  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.
