Are You More Or Less Likely To Change Your Mind When The Majority Disagrees With You?
from the psychological-theories dept
There are a few different theories on how people react to finding out that they're in the minority on some particular viewpoint. One theory suggests that, when confronted with people disagreeing with our viewpoints, we just dig in stronger in order to validate our own self-worth. The other side of the argument, however, is that our need for social acceptance means that if we find ourselves in the minority, we may be more likely to change our opinion in order to remain socially connected to others. Apparently some researchers at HP decided to put some of this to the test to see which of the two theories held more sway. In this case, they asked people choose which piece of furniture they liked better out of two pieces. At some later time, they asked the same people the same question -- but also gave a count of how many people preferred each piece of furniture. What the researchers found was a bit unexpected: when a lot of people "disagreed" with the person's choice... they were more likely to stick to their original choice. When a smaller number of people disagreed, they were more likely to switch their vote. So, in the face over overwhelming opposition, it seems people are more ready to dig in. In the face of moderate opposition, they may be more open to changing their views. So, from now on, if everyone disagrees with me, I'm just going to have to dig in even stronger, because this report says that's the thing to do... (yes, that's a joke).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is all relative to bots and shills
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HP TouchPad Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When a bunch of people tell you, "Hey, that chair is pretty ugly," then it's easier to change your mind and go with the consensus. It's a fairly new and recent viewpoint that's more easily changed. It seems from this study that when there's larger opposition, then we get to a sense of individualism. "I don't want to be another drone like everyone else." In the greater view of things though, it doesn't really matter in the end.
When it comes to more ingrained beliefs that actually reflect our self-value like religion and politics, or even our own moralities, then people are much more likely to dig in their heels and stick to their beliefs. You see this a LOT with arguments like liberal vs. conservative, Republican vs. Democrat, atheist vs. theistic faith, science vs. religion. Or a whole host of other cultural clashes.
To change someone's mind based on an issue that hits at their core beliefs can become a traumatic experience. It shakes someone right down to their sense of self. Their core beliefs become challenged and psychologically many people will react in a similar manner that someone would if they were being physically violated. People feel a need to strongly defend such a position because it is a part of who they are as a person.
"These are my beliefs. My values. This is who I am. If what *I* believe is wrong, then *I* and everything I've been taught is a lie."
We don't want to feel betrayed by those who we've entrusted in positions of authority. Educators, religious leaders, community heads, even our own family. Those people who shape our society are the same people who shape our lives and help us grow as individuals. This is where the trauma comes in when challenged on personally held beliefs. People can have a crisis of faith, or doubt themselves, or feel betrayed by people who taught them, or even distance themselves from family and friends. The former social bonds can be shattered leaving a person feeling alone and lost.
So, picking between two chairs? That's easy. It generally doesn't personally effect you on a grand scale. But arguing against your core beliefs is an entirely different matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ask someone that isn't a gamer to pick which console is better. They might use a whole other set of standards. Things like the number of titles available on each system, or the hardware specs, the uses each console has beyond just playing video games, maybe the physical look of each appliance, or more likely the over all financial cost associated with each product. The same thing goes for the iPhone and it's "Cult of Mac." Jacob vs. Edward was a huge marketing success because it developed a neat division of "Us vs. Them." They created a culture based on a work of fiction. However beyond that fan base, does anyone really care that much?
Even then, we'll probably see similar results as the chair experiment because it's a consumer product. The non-gamer may defer their decision to a group who actually owns the item in question.
How often has someone resigned their decision making with a simple phrase, "I don't care. You pick." And as monkyyy so humorously put it, the decision process could have been left to chance. If it happened, would a random result really be a determining factor in which product is superior? "The coin landed on Heads, so that chair is best."
Besides, the mind CAN exist with unresolved conflict once a person learns that a viable answer is an undisclosed third option. There are almost always alternate options not presented. Someone could have chosen both chairs. Or disregarded either as being atrocious. Or simply gone with the answer, "I don't know."
A whole other world is opened up once we break binary thinking. However that's another subject.
The difference between picking a chair and a philosophical belief is the difference between the short and long term investment. How much of a personal stake are you willing to put into an aesthetic design as opposed to your own core beliefs? Is it worth more to you to hold your views over the look of a chair or is there more value in discussing the merits and pitfalls of a Vegan lifestyle?
I didn't intend to dismiss the study outright. It does provide insight into an aspect of the human mind. You can learn how to understand other people by the way most would react to a given set of choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
'How often has someone resigned their decision making with a simple phrase, 'I don't care. You pick.'"
This happens most often when one can't resolve the internal conflict over which is superior and defers the decision to a trusted companion who knows their mind to help resolve that conflict. The companion makes what they think that person would consider the superior option given the available data.
"Besides, the mind CAN exist with unresolved conflict once a person learns that a viable answer is an undisclosed third option."
It's not a one or the other kind of issue, it's a which of the options is the best choice. For example, you're an EMT and you have three dying patients. If you don't act, they all will die. They all have an equal chance of survival and there is nothing apparently distinguishing about one over the other, but you can only save one and the other two must die. How do you choose and how do you live with the deaths of the other two? That's what cognitive dissonance is. A person might manage to live with the conflict over time, but it won't leave them without some sort of lingering doubt, possibly even trauma. The mind will go berserk trying to find a way to justify the choice because it can't deal with choosing one when other options are equally valid. It must find a way to put one choice above the others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're so involved in picking furniture that it invokes such an emotional response akin to a spiritual awakening, then you have larger, more concerning personal issues than deciding on home decor.
As for EMTs? I'm told that they are trained for triage, but the determination can be different. The premise is "Save the ones that you can." There are a multitude of situations an EMT could find themselves in from a car wreck to a building fire, to a plane crash to...whatever!
If you're an EMT and are deferring a choice on who to save based on popular opinion, then you could be as bad as the two who let Brandon Teena die after being assaulted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, EMT's are trained to deal with such situations, but to claim that they are impervious to something that is core to human psychology is pure idiocy. Oh, and nice straw man too. I didn't say the EMT is making their choice on popular opinion, you just made that up yourself. I said that the EMT will be conflicted to choose the person who lives because there's no clear best choice for survival. This means the EMT will have to wrestle with that choice the rest of his or her life until they can resolve it, or be traumatized by it. If you actually put yourself in the EMT's shoes for a moment, maybe you would understand and not say such nonsense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With this in mind, I think I'll bow out and leave the now-dated post with a relevant XKCD frame.
http://xkcd.com/386/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i have beliefs i know for a fact the vast majority of the world would disagree vehemently on
i've been insulted, pushed aside, alienated, labeled a troll or an idiot and accused of being mentally unstable & even "sick" for daring to try and mention/explain them to people because they do not understand these beliefs
does it make my belief less? nope. i'll stick with it to the end, it's my core and no amount of human stupidity and social pressure will change that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But generally, no, it won't make me change my mind... NEXT!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It depends on the subject at hand.
If it's something unknowable like religion then I personally have to go with trying to view things based on what we already know and/or have theorized as well as the observable real-world consequences of religion, and once I do that, religion seems to be a vastly evil force that we need to get rid of. I'm not so interested in discussing various flavors of insanity and which is the least nuts - that seems pointless and a waste of time.
Same is true for politics and finances and such - right, left, capitalist, communist, that's all just slightly different flavors of money-based-society thinking, and the solution isn't in that minor bickering about the internal details of the system - it is in deep-sixing the system in favor for something that has a hope in hell of actually working, without destroying the planet like now.
Now, if we're talking aesthetic choices, things get a bit more murky and considerably less important, but any technological process has very few cases where there truly is more than one optimal approach, in my view. I think it more comes down to it being more difficult to enumerate the optimal choice as well as people wanting some specific thing to be true due to ingrained ideology so they reject reality and try to substitute their own.
I like to think that if someone can prove me wrong in any given area, I will change my mind. Areas where nobody can prove anyone wrong, however, do exist - philosophical or aesthetic choices and the like, and there you have to just go with what you believe and enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It depends on the subject at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are You More Or Less Likely To Change Your Mind...
Who's with me, guys?
No one?
Uh... then I mean more!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
game changer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: game changer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For if the Constitution is a so called living document malleable to any current idea or whim then it stands for nothing and liberty is lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From Wiki:
"The framers of the Constitution were aware that changes would be necessary if the Constitution was to endure as the nation grew. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. On the other hand, they also wanted to ensure that a rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was a two-step process for proposing and ratifying new amendments."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Global warming is a good example of where people are digging in where they're wrong. Despite more evidence then ever showing that it's fact conservatives have quickly turned against believing in global warming. Just a decade ago, and even 5 years ago, we had conservative politicians in America talking about the importance of fighting global warming. But now because a majority of their own party doesn't buy it those people have flip flopped and pretend they never believed in global warming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very Interesting
Obama 2012 - NO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A study about reporting facts
Explains why dictators always start by excising any dissenting intellectuals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Science is not done by show of hands.
Worse yet, statins increase all-cause mortality in every group but one: men over 65 with a prior heart attack. And even in that group, the "benefit" of statins is so slight as to be doubtful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Science is not done by show of hands.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161030.htm
Maybe the only benefit was the people consumed less of what was actually terrible for them and ate whole grains instead, maybe whole grains are inherently good for you. Either way there does seem to be a benefit for at least some people.
And here's a paper that debunks your serum cholesterol stance with extensive citations.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/81/5/1721.full.pdf
I'm glad we have Google now. Just think, when that study was published it would have taken more than 15 min to debunk people with dangerous medical ideas.
I didn't bother to look up statins. Someone else can... or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Science is not done by show of hands.
I will agree with it for the same reason I always agree with the statement, "These pants don't make me look fat, do they?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Because I will sleep with you if you agree with me" (for some) and "Because I will give you a big pile of money if you agree with me" do qualify as self interest, but you have to state it explicitly instead of implying it through a ridiculous ad campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
change when in minority?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]