A recent study by Ohio State University reveals how individuals who self-silence their minority opinions in conversations may act against their beliefs. Learn how this behavior impacts public perception and why open discourse matters.
People who hold minority opinions on contentious issues often refrain from voicing their thoughts, leading them to act contrary to their beliefs, according to a new study by researchers from The Ohio State University. This phenomenon, known as “self-silencing,” can have significant implications on personal behavior and public perception.
The study, recently published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, examined the behavior of 248 undergraduate students who discussed their views on increasing plant-based food options at Ohio State’s dining facilities.
Amid a strong campus culture supporting sustainability and plant-based diets, participants were paired with confederates posing as fellow students who either supported or opposed the proposal.
The researchers found that students with minority viewpoints were reluctant to elaborate on their position during these discussions and exhibited behaviors inconsistent with their true beliefs afterward.
“We found that those with the minority belief didn’t just refrain from speaking up – they conformed their behavior to the majority, which is very consequential,” co-author Nicole Sintov, an associate professor of behavior, decision making and sustainability at Ohio State, said in a news release.
Participants in the study were first asked to rate their support for expanding plant-based food options on a scale from 1 (very opposed) to 7 (very supportive). They were then informed they would discuss this topic with another student, unaware that their conversation partners were part of the research team and instructed to present standardized arguments either for or against the proposal.
Interestingly, students with minority views expressed fewer unique arguments and employed avoidance tactics, such as feigning uncertainty or changing the subject.
“If you don’t speak up with your true opinion, then you’re not processing the conversation as deeply,” Sintov added. “You’re not analyzing and thinking and reflecting on the information in the conversation in the same way that you might if you did speak up.”
After the discussion, participants engaged in a task to support their stated position by clicking a mouse to raise funds for the plant-based food initiative. Surprisingly, those who opposed the initiative clicked as many times as those who supported it, indicating a conformity of behavior contrary to their stated beliefs.
The study underscores the broader consequences of self-silencing.
“It leads to a public perception that the minority viewpoint doesn’t exist – it is less important,” Sintov added. “It becomes this vicious cycle where people’s true thoughts aren’t expressed and the public belief is the majority opinion is overwhelming and can’t be changed.”
The study was led by Kristin Hurst, a former Ohio State postdoctoral researcher who’s now a faculty member at Southern Illinois University. Other co-authors included Grant Donnelly, an assistant professor of marketing at Ohio State, and Logan Hobbs, an Ohio State graduate currently at Michigan State University.
The findings suggest that fostering open discourse and encouraging minority viewpoints is essential. Those holding minority opinions should be more willing to share their beliefs, and those in the majority need to be open to hearing differing perspectives.
“We need to be open to civil discourse in our society. It has to be a two-way street,” added Sintov.
As the study reveals, understanding and addressing self-silencing is crucial in creating inclusive environments where all voices are heard and valued.
Source: The Ohio State University