Disagreeing on whether agreement is persuasive: perceptions of expert group decisions
While expert groups often make recommendations on a range of non-controversial as well as controversial issues, little is known about how the level of expert consensus-the level of expert agreement-influences perceptions of the recommendations. This research illustrates that for non-controversial is...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2015-03, Vol.10 (3), p.e0121426-e0121426 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0121426 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | e0121426 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 10 |
creator | Votruba, Ashley M Kwan, Virginia S Y |
description | While expert groups often make recommendations on a range of non-controversial as well as controversial issues, little is known about how the level of expert consensus-the level of expert agreement-influences perceptions of the recommendations. This research illustrates that for non-controversial issues expert groups that exhibit high levels of agreement are more persuasive than expert groups that exhibit low levels of agreement. This effect is mediated by the perceived entitativity-the perceived cohesiveness or unification of the group-of the expert group. But for controversial issues, this effect is moderated by the perceivers' implicit assumptions about the group composition. When perceivers are provided no information about a group supporting the Affordable Care Act-a highly controversial piece of U.S. legislation that is divided by political party throughout the country-higher levels of agreement are less persuasive than lower levels of agreement because participants assume there were more democrats and fewer republicans in the group. But when explicitly told that the group was half republicans and half democrats, higher levels of agreement are more persuasive. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0121426 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1667002199</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A421818015</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_532627cb64cc4dd98280ef92e33ef634</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A421818015</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5a793c07d3cadcea789e83f9c5d35e3966921030592ecab6c5a5a368182912af3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl2L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgujFjPlo08QLYVm_BhYW1PU2ZNLTNkOnqUm6H__edKa7TGUvJBcJJ895z8nJmyQvMVpiWuAPGzu4TrXL3nawRJjgjLBHyTEWlCwYQfTxwfkoeeb9BqGccsaeJkck5xhTnh0nl5-NV7UDMF2d2i69biA04NJdbAtdSI1Pe3B-UN5cwcfxrKEPxnY-tVUKNzEQ0trZoU9L0MaPN8-TJ5VqPbyY9pPk8uuXX2ffF-cX31Znp-cLzQQJi1wVgmpUlFSrUoMquABOK6HzkuZABYsURhTlgoBWa6ZzlSvKOOZEYKIqepK83uv2rfVymoiXmLECIYKFiMRqT5RWbWTvzFa5W2mVkbuAdbVULhjdgswpYaTQa5ZpnZWl4IQjqGJpSqFiNItan6Zqw3oLseEuONXOROc3nWlkba9kRouMcR4F3k0Czv4ZwAe5NV5D26oO7LDvm2YFEziib_5BH37dRNUqPsB0lY119SgqTzOC46AQziO1fICKq4St0dE-lYnxWcL7WUJkAtyEWg3ey9XPH__PXvyes28P2AZUGxpv22HnpjmY7UHtrPcOqvshYyRH999NQ47ul5P7Y9qrww-6T7qzO_0LcSn_DA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1667002199</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Disagreeing on whether agreement is persuasive: perceptions of expert group decisions</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Votruba, Ashley M ; Kwan, Virginia S Y</creator><creatorcontrib>Votruba, Ashley M ; Kwan, Virginia S Y</creatorcontrib><description>While expert groups often make recommendations on a range of non-controversial as well as controversial issues, little is known about how the level of expert consensus-the level of expert agreement-influences perceptions of the recommendations. This research illustrates that for non-controversial issues expert groups that exhibit high levels of agreement are more persuasive than expert groups that exhibit low levels of agreement. This effect is mediated by the perceived entitativity-the perceived cohesiveness or unification of the group-of the expert group. But for controversial issues, this effect is moderated by the perceivers' implicit assumptions about the group composition. When perceivers are provided no information about a group supporting the Affordable Care Act-a highly controversial piece of U.S. legislation that is divided by political party throughout the country-higher levels of agreement are less persuasive than lower levels of agreement because participants assume there were more democrats and fewer republicans in the group. But when explicitly told that the group was half republicans and half democrats, higher levels of agreement are more persuasive.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121426</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25811384</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Congressional committees ; Decision Making ; Dissent and Disputes ; Federal legislation ; Female ; Group composition ; Health care policy ; Humans ; Influence ; Legislation ; Male ; Negotiating ; Obama, Barack ; Perception ; Perceptions ; Personality ; Persuasion ; Persuasive Communication ; Pilot Projects ; Political aspects ; Political parties ; Polls & surveys ; Social psychology ; Studies ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2015-03, Vol.10 (3), p.e0121426-e0121426</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2015 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2015 Votruba, Kwan. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2015 Votruba, Kwan 2015 Votruba, Kwan</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5a793c07d3cadcea789e83f9c5d35e3966921030592ecab6c5a5a368182912af3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4374688/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4374688/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,12824,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25811384$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Votruba, Ashley M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kwan, Virginia S Y</creatorcontrib><title>Disagreeing on whether agreement is persuasive: perceptions of expert group decisions</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>While expert groups often make recommendations on a range of non-controversial as well as controversial issues, little is known about how the level of expert consensus-the level of expert agreement-influences perceptions of the recommendations. This research illustrates that for non-controversial issues expert groups that exhibit high levels of agreement are more persuasive than expert groups that exhibit low levels of agreement. This effect is mediated by the perceived entitativity-the perceived cohesiveness or unification of the group-of the expert group. But for controversial issues, this effect is moderated by the perceivers' implicit assumptions about the group composition. When perceivers are provided no information about a group supporting the Affordable Care Act-a highly controversial piece of U.S. legislation that is divided by political party throughout the country-higher levels of agreement are less persuasive than lower levels of agreement because participants assume there were more democrats and fewer republicans in the group. But when explicitly told that the group was half republicans and half democrats, higher levels of agreement are more persuasive.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Congressional committees</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Dissent and Disputes</subject><subject>Federal legislation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Group composition</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Influence</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Negotiating</subject><subject>Obama, Barack</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Personality</subject><subject>Persuasion</subject><subject>Persuasive Communication</subject><subject>Pilot Projects</subject><subject>Political aspects</subject><subject>Political parties</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Social psychology</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl2L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgujFjPlo08QLYVm_BhYW1PU2ZNLTNkOnqUm6H__edKa7TGUvJBcJJ895z8nJmyQvMVpiWuAPGzu4TrXL3nawRJjgjLBHyTEWlCwYQfTxwfkoeeb9BqGccsaeJkck5xhTnh0nl5-NV7UDMF2d2i69biA04NJdbAtdSI1Pe3B-UN5cwcfxrKEPxnY-tVUKNzEQ0trZoU9L0MaPN8-TJ5VqPbyY9pPk8uuXX2ffF-cX31Znp-cLzQQJi1wVgmpUlFSrUoMquABOK6HzkuZABYsURhTlgoBWa6ZzlSvKOOZEYKIqepK83uv2rfVymoiXmLECIYKFiMRqT5RWbWTvzFa5W2mVkbuAdbVULhjdgswpYaTQa5ZpnZWl4IQjqGJpSqFiNItan6Zqw3oLseEuONXOROc3nWlkba9kRouMcR4F3k0Czv4ZwAe5NV5D26oO7LDvm2YFEziib_5BH37dRNUqPsB0lY119SgqTzOC46AQziO1fICKq4St0dE-lYnxWcL7WUJkAtyEWg3ey9XPH__PXvyes28P2AZUGxpv22HnpjmY7UHtrPcOqvshYyRH999NQ47ul5P7Y9qrww-6T7qzO_0LcSn_DA</recordid><startdate>20150326</startdate><enddate>20150326</enddate><creator>Votruba, Ashley M</creator><creator>Kwan, Virginia S Y</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150326</creationdate><title>Disagreeing on whether agreement is persuasive: perceptions of expert group decisions</title><author>Votruba, Ashley M ; Kwan, Virginia S Y</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-5a793c07d3cadcea789e83f9c5d35e3966921030592ecab6c5a5a368182912af3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Congressional committees</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Dissent and Disputes</topic><topic>Federal legislation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Group composition</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Influence</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Negotiating</topic><topic>Obama, Barack</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Personality</topic><topic>Persuasion</topic><topic>Persuasive Communication</topic><topic>Pilot Projects</topic><topic>Political aspects</topic><topic>Political parties</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Social psychology</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Votruba, Ashley M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kwan, Virginia S Y</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Votruba, Ashley M</au><au>Kwan, Virginia S Y</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Disagreeing on whether agreement is persuasive: perceptions of expert group decisions</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2015-03-26</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>e0121426</spage><epage>e0121426</epage><pages>e0121426-e0121426</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>While expert groups often make recommendations on a range of non-controversial as well as controversial issues, little is known about how the level of expert consensus-the level of expert agreement-influences perceptions of the recommendations. This research illustrates that for non-controversial issues expert groups that exhibit high levels of agreement are more persuasive than expert groups that exhibit low levels of agreement. This effect is mediated by the perceived entitativity-the perceived cohesiveness or unification of the group-of the expert group. But for controversial issues, this effect is moderated by the perceivers' implicit assumptions about the group composition. When perceivers are provided no information about a group supporting the Affordable Care Act-a highly controversial piece of U.S. legislation that is divided by political party throughout the country-higher levels of agreement are less persuasive than lower levels of agreement because participants assume there were more democrats and fewer republicans in the group. But when explicitly told that the group was half republicans and half democrats, higher levels of agreement are more persuasive.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>25811384</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0121426</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2015-03, Vol.10 (3), p.e0121426-e0121426 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1667002199 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
subjects | Agreements Congressional committees Decision Making Dissent and Disputes Federal legislation Female Group composition Health care policy Humans Influence Legislation Male Negotiating Obama, Barack Perception Perceptions Personality Persuasion Persuasive Communication Pilot Projects Political aspects Political parties Polls & surveys Social psychology Studies Young Adult |
title | Disagreeing on whether agreement is persuasive: perceptions of expert group decisions |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T07%3A40%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Disagreeing%20on%20whether%20agreement%20is%20persuasive:%20perceptions%20of%20expert%20group%20decisions&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Votruba,%20Ashley%20M&rft.date=2015-03-26&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=e0121426&rft.epage=e0121426&rft.pages=e0121426-e0121426&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0121426&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA421818015%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1667002199&rft_id=info:pmid/25811384&rft_galeid=A421818015&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_532627cb64cc4dd98280ef92e33ef634&rfr_iscdi=true |