Silent minority: argument, information sharing, and polarization of minority opinion through a structuration theory lens

References

• Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70, 1–70. doi: 10.1037/h0093718
   Google Scholar
• Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1973). Testing two classes of theories about group induced shift in individual choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 123–137. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(73)90004-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 412–426. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(75)90045-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lelkes, Y., Sood, G., & Iyengar, S. (2017). The hostile audience: The effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. American Journal of Political Science, 61, 5–20. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewontin, M. (2016, May 11). Is Facebook reinforcing your political bias? Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0511/Is-Facebook-reinforcing-your-political-bias
   Google Scholar
• Lu, L., Yuan, Y., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years of hidden profile studies: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 54–75. doi: 10.1177/1088868311417243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKinnon, M. (2016, November 24). It’s storytelling, stupid: What made Donald Trump smarter than Hillary Clinton. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/24/what-made-donald-trump-smarter-than-hillary-clinton.html
   Google Scholar
• McPhee, R. D., Poole, M. S., & Seibold, D. R. (1981). The valence model unveiled: Critique and alternative formulation. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 259–278). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A. (1989). Testing persuasive argument theory’s predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence. Communication Monographs, 56, 112–132. doi: 10.1080/03637758909390254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A., & Seibold, D. R. (1987a). Interactional and noninteractional perspectives on interpersonal argument: Implications for the study of group decision-making. In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies of argumentation in pragmatic and discourse analysis (pp. 205–214). Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A., & Seibold, D. R. (1987b, May). Persuasive arguments theory assumptions: An empirical test and alternative perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A., & Seibold, D. R. (1990). Perspectives on group argument: A critical review of persuasive arguments theory and an alternative structurational view. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 13 (pp. 268–302). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., Faulmüller, N., Vogelgesang, F., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2014). The consistency principle in interpersonal communication: Consequences of preference confirmation and disconfirmation in collective decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 961–977. doi: 10.1037/a0036338
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moscovici, S., & Lage, E. (1976). Studies in social influence III: Majority versus minority influence in a group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 149–174. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420060202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myer, D. G. (1977). Polarizing effects of social comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 554–563. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(78)90049-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2014, June 12). Political polarization in the American public. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/m
   Google Scholar
• Platt, J. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347–353. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/stable/1714268 doi: 10.1126/science.146.3642.347
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74–102. doi: 10.1080/00335638509383719
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision-making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918–930. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.918
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prahl, A., Dexter, F., Braun, M. T., & Van Swol, L. M. (2013). Review of experimental studies in social psychology of small groups related to operating room and anesthesia department decisions with best answers. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 117, 1221–1229. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182a0eed1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quattrociocchi, W., Scala, A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2016, June 13). Echo chambers on Facebook. SSRN. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2795110
   Google Scholar
• Seibold, D. R., Cantrill, J. G., & Meyers, R. A. (1994). Communication and interpersonal influence. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 542–588). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Seibold, D. R., & Meyers, R. A. (2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38, 312–336. doi: 10.1177/1046496407301966
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 53, 81–93. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.81
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304–313. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2003.9682897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10, 175–195. doi: 10.1111/1467-9760.00148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Cognitive style and political ideology. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 45, 118–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E. (1984). Cognitive style and political belief systems in the British house of commons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 365–375. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.2.365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert political judgment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Swol, L. M. (2007). Perceived importance of information: The effects of mentioning of information, shared information bias, ownership bias, reiteration, and confirmation bias. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 241–258. doi: 10.1177/1368430207074730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Swol, L. M., Prahl, A., Kolb, M., Acosta-Lewis, E. E., & Carlson, C. (2016). The language of extremity: The language of extreme members and how the presence of extremity affects group discussion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35, 603–627. doi:10261927X16629788
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Swol, L. M., Savadori, L., & Sniezek, J. A. (2003). Factors that may affect the difficulty of uncovering hidden profiles. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 285–304. doi: 10.1177/13684302030063005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1974). The effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group induced shifts: A group problem solving approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 305–315. doi: 10.1037/h0036010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinokur, A., Trope, Y., & Burnstein, E. A. (1975). A decision-making analysis of persuasive argumentation and the choice-shift effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 127–148. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(75)80016-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittenbaum, G. M., & Bowman, J. M. (2004). A social validation explanation for mutual enhancement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 169–184. doi:0.1016/S0022-1031(03)00091-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittenbaum, G. M., Hubbell, A. P., & Zuckerman, C. (1999). Mutual enhancement: Towards and understanding of the collective preference for shared information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 967–978. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar