Group similarity, public self-awareness, and opinion extremity: A social projection explanation of deindividuation effects.

Suggests that when a person reacts to an opinion, he/she will project an identical reaction onto similar others—in effect, self-generating a consensus that serves to polarize the opinion. Public self-awareness is assumed to individuate and to moderate opinions only when projection is disrupted. Two experiments, with 169 undergraduates, tested derivations from this theory. Exp I varied self-confidence induced by ability feedback (positive vs negative) and self-awareness induced by being or not being observed by camera. Results show that heightened self-awareness moderated opinions regardless of the S's initial level of self-confidence. Exp II varied group similarity (similar, dissimilar, or no information) and level of self-awareness (heightened vs low) using a 3?×?2 design in which opinion extremity was measured. Results confirm the prediction that opinions fluctuate systematically (polarize and moderate) with level of self-awareness only when the person is in a similar group. Low self-awareness tended to polarize opinions, whereas heightened self-awareness moderated them. The assumed direct relation between opinion intensity and behavioral extremity is discussed within the context of projection-predicted intensification effects of prosocial behavior. (42 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Impact of group consensus and social support on stimulus meaning: Mediation of conformity by cognitive restructuring.

Three experiments with a total of 163 undergraduates tested the hypothesis that a person reinterprets the meaning of the stimulus object when facing unpopular responses from a unanimous group and that this change in meaning leads to a shift in response toward the group's position. In Exp I, several opinion items were presented, and either Ss observed unpopular responses, supposedly made earlier by a unanimous group (UG) or by a group having 1 dissenter (social support), or they observed no response at all (control). Ss merely gave their interpretation of the meaning of a key word or phrase in each opinion statement—they did not give their own opinions. Results show that UG Ss gave more uncommon meanings to the stimuli than did Ss in the other 2 conditions. Exp II ruled out the possibility that the shift in meaning was due to Ss' adhering to the interpretation they assumed to be held by the majority. In Exp III, Ss were exposed to scores representing the meanings that were produced by the unanimous group and control conditions in Exp I. Results show that after observing the consensually produced meanings for these items, the Ss shifted their own opinions toward the position held by the UG in Exp I. (13 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Who cares what the outgroup thinks? Testing an information search model of the importance individuals accord to an outgroup member's view of them during intergroup interaction.

Four studies examined whether the intensity of individuals' concern with evaluation is affected by whether they are engaged in intragroup or intergroup interaction. According to the authors' theoretical framework, the importance that individuals attach to another person's opinion is a function of how predictive that person's evaluation seems to be of their social standing and outcomes. Members of lower status groups are more invested in outgroup members' opinions with increasing perceived legitimacy of the group status difference because outgroup members are seen as better judges of the competencies necessary for success in society. Members of a higher status group are more invested in outgroup members' opinions with decreasing perceived legitimacy of the group status difference because outgroup members are seen as better judges of moral goodness. Results were generally consistent with these predictions and demonstrated that intergroup exchanges are sometimes characterized by heightened levels of the basic motivation to know one's social standing with others. Findings also revealed that the interactive effect of group status and perceived legitimacy extends to egocentric biases that contribute to tension and miscommunication in intergroup interaction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The eyes have it: Minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion.

Results of an experiment comparing face-to-face groups with anonymous and identified computer-supported groups challenged theoretical arguments (V. S. Rao & S. L. Jarvenpaa, 1991 ) that computer-based group decision support systems (GDSS) can increase group decision quality by facilitating expression of minority opinions. In groups working on a hidden-profile investment decision task, minority opinion holders expressed their arguments most frequently under anonymous GDSS communication, but the influence of the minority arguments on private opinions and on group decisions was highest under face-to-face communication. These results suggest that the conditions that facilitate the expression of minority arguments may also diminish the influence of those arguments. The implications of these findings for a normative view of social influence, for social presence theory, and for the effects of GDSS on participation rates in group discussion are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks.

It is often asserted that friends and acquaintances have more similar beliefs and attitudes than do strangers; yet empirical studies disagree over exactly how much diversity of opinion exists within local social networks and, relatedly, how much awareness individuals have of their neighbors' views. This article reports results from a network survey, conducted on the Facebook social networking platform, in which participants were asked about their own political attitudes, as well as their beliefs about their friends' attitudes. Although considerable attitude similarity exists among friends, the results show that friends disagree more than they think they do. In particular, friends are typically unaware of their disagreements, even when they say they discuss the topic, suggesting that discussion is not the primary means by which friends infer each other's views on particular issues. Rather, it appears that respondents infer opinions in part by relying on stereotypes of their friends and in part by projecting their own views. The resulting gap between real and perceived agreement may have implications for the dynamics of political polarization and theories of social influence in general. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Individuation, gender role, and dissent: Personality mediators of situational forces.

An experimental analysis of dissenting and conforming behavior in small groups revealed a significant interaction between personality and situational variables. Individual differences in gender role and in willingness to be "individuated" were predictive of subjects' choices to disagree or agree with the opinions of other group members. However, this link between personality and social behavior showed within-subjects variation as a function of two situational factors: group norm and opinion topic. Contrary to traditional expectations, personality was a better predictor of behavior on those trials when peer pressure was strong than when it was weak. Personality variables also differentially predicted responses to masculine opinion topics versus feminine ones. These results contribute to a new understanding of the interaction of person and situation, as well as to the psychological meaning of conformity and dissent. They also bear on the long-standing debate about sex differences in influenceability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social influence on opinions and the communication of related content.

In this study an attempt was made to determine the effects of group pressures on opinion. 5 hypotheses were generated, tested, and the results discussed in terms of a theory of social influences on opinions suggested by the data. 34 refs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effectiveness of unanticipated persuasive communications.

This study investigated the effect of cognitive dissonance on opinion changing. 2 groups of Ss were presented with an opinion rather forcefully oriented ("persuasive communication"). One group was given an orientation that would not lead Ss to anticipate the "persuasive communication"; the other group was given an orientation that might lead them to reject the opinion expressed in the "communication" but in so doing, would also reject their own opinions. Ss were high school students; the topic dealt with young drivers. One group was told the speaker's point of view (the "tough" policy with young drivers) before hand; the other group was directed to evaluate the speaker's personality. Ss who were forewarned about the topic changed their opinions less than the "naive" Ss. From Psyc Abstracts 36:01:3GD35A. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Opinion change as a function of some intrapersonal attributes of the communicatees.

The following hypotheses are proposed: (1) Individuals high in extrapunitiveness are more likely to be influenced by a communication designed to effect an aggressive opinion on action toward a particular group, (2) such a communication is more likely to be effective on those with high aggressive needs, and (3) those high in aggressive needs and in extrapunitiveness are more likely to be influenced by the communication than those low in both. S's initial opinions about juvenile delinquency were assessed; then, after being exposed to the test communications over a period of time, their revised opinions were assessed. The Rosenzweig P-F Study and the TAT were used to determine personality characteristics. The data confirm the hypotheses, particularly for the immediate aspects of the communication. 22 references. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Naturally occurring expectation effects.

Investigates naturally occurring expectation effects in a juror decision-making paradigm. Mock juror research, using jury-eligible adults and videotapes of trial judges from actual trials, suggested that even when admonished to disregard the judge's behavior and form their own opinions, participants returned verdicts concordant with the judges' bent. Variations in the timing of instruction (expectation) with respect to the presentation of the evidence were consistent with a primacy effect as predicted by the belief-adjustment model. The implications for legal procedure and investigating naturally occurring expectation effects as a real social force are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A multilevel model of minority opinion expression and team decision-making effectiveness.

The consideration of minority opinions when making team decisions is an important factor that contributes to team effectiveness. A multilevel model of minority opinion influence in decision-making teams is developed to address the conditions that relate to adequate consideration of minority opinions. Using a sample of 57 teams working on a simulated airport security-screening task, we demonstrate that team learning goal orientation influences the confidence of minority opinion holders and team discussion. Team discussion, in turn, relates to minority influence, greater decision quality, and team satisfaction. Implications for managing decision-making teams in organizations are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Power, Voice, and Hierarchy: Exploring the Antecedents of Speaking Up in Groups.

This study examined the effects of interpersonal power and social dominance orientation on individuals' propensities to voice opinions in a group task. It was proposed that individuals high in power would tend to voice their opinions to a greater extent than individuals with less power and that this effect would increase with higher levels of social dominance orientation, that is, the degree to which individuals believe that social hierarchies are justified. This relationship was tested using moderated multiple regression. Significant results were found for the interactive relationship between power and social dominance orientation on voice. Implications and future directions are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Involvement and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion conformity.

"This research studied the relationship between conformity and (a) the extent of the discrepancy between the opinions of a communicator and a recipient and (b) the degree of involvement of the recipient. These variables are central to a dissonance theory analysis of the social influence process, as well as to many previous investigations of attitude change. It can be derived from the theory that opinion change increases with increases in both involvement and discrepancy between communicator and recipient." "… opinion conformity [did increase]… as a function of involvement and discrepancy. This theory with its consideration of the tension-producing effects of these variables, provides a sound framework for the understanding of some of the dynamics of social influence." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The minority slowness effect: Subtle inhibitions in the expression of views not shared by others.

Five studies revealed that people who hold the minority opinion express that opinion less quickly than people who hold the majority opinion. The difference in speed in the expression of the minority and majority opinions grew as the difference in the size of the minority and majority grew. Also, those with the minority view were particularly slow when they assumed the majority to be large, whereas the opposite was true for those with the majority view. The minority slowness effect was not found to be linked to attitude strength, nor was it influenced by anticipated public disclosure of the attitude. The effect is discussed in the context of implicit conformity pressures and the limited buffering effect of false consensus assumptions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Opinion evaluation and affiliation.

"The hypothesis that self-evaluative needs concerning opinions are an important determinant of group formation was tested experimentally. Subjects were presented with a problem and asked to state their opinions. Adequacy of opinion evaluation was varied at four levels along a continuum by telling subjects in different conditions the opinions of various groups of other people. Affiliation tendencies were measured by assessing the level of interest the subjects had in joining discussion groups to talk about the opinion in need of evaluation. Results gave strong support to the hypothesis. Affiliation tendencies varied according to the strength of evaluative needs." From Psyc Abstracts 36:04:4GE78R. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Voice in political decision-making: The effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions.

The implementation of carbon dioxide capture and storage technology (CCS) is considered an important climate change mitigation strategy, but the viability of this technology will depend on public acceptance of CCS policy decisions. The results of three experiments with students as participants show that whether or not interest groups receive an opportunity to express their opinions in the decision-making process (i.e., group voice) affects acceptance of CCS policy decisions, with inferred trustworthiness of the decision maker mediating this effect. Decision-making procedures providing different interest groups with equal opportunities to voice their opinions instigate more trust in the decision maker and, in turn, lead to greater willingness to accept decisions compared to no-voice procedures (i.e., unilateral decision-making—Study 1) and unequal group-voice procedures (i.e., when one type of interest group receives voice, but another type of interest group does not—Study 2). Study 3 further shows that an individual's own level of knowledge about CCS moderates the desire for an opportunity for members of the general public to voice opinions in the decision-making process, inferred trustworthiness of decision makers, and policy acceptance. These results imply that people care about voice in decision-making even when they are not directly personally involved in the decision-making process. We conclude that people tend to use procedural information when deciding to accept or oppose policy decisions on political complex issues; hence, it is important that policymakers use fair group-voice procedures and that they communicate to the public how they arrive at their decisions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Spurious consensus and opinion revision: Why might people be more confident in their less accurate judgments?

In the interest of improving their decision making, individuals revise their opinions on the basis of samples of opinions obtained from others. However, such a revision process may lead decision makers to experience greater confidence in their less accurate judgments. The authors theorize that people tend to underestimate the informative value of independently drawn opinions, if these appear to conflict with one another, yet place some confidence even in the spurious consensus, which may arise when opinions are sampled interdependently. The experimental task involved people's revision of their opinions (caloric estimates of foods) on the basis of advice. The method of sampling the advisory opinions (independent or interdependent) was the main factor. The results reveal a dissociation between confidence and accuracy. A theoretical underlying mechanism is suggested whereby people attend to consensus (consistency) cues at the expense of information on interdependence. Implications for belief updating and for individual and group decisions are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Relationship of persuasive interaction to change of opinion in dyadic groups when the original opinions of participants are expressed privately and publicly.

This constitutes a replication of a former study by Cervin (see 33: 5903) attempting to determine the relationship between emotionality and persuasibility. The only aspect of the design altered was that herein Ss committed themselves publicly to opinions. Ss of both high or low emotionality were placed in pairs. They initially declared their opinion on a number of topics, discussed the question, then redeclared their opinion. The more highly emotional Ss tended to change their opinions more frequently than the lows when their opinions were made public. From Psyc Abstracts 36:04:4GD31C. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Children's differentiation between beliefs about matters of fact and matters of opinion.

Two experiments investigated children's implicit and explicit differentiation between beliefs about matters of fact and matters of opinion. In Experiment 1, 8- to 9-year-olds' (n = 88) explicit understanding of the subjectivity of opinions was found to be limited, but their conformity to others' judgments on a matter of opinion was considerably lower than their conformity to others' views regarding an ambiguous fact. In Experiment 2, children aged 6, 8, or 10 years (n = 81) were asked to make judgments either about ambiguous matters of fact or about matters of opinion and then heard an opposing judgment from an expert. All age groups conformed to the opposing judgments on factual matters more than they did to the experts' views on matters of opinion. However, only the oldest children explicitly recognized that opinions are subjective and cannot be "wrong." Implications of these results for models of children's reasoning about epistemic states are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Warning and persuasion.

Reviewed studies dealing with the effects on audience opinions of (1) advance information about the topics and the direction of argument of forthcoming communications (warning), and (2) instructions that describe the experiment as a study of opinion change (persuasion context). Conclusions include: (1) warning and persuasion context are not separate manipulations; (2) their effects on postcommunication opinion change are not clear; and (3) warning and persuasion context probably cause precommunication opinion change. It is suggested that neither warning nor persuasion context, by themselves, are crucial variables in postcommunication opinion change. In some instances persuasion may begin prior to actual exposure to persuasive communications. (32 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)