People reject popular opinions if they already hold opposing views, study finds

Aug 02, 2010

What would happen if you developed a strong opinion on an issue, and later found that the majority of people disagreed with you?

You might think that such a revelation would encourage you to rethink your beliefs. But a new study suggests people often react just the opposite: people grow more confident in some beliefs when they find out later that a majority of people disagree with them.

"It may be that you feel proud because you were able to disprove, in your own mind, an opinion that most people have accepted," said Richard Petty, co-author of the study and professor of at Ohio State University.

"You actually become doubly sure you were right."

Petty conducted the study with Pablo Brinol, a former postdoctoral fellow at Ohio State, and Javier Horcago, both at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid in Spain. Their results appear online in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and will be published in a future print edition.

The research continues a long tradition in psychology of examining how people are influenced by majority or minority opinion on a subject, Petty said.

Previous research has shown that majority opinion has the greatest influence on people when they consider issues that aren't that important to them or issues they don't want to spend much effort thinking about.

"If a decision isn't important, it often seems easiest to just go along with what everybody else is thinking," Petty said.

Minority opinion does have influence sometimes, but mostly on issues which people are motivated to consider carefully.

However, previous work had focused on situations in which people found out the majority opinion before they had given the issue much thought. Petty and his co-authors approached it from a different angle: what happens when people find out the majority opinion on an issue after they've already thought about the issue themselves?

The researchers did a series of related experiments involving undergraduate students in Spain. In one key experiment, students were told they would be examining the organizational conditions of an unfamiliar international company where they might be able to work for a future internship.

Participants were given either strong or weak arguments in favor of the firm. (One strong argument was that workers reported high satisfaction because of the flexibility of their work schedules. One weak argument was that the logo of the company was very attractive.)

After hearing either the strong or the weak arguments, the students were asked to list their thoughts about the company. As expected, students presented the weak arguments generated negative thoughts about the company, while those presented strong arguments generated positive thoughts.

At that point, half the students were told that 86 percent of their fellow students supported the company, while the other half were told only 14 percent supported the company.

After learning whether the majority of their fellow students agreed or disagreed with their analysis of the company, the students were asked to rate how confident they were in the positive or negative thoughts they had listed, and then rated their attitude toward the company.

Results showed that when students had a negative view of the company because of the weak arguments presented, they were actually more confident in this belief when they learned the majority of their fellow students disagreed with them and had positive views of the company (as opposed to when the majority agreed with their negative views).

"People may be thinking that 'if I can find the flaws in a position that the majority of people believe, then my thoughts must really be good ones,'" Petty said.

One key to this finding is that people have to think about the issue first, and develop their own ideas, Petty said. Learning later that a majority of people hold a certain view, after you have already made up your mind, functions to help you validate what you already think about that issue, Petty said.

The results suggest how would-be persuaders could strategically reveal the majority or minority status of a proposal to achieve the maximum persuasive effect.

If you feel you have a weak argument, it should be best to suggest right away that a lot of people support your issue, before you make your case. In that case, you're hoping that the majority endorsement will prevent people from counterarguing. People will rely on the "wisdom of the crowd" to guide their thoughts, without actually considering the issue, Petty explained.

If you tell people you have majority support after you make your weak arguments, it is too late - it will only serve to give people confidence in the they have generated about your cause, Petty said.

But for those with a strong argument, it can be helpful to reveal wide support for your proposal after explaining it, as this gives people confidence in the positive thoughts they have generated to your strong arguments, Petty said.

Explore further: Report advocates improved police training

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Popular opinion not always so popular

Jan 10, 2008

Whether you're a voter choosing the next president, a manager making policy decisions or a consumer selecting a brand, it's likely your decision is influenced by the opinions of others.

Picky preschoolers: Young children prefer majority opinion

Mar 13, 2009

When we are faced with a decision, and we're not sure what to do, usually we'll just go with the majority opinion. When do we begin adopting this strategy of "following the crowd"? In a new report in Psychological Science, a jour ...

Policy Reforms May Increase Petty Corruption

May 26, 2008

A study in the International Journal of Economic Theory published by Wiley-Blackwell finds that certain proposed reforms intended to reduce petty corruption can actually have the opposite effect and increase the occurrence of cor ...

Recommended for you

Report advocates improved police training

Aug 29, 2014

A new report released yesterday by the Mental Health Commission of Canada identifies ways to improve the mental health training and education that police personnel receive.

Meaningful relationships can help you thrive

Aug 29, 2014

Deep and meaningful relationships play a vital role in overall well-being. Past research has shown that individuals with supportive and rewarding relationships have better mental health, higher levels of subjective well-being ...

Learning to read involves tricking the brain

Aug 29, 2014

While reading, children and adults alike must avoid confusing mirror-image letters (like b/d or p/q). Why is it difficult to differentiate these letters? When learning to read, our brain must be able to inhibit ...

User comments : 10

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Daniel_Cousens
4.5 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2010
This is no doubt a very strong reason as to why religion has lasted so long especially in modern days.
Slotin
1.2 / 5 (26) Aug 02, 2010
Heliocentric model, dense aether theory or cold fusion are an iconic examples of such approach. In this way, even quite trivial concepts are neglected for many years, because people like being fooled mutually. Moderators of this forum are participating on this approach, too.
..people grow more confident in some beliefs when they find out later that a majority of people disagree with them..
It's a sort of surface tension phenomena: mercury droplets are repulsive mutually the more, the more they becoming small and negligible. In such way, some people would prefer to die, then just change their opinion.

You can play with this stance in discussion - it's rather simple to manipulate people in occupying of quite opposite stance which they're actually holding just keeping them in permanent negation.
Birthmark
not rated yet Aug 02, 2010
Why can't people be more open-minded and willing to adapt to change and intellectual advancements?
MustaI
1.6 / 5 (11) Aug 03, 2010
Actually this article is about well described phenomena, known as a confirmation bias

http://en.wikiped...ion_bias
Why can't people be more open-minded and willing to adapt to change and intellectual advancements?
Because they're just underdeveloped trolls. The thinking of people didn't change so much from cave-men times.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2010
Why can't people be more open-minded and willing to adapt to change and intellectual advancements?
Because they're just underdeveloped trolls. The thinking of people didn't change so much from cave-men times.

You mean like people who propagate aether nonsense?
marjon
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2010
"If you feel you have a weak argument, it should be best to suggest right away that a lot of people support your issue, before you make your case. In that case, you're hoping that the majority endorsement will prevent people from counterarguing. People will rely on the "wisdom of the crowd" to guide their thoughts, without actually considering the issue, Petty explained."

That what AGWites have attempted to do with their 'consensus'.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2010
That what AGWites have attmpted to do with their 'consensus'.
Sounds like Christianity.
MustaI
1 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2010
..You mean like people who propagate aether nonsense?

Well, we can analyze human ignorance in live scenario... ;-)

What's nonsensical about aether concept, exactly? If you don't know about it, why are you repeatedly parroting the things, which you don't understand?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2010
What's nonsensical about aether concept, exactly? If you don't know about it, why are you repeatedly parroting the things, which you don't understand?
I posit that the perceived misunderstanding here is born of your ignorance. Even your favorite blogger referred to your concepts as Aether nonsense.
bottomlesssoul
not rated yet Aug 09, 2010
@Birthmark
Why can't people be more open-minded and willing to adapt to change and intellectual advancements?
We're believing machines not rational agents. We believe whatever fits what we believe and ignore what doesn't hurt us too much to ignore. Some of our beliefs are healthy some are not, some are off the deep-end but are harmless others are harmless for the holder but dangerous for someone else.

We're also capable of reason and wisdom. It's that gulf between what we are and what we can be if we train that decides cultural norms.

We aren't open minded because we can't be, not without training at least.

I think a better question is why is training people to at least consider different ideas from ones they are familiar with is so difficult. Especially since the personal reward of learned open mindedness is so awesome; at least if you can do so calmly. It's worthless if you're angry or excited.