guide. Moscow: Williams Publishing House. (In Russ.).
  7. Лебедев, А.Н. (2024). Ценностно-аффективная поляризация нелояльного меньшинства социальной группы. Прикладная юридическая психология, 2(67), 5—16. https://doi.org/10.33463/2072-8336.2024.2(67).005-016
    Lebedev, A.N. (2024). Value-affective polarization of a disloyal minority of a social group. Applied legal psychology, 2(67), 5—16. https://doi.org/10.33463/2072-8336.2024.2(67).005-016 (In Russ.).
  8. Лебедев, А.Н., Гордякова, О.В. (2023). Ценностно-аффективная поляризация больших социальных групп в условиях информационной неопределенности. Социальная психология и общество, 14(4), 38—54. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2023140403
    Lebedev, A.N., Gordyakova, O.V. (2023). Value-affective polarization of large social groups in conditions of information uncertainty. Social psychology and society, 14(4), 38—54. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2023140403 (In Russ.).
  9. Лебедев, А.Н. (2024). Аффект поляризационной неопределенности и был ли прав С. Московиси? Ученые записки Института психологии РАН, 4(2), 27—39. https://doi.org/10.38098/proceedings_2024_04_02_04
    Lebedev, A.N. (2024). The affect of polarization uncertainty and was S. Moscovici right? Proceedings of the Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences, 4(2), 27—39. https://doi.org/10.38098/proceedings_2024_04_02_04 (In Russ.).
  10. Левинсон, А.Г., Стучевская, О.И. (2003). Фокус-группы: эволюция метода (обзор дискуссии на конференции ESOMAR). Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены, 1(63), 46—50.
    Levinson, A.G., Stuchevskaya, O.I. (2003). Focus groups: the evolution of the method (review of the discussion at the ESOMAR conference). Monitoring public opinion: economic and social changes, 1(63), 46—50. (In Russ.).
  11. Нестик, Т.А. (2023). Психологическое состояние российского общества в условиях СВО. Социодиггер, 4(9). URL: https://sociodigger.ru/articles/articles-page/psikhologicheskoe-sostojanie-rossiiskogo-obshchestvav-uslovijakh-svo (дата обращения: 10.10.2023).
    Nestik, T.A. (2023). The psychological state of Russian society in the conditions of its own. Sociodigger, 4(9). (In Russ.). URL: https://sociodigger.ru/articles/articles-page/psikhologicheskoe-sostojanie-rossiiskogo-obshchestvav-uslovijakh-svo (viewed: 10.10.2023).
  12. Фаррелли, Ф., Брандсма, Дж. (2012). Провокативная терапия. Екатеринбург.
    Farrelli, F., Brandsma, Dzh. (2012). Provocative therapy. Ekaterinburg. (In Russ.).
  13. Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., Robson, K. (2001). Focus Groups in Social Research. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/4135/9781849209175
  14. Chiu, M.M. (2000). Group Problem-Solving Processes: Social Interactions and Individual Actions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(1), 26—49. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00118
  15. Dietrich, C. (2010). Decision Making: Factors that Influence Decision Making, Heuristics Used, and Decision Outcomes. Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse, 2(2). URL: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=180 (дата обращения 10.02.2024).
  16. Druckman, J.N., Peterson, E., Slothuus, R. (2013). How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57—79.
  17. Goldman, I. (1962). The group depth interview. Journal of Marketing, 26, 61—68.
  18. Halliday, M., Mill, D., Johnson, J., Lee, K. (2021). Let's talk virtual! Online focus group facilitation for the modern researcher. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 17(12), 2145—2150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.02.003
  19. Kruglanski, A.W., Molinario, E., Jasko, K., Webber, D., Leander, N.P., Pierro, A. (2022). Significance-Quest Theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(4), 1050—1071. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211034825
  20. Merton, R. (1987). The focused interview and focus groups: continuities and discontinuities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 550—556.
  21. Merton, R.K., Fiske, M., Kendall, P.A. (1956). The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures. Free Press.
  22. Moore, T., McKee, K., McLoughlin, P. (2015). Online focus groups and qualitative research in the social sciences: their merits and limitations in a study of housing and youth. People Place and Policy Online, 9(1), 17—28.
  23. Moscovici, S., Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2), 125—135.
  24. Moscovici, S., Lage, E., Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32(4), 365—380.
  25. Myers, D. (2002). Social Psychology. 7th ed. McGraw Hill.
  26. Van, S., Lyn, M. (2009). Extreme members and group polarization. Social Influence, 4(3), 185—199.
  27. Ochieng, N.T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C.J., Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 20—32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860
  28. Wagner, M., Russo, L. (2021). Affective Polarization Around the World: Measurement, Causes and Consequences. URL: https://ecpr.eu/Events/Event/PanelDetails/10463
  29. Yardi, S., Danah, B. (2010). Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316—327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380011

Information About the Authors

Alexander N. Lebedev, Doctor of Psychology, leading researcher of the laboratory of personality, Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IP RAS), Professor, Department of social psychology, Moscow Institute of psychoanalysis, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1030-9709, e-mail: lebedev-lubimov@yandex.ru

Contribution of the authors

Aleksandr N. Lebedev — ideas; annotation, writing and design of the manuscript; planning of the research; control over the research

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethics statement

The study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences (report no 2, 2025/01/14).

Metrics

 Web Views

Whole time: 552
Previous month: 29
Current month: 40

 PDF Downloads

Whole time: 119
Previous month: 7
Current month: 11

 Total

Whole time: 671
Previous month: 36
Current month: 51