Extremists More Willing To Share Their Opinions, Study Finds

From Ohio State University, an explanation for the existence of bloggers like Joe Romm and why many moderate scientists don’t speak out. There’s even “fake data” involved.

I’ve seen this phenomenon of extreme views being the most vocal in my own hometown of Chico, where a small vocal group of people often hold sway of the city council because they are the ones that show up up regularly to protest, well, just about anything. The council, seeing this regular vocal feedback, erroneously concludes that the view accurately represents the majority of city residents. The result is a train wreck, and the council sits there scratching their heads wondering why after making such decisions, they get their ears burned off by people unhappy with the decision. Bottom line, we all need to be more active in the public input process if we want decisions to be accurately reflected.


COLUMBUS, Ohio – People with relatively extreme opinions may be more willing to publicly share their views than those with more moderate views, according to a new study.

The key is that the extremists have to believe that more people share their views than actually do, the research found.

Kimberly Rios Morrison

The results may offer one possible explanation for our fractured political climate in the United States, where extreme liberal and conservative opinions often seem to dominate.

“When people with extreme views have this false sense that they are in the majority, they are more willing to express themselves,” said Kimberly Rios Morrison, co-author of the study and assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University.

How do people with extreme views believe they are in the majority?  This can happen in groups that tend to lean moderately in one direction on an issue.  Those that take the extreme version of their group’s viewpoint may believe that they actually represent the true views of their group, Morrison said.

One example is views about alcohol use among college students.

In a series of studies, Morrison and her co-author found that college students who were extremely pro-alcohol were more likely to express their opinions than others, even though most students surveyed were moderate in their views about alcohol use.

“Students who were stridently pro-alcohol tended to think that their opinion was much more popular than it actually was,” she said.  “They seemed to buy into the stereotype that college students are very comfortable with alcohol use.”

Morrison conducted the study with Dale Miller of Stanford University.  Their research appeared in a recent issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.


People with more extreme liberal views in the community may be more likely than others to attend publicly visible protests and display bumper stickers espousing their liberal views, because they think the community supports them.


The studies were done at Stanford University, which had a policy of prohibiting alcohol usage in common areas of all freshman dorms.  In the first study, 37 students were asked to rate their own views about this policy on a scale from 1 (very strongly opposed) to 9 (very strongly in favor).

The average student’s views were near the mid-point of the scale — but most rated the typical Stanford student as more pro-alcohol than themselves.

“There’s this stereotype that college students are very pro-alcohol, and even most college students believe it,” Morrison said.  “Most students think of themselves as less pro-alcohol than average.”

In the next two studies, students again rated themselves on similar scales that revealed how pro-alcohol they were.  They were then asked how willing they would be to discuss their views on alcohol use with other Stanford students.

In general, students who were the most pro-alcohol were the most likely to say they wanted to express their views, compared to those with moderate or anti-alcohol views.

However, in one study the researchers added a twist: they gave participants fake data which indicated that other Stanford students held relatively conservative, anti-alcohol views.

When extremely pro-alcohol students viewed this data, they were less likely to say they were willing to discuss alcohol usage with their fellow students.

“It is only when they have this sense that they are in the majority that extremely pro-alcohol students are more willing to express their views on the issue,” Morrison said.

However, students who had more extreme anti-alcohol views were not more likely to want to express their views, even when they saw the data that suggested a majority of their fellow students agreed with them.

“Their views that they are in the minority may be so deeply entrenched that it is difficult to change just based on our one experiment,” she said.  “In addition, they don’t have the experience expressing their opinions on the subject like the pro-alcohol extremists do, so they may not feel as comfortable.”

This finding shows that not all extremists are more willing to share their opinions – only those who hold more extreme versions of the group’s actual views.

These results have implications for how Americans view the political opinions of their communities and their political parties, Morrison said.

Take as an example a community that tends to be moderate politically, but leans slightly liberal.

People with more extreme liberal views in the community may be more likely than others to attend publicly visible protests and display bumper stickers espousing their liberal views, because they think the community supports them.

“Everyone else sees these extreme opinions being expressed on a regular basis and they may eventually come to believe their community is more liberal than it actually is,” Morrison said.  “The same process could occur in moderately conservative communities.

“You have a cycle that feeds on itself: the more you hear these extremists expressing their opinions, the more you are going to believe that those extreme beliefs are normal for your community.”

A similar process may occur in groups such as political parties.  Moderately conservative people who belong to the Republican Party, for example, may believe that people with extremely conservative views represent their party, because those are the opinions they hear most often.  However, that may not be true.

Morrison said when she and her colleagues were thinking about doing this study, they had in mind the phrase about the “silent majority” in the United States, which was popularized by President Richard Nixon and his vice-president, Spiro Agnew.  They referred to the silent majority as the people who supported the war in Vietnam, but who were overshadowed by the “vocal minority” against the war.

While there may not be one monolithic silent majority in the United States, Morrison said this study suggests that the minority may indeed be more vocal in some cases.

#

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
399 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Glenn
October 27, 2009 10:02 pm

Leif Svalgaard (21:35:55) :
“It is called education in science, or science literacy.”
I think it was a Federal judge who said “Science is what scientists do”. If that is true, then “education in science” is education in what scientists say. Oh, I see now, Leif.

October 27, 2009 10:36 pm

Glenn (22:02:49) :
“The scientific illiteracy in America is a superb example of that.”
You may be a prime example of that as well.
If that is true, then “education in science” is education in what scientists say.
You got it!

Glenn
October 28, 2009 12:21 am

Leif Svalgaard (22:36:02) :
Glenn (22:02:49) :
Leif: “The scientific illiteracy in America is a superb example of that.”
“You may be a prime example of that as well.”
So your argument has gone from unsupported and baseless claims to childish ad hominems.
Glenn (22:02:49) :
If that is true, then “education in science” is education in what scientists say.
“You got it!”
Yes, I do. What scientists say matters little.
You *have* shown in this thread to be a prime example of that.

October 28, 2009 6:42 am

Glenn (00:21:13) :
“The scientific illiteracy in America is a superb example of that.”
“You may be a prime example of that as well.”
Yes, I do. What scientists say matters little.

You just proved my point.

Lucy
October 28, 2009 8:50 am

Leif Svalgaard (21:35:55) :
Lucy (21:03:48) :
By his actions Darwin denounced the forced belief systems of the church, and proffered his own beliefs; which interestingly enough you now desire to force on others through the state.
(Leif) It is called education in science, or science literacy.

No. If it is forced, it is a subject of “Might makes Right”. Even though you started this discussion by stating no one should force their beliefs on anyone else, you meant exactly the opposite. You want *some entity* to force *something* on everyone else. And as I (and others) have shown ad nauseam on this thread, the mighty will choose what is right, whether it is a deity chosen by the religious in power or a belief (politically selected bit of questionable science) promulgated by the secular state.
You’re just picking a particular poison. I’m trying to knock the glass out of your hand.

Lucy
October 28, 2009 8:53 am

Leif Svalgaard (06:42:28) :
Glenn (00:21:13) :
“The scientific illiteracy in America is a superb example of that.”
“You may be a prime example of that as well.”
Yes, I do. What scientists say matters little.
You just proved my point.

Glenn indeed made your point very well, you do not seem at all interested in the freedom of thought and exploration of scientific principles or anything an individual cares to pursue. You demonstrate only interest in forcing people to believe what a labeled scientist says, irregardless of the veracity.
If you cared about accuracy in science, you would not be promoting a state forced belief system.

October 28, 2009 9:32 am

Lucy (08:53:50) :
If you cared about accuracy in science, you would not be promoting a state forced belief system.
And I’m not. Education is not enforced belief.

Back2Bat
October 28, 2009 1:04 pm

“And as I (and others) have shown ad nauseam on this thread, the mighty will choose what is right, whether it is a deity chosen by the religious in power or a belief (politically selected bit of questionable science) promulgated by the secular state.” Lucy
I’d love to wade in and help Lucy, but you are superb. You might be nauseated but I am enthralled.

Zeke the Sneak
October 28, 2009 2:16 pm

Pamela Gray (21:21:33) :
My personal view is that religious instruction does not belong in education, be it private or public. The full hours of education should be for the sole purpose of education, by fully trained teachers…

It is indeed your personal view. The right of a parent to direct the upbringing of his own child is not devided into myriad little aggregate rights (education, religious instruction, leisure activities, etc.)which can be chipped away at by courts, but it is one fundemental right guaranted by the Ninth Amendment. It is also enshrined in American law by Pierce v Society of Sisters and others.
No states require homeschooling parents to be certified teachers.
In American law, the parent is assumed to have the best interest of the child at heart, and the state must show by strict scrutiny standards that it has some interest at stake if it wants to intrude on this most natural and intrinsic of relationships. The arguments I see here basically turn this on its head and automatically assume that the state has the child’s best interest at heart and the parent must prove their fitness to do anything other than what the state mandates.
This is why I think it is important to view the Obama Administration’s educational policies in total. The fact that they took away the vouchers from poor students in Washington DC and sent them back to failing public schools is indicative of a wider policy which sees the state as the parent of the child.

Zeke the Sneak
October 28, 2009 2:19 pm

Pardon misspelling of fundamental. Thank you.

Back2Bat
October 28, 2009 3:25 pm

Zeke the Sneak (14:16:53) :
In American law, the parent is assumed to have the best interest of the child at heart, and the state must show by strict scrutiny standards that it has some interest at stake if it wants to intrude on this most natural and intrinsic of relationships. The arguments I see here basically turn this on its head and automatically assume that the state has the child’s best interest at heart and the parent must prove their fitness to do anything other than what the state mandates.
Bravo! What a great country this is (or at least, was)!

October 28, 2009 3:40 pm

Zeke the Sneak (14:16:53) :
It is indeed your personal view. The right of a parent to direct the upbringing of his own child is not devided into myriad little aggregate rights
children also have right [or should have], namely to get a decent and rounded education which is not directed by special groups and interests [even if channeled through the parents], but focused on what is best for the child.

Zeke the Sneak
October 28, 2009 3:46 pm

Thanks! Lucy has illuminated the subject so wonderfully.
While greater eyes are looking elsewhere, someone has to watch issues that touch hearth and home. I know that the founder of WUWT has also held school district positions. I really appreciate men and women who give their time and thoughts to children’s education. Worth their weight in gold, every one!
Cheers!

Zeke the Sneak
October 28, 2009 3:56 pm

Dr. S: “children also have right [or should have], namely to get a decent and rounded education which is not directed by special groups and interests [even if channeled through the parents], but focused on what is best for the child.”
You will be pleased to know then, that the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child creates all kinds of rights like these. Some examples include the right of a child to access any information he wants, regardless of the parents’ wishes. Also a right of children in this treaty is the right to arts and cultural activities.
And you also may be pleased to know that the kind of education every child has a “right” to in the UNCRC includes instruction on the Charter of the UN, instruction on respect for the environment, and instruction in the doctrine of disarmament.

October 28, 2009 4:21 pm

Zeke the Sneak (15:56:06) :
You will be pleased to know then, that the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child creates all kinds of rights like these.
I am indeed pleased. Are you not?
You seem to be sanctioning the parents that train their little ones to be suicide bombers, to kill infidels, etc.

Zeke the Sneak
October 28, 2009 5:30 pm

I cannot help what I “seem to be sanctioning” to you.
My above post (14:16:53) is very clear and not open to that interpretation.
The fact that you read, understood, and agreed to that small smattering of the so-called children’s rights, invented by the UNCRC, is revealing enough and does not need any comment.

October 28, 2009 5:47 pm

Zeke the Sneak (17:30:18) :
does not need any comment.
One might hope that you done then.

Lucy
October 28, 2009 6:06 pm

28 10 2009
Leif Svalgaard (09:32:17) :
Lucy (08:53:50) :
If you cared about accuracy in science, you would not be promoting a state forced belief system.
(Leif) And I’m not. Education is not enforced belief.
MartinGAtkins (06:00:53) :
My point was that though some of the absurd postulations may irritate you, they do no harm.
Leif Svalgaard (07:12:41)The ideas do not harm. The people who hold them, are the harm-doers.

The Marxist idea of education sounds pretty, “Only, subjects such as the physical sciences, grammar, etc., were fit matter for schools. The rules of grammar, for instance, could not differ, whether explained by a religious Tory or a free thinker. Subjects that admitted of different conclusions must be excluded and left for the adults” (Karl Marx), but as you pointed out earlier in this thread, the people who enforce the education are the harm-doers. Even when they subscribe to the Marxist beliefs.
Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed. – Joseph Stalin
Our educational policy must enable everyone who receives an education to develop morally, intellectually and physically and become a worker with both socialist consciousness and culture. – Mao TseTung
Give me four years to teach the children and
the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Leif Svalgaard (20:31:53) : And there is and should not be educational freedom.
Freedom is only suppressed by force.

Lucy
October 28, 2009 6:08 pm

Freedom is only suppressed by force. is actually my statement, not attributed to Leif.

Back2Bat
October 28, 2009 6:42 pm

“Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man.” Jesuit motto
Freedom is only suppressed by force. Lucy
Or the threat thereof. Or in an economy dominated by government, by threats to income and lively hood.
“Give me a Jesuit for seven hours and he’ll want to kill me.” moi

Glenn
October 28, 2009 7:03 pm

Leif Svalgaard (16:21:19) :
Zeke the Sneak (15:56:06) :
You will be pleased to know then, that the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child creates all kinds of rights like these.
“I am indeed pleased. Are you not?
You seem to be sanctioning the parents that train their little ones to be suicide bombers, to kill infidels, etc.”
Um, that if true would be the UN, not Zeke. You seem to be sanctioning the science and scientists and those literate in the science that provides weapons such as bombs (and other things, such as GW alarmism).

Zeke the Sneak
October 28, 2009 7:03 pm

Zeke the Sneak (15:56:06) :
And you also may be pleased to know that the kind of education every child has a “right” to in the UNCRC includes instruction on the Charter of the UN, instruction on respect for the environment, and instruction in the doctrine of disarmament.
Dr S:
I am indeed pleased. Are you not?

I have to wonder at this point if have been mistakenly using the word “education,” when your true meaning is better served by the word, “indoctrination.”

Zeke the Sneak
October 28, 2009 7:04 pm

Zeke the Sneak (15:56:06) :
And you also may be pleased to know that the kind of education every child has a “right” to in the UNCRC includes instruction on the Charter of the UN, instruction on respect for the environment, and instruction in the doctrine of disarmament.
Dr S:
I am indeed pleased. Are you not?

I have to wonder at this point if you have been mistakenly using the word “education,” when your true meaning is better served by the word, “indoctrination.”

Lucy
October 28, 2009 7:09 pm

Zeke the Sneak (15:56:06) : You will be pleased to know then, that the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child creates all kinds of rights like these. Some examples include the right of a child to access any information he wants, regardless of the parents’ wishes. Also a right of children in this treaty is the right to arts and cultural activities.
The concept of parental autonomy is particularly frightening to those people that believe in zero population growth, AGW, extreme feminism or any number of radical (or mainstream) ideals that self-limit reproduction (and run rampant at the UN). They know the only way they can get their beliefs passed on to the next generation is to force them on other people’s children. It is fascinating how those beliefs have made it to the top, and the only logical explanation is the correlation to exuding power over other people, which is practically a requirement for being the head of a modern state.
The blood from the American Revolution wasn’t even dry when they tried to make George Washington king. The moment of his refusal was a high point of liberty, it’s all been down hill from there.

October 28, 2009 7:29 pm

Back2Bat (18:42:55) :
“Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man.” Jesuit motto
The ultimate in impression of belief. Parental or otherwise.
In all of this, the right of the child is being neglected.
I believe [and clearly y’all disagree] that a child has the right to education. This is the most fundamental right. Such education must provide the child with knowledge [apart from reading/writing/’rithmetic] of
1) history of her community, country, and the world
2) structure, age, origin, and evolution of our universe at large and our place in it
3) structure, age, origin, and evolution of our Earth we inhabit
4) structure, age, origin, and evolution of life on this planet
5) other cultures, including at least one foreign language
6) how ordinary appliances and ‘things’ work
7) basic hygiene, medicine, and sound eating habits
8) her rights and duties in society, including social interactions.
For any of these, our knowledge is changing with time. But at each point there is a generally agreed base. Children should be taught that the base is not invariant, and learn how to think for themselves and be moderately skeptical.
Some children [and as it seems, some adults] will not have the mental capacity for this. They should be given special attention, but not be burdened with what they cannot fathom.