Issue importance and group choice shifts: A persuasive arguments approach.

Abstract

The present experiments examine the ability of persuasive arguments theory to explain the effects of issue importance upon group choice shifts. Female undergraduates completed one of two tasks (individual argument generation or group discussion) under either high or low issue importance. Vinokur and Burnstein's persuasive arguments theory was then employed to predict the discussion-produced effects from the individually generated arguments. This model accurately forecast both the direction and strength of the issue importance effects as well as the relative magnitude of the choice shifts. These results both suggest that persuasive argumentation mediates the effects of issue importance upon group choice shifts and help to establish the general validity of the theory.Group choice shifts (or group polarization) refer to changes in attitude produced by discussion. In their thorough review, Myers and Lamm (1976) observed that persuasive arguments theory (Burnstein & Vinokur, 1977;Vinokur & Burnstein, 1974) provides one of the more compelling analyses of these effects: First, it is capable of explaining the basic facts (e.g., the distribution of pre-and postdiscussion preference, that is, the direction and magnitude of the shifts); second, it demonstrates the relevance of similar effects observed under quite different conditions, say, in the absence of group discussion (e.g., shifts in attitude produced either by merely exposing individuals to the position of others or by simply having them think further about the issue; , 1977. The present study attempts to extend persuasive arguments theory still further. It

Testing persuasive argument theory's predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence

“…Consistent with past research (Madsen, 1978;Myers & Bishop, 1974), the findings in this study indicated that the PAT models were unable to predict postdiscussion shifts accurately at the group or group-item level of analysis. Although this is not an inherent flaw of the PAT model per se, it does seem to contradict Persuasive Arguments Theory proponents' claims that PAT is a theory of group argument and group shifts.…”

“…The PAT model predictions were not significantly correlated with observed postdiscussion values at any level of analysis. At least two factors may account for the poor performance of the PAT model in this and other investigations (Hinsz, 1981;Madsen, 1978;Myers and Bishop, 1974): (a) the utilization of a weighted-averaging formula, and (b) the use of cognitive arguments. TESTING PAT MODEL 127 First, the weighted-averaging formulation of the PAT model may reflect a limited picture of the group argument influence process.…”

“…Hinsz (1981) found the additive model and the log model to fit the data better than the PAT weighted-average model. Madsen (1978) discovered that the model's "prediction of the relative magnitudes of the shifts was not in every case accurate," and that "when small shifts are predicted ... even the direction of shift forecast by the model may be inaccurate" (p. 1125). Additionally, although Bishop and Myers (1974) found model predictions at the item level to be highly correlated with actual shifts, analyses computed at the group level yielded an average correlation that was nonsignificant.…”

“…1 The formulas utilized in this study are taken from Madsen (1978). These formulas are more straightforward and readily understandable than Vinokur and Burnstein's (1974) explanation, and are comparable in every respect to those utilized in the original Vinokur and Burnstein (1974) calculations.…”

“…Each received extra credit points for participation. (Kogan & Wallach, 1965;Stoner, 1968) that have been employed extensively in previous PAT investigations were utilized Hinsz & Davis, 1984;Vinokur & Burnstein, 1974, 1978. They included one risky-shift item (a chemistry student deciding which graduate school to attend), one cautious-shift item (a man with a stomach ailment about to board a plane for vacation), and one neutral-shift item (a man deciding whether to have an operation).…”