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
October 21, 2009 10:37 pm

James Sexton (22:16:40) :
“(1) because it is useful to society and helps us survive which we like to do”
But apparently to no end.

That’s right. To what end do you think? As with (2) it is the journey in life that matters. Enjoy [or suffer] the ride, while you are on it.
“(2)…….Because there is fun in making the puzzle, not in having the finished result.”
My experience is that it is only fun when I have the finished result.

Then imagine that you just stepped out for a moment and when you came back in, somebody had finished the puzzle, or the sudoku, or the cross-word puzzle, or the painting, … That would spoil the enjoyment of making it. no?

October 21, 2009 10:45 pm

Leif Svalgaard (22:21:10) :
The apple does not (have) any ‘intent’ to fall to the ground.
True the apple doesn’t, but that doesn’t negate the possibility that something else did have intent for it to fall. I could, for instance, cause an apple to fall. In fact, given the cycles(cycles seem to be designed) of flora and fauna, many have postulated the apple falling was by design.

anna v
October 21, 2009 10:53 pm

James Sexton (21:26:31) :
Apparently the questions ‘what’ and ‘how’ are the pertinent questions. Why seems impertinent. That’s strange to me because as I study history, the question ‘why’ is usually the most important question that leads to answers unrevealed by the questions what and how.
In my mathematical universe the why becomes the answer of “why climb everest” answer: “because it is there”. Maybe the same is true of bees and trees etc?

October 21, 2009 10:57 pm

Leif Svalgaard (22:21:10) :
Then imagine that you just stepped out for a moment and when you came back in, somebody had finished the puzzle, or the sudoku, or the cross-word puzzle, or the painting, … That would spoil the enjoyment of making it. no?
Yes, of course, that would spoil my enjoyment. So, does that mean, because you consider the ‘what’ and ‘how’ meaningful, and something displays a why, you’d ignore it because it ruined your ‘what’ and ‘how’? It shouldn’t. There is so much we’ll never know about our universe/solar system/earth, or even the lump of ground my house is set upon that why is only part of the question. There’s plenty of room for all questions.
While I’m fairly certain this pleasant discussion won’t change a mind between us, I’d submit that systems and cycles lend to the thought of design. I’ve enjoyed and look forward to other discussions.
Cheers

October 21, 2009 11:00 pm

James Sexton (22:45:09) :
True the apple doesn’t, but that doesn’t negate the possibility that something else did have intent for it to fall.
‘The’ apple was generic and you do not cause ‘all’ apples to fall. And you misunderstand ‘intent’ and ‘fall’ here. You may disconnect the apple from the tree. That does not cause it to fall [the tree could be growing in the space station]. It is not your intent that moves the apple along on its trajectory. The apple does not have a ‘purpose’ in falling. You might ascribe a ‘purpose’ to it, but the apple doesn’t know that and falls regardless.

October 21, 2009 11:03 pm

James Sexton (22:45:09) :
True the apple doesn’t, but that doesn’t negate the possibility that something else did have intent for it to fall.
One could ask the question: “what do you think to what end your life is? or what purpose somebody has in letting you live it?

October 21, 2009 11:04 pm

anna v (22:16:49)
In my mathematical universe the why becomes the answer of “why climb everest” answer: “because it is there”. Maybe the same is true of bees and trees etc?
Hmm, almost had me agreeing with you. I, too, am a lover of math. However, I can’t find the equation for “because it’s there”. Perhaps you can show that one to me. Truthfully, while it may be anathema to most parties, I don’t see where ID and the “big bang” are inconsistent with one another. I just see systems and cycles as proof of design, while others see them as happenstance. What does your mathematics say about probabilities as to random chance of all these occurrences happening at the appropriate time and place, given the expanse of time and place in this universe?

anna v
October 21, 2009 11:05 pm

James Sexton (21:26:31)
There exist physicists/mathematicians who are trying to formulate the dynamics of consciousness, way out on left/right field. Bohm, of quantum mechanical fame, was one of them, with his implicate and explicate fields. There is active research going on, too involved for my aging brain :). Your why is really “why consciousness”.

October 21, 2009 11:06 pm

James Sexton (22:57:27) :
that mean, because you consider the ‘what’ and ‘how’ meaningful, and something displays a why, you’d ignore it
I don’t know what a display of ‘why’ would look like. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

October 21, 2009 11:10 pm

James Sexton (23:04:41) :
I don’t see where ID and the “big bang” are inconsistent with one another.
BB could [and probably did] happen without a why, but explain to me how an IDer could do Her job without a why? When we humans design something it is always with a purpose in mind. The ‘thing’ is designed for something.

anna v
October 21, 2009 11:12 pm

James Sexton (23:04:41) :
anna v (22:16:49)
In my mathematical universe the why becomes the answer of “why climb everest” answer: “because it is there”. Maybe the same is true of bees and trees etc?
Hmm, almost had me agreeing with you. I, too, am a lover of math. However, I can’t find the equation for “because it’s there”.

In my mathematical universe, an atom will absorb a radiation hitting it if it is of the right frequency to be excited to a higher state. That is the equation for “because it is there”

October 21, 2009 11:15 pm

James Sexton (23:04:41) :
I just see systems and cycles as proof of design
The flaw there is that design is not needed. Things evolve perfectly well without a designer, so ID is an extraneous and unnecessary assumption.

October 21, 2009 11:26 pm

Leif Svalgaard (23:00:21) :
James Sexton (22:45:09) :
True the apple doesn’t, but that doesn’t negate the possibility that something else did have intent for it to fall.
‘The’ apple was generic and you do not cause ‘all’ apples to fall. And you misunderstand ‘intent’ and ‘fall’ here. You may disconnect the apple from the tree. That does not cause it to fall [the tree could be growing in the space station]. It is not your intent that moves the apple along on its trajectory. The apple does not have a ‘purpose’ in falling. You might ascribe a ‘purpose’ to it, but the apple doesn’t know that and falls regardless.
Sigh, this is becoming a rather circular conversation, as I suspected it would. No, all apples fall because of gravity, or not, because of lack of gravity. That, still, doesn’t preclude a design, neither does the awareness or lack thereof of the apples(whether the apples are aware or not doesn’t seem relevant to me). I would suggest that gravity forces the apple to the ground. The causes one of 2 things. Either the apple is consumed thereby allowing another carbon form to further its existence or it seeds and grows a tree that produces more apples to be consumed by herbivores or omnivores or seed. Of course, there’s much more to apples, trees, and gravity. More cycles, more systems all pointing to design.

October 21, 2009 11:28 pm

Leif Svalgaard (23:15:17) :
James Sexton (23:04:41) :
I just see systems and cycles as proof of design
The flaw there is that design is not needed. Things evolve perfectly well without a designer, so ID is an extraneous and unnecessary assumption.
I would submit that things evolve because they were designed that way.

October 21, 2009 11:31 pm

anna v (23:12:42) : Forgive me anna, I’m still pondering the
“In my mathematical universe, an atom will absorb a radiation hitting it if it is of the right frequency to be excited to a higher state. That is the equation for “because it is there”” statement.

October 21, 2009 11:41 pm

James Sexton (23:28:23) :
I would submit that things evolve because they were designed that way.
evolving is a process, and a thing is not. The essential point is that design is not needed.

October 21, 2009 11:55 pm

Leif Svalgaard (23:41:15) :evolving is a process, and a thing is not. The essential point is that design is not needed.
Slight semantic correction. Evolution is a process. Evolving is what things are engaged in…….Further, design is essential to facilitate the evolution of things.
Anna, more semantics, I engage in things(quests), not because they’re there, but because I can. The difference is slight when reading but significant to me. I don’t play the guitar because it’s there(though it has to be there for me to do it) I play because I want to prove I can. Same for mountains and valleys.
It’s been a great pleasure and honor for me. Sadly, I’m out of beer and it’s late. The mrs. hides the liquor else I become liberally extreme in my conservative views!!!! So, I wish you all a good night.

conradg
October 22, 2009 2:34 am

Amusing back and forth. Speaking of mathematics, you’re aware of course that all numbers, all math, only exists in the mind, not in Nature? Math cannot be the nature of Nature, it is only a way the mind describes Nature. What Nature actually is, and how it operates, somehow coincides at its deeper levels of observation with mind. But if we suggest that math itself is at the root of it, then we are saying that Nature, at it’s root, is simply Mind.
I would happen to agree with that general idea, but that undermines most of the arguments against Nature occuring without intelligent design.

Back2Bat
October 22, 2009 3:56 am

“Churchill once said that a fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” Andy.s
Then I am not a religious fanatic but an anti-fractional reserve banking fanatic.
Notice I quit some time ago but not for lack of ammunition.

SamG
October 22, 2009 3:59 am

conradg, surely after that experience, you’d denounce leftism?!
By the way, unlike the leftists you described, I’d never decree that all those under the banner of the left are the same. Take yourself for example, a skeptical AGW leftist (as rare as that may be) and people I know who read leftist tabloids because it makes them feel cultured. Nevertheless, they are nice people overall.
Then there is the group of leftists who are disenfranchised with life or suffer emotional problems and have decided that protesting at a G20 summit and being all hippy-like, is better than dealing with their personal problems.
And then of course, there are the countless mums and dads who have embraced climate change because environmentalism has become the new R-word.
I could go on…..take nativism for example……let’s stop there!

Butch
October 22, 2009 4:10 am

Eureka! They’ve discovered peer pressure and the herd mentality. Someone alert the Nobel Committee.

Back2Bat
October 22, 2009 4:12 am

My last word on the subject:
This universe is too young and too small (mass wise) for life to have originated here by chance alone. Folks have run the numbers for the simplest conceivable lifeform capable of evolving (the ability to to store information and replicate) and it is statistically impossible (less than 1 in 10^50, much less).
So life did not originate in this universe. Now imagine a super universe which, unlike this universe is infinitely old, then life would certainly originate from chaos. That life would be God. Once formed, He could have then created this universe and the life in it.
There you have it, evolution and Creation reconciled through probability theory, the mass of the universe, the age of the universe, and the Torah.
“You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD,
“And My servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and believe Me
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me.”
Isaiah 43:10
Courtesy of a Christian astrophysicist by the name of Dr. Hugh Ross of reasons.org
Take it or leave it. I can’t put it any clearer.

SamG
October 22, 2009 5:04 am

Mr. Bat, while agree that all things are conceivable, it doesn’t make sense that it should all boil down to one denomination.
Plus, you know you will receive a smack on the bottom for discussing religion.

Midwest Mark
October 22, 2009 5:57 am

What I want to know is: 1) Who funded this study?; 2) What does this have to do with anything?; and 3) Why didn’t we have professors as attractive as Prof. Rios Morrison when I was in journalism school at Ohio State?

MartinGAtkins
October 22, 2009 6:00 am

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.

Leif Svalgaard (13:57:38) :
Yes, they can. Because a literate voting populace is important [think faith-based schoolbooks].
You’ve thrown a curved ball at me here. I didn’t say that the ideas expressed on this site should be taught in schools. My point was that though some of the absurd postulations may irritate you, they do no harm.
Should faith based subjects be taught in school? My view is yes but they should be approached as philosophy and not 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].
New or not it’s a pigs ear and does not work reasonably well. It’s nothing like and nor should it be a democracy. IMHO peer review should be open to scrutiny by all stake holders. That includes the great unwashed tax payer. If you have nothing better than the corrupt system you have now then you can’t complain when the people consult witch doctors and shamans who’s methods and transparency are equal to the spivs who run your institutions.
I have taken onboard the rest of you post and hope you don’t think my views are in anyway a personal attack on you or the late Dr. J, Eddy.

1 4 5 6 7 8 16