The pull of deviant opinions: The - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

The pull of deviant opinions: The influence of group members with deviant opinions

Lyn M. Van

Swol

,

Emily

Acosta-Lewis,

& Giovanna

DimperioSlide2

Social Judgment SchemesDavis (1996)-identify functions or decision schemes that can predict how group member preferences are combined into the group decision for responses on a continuum

Bonner

, Gonzalez, and

Sommer

(2004, p. 157) state, “Although there is a rich literature dealing with categorical group decision modeling, far less is known about continuous

group judgments

.”

Allows a more complex dynamic between minority/majority, as more compromise is possibleSlide3

Social Judgment Schemes- resultsSocial influence function:

“decaying

exponential function of the distance between the positions of the group members.”

(

Hinsz

, 1999, p. 39

)

Support for social influence function

(

Bonner, et al., 2004 ;

Davis

,

Zarnoth

, Hulbert, Chen, Parks,

& Nam, 1997;

Ohtsubo

,

Masuchi

,

& Nakanishi, 2002)

Exception with

unanimity

rule

(

Ohtsubo

, Miller, Hayashi, &

Masuchi

,

2004)

Will

the social influence function

fit

a judgmental task involving a controversial

issue?Slide4

Deviant membersMore extremeGreater participation

(Van

Swol

, 2009)

Greater confidence

(

Eagly

&

Chaiken

, 1993; Judd &

Brauer

, 1995;

Krosnick

,

Boninger

, Chuang,

Berent

, & Carnot, 1993; Miller &

Tesser

, 1986;

Sunstein

, 2003

We expect deviant members to have more, rather than less, influence than other members in the group and do not expect the social influence function to fit the data.Slide5

MethodParticipants (Males

= 63,

Female

s = 167

)

29 four person groups, 21 five person groups, and 3 three person

groups

Flag and use of US citizens

Read Procon.org and rated opinion and confidence

Met as group and came to consensus (no decision rule)

Asked to say pledge according to group decision

Rated opinion individual againSlide6

Procon.orgPRO:

Many

advocates of including "under God" in the Pledge point out that polls show at least 80% of Americans support it, that federal law already contains 22 references to "God," and that Presidents swear an oath of office ending with "so help me God

."

CON:

Many

advocates of removing "under God" point out that the phrase was not written into the original pledge and that the opposition to returning to the original pledge is proof that "under God" is a religious symbol and not merely a secular practice. Slide7

Scale1 I completely oppose the words “under God” appearing in the US Pledge of Allegiance.

2

3

4

5 Unsure, maybe they should be in the US Pledge of Allegiance

6

7

8

9 I completely support the words “under God” appearing in the US Pledge of Allegiance. Slide8

Social Judgment Schemes

Social judgment scheme Deviation score

t

value

p

value

(scheme prediction – group)

Mean of members’ opinion .04

.23 .82*

Median of opinion .15

.89 .38*

Majority mean; group mean .32 1.45 .15

otherwise

Majority mean; neutral .34 1.52 .14

otherwise

Neutral -.50 -2.16 .04

Faction-attraction .06

.38 .71*

Neutraltwice

.02

.10 .92*

Devianttwice

-.002 -.01 .99*

Extremetwice

.09 .52 .61*

Socialcomp.5 .24 1.45 .15

Socialcomp1 .44 2.30 .03

Davis’ social influence .27 1.38

.17Slide9

Deviant members

Confidence in opinion

Percentage of participation

F

(1,223) = 9.59,

η

2

= 0.04,

p

=.002

γ

10

= -0.04,

SE

= 0.02,

t

(216) = -2.09,

p

= .04Slide10

Deviant membersThe most discrepant members were more likely (32%) to have used the extreme ends of the scale (1 or 9)

than

the other members (11%),

F

(1,223) = 15.31,

η

2

= 0.06,

p

< .

0001

R

ated

the issue as more important,

F

(1,223) = 5.99,

η

2

= 0.03,

p

=.015.Slide11

Residual Influence[ (Group opinion – pre-group mean) * (Individual opinion – pre-group mean)]/ pre-group mean

With this measure, higher positive numbers indicate more influence.

How

much the group opinion moves away from this

standard (pre-group mean)

in the direction of an individual member’s

opinion

γ

10

= 0.34,

SE

= 0.11,

t

(214) = 3.22,

p

= .001Slide12

Residual InfluenceSlide13

Effects on residual influenceNo effect of confidence on residual influence, γ

10

= -0.08,

SE

= 0.07,

t

(219) = -1.19,

p

= .23; nor an interaction with discrepancy (most deviant member vs. other members), γ

10

= 0.05,

SE

= 0.08,

t

(219) = 0.62,

p

= .54

.

For

percentage of participation, no effect of participation on residual influence, γ

10 = 0.61, SE = 0.52, t(214) = 1.17, p = .24; nor an interaction with discrepancy (most deviant member vs. other members), γ10 = -0.79, SE = 0.60,

t

(214) = -1.32,

p

= .19. Slide14

Post discussion opinionHow often the most discrepant member was unwilling to say the pledge the same

as

the rest of the group (15% of the time) compared to other members (1%), γ

10

= 0.13,

SE

= 0.13,

t

(144.54) = 1.04,

p

= .

30

The

most

deviant

members were more likely to have moved towards the group opinion than other members, γ

10

= 0.56,

SE

= 0.17,

t(177.08) = -3.19, p = .002.Slide15

Conclusions*The social influence function did not fit the data

*The most deviant members had significantly more influence

*The most deviant members behaved differently

*Still, no significant relationship between confidence/participation and influence

*Compromise- group moves towards deviant member, but deviant member moves significantly towards group opinionSlide16

Thoughts/future researchDifference between dichotomous and continuous task for the influence of deviant/minority group members

Different tasks and social judgment schemes

The influence of religion and politics in this task- may have increased inclusiveness/compromise towards middle