PUBLIC SHAMING AND PUNISHING Forming Your Opinion: Public Shaming and Punishing Ruud Tacken 671855 First year Paper Supervisor: Dr. Tony Evans 08.07.2016 1 PUBLIC SHAMING AND PUNISHING Abstract This study investigates how other people’s opinions influence us, in a social media-like environment, about what we think is wrong and how people should be punished. People often base their opinions on the opinion shared by a large group, which then leads to this group becoming bigger and bigger. Such groups are also referred to as ‘bandwagons’. In this study we take a closer look at such bandwagons, and we disentangle two separate effects: ‘the proportion- and trend-effect’. The proportion-effect refers to the size and structure of the bandwagon (big homogeneous groups should be more persuasive), and the trend-effect refers to the increase, or flow, of the bandwagon (groups becoming gradually more extreme should be more persuasive). In Experiment 1 we manipulate a trend-effect within a heterogeneous group, and in Experiment 2 we manipulate a trend- and proportion-effect in a homogeneous group, in order to make people perceive a behavior more wrongly and give harsher punishments. Results suggest that people judge behavior more wrongly and punish more harshly when such an opinion is reflected by a homogeneous group (proportion-effect), and that people judge behavior more wrongly if a group is becoming gradually more extreme (trend-effect). Results also suggest that the latter effect does not affect punishing and only occurs in homogeneous groups. We discuss these findings, and argue that mainstream opinions should not serve as a basis for judging people’s behaviors. 2 PUBLIC SHAMING AND PUNISHING Forming Your Opinion: Public Shaming and Punishing In voting behavior, voters often have the tendency of rallying on one of the winning parties (Mehrabian, 1998). In medicine, there is often a tendency to accept popular ideas, which are often unproven and not scientifically supported (Rikkers, 2002). Also, in sports, fans often cheer for teams which are most successful (Jacobson, 1979). It seems that people in general, have a tendency to join trends and conform to majorities. The ‘accelerating diffusion through a group or population of a pattern of behavior, in which the probability of any individual adopting it increasing with the proportion who have already done it (Colman, 2015, p. 77)’ is also referred to as the ‘bandwagon effect’. But why is this bandwagon effect so strong? Why do people join these bandwagons? In our research, we suggest these so-called ‘bandwagons’ can be split into having two different effects. By many, bandwagons are often argued as a result of certain proportions (e.g. Mehrabian, 1998; Colman, 2015), meaning that people join a bandwagon because they have a tendency to follow a stabile majority. We will refer to this aspect as the proportion-effect. However, bandwagons also have a more flexible property of moving in a certain direction. They increase in size or become more extreme. People might be joining because they see that more people are starting to join or that the people within the group are becoming more convinced of their arguments. This property of the bandwagon effect will be referred to as the trend-effect. In reality, the trend-effect and proportion-effect go hand in hand and one rarely exists without the other. As a trend becomes stronger, more people join in, and the size of people in the group will increase. Likewise, when a certain behavior is represented by many people, it is likely to be adopted by many more, and the views in such a groups will become stronger (Janis, 1971). In 3 PUBLIC SHAMING AND PUNISHING this study we aim to research the proportion and trend-effect separately and we aim to investigate how they influence people’s opinions. Proportion-effect The proportion effect is the most obvious reason for people to change their views and opinions on certain topics. The proportion-effect refers to the stable character of the bandwagon effect, which are the size of, and the homogeneity within a group. Groups that are bigger in size usually are converged towards more similar opinions (Dalkey, 1969). When groups share more similar opinions, they are more homogeneous. According to Kruglanski, Shah, Pierro, and Mannetti (2002), homogeneous groups can reach quick consensus on attitudes and opinions. Being in such a group should thus have a large effect on how people form their opinion, due to the size and the homogeneity of such a group. We believe the underlying mechanism behind the proportion-effect is conformity. Conformity takes place when individuals decide to match their attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors on the basis of group norms (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Research by Asch (1955) was one of the first to show that people are very likely to conform to a majority in a social context. In his research, participants were asked to match lines in the presence of two confederates who were answering the same question before the participant. Although the task was very easy, almost none of the participants managed to match the right lines when the two confederates gave the same wrong answer. Instead, participants chose to conform to the answers given by the confederates. The reason why this experiment is a good example of the proportion-effect is because the number of confederates stayed the same within all trials and therefore does not give the group the increasing trend-effect. Also Sherif (1936) has shown that people are eager to conform to the dominant opinion of the mainstream group. In his research participants were 4 PUBLIC SHAMING AND PUNISHING asked to estimate how much centimeters a dot moved (the movement was only illusionary due the auto-kinetic effect). From the second to the fourth day, participants simply kept confirming to the estimates given by the people that went before them. Note that in comparison to Ash’s research, the majority group did increase here, making it partly a trend-effect as well. Trend-effect The trend-effect might provide a more subtle reason, as for why people may change their opinions. The trend effect refers to the moving, increasing, character of a bandwagon. Imagine there are currently two equally sized groups of people who adhere a certain opinion, of which one group has been increasing in size in the last two weeks, and the other has been decreasing in size the last two weeks. The trend should make the former group more persuasive. Likewise, one could also compare a group having a gradually more convinced extreme opinion, with a group having a more stable opinion. Again, the trend should make the former group more persuasive. We believe that the underlying mechanism for the trend-effect would be related to two main theories discussed in group polarization. Group polarization refers to the aspect of homogeneous groups becoming more extreme and expressing more extreme opinions in homogeneous groups (Myers, & Lamm, 1976). Group polarization is an effect that is also related to conformity, since one of the assumptions of group polarization is, that it takes place in homogeneous groups (Isenberg, 1986). Two different theories explain the mechanism of group polarization. Persuasive Arguments Theory (PAT) argues that polarization takes place due to the quality/extremity of arguments that are being exchanged in homogeneous groups, which in turn, makes people more convinced of the group’s opinion (Burnstein, & Vinokur, 1977). Social Comparison Theory, on the other hand, argues that people first compare their own values and beliefs with the values and beliefs held by the main group, and in order to gain acceptance by the 5 PUBLIC SHAMING AND PUNISHING group, people adjust their values and/or beliefs to an extreme version of the group opinion (Isenberg, 1986). Of these two theories, SCT is more related to the conformity principle, since it is more related to the composition of the group, whereas the PAT is more related to the content of the arguments. Research suggests that PAT is, by itself, adequate in explaining group polarization (Burnstein & Vinokur, 1977), but often has a complementary role in which persuasive arguments are motivated by social comparison (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). A meta- analysis by Isenberg (1986), which takes into account 21 different studies, also suggests PAT and SCT are likely to complement one another, although PAT tends to have larger effects (Isenberg, 1986). Other possible mechanisms underlying the trend-effect could be related to people’s ability to see and adapt to patterns and trends, and people’s natural disposition to be better at remembering more recent stimuli (Ebbinghaus, 1913). Research points out that, we, people, are very good at recognizing patterns (e.g. Reed, 1972; Eysenck, & Keane, 2000), even to the extent that we see patterns in which there are none (e.g. Hubscher, & Strindberg, 2007). If a group would become increasingly extremely opinionated, people should be able to see such a trend, and in order to conform, they should then adapt to such a trend. Therefore, a person who is confronted by a bandwagon which is becoming more extreme, should conform by becoming even more extreme, making it more likely that that this person will adapt his/her opinion. Research suggests that people tend to be better memorizing things that are presented last, but also, at things remembered at the beginning of an event (Ebbinghaus, 1913). The former phenomenon is also referred to as the ‘recency effect’ and tends to be somewhat stronger than the latter phenomenon, also referred to as the ‘primacy effect’ (Deese & Kaufman, 1957). Since the recency effect tends to be stronger, a group that is becoming increasingly more extreme, 6 PUBLIC SHAMING AND PUNISHING should be remembered more by its more recent extreme content than its previous milder content.