Several of the authors’ studies indicate that persuasive-arguments theory by itself is an adequate explanation of polarization. G. Sanders and R. S. Baron (1977) have criticized this research, contending that both argumentation and comparison are involved “with persuasive arguments facilitating the shifts motivated by social comparison.” The present authors feel that Sanders and Baron’s critique is unconvincing. Relevant portions of the standard literature are reviewed to demonstrate that social comparison is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for polarization. Finally, speculations are made about how persuasive-arguments theory could be extended to argument-poor settings. (49 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)