Summary: New research shows that people with a minority perspective on controversial topics are often self-sloppy when discussing opinions, leading them to act in ways that contradict their true beliefs. Researchers found that participants who opposed the majority views avoided expressing their stances perfectly and engaged in behavior consistent with the majority.
This self-silencing reduced cognitive involvement and was less likely to reflect deeply in conversation. Even in situations where they could act anonymously in favor of their beliefs, self-supervision still complied with a large number of actions.
Important Facts:
Self-silencing effects: People with minority opinions avoid fully expressing their views. Behavioral fit: Participants who later self-silented acted against their true beliefs.
Source: Ohio State University
People who have a minority perspective on controversial topics are more likely to “independently” themselves in conversation.
Researchers found that those who felt they were in the minority did not want to elaborate on why they supported their position when they spoke to people with majority opinion.
But even more importantly, people with minority perspectives showed behavior that was not in line with their true opinions after talking to people with dissent, the study found.
“We’ve seen a lot of people who have been working on things like this,” said Nicole Sintoff, co-author of Ohio State’s Action, Decision Making, Sustainability Research, Decision Making and Sustainability.
This study was recently published online in the Journal of Environmental Psychology.
The study included 248 undergraduates from Ohio.
At the start of the survey, participants were asked, “To what extent do you support Ohio State University providing more plant-based (vegetarian/vegan) foods at campus dining facilities?” They rated support with 1 (very opposed) and 7 (very supportive).
As a university student, participants were aware that they were immersed in a campus-wide culture that generally supports plant-based foods, the researchers said. Participants were also informed of the university’s sustainability goals, indicating support for sustainable food.
Participants were told they would be paired with fellow undergraduate conversation partners to discuss the proposed plant-based food policy. In fact, these partners were Confederates who collaborated with researchers and were assigned to give the same three arguments (ethical, health and environmental reasons) for food proposals or for food proposals.
Three-minute conversations were recorded and participants’ responses were analyzed.
The findings showed that people with minority perspectives self-silent when speaking to Confederates who expressed majority opinion. But even students with minority views who spoke to Confederates who shared similar opinions are not the same, but not the same.
Sintoff, a faculty member of the Ohio Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, said that it was not entirely surprising.
“Because they were strangers, they may not have felt comfortable sharing the views of these minorities yet, and some are fully self-supervisors who have this policy of not discussing controversial subjects under any circumstances,” she said.
The researchers did not mean that self-supervisors had said nothing. But they were not expressing their true opinions. They may have used evasive tactics such as uncertainty, indifference, or simply changing the topic of conversation.
Overall, people with minority perspectives used a completely unique argument for their positions than those with majority opinion.
“If you don’t speak with real opinions, you’re not dealing with the conversation in depth,” Sintov said. “You don’t analyse, think, or reflect information from the conversation, just like you would if you spoke up.”
And it may have even influenced their behavior.
After the conversation, students participated in activities that could raise funds to support plant-based food policies. They did this by clicking the mouse as many times as possible in the task tested in previous research.
The findings showed that people who opposed plant-based food policies clicked their mouse over and over as many times as those who said they supported it, opposed their own self-certified beliefs.
Overall, the findings suggest that self-silencing may be associated with effects, Sintoff said.
“It leads to the public’s perception that there is no minority perspective. It’s not that important. People’s true thoughts are not expressed, and public beliefs are overwhelming majority opinion and this vicious cycle that cannot be changed,” she said.
“That’s especially true when people with minority perspectives are moving forward with the majority in action. It’s more evidence that a majority opinion is dominant.”
The findings call for people to be more aware of their beliefs and how they express them. People with minority views should be willing to discuss their true beliefs, even if they find them uncomfortable, Sintov said.
On the other side, the majority of people need to be willing to listen to the thoughts of the other side, even if they don’t agree.
“We need to be open to civic discourse in society. It must be two-way streets,” Sintov said.
The study was led by Christine Hearst, a former Ohio postdoctoral researcher at Southern Illinois University. Other co-authors were Grant Donnelly, an assistant professor of marketing in Ohio, and Logan Hobbs, a current Ohio alumni at Michigan State University.
About this psychological research news
Author: Jeff Grubmeyer
Source: Ohio State University
Contact: Jeff Grubmeyer – Ohio State University
Image: Image credited to Neuroscience News
Original research: Open access.
“Self-silencing predicts behavioral fit in the sustainability context,” Nicole Sintov et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology
Abstract
Self-silencing predicts behavioral suitability in the context of sustainability
Previous research examined how self-silencing among people who retain a minority perspective influences public opinion on a variety of social and environmental issues.
However, less attention is paid to understanding the potential behavioral consequences of self-silencing, such as whether people who hold minority perspectives are more likely to act in support of their views following conversations that refrain from expressing their opinions.
In a pre-registered mixed method experiment, n = 248 university students participants were randomly assigned a short video-recorded conversation with a Confederate army (pose as another student) who had argued in support or against the campus sustainability policy.
We examined how participants were involved in the conversation, behaviour following the conversation, and whether this changed as a function of whether their pre-conversation perspective was majority and minority.
Compared to participants who held the majority perspectives involved in the conversation, those who held the minority perspective were more likely to have overall self-respect (i.e., avoid expressing their opinions). Second, self-silencing was associated with reduced cognitive elaboration.
However, neither self-silencing nor cognitive elaboration predicts low transformational behaviors in favor of policy, suggesting the suitability of behavior to the majority perspective.
Not only is minority views less likely to be expressed and acted on, but such silencing can come at the expense of learning and mutual understanding.
