Majority influence and cogency of argument in discussion

Utterback, William E.

doi:10.1080/00335636209382569

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, we suggest that even if statistical prediction by a model should prove to be quite accurate, this does not necessarily constitute a psychological explanation of the dynamics actually producing change in individual subjects. For example, it is conceivable (as Lamm, Trommsdorff, & Rost-Schaude, 1972, have pointed out) that a majority rule model might be successful for reasons implied by other available theories (e.g., Utterback, 1962, observed majorities to be more influential because in fact they possessed more cogent arguments). Put more positively, some social psychological explanations might be translatable into precise social decision scheme predictions (see Burns, 1967;Davis et al, in press).…”

Section: Group Decision Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The group polarization phenomenon.

Myers

Lamm²

1976

Psychological Bulletin

896

501

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments exploring the effects of group discussion on attitudes, jury decisions, ethical decisions, judgments, person perceptions, negotiations, and risk taking (other than the choice-dilemmas task) are generally consistent with a "group polarization" hypothesis, derived from the risky-shift literature. Recent attempts to explain the phenomenon fall mostly into one of three theoretical approaches: (a) group decision rules, especially majority rule (which is contradicted by available data), (b) interpersonal comparisons (for which there is mixed support), and (c) informational influence (for which there is strong support). A conceptual scheme is presented which integrates the latter two viewpoints and suggests how attitudes develop in a social context.

show abstract

Section: Group Decision Rulesmentioning

confidence: 99%