PSYC1030 Lab Report PDF

Preview

Summary

PSYC1030 lab report on fake news and opinion polarisation...

Description

Exploration of Opinion Polarisation Through Persuasive Argument Explanation and Social Comparison Theory. Investigating How a Persons’ Beliefs Change When Compared With Others.

Fake news exposes groups and individuals to misinformation, depriving them from the truth, and fuelling negative ideologies (Shimizu, 2020). Fake news is the deliberate spreading of false information through media. It often leads to the misinformed polarization of opinions. Opinion polarization is when people's ideologies become extreme, often perpetuated through communities and social media, acting as an echo chamber (Spohr, 2017). Theories explaining polarization are persuasive arguments explanation; individuals are presented with extreme ideologies similar to theirs (Burnstein & Vinokur,1975). And social comparison theory; individuals withdraw from group norms in an attempt to be seen as a valuable group member (Baron & Roper, 1976). The current study assesses the effectiveness of these theories, in polarization Burnstein and Vinokur (1975) investigated the link between persuasive arguments theory and belief change. Sixty male university students were split into twelve groups, where they were given three choice dilemmas. The experiment consisted of three conditions. The choices for choice three were made public, participants then developed alternate arguments for choice three (I). Choices of participants were made public for choice two, they then considered arguments for an alternate choice (II). Choices of participants were not made public, they then developed new arguments for choice three (III). Only condition one showed a noticeable shift in choices. These results give evidence for the persuasive argument explanation. Baron and Roper (1976) investigated the relationship between social comparison theory and choice shift. The study consisted of male and female high school students, tested in same gender groups. Subjects were told that smaller, better, or larger estimates indicated intelligence. They then sat in cubicles in a dark room and saw a moving light and estimated how far it moved. They had to make these estimates privately and then publicly. The mean shift in group scores was measured, and the results showed the individual-group (large) average increase after hearing group answers. The individual-group (small) increased when hearing group answers, opposing the hypothesis. The study gives evidence for social comparison theory.

In Burnstein and Vinokur (1975), the switching of dilemmas could have distracted the participants. This could mean that participants weren’t focusing on the task, therefore not accurately answering the questions. A limitation to Baron and Roper (1976) could be the presence of the examiner in the room. This could create a bias where participants want to seem more desirable to the examiner, so their belief change couldn’t be associated with social comparison theory. Participants in the individual-group (large) were repeatedly exposed to larger estimates, this could have been the cause of their increase in estimates, not social comparison. Thus, due to these limitations, it is still unclear which of the two studies are more effective at explaining opinion polarization. The current study applied the theories of social comparison and persuasive arguments to determine which theory was more effective in polarising opinions. Participants completed an online survey and read a scenario about a student who plagiarized an assignment. Participants made a suggestion about how many marks should be deducted, from 0-70. Participants then estimated how many marks other students would suggest. They were then presented with social comparison, persuasive argument, or controlled conditions. Participants then made another recommendation using the same scale. Polarisation was measured by subtracting subjects’ initial suggestion from their second, larger numbers represented polarised opinions. It was hypothesised that those presented with the social comparison condition would present more polarised opinions than those presented with the persuasive arguments condition. It was also hypothesised that participants exposed to social comparison and persuasive argument conditions would show much greater polarisation than those in the control condition. Discussion This study applied the theories of social comparison and persuasive arguments to determine which of the two was more effective in polarising opinions. The results showed that both the social comparison and group norm conditions showed a similar belief change, with no significant difference between the two. The control condition did not present a significant belief change. The hypotheses stated that the group comparison condition would display more belief change than the group norm condition, and that

both group norm and social comparison would display more change than the control. The first hypothesis was not supported, as they both displayed similar polarisation. The second however, was supported, as the control resulted in a slightly negative shift in beliefs, which was much lower than the other two conditions. The results were consistent with the two previous studies in the sense that the two theories explain polarization. We now know that both theories explain polarisation, however the results didn’t give evidence for one theory being better than the other, they instead showed that both theories resulted in relatively the same amount of belief change. This was inconsistent with Burnstein and Vinokur (1975) which stated that persuasive arguments was a more sufficient explanation for polarization. A strength of the study was that it was online, meaning participants couldn’t hear what others were saying, which could affect opinions. A weakness was that participants were only exposed to one condition. If participants were exposed to each condition, it would allow us to more accurately determine which theory was the greater cause of belief polarization. Perhaps if participants were exposed to all conditions, then one theory may end up showing greater polarization than the other. The results from the study are relevant as they show how easily opinions polarize. It gives reasoning as to why fake news is such a big issue in today's society. Data showed belief shifts when participants were shown what other random people said about the topic. Fake news polarizes opinions to a greater extent as the news outlets are seen as credible sources. A future research study could repeat this method; however, it could test all three conditions on participants as opposed to one. This would allow researchers to rule out whether one theory is better than the other, or if they are relatively the same. This study shows how easily opinions polarize, and effectively gives evidence for the persuasive arguments explanation, and social comparison theory.

References Baron, R. S., & Roper, G., (1976). Reaffirmation and Social Comparison Views of Choice Shifts: Averaging and Extremity Effects in an Autokinetic Situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology  (33)5, 521-530. Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10/gfkdd9 Shimizu, K. (2020). 2019-nCoV, fake news, and racism. The Lancet, S0140673620303573. https://doi.org/10/ggksxd Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1975). What a person thinks upon learning he has chosen differently from others: Nice evidence for the persuasive-arguments explanation of choice shifts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(5), 412–426. https://doi.org/10/dfxmw3...