Majority/minority size and the evaluations of persuasive arguments

The present study examines the influence of relative minority size on perceptions of argument quality and attitude change. Strong and weak arguments for both cautious and risky positions were presented in conjunction with information describing the size of minority factions as either small or large. Results demonstrated that cautious argument quality influenced perceptions of argument quality only when the majority advocated a cautious position or when the minority faction was large. Results are discussed in light of their implications for normative and informational influences in group polarization.     

Social comparison and persuasive arguments as determinants of group polarization

In a study of group polarization, Boster and Mayer (1984) found that social comparison information influenced perception of persuasive argument information. In their investigation, however, position of majority was confounded with other of presentation. The present study attempted to replicate Boster and Mayer while varying order of presentation. Results of the present investigation, first, support the persuasive arguments explanation of group polarization. Second, results are inconsistent with an order effect. Finally, results indicate a parallel between the group polarization literature and the cognitive response literature in persuasion.     

Single,double, and triple minorities and the evaluations of persuasive arguments

The study examines the relationship between positional minorities, social minorities (i.e., African‐Americans and women) and the evaluations of persuasive arguments within the context of hypothetical small groups. Specifically, the study predicted that positional majority arguments would be evaluated most positively when identified with social minorities and that positional minority arguments would be evaluated least positively when identified with social minorities. Results demonstrated that when majority arguments were attributed to an African‐American spokesperson, they were evaluated more favorably than when the spokesperson was European‐American. However, spokesperson race did not influence evaluations of minority arguments. Spokesperson gender also did not influence argument evaluations for either position.     

The nature of markets: on the affinity between masculinity and (neo)liberalism

ABSTRACT

The relationship between masculinity, neoliberalism, and capitalist economy is difficult to analyse. This is apparent when we consider recent studies of neoliberal capitalism, which are almost entirely books about men, and yet this feature consistently escapes critical attention. In contrast, this article brings this relation into focus, and suggests that the critique of hegemonic masculinities is an important feature of the critique of neoliberalism. The article first reviews existing literature on the intersection of masculinity and capitalism, which is increasingly being drawn towards the analysis of neoliberalism. It then briefly takes up Michel Foucault’s study of neoliberalism, especially his contention that classical liberalism’s concern with the nature of markets maintains an ambiguous persistence within the neoliberal project, in order to consider what it may have to offer to an analysis of masculinity and neoliberalism. Finally, I turn to one of the key thinkers in the intellectual development of neoliberalism – Ludwig von Mises – and provide a critical rereading of his 1944 book Bureaucracy. I argue that, beneath its veneer of economic rationality, the text mobilizes masculinity as a technology that is crucial to managing both the affective and economic insecurities generated by neoliberal conceptions of freedom in market-based societies.     

Pigeon and human performance in a multi-armed bandit task in response to changes in variable interval schedules

The tension between exploitation of the best options and exploration of alternatives is a ubiquitous problem that all organisms face. To examine this trade-off across species, pigeons and people were trained on an eight-armed bandit task in which the options were rewarded on a variable interval (VI) schedule. At regular intervals, each option’s VI changed, thus encouraging dynamic increases in exploration in response to these anticipated changes. Both species showed sensitivity to the payoffs that was often well modeled by Luce’s (1963) decision rule. For pigeons, exploration of alternative options was driven by experienced changes in the payoff schedules, not the beginning of a new session, even though each session signaled a new schedule. In contrast, people quickly learned to explore in response to signaled changes in the payoffs.