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
October 29, 2009 12:55 pm

Lucy (12:32:02) :
There is no such thing as a right to education.
The right to education is recognised as a human right by the United Nations and is understood to establish an entitlement to free, compulsory primary education for all children, an obligation to develop secondary education accessible to all children, as well as equitable access to higher education, and a responsibility to provide basic education for individuals who have not completed primary education. In addition to these access to education provisions the right to education encompasses also the obligation to eliminate discrimination at all levels of the educational system, to set minimum standards and to improve quality.
The US has adopted this Declaration.
“In Europe, before the Enlightenment of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, education was the responsibility of parents and the church. With the French and American Revolution education was established also as a public function. It was thought that the state, by assuming a more active role in the sphere of education, could help to make education available and accessible to all.”

Back2Bat
October 29, 2009 1:08 pm

“Yes, I did. The point is that for most of the factors, the value must be one, because stars and planets already exist.” Leif
Yeah, I am sure Dr Ross got a Phd in Astrophysics and overlooked that.
Translation: “It is because it is?” The question is not what exists, it is how probable is its existence. Your logic just ducks the question.
“Newton and Einstein are not remembered for their devoutness.” Leif
Conveniently, for your side. Newton was also a noted Biblical scholar.
Concerning water and the “ëase” with which life forms. By all means, let’s go to Europa and where ever else liquid water may exist in the Solar System and see if life is there. If it is unrelated to earth life, I ‘ll reconsider. That life has started on earth several times and in very short times is evidence for my side, not yours.
It boils down to probability and the mass and age of this Universe. The evolution of life could and would occur given sufficient time, hence God. But this Universe is too young for life to have originated here.
I’ll not argue anymore (though I could). I should have planted sufficient doubt for you to look further. Defeat Dr Ross’s logic and knowledge and I’ll be impressed. However, you have not impressed me much so that seems unlikely and all I have is a BS.

supercritical
October 29, 2009 1:13 pm

As I understand it, the Scientific Method is a process that selects among hypotheses for longevity. But, there seems to be no Scientific Method for generating hypotheses! And so ‘Scientific Thinking’ can only be a subset of human mentality: It is partial, and cannot encompass the whole. So there are a whole range of human issues, for example Creativity, and Deism/Atheism, that are beyond the scope of ‘Science’.
The Scientific Method also requires hypotheses that are amenable to the currently available means of testing, and also the resources to do the testing. And so, Science is a social process that is dependent upon the test technology and also the economic resources that the host society is able and willing to devote to it. Therefore, ‘Science’ at heart is reliant on the political process.
In other words, the Scientist is reliant on the patronage of society at large, both for supplying hypotheses that are worth testing, as well as the means of testing them.
The comparison of the lot of the scientist with the musician is fairly complete; society has to provide not only the the instrument, but the music, and the playing-fee. But as we know: “He who pays the piper, calls the tune”
And so, as a layman, I like to be assured that scientists at large do not try to arrogate the process of generating hypotheses, to themselves. But with AGW climate scientists, I suspect that this is what is happening, and that is enough to explain the resentment towards them.

October 29, 2009 2:05 pm

Back2Bat (13:08:54) :
Translation: “It is because it is?” The question is not what exists, it is how probable is its existence.
Given the values of the six numbers that control the infinite universe, the rest follows: Galaxies, stars, planets, life. You could maintain that a deity turned the knob on the nascent universe to set the numbers, but for what? According to Scripture, so that we could worship it. What a vain purpose. That alone disqualifies the deity in my book, and if the purpose and meaning of my life is to worship such vanity, then I opt out.
supercritical (13:13:50) :
In other words, the Scientist is reliant on the patronage of society at large, both for supplying hypotheses that are worth testing, as well as the means of testing them.
No, society does not supply hypotheses. Those springs from the scientists mind, and in reality, this is not really the way it works. Observations and data are the real sources of inquiry. In order to explain these a hypothesis is formed, etc.
And it is a rather new idea that society supports science, stemming basically from after WWII. Before that, most science was privately funded, often by the scientists themselves [the Gentleman Scientist of the 18th and 19th centuries], or was activity subordinate to the day-job of the scientist [e.g. teaching or providing horoscopes for the benefactors].

Back2Bat
October 29, 2009 2:27 pm

“According to Scripture, so that we could worship it. What a vain purpose. That alone disqualifies the deity in my book, and if the purpose and meaning of my life is to worship such vanity, then I opt out.” Leif
Your (flawed) assessment and your choice. Please respect the right of others to assess and choose differently without government compulsion.
Lucy,
You like Italian?

October 29, 2009 3:05 pm

Back2Bat (14:27:19) :
Your (flawed) assessment and your choice. Please respect the right of others to assess and choose differently
Is the use of “(flawed)” showing respect for the assessment of others?

Back2Bat
October 29, 2009 3:29 pm

[ending religious debate ~ ctm]

Lucy
October 29, 2009 3:30 pm

Leif Svalgaard (12:55:29) : The right to education is recognised as a human right by the United Nations … The US has adopted this Declaration. … It was thought that the state, by assuming a more active role in the sphere of education
Tell me Leif, is the holy writ of the UN bound in leather? Are the pages made of vellum and are Ban Ki Moon’s words highlighted in red?
Well, Back2Bat will be relieved to hear that the fact the US has as it’s official motto “IN GOD WE TRUST” is after all sufficient evidence to satisfy you that God does indeed exist. I’m sure he will accept your apology with gentlemanly grace.
The right to education is recognised as a human right by the United Nations and is understood to establish an entitlement to free, compulsory primary education for all children
Oh my goodness. Right=Entitlement=Free=Compulsary… Leif, are you really this ignorant or do you just play so on the internet?

supercritical
October 29, 2009 3:38 pm

Leif,
I see we have a chicken and egg situation; Or maybe a horse and cart one.
” Observations and data are the real sources of inquiry. In order to explain these a hypothesis is formed, etc.”..
So, what would be the motivation to carry out the work of observation and data-collection? And what kind of proposal would be presented to justify the use of the resource? Wouldn’t that be called the “hypothesis”?
And those ‘Gentlemen Scientists’ not operating in a vacuum but in a society, which by-and-large posed the question and granted the means. To take but one example, Torricelli’s investigations into atmospheric pressure was prompted by the enormous economic consequences of mine suction pumps ceasing to work at 32 feet of head … and whether or not there was scope for a fix …
And so to restate my point, the Scientific Method is algorithmic in nature, and cannot of itself generate hypotheses. One of the consequences of this fact is that the creation of hypotheses occurs outside the Scientific Method, and so is not the exclusive purlieu of the Scientist.
QED?

October 29, 2009 4:02 pm

Lucy (15:30:00) :
Tell me Leif, is the holy writ of the UN bound in leather?
If that is the attribute that establishes credibility in your mind, then I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed.
supercritical (15:38:37) :
So, what would be the motivation to carry out the work of observation and data-collection? And what kind of proposal would be presented to justify the use of the resource? Wouldn’t that be called the “hypothesis”?
No, not at all. We collect data because it is ultimately useful, e.g. we collect weather data for forecasting or just for knowing if we should bring an overcoat. Some people collect data just for the fun of it: many amateurs count sunspots. In fact, the sunspot cycle was discovered by an amateur. We routinely ‘photograph’ the entire sky every three days just to see what may be happening.
In my 40 years as a practicing scientist, nobody has ever said to me: “here is a hypothesis, go prove it”. If a person does not have the gift of posing the questions herself rather than investigating hypotheses doled out by others, she won’t make it as a scientist. This excludes graduate students, of course:-)

October 29, 2009 4:32 pm

Lucy (15:30:00) :
Oh my goodness. Right=Entitlement=Free=Compulsary… Leif, are you really this ignorant or do you just play so on the internet?
Your children MUST receive primary education, even in the US now. It is different elsewhere and at other times: Taliban forbidding education of girls, colonial US making education of Negroes [children and adults) illegal,
[it was even illegal for Negroes to preach the word of the Lord in this shining bastion of freedom].

Tim Cullen MalagaView
October 29, 2009 4:50 pm

Leif Svalgaard (23:07:01) :
The problem is when those beliefs blind people to reality and to the grandeur of this universe in which we live.

Totally agree! Thank you.

Zeke the Sneak
October 29, 2009 4:53 pm

We have already, as a self-governing people, established laws concerning the requirements for children’s education.
These vary from state to state, as they ought. The use of the UN or the Federal gov’t to declare a “right” to education, and to dictate the curriculum, is worse than a redundancy; it is a usurpation. These decisions have already been quite capably handled by the people who are affected by them. Likewise, citizens at this local level are watching carefully for encroachment and abrogations by the courts and the teacher’s unions.
Here is a clickable map of the US which show requirements for each state, including hours and subjects required.
http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp

October 29, 2009 4:59 pm

Zeke the Sneak (16:53:56) :
These decisions have already been quite capably handled by the people who are affected by them.
If it only were so, but as it isn’t, it ain’t.

Lucy
October 29, 2009 5:04 pm

Back2Bat (14:27:19) :
Lucy,
You like Italian?

Si’. Perche’?

Back2Bat
October 29, 2009 5:31 pm

“Si’. Perche’?” Lucy
Just some cyber flirting. You remind me of the fatal redhead as far as your intelligence and passion for liberty. An now a poem:
“He who finds a wife
receives a gift from the Lord.”
I’ve waited and waited and waited
but she won’t knock down my door.
I’ve pondered this long and hard
and I think I understand;
the Lord rewards the work
(not the sitting on)
of our hands.

Back2Bat
October 29, 2009 5:56 pm

Leif Svalgaard (16:32:48) :
… colonial US making education of Negroes [children and adults) illegal,
[it was even illegal for Negroes to preach the word of the Lord in this shining bastion of freedom].

Oversized government at work. Under liberty, at least SOME people can behave decently without breaking the law. Christians took the lead in abolishing slavery and establishing women’s rights too, I would bet. Government is always seeking to justify its existence and power.
But there is this fundamental problem: any government you build for good can be used for evil once you pass on and most likely will be according to history. That is why government must be kept limited.

October 29, 2009 6:19 pm

Back2Bat (17:56:29) :
Oversized government at work.
No, these laws were local laws or state laws enacted by good Christian folks. e.g. http://www.nathanielturner.com/educationhistorynegro6.htm

Back2Bat
October 29, 2009 6:42 pm

No, these laws were local laws or state laws enacted by good Christian folks Leif
Except for the word “good” that sounds reasonable. The Bible itself is 100% non racist. One of the first Christians was an Ethiopian, if I recall. God has a long memory, it seems since an Ethiopian pulled Jeremiah out of the pit. As to slavery per se, it is a complicated issue. Obviously, it is not good but it is not a high priority in the Bible other than that slaves should be treated fairly.
At least with local laws, one can move to another area. What will we do if the entire world is under one government? Look at what just one man, Alan Greenspan, did to us and the worst is yet to come, IMO.

October 29, 2009 6:48 pm

Back2Bat (17:56:29) :
Christians took the lead in abolishing slavery
The US was one of the last ‘Christian’ nations to abolish slavery. The first was Poland in 1588.

Lucy
October 29, 2009 6:57 pm

Leif Svalgaard (05:47:38) :
I view Illiteracy differently, namely as what one might call ‘willful ignorance’, that is, rejection of a body of knowledge because it conflicts with religious or ideological beliefs. It is failing to appreciate, or outright reject, the scientific method, that interlocking web of hard won, self-correcting ways of investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, and correcting and integrating it into previous knowledge.

Leif, you are the living example of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The mere act of observing your words causes you to change their meaning.

Lucy
October 29, 2009 7:04 pm

Back2Bat (17:31:37) :
“Si’. Perche’?” Lucy
Just some cyber flirting. You remind me of the fatal redhead as far as your intelligence and passion for liberty. An now a poem:
“He who finds a wife
receives a gift from the Lord.”
I’ve waited and waited and waited
but she won’t knock down my door.
I’ve pondered this long and hard
and I think I understand;
the Lord rewards the work
(not the sitting on)
of our hands.

Hi thee to the University, my good fellow. I’m sure there are at least a couple more where I came from. (Hint, it wasn’t the education department 😉 )

Lucy
October 29, 2009 7:05 pm

oops, s/b “Hie” , like I said, not in the education department 😉

October 29, 2009 7:09 pm

Lucy (18:57:34) :
The mere act of observing your words causes you to change their meaning.
Perhaps it is that I’m getting through to you and you are beginning to understand what I’m saying.

October 29, 2009 7:20 pm

Back2Bat (18:42:49) :
What will we do if the entire world is under one government?
If that government were the US government it might be different. But I do agree that government should be as small as possible. The ancient Greeks advocated not larger than a city.
But the issue is not about government, but about education. What would we do if the entire world has adequate education along the lines I have suggested? We would prosper. Any impediment to that, from government, parents, religious bigots, etc is detrimental. Alas, we are not there yet [and may never get there, because an uneducated an science illiterate populace is easier to control]