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.

#

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
399 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lee Kington
Editor
October 21, 2009 1:36 pm

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……..as … Kimberly Rios Morrison…. herself speaks out.

October 21, 2009 1:39 pm

Zeke the Sneak (13:14:33) :
No Dr S, it’s not a vocal minority. You are actually pretty well outnumbered.
Then I may have to take back my hopeful assessment of science literacy.

Alan Haile
October 21, 2009 1:39 pm

The British Government’s line on AGW is pretty extremist. They have recently been running an advertisment during very popular tv programmes which shows a child being read a bedtime story about AGW and how harmful it is (they say). If you are British, reading this, and think that the UK Government should not spend public money on this sort of stuff then you can sign a petition here
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/climate-ad/

October 21, 2009 1:41 pm

Mark Bowlin (11:25:32) :
The voices in my head tell me I’m not extreme…

It seems that all our internal voices tell the same…perhaps they are tuning the same cable channel 🙂

klausb
October 21, 2009 1:42 pm

[I]The key is that the extremists have to believe that more people share their views than actually do, the research found.[/I]
————————————
Of course they do. That’s were problems start.

Shurley Knot
October 21, 2009 1:47 pm

Least self-aware post evar.
REPLY: Worst fake name, evar.

HankHenry
October 21, 2009 1:49 pm

What a surprise. And here I thought it was the wishy washy moderates who were always spouting off and expressing their views.

October 21, 2009 1:57 pm

MartinGAtkins (13:30:16) :
Absurd as some of the ideas here may seem with regard to your field of study, they can do no harm.
Yes, they can. Because a literate voting populace is important [think faith-based schoolbooks].
Many are doing untold damage to society
agree, by peddling junk-science.
look at the dismal record of peer review and the junk submitted and passed by a cabal of fraudsters.
peer review [which is rather new thing] works reasonably well. It is like Democracy [lots of problems, but we don’t have anything better].
The best defense against the fraudsters is precisely that people can separate correct science from the junk [ID, EU, Astrology, rabid AGW, etc]. This requires constant vigilance. What is lacking is that not enough scientists take the trouble to do this, while there is no shortage of tenacious peddlers of pseudo- and junk- and cult-science. To wit, the already several comments in this very thread [and in some of the other ones]. As Eddy pointed out: this subject draws all kinds of worms out of the woodwork.

Zeke the Sneak
October 21, 2009 2:06 pm

Leif Svalgaard (13:39:30) :
Then I may have to take back my hopeful assessment of science literacy.

But if I confess, and do not deny, but confess, that:
“Everything astronomers can see, stretching out to distances of 10 billion light-years, emerged from an infinitesimal speck,”*
may I have partial credit for being scientifically literate?
*Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal

Back2Bat
October 21, 2009 2:14 pm

Hey Leif,
You play around a nice convenient playground that is extremely conducive to learning and then you get conceited.
Why is it that the Universe is even observable from earth? The Solar System could easily be in a thick dust cloud. Oops there goes astronomy!
Why does nature correspond (at least roughly) to mathematics? A gentle learning curve?
I don’t need to be a scientist to know your conceit is headed for a fall. A historian could tell you that.
Keep ridiculing ID. But your side is driven to postulating an infinite number of UNDETECTABLE universes to avoid insurmountable probability problems.
Who is exercising faith now?
“Place you bets!”

Don S.
October 21, 2009 2:16 pm

Never read anything in a sociological study that my grandma hadn’t told me. Cryptically. Why is it that every generation of sociologists has to reinvent the wheel?
Moderation is overrated. Texans used to say that the only things in the middle of road were dead skunks and yellow lines.

Kevin Kilty
October 21, 2009 2:27 pm

A very similar phenomenon is that the confidence people display regarding some skill is often inversely proportional to their true capability. A partial explanation of why this is so is that truly incompetent people are also incompetent at evaluating their own competence. Extreme individuals are often also quite incompetent and suffer all that comes with it. They are not competent to evaluate their own point of view and not capable of comparing it to the view of others.

Jim
October 21, 2009 2:28 pm

My guess is that people who are very pro-alcohol tend to drink a lot. If so, they don’t know that the other drinkers around them are actually drinking moderately because [snip] So when they sober up, they just assume others drank as much as they did since they can’t remember it and therefore believe all drinkers drink as they do. I’m not sure picking alcohol as the test criteirion is a good choice.
Reply: No profanity or misspelled profanity. ~ ctm

October 21, 2009 2:33 pm

Zeke the Sneak (14:06:30) :
But if I confess, and do not deny, but confess
Science is not about confessing or denying, so there is still a long way for you to go.
Back2Bat (14:14:47) :
Why is it that the Universe is even observable from earth? The Solar System could easily be in a thick dust cloud. Oops there goes astronomy!
It could be, and once [or more] was.
Why does nature correspond (at least roughly) to mathematics? A gentle learning curve?
Perhaps because we have evolved and adapted our mathematics to describe Nature, e.g. Newton’s invention of calculus to describe motion.
Keep ridiculing ID. But your side is driven to postulating an infinite number of UNDETECTABLE universes to avoid insurmountable probability problems.
There may in fact be such. Or each of these universes may have life in many places. The IDer could have had his hands full. Would He have followed the same model [I’m poorly put together, so is evidence against ID] everywhere, or is there a learning curve there too?

October 21, 2009 2:36 pm

Back2Bat (14:14:47) :
Why is it that the Universe is even observable from earth? The Solar System could easily be in a thick dust cloud. Oops there goes astronomy!
In fact a lot of the Universe is not visible from Earth [what we can see is infinitesimal small compared to the infinity of space]. e.g. the center of the Milky Way. Unless we observe in long-wave light, that was not known to the ancients.

James Sexton
October 21, 2009 2:37 pm

Don S. (14:16:16) :
Moderation is overrated. Texans used to say that the only things in the middle of road were dead skunks and yellow lines.
Goldwater(Arizona) had it right. “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. ”
We just have to be careful about what leads us to liberty and what doesn’t.

October 21, 2009 2:38 pm

Kevin Kilty (14:27:12) :
Extreme individuals are often also quite incompetent and suffer all that comes with it. They are not competent to evaluate their own point of view and not capable of comparing it to the view of others.
To wit, some of the above comments by such individuals.

Sandy
October 21, 2009 2:39 pm

“Keep ridiculing ID. But your side is driven to postulating an infinite number of UNDETECTABLE universes to avoid insurmountable probability problems.
Who is exercising faith now?
“Place you bets!”

What has poor Leif done to deserve this?
Infinite universes is a rather out-of-fashion view of quantum mechanics and certainly not something to hang on a solar expert.
Anyway everyone knows the Flying Spaghetti Monster intelligently designed the World!

George E. Smith
October 21, 2009 2:40 pm

Like anyone with a ho-hum attitude about anything, is even going to bother making a comment.
So is a Big Mac really better than a Jumbo Jack, or is a Whopper much better ?
Yeah, you could start WW-III over that contentious question.
Now who footed the bill for the grant money for this momentous study ? Other than me, that is.

David Jones
October 21, 2009 2:41 pm

Oliver Ramsay (12:38:18) :
Moderation in all things.
Including Moderation.
Moderation in all things.
I’ll have another glass of Moderation!

October 21, 2009 2:45 pm

Everything in moderation … including moderation.

GA
October 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Utter Madness…..
Save the planet: time to eat dog?
22/10/2009
The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found. Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.
The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them. “If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around,” Brenda Vale said.
“A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don’t worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact … is comparable.”
In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.
They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle’s eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog’s.
They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to owning a plasma TV. Professor Vale says the title of the book is meant to shock, but the couple, who do not have a cat or dog, believe the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help slow down global warming.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2987848/Save-the-planet-time-to-eat-dog

Back2Bat
October 21, 2009 2:54 pm

“I’m poorly put together, so is evidence against ID] everywhere, or is there a learning curve there too?” Leif
That makes two of us, it really helps to reign in my completly unwarranted
pride. I can’t imagine the problems you must have. You do very well considering. With your talent I would probably be insufferable which is why I wasn’t given it.
Peace. (Until the next time you set me off. : ) )

Jack Hughes
October 21, 2009 2:55 pm

Like everyone else I’m an above-average driver…

Dan Murphy
October 21, 2009 2:55 pm

The giant walks among pigmies, generously helping out where he can, and some of the pigmies call him conceited in their rage. Human nature, I guess, but still pitiful.
Back2Bat, you do a good job of personally illustrating the point of the original post, but it does not reflect well on you. You are a pigmy biting the ankle of a giant!
Dr. Svalgaard, thanks for sharing some of your knowledge with us, and thanks for your patience in covering the same old ground repeatedly, with grace and humor.
Dan Murphy