Group consensus in social influence: Type of consensus information as a moderator of majority and minority influence

Three experiments investigated the effect of consensus information on majority and minority influence. Experiment 1 examined the effect of consensus expressed by descriptive adjectives (large vs. small) on social influence. A large source resulted in more influence than a small source, irrespective of source status (majority vs. minority). Experiment 2 showed that large sources affected attitudes heuristically, whereas only a small minority instigated systematic processing of the message. Experiment 3 manipulated the type of consensus information, either in terms of descriptive adjectives (large, small) or percentages (82%, 18%, 52%, 48%). When, consensus was expressed in terms of descriptive adjectives, the findings of Experiments 1 and 2 were replicated (large, sources were more influential than small sources), but when. consensus was expressed, in terms of percentages, the majority was more influential than the minority, irrespective of group consensus.

Establishing a zone where technology innovation is supported

Learning technologies are now a ubiquitous force in the higher education sector however we continue to pursue more inventive ways to use them for teaching and learning. Many teaching academics that seek to be innovative do not have access to a supportive technology innovation zone. The aim of this study was to investigate the articulated staff development needs of academics involved in a faculty based technology innovation project and create the conditions that would cultivate innovation. The study sought to find out how academics perceived they might best be assisted through their technology innovation process so that participants’ needs were incorporated into planning. A questionnaire was used to elicit background information about the academics’ experience, skills and self diagnosed skill deficits in this context. Participants were also requested to provide information about how they thought they would best acquire the skills given their time and other resource constraints. A modified Delphi Technique was utilised to achieve some consensus on what academics required to support technology innovation. Complemented by an enabling and empowering team based approach, the academics were provided with an innovation zone to achieve significant goals for the project.

Comparison of ASAS improvement criteria for ankylosing spondylitis with clinically relevant improvement according to an expert panel

Objective: To investigate whether the recently developed (statistically derived) "ASsessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group" improvement criteria (ASAS-IC) for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) reflect clinically relevant improvement according to the opinion of an expert panel. Methods: The ASAS-IC consist of four domains: physical function, spinal pain, patient global assessment, and inflammation. Scores on these four domains of 55 patients with AS, who had participated in a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug efficacy trial, were presented to an international expert panel (consisting of patients with AS and members of the ASAS Working Group) in a three round Delphi exercise. The number of (non-) responders according to the ASAS-IC was compared with the final-consensus of the experts. The most important domains in the opinion of the experts were identified, and also selected with discriminant analysis. A number of provisional criteria sets that best represented the consensus of the experts were defined. Using other datasets, these clinically derived criteria sets as well as the statistically derived ASAS-IC were then tested for discriminative properties and for agreement with the end of trial efficacy by patient and doctor. Results: Forty experts completed the three Delphi rounds. The experts considered twice as many patients to be responders than the ASAS-IC (42 v 21). Overall agreement between experts and ASAS-IC was 62%. Spinal pain was considered the most important domain by most experts and was also selected as such by discriminant analysis. Provisional criteria sets with an agreement of greater than or equal to 80% compared with the consensus of the experts showed high placebo response rates (27-42%), in contrast with the ASAS-IC with a predefined placebo response rate of 25%. All criteria sets and the ASAS-IC discriminated well between active and placebo treatment (chi(2) = 36-45; p < 0.001). Compared with the end of trial efficacy assessment, the provisional criteria sets showed an agreement of 71-82%, sensitivity of 67-83%, and specificity of 81-88%. The ASAS-IC showed an agreement of 70%, sensitivity of 62%, and specificity of 89%. Conclusion: The ASAS-IC are strict in defining response, are highly specific, and consequently show lower sensitivity than the clinically derived criteria sets. However, those patients who are considered as responders by applying the ASAS-IC are acknowledged as such by the expert panel as well as by. patients' and doctors' judgments, and are therefore likely to be true responders.

Levels of consensus and majority and minority influence

Three experiments are reported which examine the effects of consensus information on majority and minority influence. In all experiments two levels of consensus difference were examined; large (82% versus 18%) and small (52% versus 48%). Experiment 1 showed that a majority source had more influence than a minority source, irrespective of consensus level. Experiment 2 examined the cause of this effect by presenting only the source label (‘majority’ versus ‘minority’), only the consensus information (percentages) or both. The superior influence of the majority was again found when either (a) both source label and consensus information were given (replicating Experiment 1) and (b) only consensus information was given, but not when (c) only the source label was given. The results showed majority influence was due to the consensus information indicating more than 50% of the population supported that position. Experiment 3 also manipulated message quality (strong versus weak arguments) to identify whether systematic processing had occurred. Message quality only had an impact with the minority of 18%. These studies show that consensus information has different effects for majority and minority influence. For majority influence, having over 50% support is sufficient to cause compliance while for a minority there are advantages to being numerically small, in terms of leading to detailed processing of its message.

Group consensus in social influence:type of consensus information as a moderator of majority and minority influence

Three experiments investigated the effect of consensus information on majority and minority influence. Experiment 1 examined the effect of consensus expressed by descriptive adjectives (large vs. small) on social influence. A large source resulted in more influence than a small source, irrespective of source status (majority vs. minority). Experiment 2 showed that large sources affected attitudes heuristically, whereas only a small minority instigated systematic processing of the message. Experiment 3 manipulated the type of consensus information, either in terms of descriptive adjectives (large, small) or percentages (82%, 18%, 52%, 48%). When consensus was expressed in terms of descriptive adjectives, the findings of Experiments 1 and 2 were replicated (large sources were more influential than small sources), but when consensus was expressed in terms of percentages, the majority was more influential than the minority, irrespective of group consensus.

Ozone and climate:scientific consensus and leadership

This article compares the cases of ozone layer protection and climate change. In both cases, scientific expertise has played a comparatively important role in the policy process. The author argues that against conventional assumptions, scientific consensus is not necessary to achieve ambitious political goals. However, the architects of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change operated under such assumptions. The author argues that this is problematic both from a theoretical viewpoint and from empirical evidence. Contrary to conventional assumptions, ambitious political regulations in the ozone case were agreed under scientific uncertainty, whereas the negotiations on climate change were much more modest albeit based on a large scientific consensus. On the basis of a media analysis, the author shows that the creation of a climate of expectation plus pressure from leader countries is crucial for success. © 2006 Sage Publication.

Identifying criteria for the assessment of pharmacy students' communication skills with patients

Objectives To identify criteria by which patients can assess the communication skills of pharmacy students. Method Potential assessment criteria were generated from 2 main sources: a literature review and a focus group discussion. A modified two-round Delphi survey was subsequently conducted with 35 professionals who were actively involved in teaching and assessing communication skills of pharmacy students to determine the importance and reliability of each criterion. Results Consensus ratings identified 7 criteria that were important measures of pharmacy students' communication skills and could be reliably assessed by patients. Conclusions A modified two-round Delphi consultation survey successfully identified criteria that can be used by patients to assess the communication skills of pharmacy undergraduates. Future work will examine the feasibility of using patients as assessors of communication skills of pharmacy students, preregistration pharmacists, and qualified pharmacists.

How does globalisation interact with higher education? The continuing lack of consensus:The continuing lack of consensus

This essay attempts to ascertain whether a particular meaning of globalisation, and view on its effects and the appropriate response to it, are becoming standardised across academia. To do so, it content-analyses a representative sample of new scholarship, mapping the various approaches of current researchers towards globalisation. The essay shows how globalisation remains a contested concept within studies of higher education, as in many other fields. Rather than globalisation being taken to refer unambiguously to global flows, pressures or trends, its meaning continues to depend on the particular perspective adopted by contemporary researchers. The same conflict is apparent concerning the impacts which are reputed to globalisation and with regard to the appropriate response to globalisation amongst academics and higher education institutions (HEIs) more generally. Perhaps the only apparent point of consensus amongst contemporary researchers is the claim that globalisation affects HEIs, rather than HEIs themselves being implicated in the promotion of globalisation. This position underplays the often important role of HEIs in encouraging cross-border flows and pressures, and global trends such as marketisation.