Journal of Applied Communication Research

Vol. 34, No. 2, May 2006, pp. 115
/140

Focus Groups as Sites of Influential

Interaction: Building Communicative
Self-Efficacy and Effecting Attitudinal
Change in Discussing Controversial
Topics
Theodore E. Zorn, Juliet Roper, Kirsten Broadfoot &
C. Kay Weaver

Although most focus group theorists consider interaction to be a defining feature of focus
groups, the influence that occurs through this interaction has been under-theorized. We
argue that two important forms of influence may occur: influence on people’s beliefs
about the substantive issues under discussion and influence on self-efficacy beliefs. As a
result of such influence, focus groups provide a learning context that may facilitate
empowerment of participants through the development of communicative self-efficacy as
they struggle over constructing and sharing understandings of controversial issues. As
part of a larger research project on dialogues about science, we present a case study that
puts qualitatively analyzed transcripts of interaction and quantitative self-report
measures into empirical conversation. The case study demonstrated that focus group
participants were influenced in two important ways: participation and interaction led to
increased participant confidence and motivation towards participating in public
dialogues and to the construction, modification, and contestation of attitudes toward
science, scientists, and biotechnology. Findings suggest that scholars should rethink their

Ted Zorn and Juliet Roper are Professors and C. Kay Weaver is Associate Professor in the Department of
Management Communication at the University of Waikato. Kirsten Broadfoot is Assistant Professor at Colorado
State University. Correspondence to: Theodore E. Zorn, Department of Management Communication,
University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand. E-mails: tzorn@mngt.waikato.ac.nz,
ckweaver@mngt.waikato.ac.nz, jroper@mngt.waikato.ac.nz. Kirsten Broadfoot, Department of Speech
Communication, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1783, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1783, USA. E-
mail: kirsten.broadfoot@colostate.edu. This research was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Ministry
for Science and Technology. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the International Communication
Association conference in New York, May 2005. We would like to thank Aarti Sharma for her help in the early
stages of this research, and Tim Sellnow and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback in preparing
this manuscript.

ISSN 0090-9882 (print)/ISSN 1479-5752 (online) # 2006 National Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/00909880600573965
116 T. E. Zorn et al.

rationales for and use of the focus group as just a method of data collection and
reconsider and explore alternative ways of presenting focus group results.

Keywords: Focus Groups; Self-Efficacy; Group Process; Influence; Science Communication

After a lengthy period of being negatively associated with the positivist imperatives of
market and public opinion research (Merton, Fiske, & Kendall, 1956; Morgan &
Spanish, 1984), focus groups have come to be regarded as a legitimate scholarly
research method. As a result, a number of communication researchers recently have
reflected on the focus group as a method of data collection (e.g., Barbour & Kitzinger,
1999; Lunt & Livingstone, 1996; D. E. Morrison, 1998). Whereas previous writing on
focus groups primarily focused on technique, the recent literature gives more
attention to theorizing focus groups. A prominent theme in such writing is the need
to pay more attention to the social dynamics of focus groups and the implications of
these dynamics for using focus groups.
Focus groups are small groups of people (usually 6
12 participants) who are
/

similar on some demographic dimension (e.g., age or social role) and who are
brought together by researchers for the purpose of investigating participants’ views
on a particular issue. Typically, a moderator guides the discussion by focusing
participants’ attention on various issues related to a topic. Participants respond to
both the moderator’s questions and other participants’ responses.
A common communicative process within all groups, including focus groups, is
the exertion of influence. Ever since focus groups emerged as a data collection
method, applied communication scholars and other researchers have faced the
problems of (a) whether to acknowledge the existence of influence within the focus
group and (b) how to conceptualize the role of group influence in the research
process. Influence processes appear in focus group discussion as participants
articulate their opinions and arguments, hear others do the same, and experience
both cognitive and affective consequences that result. However, although a number of
authors writing about focus groups have noted the occurrence of influence (Krueger,
1994; Lunt & Livingstone, 1996), there has been little systematic investigation of the
issue (Wilkinson, 1999). This essay addresses such shortcomings by examining
processes of influence that emerge in and through focus group participation, their
effects, and the implications of those processes and effects for focus group theory and
practice. As part of a larger study on the potential for dialogue (Anderson, Cissna, &
Arnett, 1994; Isaacs, 1999) between scientists and non-scientists on controversial
areas of science, the present study found that the influence processes within focus
groups can provide important learning and motivation necessary to engage in
dialogue. As a result, we argue that traditional, positivist conceptions of focus groups
as a means of gathering ‘‘uncontaminated,’’ aggregated individual opinions are
misguided because of the influence that occurs through interaction. However, as a
result of the influence, focus groups may provide communicative spaces for the
empowerment of dialogue participants. This empowerment results from participants’
 Focus Groups and Influence 117

perceptions of increased communicative self-efficacy as they struggle over construct-

ing and sharing understandings of controversial topics.
In what follows, we briefly review literature on influence in group discussion, as
well as traditional and contemporary views on the nature of influence in focus
groups. We then report a case study in which we investigated influence processes
within focus groups that discussed human biotechnology (HBT) and we outline how
different methods of data gathering and analysis provide a complex picture of how
attitudes change and communication self-efficacy potentially increases in and
through focus group participation. Finally, we discuss conclusions and implications
for focus group research and practice.

Influence Processes in Group Discussion

Although focus group scholars have directed little empirical research toward
examining influence processes, persuasion and attitude change researchers have
long been interested in group influence. As Boster and Cruz (2002) claimed, ‘‘The
ways in which group members influence one another has occupied the attention of
investigators from many and diverse disciplines’’ (p. 477). Such research* especially
/

that on group conformity and decision making* has important implications for
/

studying influence in focus groups.

Conformity is defined as ‘‘a change in attitude, belief, or behavior as a function of
real or perceived group pressure’’ (Aronson, 1999, p. 17). Importantly for our
purposes, the pressure exerted only need be perceived to be influential, since most
trained focus group facilitators would attempt to avoid pressuring participants to
converge in their expressed opinions. Early experiments by Sherif (1936) and Asch
(1966) demonstrated the power of groups to effect conformity simply by members
expressing statements that reflect a similar position. However, conformity also can
occur through groups exerting both informational and/or normative influence
(Campbell & Fairey, 1989). Informational influence is exerted when an individual
desires to be ‘‘correct’’ and conforms because he or she believes the group has good
information; normative influence is exerted when an individual conforms to gain the
rewards of agreement and avoid the punishments of disagreement.
Although conformity can be a consequence of different forms of influence being
exerted, research on decision-making groups has shown that members’ attitudes tend
to converge and sometimes polarize as a result of group discussion (Boster & Cruz,
2002). The well-known ‘‘risky shift’’ phenomenon occurs when participants as a
group make a riskier decision after discussion than would be expected from
examining the mean of participants’ pre-discussion attitudes (Kogan & Wallach,
1967). Although the risky shift has been shown to occur frequently, research has also
shown that the reverse* a ‘‘cautious shift’’* can occur (Isenberg, 1986), leading
/ /

researchers to consider the general process to be one of choice shift or group

polarization (Stiff & Mongeau, 2003).
Numerous theories have been offered to explain the influence processes that
produce these choice shifts (Boster & Cruz, 2002). Meyers and Brashers (1999) and
118 T. E. Zorn et al.

Boster and Cruz (2002) summarized this work, suggesting that research shows
influence occurring within groups when numerous, novel, strong, and consistent
arguments are forwarded to support a particular position, and when such arguments
receive favorable responses from other group members. However, from a view of
communication as the production and exchange of meanings* as opposed to a view
/

of communication as the transmission of messages (Fiske, 1990)* it is not the /

messages or arguments per se that influence people but rather people’s interpretations
of them. Hence, the number, novelty, consistency of, and support for arguments may
serve as heuristics that lead participants to interpret them as constituting strong
evidence for the validity of a position (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The findings related
to number and consistency of, and support for, arguments suggest that a majority of
participants supporting a position often will persuade the minority to modify its
views. However, a vocal or particularly articulate minority within a group also can, in
certain circumstances, influence the majority. For example, Wood, Lundgren,
Ouellette, Busceme, and Blackstone (1994) demonstrated that if the minority group
is consistent in articulating its view and if the discussion task has demonstrably
correct solutions, the minority is more likely to persuade the majority.
In sum, groups exert normative and informational influence that encourage
members’ conformity with expressed views, and a preponderance of strong,
consistent, novel, and/or favorably supported arguments favoring one position
over another can result in group polarization. Although most of the research on
influence in groups has been focused on decision-making and problem-solving
groups (Meyers & Brashers, 1999), there is reason to believe that similar influence
processes also occur in focus groups. Very little research has been conducted on the
occurrence of such processes in focus groups, yet Carey (1994) argued that
conformity and ‘‘bandwagon’’ effects are frequent among focus group participants.
Thus, both information and normative influence are likely to be present in focus
groups and a preponderance of favorably supported arguments for a particular
position could influence focus group members’ attitudes to shift toward that
position. With these possibilities for influence identified in focus groups, the next
section addresses the diverse ways in which scholars have engaged focus groups and
how their choices can affect research results and reporting.

Conceptualizing Influence in Focus Groups

As Kitzinger and Barbour (1999) explain:
Focus groups are distinguished from the broader category of group interviews by
the explicit use of group interaction to generate data. Instead of asking questions of
each person in turn, focus group researchers encourage participants to talk to one
another. (p. 4)
It is the interaction among participants that is particularly important in considering
influence processes within focus groups. That is, participants do not simply report
previously formulated opinions but challenge, question, and persuade other
 Focus Groups and Influence 119

participants, and modify or strengthen their own and others’ opinions. However,
interaction and influence may be viewed quite differently depending on one’s
theoretical and philosophical assumptions about focus groups. Although any
bifurcation oversimplifies distinctions, the traditional/positivist versus critical/
interpretive distinction is a useful starting point for considering some of the different
approaches (including varying uses and assumptions) that researchers have taken
toward focus groups.1
In tracing the history of focus group research, Lunt and Livingstone (1996) noted
that in its early use, ‘‘the design and interpretation of focus groups have been defined
by criteria relevant to the quantitative aspects of . . . study’’ (p. 81). Similarly,
Cunningham-Burley, Kerr, and Pavis (1999) argued that:
Traditionally, focus groups used by market researchers operate within a clear
positivist paradigm. Participants . . . are constructed as passive subjects, who hold
opinions . . . [that] are considered to be objective facts. The resultant knowledge is
disembedded from the context within which it was generated. Partici-
pants . . . remain ‘‘untouched’’ by participation. (p. 188)
Such claims about participants, descriptions of opinions as facts, and the desire for
disembedded knowledge are not solely reserved for focus groups conducted by
market researchers. Although differing in important ways depending on the topics
under study, from the use of television and other media in the home to work
family /

policies in organizations and dialectics of control, communication studies based on a

positivist approach to the use of focus groups as a means of data collection and focus
group data as representative of group positions and opinion can also be found (see,
e.g., Bernhardt, Lariscy, Parrott, Silk, & Felter, 2002; M. Morrison & Krugman, 2001;
Riedlinger, Gallois, McKay, & Pittam, 2004). Typically, communication studies using
focus groups in this way can be identified through the following four characteristics:
(a) populations under study are divided into homogenous and separate groups along
a variety of dimensions, such as gender, age, and position; (b) single quotes emerging
from focus groups are used as data exemplars and described as evidence for the
‘‘opinions’’ or ‘‘explanations’’ of particular populations; (c) focus groups often are
used in combination with other methods of data collection, to confirm the results
gained through quantitative studies or to prepare surveys; and (d) there is very little
discussion of the communicative processes occurring in the focus groups or the
consequences of focus group participation.
The lack of discussion of the communicative processes and effects of focus groups
on participants suggests a denial by traditional/positivist scholars that influence
occurs. Indeed, the way in which focus group research findings are commonly
reported neglects to reflect on or consider the interactive context of the focus group.
Kitzinger’s (1994) review of more than 40 published focus group studies ‘‘could not
find a single one concentrating on the conversation between participants and very few
that even included any quotations from more than one participant at a time’’
(p. 104). More recently, Wilkinson (1999) reviewed nearly 200 focus group studies
and reached the same conclusions. Thus, in the traditional/positivist view of focus
120 T. E. Zorn et al.

groups, interpersonal influence, when considered at all, often is seen as a problem.

Thus Robert Merton (1987), the person credited with originating focus groups,
explained that, ‘‘Interaction among the members of such . . . groups evidently served
to elicit the elaboration of responses just as it may have contaminated individual
responses by making for observable convergence of them’’ (p. 555, italics added).
Similarly, Stewart and Shamdasani (1990) cited members’ interaction as a limitation
of focus groups since it means that participants’ responses are not independent of
each other, thus restricting the generalizability of focus group findings. Krueger
(1994) also claimed that interaction is a limitation since participants influencing each
other reduces researcher control and can lead to the modification of participants’
positions, complicating data analysis. Essentially, the traditional/positivist argument
is that conformity pressures and/or persuasive messages may bias individuals’
responses such that researchers get an ‘‘inaccurate’’ report of participants’ views
(Hoijer, 1990). However, as stated earlier, such a view only makes sense when focus
groups are seen as a conduit through which an aggregate of individuals’ opinions or
attitudes are provided to a researcher, a view that stands in contrast to more critical
or interpretive approaches to focus group use (Lunt & Livingstone, 1996).
Recently, focus groups have been reconsidered by interpretive and critical
researchers as a site of interaction that provides a ‘‘simulation’’ of the negotiation
of meaning that happens in everyday life (Lunt & Livingstone, 1996). As a result,
there have been some shifts in the ways in which communication researchers have
begun to use focus groups, with researchers straddling positivist and interpretive
approaches to focus groups as a method of data collection. Lederman, Stewart,
Goodhart, and Laitman (2003), for example, explored the issue of dangerous
drinking with focus groups of college students combining both qualitative and
quantitative data in their longitudinal study although they still used single quotes
from the focus groups as data; Booth-Butterfield, Anderson, and Williams (2000)
conducted focus groups with adolescent tobacco users to facilitate peer interaction,
but still relied on individual quotes; Hacker, Goss, Townley, and Horton (1998)
explored employee attitudes towards e-mail and e-mail policies using focus groups in
triangulation with interviews and questionnaires to provide both quantitative and
qualitative data organized according to data type but these data were never put in
conversation with each other; and, finally, Gibson and Schullery (2000) examined
blue-collar worker philanthropy and the tensions between traditional and feminist
organizing with diverse focus group membership (in combination with individual
interviews and document collection), highlighting processes of interaction and
cooperation but still lumping all forms of data together.
Although such ‘‘hybrid’’ studies are common in terms of their positivist-
interpretive assumptions, communication scholars working from within a predomi-
nantly interpretive frame (a) lean towards using focus groups with heterogenous/
diverse populations; (b) use focus groups to provide spaces for peer interaction and
the expansion of individual points of view based in experience; (c) take into
consideration the importance of contexts and how they play into focus group
interaction; (d) monitor the emergence and sustenance of communicative processes
 Focus Groups and Influence 121

revolving around interaction, cooperation, support, and confirmation; (e) focus on

the self-reflective work and interrogation of the self that emerges as an outcome of
participation in focus groups; and (f) provide extended sets of utterances or group
interactions, usually incorporating multiple and diverse voices, when writing up
results. Examples of communication studies from a predominantly interpretive
approach include Jones and Bodtker’s (1998) work on social justice and international
collaboration in South Africa, Jackson and Heckman’s (2002) study of racial identity
and hate mail on campus, Orbe and Warren’s (2000) exploration of standpoint
theory and intercultural conflict, and Bauer and Orbe’s (2001) phenomenological
examination of organ transplant recipient communication.
In this interpretive approach to focus groups, interaction and influence among
participants is openly acknowledged. As Cunningham-Burley et al. (1999) argue,
‘‘Participants need to be considered as active subjects, who are involved in
constructing social reality through interaction, both in their daily lives and in the
focus group’’ (p. 191). Influence is not considered a problem, but something valued,
in that researchers have the opportunity to observe and record meaning-making in
negotiation (Lunt & Livingstone, 1996). Burgess, Harrison, and Maiteny (1991)
described this aspect of focus groups as a vehicle to ‘‘provide a means of
replicating . . . everyday social interactions’’ (p. 502).
Beyond the view of influence within focus groups as simulating naturalistic
meaning construction processes, some critically oriented researchers have suggested
that focus groups have the potential to facilitate empowerment of participants
through group members’ mutual influence. The argument here is that, since focus
groups typically involve people who are similar on some important dimension,
having the opportunity to articulate one’s views and hear the views of similar others
may lead participants to new understandings of the issues being discussed and new
awareness of possibilities for action. This can be especially empowering when focus
group participants include those who are socially marginalized (Cunningham-Burley
et al., 1999), since such individuals often feel isolated and powerless.
Within communication research, scholars taking a critical approach to focus
groups also tend to explore diverse ways of conducting and facilitating focus group
processes and outcomes as well as diverse ways of writing up the research. Studies
illustrating this approach include Cooks and Hale’s (1992) exploration of the
empowerment of mediators from a feminist perspective which had participants
actively discuss with each other and the researchers various dilemmas and dialectic
tensions they experienced during the focus group period to guide and inform data
analysis and recommendations for communication praxis emerging from the study.
In order to capture such shared learning and the contributions of the participants to
the study the authors provided extended focus group interaction alongside individual
interview data to show how participants drew from and expanded on others’
experiences. In a similar vein, Aakhus’s (2001) study of how Group Decision Support
System facilitators understand their work focused on the ways participants provided
accounts of principles and practices guiding their work to each other, using extended
narratives and sections of accounts to focus on the communicative actions taken by
122 T. E. Zorn et al.

participants at each turn of talk to demonstrate meaning negotiation and contest

taking place during the focus group interaction. Finally, O’Hara and Meyer’s (2003)
exemplary study of university students, prejudice, and lesbian women attending a
campus music festival refused researcher and facilitator control of the focus groups
entirely, using self-directed focus groups instead to engage this controversial topic,
with the authors providing extended and multiple sections of data for each analytic
theme in order to capture the complexity of both the participant interaction and how
participants made sense of the topic under study.
Wilkinson (1999), particularly, has argued that these characteristics of focus group
interaction are important for feminist researchers who aim to facilitate participant
empowerment by increasing participants’ understanding of their situations and
engage in collective consciousness-raising. The power of focus groups to facilitate the
empowerment of the marginalized is illustrated in Farquhar and Das’s (1999)
research on lesbian participants discussing sensitive issues; these researchers noted
that the focus groups ‘‘did not merely reproduce, but also actively produced and
changed, relationships between group members’’ (p. 59). Baker and Hinton (1999)
also provided examples of focus groups serving as a catalyst to prompt group action,
as a result of the evolution of group consciousness and members’ raised awareness of
possibilities. These effects of focus group interaction were explained by Kitzinger and
Barbour (1999) as follows:
Focus group participants have the opportunity to piece together the fragmented
experiences of group members and may come to view events in their own lives in a
new light in the course of such discussions. . . . The group process can also foster
collective identity and provide a point of contact to initiate grassroots change.
(p. 19)2
One way of understanding these changes or evolutions in focus group members’
individual and collective consciousness may be through the development of
communicative self-efficacy.

Communicative Self-Efficacy and Influence Processes in Focus Group Discussion

Inspired by Bandura (1997), Koesten, Miller, and Hummert (2002) define self-efficacy
as ‘‘the belief that one has the capability to mobilize the motivation, cognitive
resources, and courses of action necessary to exercise control over one’s environment’’
(p. 10). Koesten et al. further defined communicative self-efficacy as a belief in one’s
communicative competence. However, it is important to recognize that Bandura
(1997) conceptualized self-efficacy beliefs as situation- and task-specific. Thus, one
may have high self-efficacy for solving math problems, for instance, but not for oral
discussion. More specific to our purposes, one may have high self-efficacy for
discussing sports in a conversation among friends, but low self-efficacy for discussing
controversial science issues with a group of strangers. However, high levels of self-
efficacy for one type of situation or task may increase motivation to communicate in
similar situations or with respect to similar tasks (Zorn, 1993).
 Focus Groups and Influence 123

In terms of developing communicative self-efficacy, Bandura (1986) suggested

that (a) successful performance of a task; (b) observing others perform successfully;
(c) verbal persuasion, such as encouragement; and (d) emotional arousal, such as
enthusiasm, plus an absence of anxiety, all resulted in group members having a
greater belief in their ability. Of these four factors, a successful performance is
deemed to be the most influential in developing self-efficacy. Thus, in a focus group
discussion, because facilitators typically strive to ensure that each individual is
encouraged to speak and is treated respectfully, it seems likely
that most participants will be presented with communicative behaviors to be
modeled and encouraged, resulting in a positive feeling about ‘‘performing’’ in the
focus group discussion, and as Zorn (1993) contended, similar communicative
situations.
In summary, there is reason to believe that participants’ attitudes in focus groups
and their attitudes toward further communicating about the topic of discussion are
likely to change as a result of their participation. First, theory and research on self-
efficacy suggests that successful performance of an action (such as engaging in
discussion on a topic) may enhance one’s self-efficacy in future, similar performances
(Bandura, 1997). Second, a number of recent scholars have noted the empowerment
potential of focus group participation. It may be that, in addition to consciousness-
raising, focus group participation may empower participants by increasing commu-
nicative self-efficacy.
However, although many researchers acknowledge that influence may occur and
contend that there are significant consequences of that influence, there is little
systematic research on actual influence processes in focus groups, although a few
studies have demonstrated that such influence does occur: Waterton and Wynne
(1999) demonstrated in an excerpt from a single focus group that two participants’
expressed positions shifted as the focus group discussion developed; Sussman,
Burton, Dent, Stacy, and Flay (1991) found that high school students became more
convinced of the wisdom of their own individually preferred strategies for getting
tobacco users to join quit-tobacco groups; and Morgan and Spanish (1985)
demonstrated through discussion excerpts that some participants developed more
complex schemas about the focus group topic. Although these studies are suggestive,
none have made influence processes and the communicative dynamics underlying
such processes their primary focus. Given that communication scholars now regularly
use focus groups as a data-gathering method, what happens in these groups should be
of interest, especially as it may affect subsequent opportunities for conversation,
dialogue, or knowledge creating/sharing. Nowhere can this be more consequential
than in promoting dialogue about controversial topics between parties with diverse
understandings of and investments in the topics.

The Case Study

This study was conducted within the context of a larger research project (Roper,
Zorn, & Weaver, 2004) investigating the use of ‘‘dialogue’’ methods (Isaacs, 1999) to
124 T. E. Zorn et al.

promote public discussion of controversial science issues* specifically, human

/

biotechnology (HBT). We drew on a fairly broad definition of HBT in the study,

including genetic research that involves the use, treatment, and/or manipulation of
human genes, including cloning and embryology, and the production of pharma-
ceuticals made from genetically modified organisms for the treatment of human
disease. We also allowed for the possibility that research participants might include
the production of genetically modified food for human consumption within the
bounds of HBT, given claims that such foods can affect people’s well-being* /

variously in positive or negative terms depending on the pro- or anti-genetic

modification perspective that is being advocated.
HBT has become a matter of controversy across the globe, with concerns about the
science being expressed from religious, moral, and ethical perspectives (Fukuyama,
2003). For example, from a Christian point of view, it is sometimes argued that HBT
is wrong because human beings are taking the place of God in creating and destroying
human life (Brown, 2000). From moral and ethical standpoints there are fears that
HBT could be used for the purposes of eugenics, and that in facilitating a greater
range of reproductive choices it encourages the abortion of embryos identified with
any kind of ‘‘genetic defect’’. This raises concerns about who defines what a ‘‘defect’’
is, and on what grounds. The science also raises dilemmas in terms of questions about
who can claim ownership of and the right to use information gained through the
research of human genes and DNA, and who should profit from that research
(Calhoun, 2000; Evans, 2000).
There are also specific concerns about HBT that have been raised in the New
Zealand context. For many Maori, the indigenous ‘‘first people’’ of New Zealand,
HBT represents a breach of cultural and spiritual traditions and norms, especially
in relation to the sacredness of intergenerational whakapapa (genealogy)
(Tipene-Matua, 2000). That is, some Maori argue that the extraction or insertion
of DNA material from or into a person, or animal or plant species, interferes with
what can be known about its lineage, and lineage is of fundamental importance to
traditional Maori culture. In New Zealand environmentalists* as elsewhere* have
/ /

also raised considerable concerns with the ecological impacts of the production of
genetically modified food on the environment (Allen, 2000; Ho, 1999).
Our overall plan was to interview scientists and to conduct focus groups with non-
scientists about the issues surrounding the controversial science of HBT that were
likely to be raised in public dialogue sessions, and about their concerns in
participating in such dialogue sessions. In other words, the interviews and focus
groups were intended to prepare us as researchers for later dialogue sessions by
informing us about people’s concerns (and, therefore, possible obstacles to dialogue)
regarding HBT. A separate objective of this study was to assess whether and how
focus group participants’ attitudes toward the topic and attitudes toward commu-
nicating changed after participation in a focus group. However, what also interested
us was the possibility that the participants themselves would be better prepared for
dialogue as a result of focus group participation.
 Focus Groups and Influence 125

The Focus Groups: Procedures and Participants

To achieve our goals, we recruited participants from selected demographic groups
to participate in eight focus groups in which they discussed their opinions on
HBT and issues they saw as related. The participants were recruited by a market
research company and through personal contacts and were each paid NZ$30 for
their participation. In all 59 participants took part in the eight focus groups. Four
different demographic groups were represented: 16 mothers of preschoolers, 13
business people, 15 university arts students, and 15 Maori.3 Two focus group
discussions were conducted for each demographic group. These particular
demographic groups were chosen because they had been identified in a study
of New Zealanders’ attitudes toward science as likely not to have extreme
views* either pro or anti* toward science, but, instead, likely to have relatively
/ /

neutral or ambiguous attitudes (Hipkins, Stockwell, Bolstad, & Baker, 2002).

Furthermore, these groups all have concerns about science that may be addressed
in the future public dialogue meetings. Finally, many of these people are least
likely to be engaged in public debate about science and technology (Hipkins
et al., 2002).
The mean age of participants was 32.6 years (SD8.90), with a range of 16
53
/ /

years. The sample consisted of 37 females (63.8%) and 21 males (36.2%).

Prior to attending the focus groups, participants were given four newspaper
articles on HBT to read (Beston, 2002; Connor, 2003; Derbyshire, 2003; Skatssoon,
2003). These articles provided a range of views on the topic, both positive and
negative, and were used to provide a common starting point for the focus group
discussion. Two of the authors served as the focus group facilitators. The facilitators
began each session by briefly explaining the aims of the focus group meeting and
the larger project of which it was part, answering any questions that the
participants posed, and providing brief guidelines on the value of respecting and
listening to each other’s opinions in group discussions and allowing everybody the
opportunity to speak. Participants then were invited to state, in turn, what their
perceptions of HBT were, and how they arrived at those perceptions. Participants
then were encouraged to discuss as a group what issues and concerns HBT might
raise for them, how their views on HBT might be informed by any value systems to
which they adhered, where they got their information on HBT from and how well
informed they felt about the science, and how they viewed scientists and
organizations involved in HBT research. Although a semi-structured method was
used to guide the participants through these discussion topics, the focus groups
were allowed to take the discussion in directions of their choosing. The discussions
lasted 1.5
2 hours, were recorded on audio-tape with participants’ consent, and
/

participants were invited to indicate their willingness to participate in further

dialogue about human biotechnology at the end of each session. All focus group
interactions were completely transcribed.
126 T. E. Zorn et al.

Other Empirical Methods and Materials: A Conversation on Data Collection and

Analysis
To address our research objectives and gather data on attitudinal change in focus
groups, we used a questionnaire instrument combined with the audio recordings of
the focus group discussions, which were later transcribed, and field notes of the focus
group interactions made by the facilitators. Using this mix of methods allowed us to
capture a richer and more complex sense of ‘‘what was going on’’ in terms of
influence in these groups.
Questionnaire. We researched the literature to see if an instrument suitable for our
purposes already had been developed. Finding none, we researched instruments that
could be adapted for our purposes. We adapted several items from an established
empathy scale (Stiff, Dillard, Somera, Kim, & Sleight, 1988) to measure empathy. We
then generated questionnaire items to assess the other attitudes. After a careful
process of editing and refinement, we developed a 24-item questionnaire.
The questionnaire included four demographics questions (items 1
4) and was
/

considered a priori to include four scales: Attitude towards HBT (items 5-12)* /

positive or negative attitudes toward HBT; Communicative Self-Efficacy (items 13
/

19)* comfort, confidence, and motivation to engage in public discussion of HBT;

/

Empathy (items 20
22)* empathy towards HBT science and scientists; and Attitude
/ /

towards HBT Scientists (items 23
28)* positive or negative attitudes toward HBT
/ /

scientists.
All items used 7-point Likert type responses, with ‘‘Strongly agree’’ and ‘‘Strongly
disagree’’ as the anchor points, plus a ‘‘Don’t know/no opinion’’ option. Higher
scores below indicate greater agreement, and thus a higher level of the variable
measured.
The four scales were subjected to alpha-reliability analysis using SPSS to determine
their reliability (and, thus, the minimum basis for validity) as coherent measures of
the constructs (Cavana, Delahaye, & Sekaran, 2001). Based on this analysis, the first
scale, Attitude towards HBT, was refined by eliminating item 8, which demonstrated
no discernible relationship to the other items, and by separating out items 11 and 12
to form a new scale, Concern about HBT, which assessed the degree to which
respondents were cautious towards or concerned about HBT. The refined Attitude
towards HBT scale demonstrated an alpha reliability of .75; the Concern about HBT
scale had an alpha reliability of .90. The Communicative Self-Efficacy scale was refined
by eliminating item 15, which demonstrated no discernible relationship to the other
items in the scale; the revised scale had an alpha reliability of .80. The Empathy scale,
which consisted of three items, demonstrated a reliability of .49, which is less than
acceptable. Since deleting items would not substantially improve the alpha score, we
did not use the Empathy scale in the analyses. The Attitudes toward HBT Scientists
scale had an alpha reliability score of .75, and could not be improved by eliminating
items. Thus, after refinement, we used the four reliable subscales, each of which
demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties. The retained items included on
each scale, along with their alpha scores, are provided in Table 1.
 Focus Groups and Influence 127

Table 1 Scales and Survey Items

Number of
Scale name and items items Alpha
Attitude toward HBT 5 .75
Human biotechnology does more good than it does harm.
I trust human biotechnology to solve many of society’s problems.
Research in human biotechnology is guided by ethical and moral
commitments.
Research in human biotechnology is important for medical
advancement.
Research in human biotechnology is safe.
Concern about HBT 2 .90
Research in human biotechnology should be regarded with caution.
Research in human biotechnology needs to be monitored closely.
Communicative Self-Efficacy 6 .80
I feel uncomfortable participating in public discussions about human
biotechnology because of the type of language used.
I am not sufficiently informed to engage in public discussions on human
biotechnology.
I am able to understand the issues around human biotechnology.
I am able to articulate my views about human biotechnology in a
discussion.
I feel at ease discussing issues around human biotechnology in a public
forum.
I enjoy engaging in public discussions about human biotechnology.
Attitudes toward HBT Scientists 6 .75
On balance, I trust scientists working in the field of human
biotechnology to make good decisions.
Most scientists working in the field of human biotechnology are
motivated mainly by personal gain.
The work of scientists working in the field of human biotechnology
should be closely monitored by others to avoid possible harmful
consequences.
Scientists working on human biotechnology listen to public concerns
about human biotechnology.
Scientists working on human biotechnology are concerned about its
potential impacts.
Most scientists working in the field of human biotechnology try to do
what’s right for society.

The questionnaire containing these scales was completed by the participants

immediately upon their arrival at the focus group meeting, and again after the group
discussion to assess how the discussion may or may not have contributed to changes
in their responses. Of the 59 participants, 58 completed both the initial questionnaire
and the one administered immediately after the focus groups.
Transcripts and field notes of focus group interaction. Quantitative questionnaire
data always are produced by individuals in a particular context grappling with the
linguistic constraints embedded in the questionnaires. As critical-interpretive
researchers, we assume no trans-historical and trans-contextual truths to be gleaned
128 T. E. Zorn et al.

from such statistical analyses; rather, we hope that the analyses will provide insights
into particular culturally and historically contextualized phenomena of interest. As a
result of such assumptions, we combined the questionnaire measurements with an
analysis of the transcripts and field notes from the focus group interactions. This
allowed us to contextualize the findings of the questionnaire, as well as capture the
communicative processes at work in the groups, especially those of influence. The
questionnaire allowed us to gather data on the degree of attitude change among
participants and the field notes and transcripts provided data on how and whether
these attitudes changed.
Data analyses. To analyze the changes in attitudes from before and after the focus
groups, SPSS was used to perform paired samples t-tests on the questionnaire data.
Beyond the quantitative measurement of attitude change, we also looked for evidence
of attitude stability or change in the transcribed focus group conversations. In doing
this, two of the authors conducted close readings of the transcribed texts and
systematically tracked the conversations for evidence of influence, dominance of
particular views, and group polarization. Specifically, we identified both paired
comments (e.g., an individual’s comments at an early and late stage of the discussion)
and passages of conversation that indicated either a shift or maintenance of the
attitudes assessed in the survey. We also examined the conversational context of
individual shifts of opinion and/or attitude to identify potential sources and patterns
of influence.
Results
Both qualitative and quantitative data emerging from the focus groups highlighted
the ways in which focus group participation and interaction led to changes in
attitudes about HBT and scientists, as well as increases in participants’ confidence and
motivation to participate further in science dialogues. However, when we put the two
forms of analyses into conversation with each other across attitudes, they posed some
interesting challenges to and contradictory fragments of the larger picture of
nonscientists’ positions on this controversial science.
It was not possible, nor indeed necessarily desirable, to quantify the number of
attitude changes from the focus group transcripts. Reliability of such quantification
would be dubious because comments frequently spanned categories of attitudes,
which could not, therefore, be kept consistently separate. Moreover, in many
instances the changes that were observed were erratic, leaving any assessment of net
change unreliable. In addition, our goal for putting the quantitative results into
conversation with the qualitative data was elaboration rather than triangulation. That
is, we were not attempting to determine which results were ‘‘correct’’ but examining
the findings in more depth, by assessing aggregate trends through the quantitative
measures and, through qualitative analysis, examining underlying processes as well as
examples of interaction between individuals that both supported and contradicted
the overall trends.
 Focus Groups and Influence 129

Changes in attitudes toward HBT. The t-test comparing the before and after
means on the Attitudes toward HBT scale did not show statistically significant
differences between Time 1 (M  4.00, SD .97) and Time 2 (M 4.02, SD 1.04),
/ / / /

t (57)  .323, NS. Thus, the quantitative results suggest no significant change in
/ /

attitudes toward HBT as a result of focus group participation.

However, qualitative analysis of the focus group transcripts suggests that, at least in
some cases, participants did change their attitudes toward HBT. Much of the focus
group discussion centered on participants’ attitudes toward HBT, with a diverse range
of opinions expressed. The discussion clearly raised issues about HBT for some
participants that they had not considered before. For example, tracking the
comments of one of the student participants revealed her change from a negative
attitude towards a more cautiously positive one. After others’ early comments, she
stated, ‘‘I’m a wee bit on the fence about it at the moment. Before I was like, it’s a
really bad thing. Now the more I look at it . . . .’’ Later, she went on to say, ‘‘I can see
[HBT] potentially being able to help us in the future if there’s a genuine need for it,’’
but advocated careful analysis ‘‘of all the avenues’’ instead of ‘‘wanting to hurry
[HBT] along without looking into it properly.’’ As the focus group progressed, this
same participant asked questions regarding the regulatory procedures of the science.
Her later comments, in several instances, seemed to defend HBT, particularly since
she could relate it to her own congenital heart condition. For instance, she claimed:
‘‘So maybe someone could . . . find the faulty gene and fix that for later on. It would
be really appreciated, that.’’
A further example was found in a Maori focus group where one participant stated
early that she was ‘‘two-minded about [gene modification] because it can help
humans.’’ This person made few other comments but chose to listen to the others,
until she later stated, ‘‘As somebody said, the body is sacred. . . . It should be kept as
one, and as soon as you tamper with that, that’s messing the boundaries of this issue.’’
Regarding attitudes toward HBT then, while the aggregate survey results indicate
that no change occurred, the focus group transcripts provide some evidence of
attitudinal change at the individual level. Clear examples were, however, rare and it
was difficult to differentiate reliable examples of change in attitude from examples of
change in concern about HBT.
Changes in concern about HBT. Although the Attitudes toward HBT scale assessed
general positive or negative perceptions toward HBT, the Concern about HBT scale
captured worry about the consequences and the need for monitoring of this science.
The t-test comparing the before and after means on the Concern about HBT scale
showed a statistically significant increase in scores from Time 1 (M  6.28, SD .93)
/ /

to Time 2 (M  6.43, SD .64), t (57)  1.99, p B.05, eta2 .08. This moderate
/ / / / / /

effect, as measured by eta2 (Cohen, 1988), suggests that focus group participation
created greater concern about or caution towards HBT.
In particular, each of the focus group discussions emphasized participants’
substantial concerns about those responsible for monitoring HBT and the processes
by which they do so. Given the anxious tone of the discussions, it is not surprising
130 T. E. Zorn et al.

that the questionnaires indicated increased caution or concern about HBT. One
student’s concerns clearly were heightened by the group’s discussion of the
implications of religion in decisions regarding HBT* in particular, for his friend
/

who could not eat beef, something he had not considered before. As the group was
talking about the New Zealand Environmental Resource Management Act and the
Bioethics Council, he began to ask a question but then as he reflected upon the issues
just raised for him, he instead made a definitive statement of opinion: ‘‘Does that
ethical committee, like, prior to tonight I hadn’t thought a great deal about the
religious implications. . . . They have to consider some of these things, and at the
moment, I just don’t feel like they are.’’ Thus, in this case we see a participant shifting
from an ambiguous position to a much more strongly expressed opinion reflecting
concern about the monitoring of HBT.
Another example suggests that one of the business participants came to the focus
group with a fairly open attitude to HBT:
You hear all the good things . . . the possibilities of what they might mean for
developing the human race, but still I’d like to get a more definitive picture of what
the arguments for it all are; [I] just want a better informed opinion.
The general discussion moved to questions of risk avoidance, containment and
control of experiments, and the issue of the power of research funders. Another
participant, for example, said, ‘‘You can put up a big wall and do whatever you like
inside there, because the money is just so powerful.’’ In response, the first participant
stated: ‘‘That’s my concern. . . . Somebody has got to be financing all that. I want to
know who they are.’’ Later he asked, ‘‘Is it based on increasing profit margins or is it
really based on wanting to provide some solutions to the problem?’’ Thus, although
appearing to be quite open at the beginning of the discussion, this participant’s
questions reflect increasing concerns about the motives and the power of economic
interests to override social interests with regard to HBT.
Changes in attitudes toward HBT scientists. The purpose of this scale was to assess
participants’ attitudes toward those involved with this controversial science. Similar
to the previous finding that focus group participation led to greater concerns about
HBT science, the t-test comparing the before and after means on the Attitudes toward
HBT Scientists scale showed a marginally significant decrease in scores from Time 1
(M  3.96, SD .90) to Time 2 (M  3.78, SD .83), t (57)1.84, p B.07. The eta2
/ / / / / /

statistic (.06) indicated a moderate effect (Cohen, 1988), suggesting that focus group
participation had a negative effect on participants’ aggregate attitudes toward
scientists.
Despite the mean on the Attitudes toward HBT Scientists scale suggesting an overall
neutral attitude toward HBT scientists (M  3.96 on a 7-point scale before and M
/ /

3.78 after discussion), comments made in most of the focus groups demonstrated
quite negative views of such scientists. The exceptions to this negativity were found in
comments made by those participants who had direct personal contact with scientists
or who had scientific training themselves. Participants criticized scientists’ inability to
 Focus Groups and Influence 131

communicate in non-scientific language, their lack of morality, and the secrecy with
which they do their work. Many commented that they did not trust HBT scientists.
By tracking individual comments in the focus group transcriptions, we could see
evidence of increasing negativity demonstrated towards scientists in general. We also
could see evidence of the sources of influence in those changes. For example, early in
one of the focus groups of business people, two participants stated that they had
‘‘inherent trust in scientists.’’ A third participant stated that she believed that
scientists are ‘‘well enough informed to know what is acceptable and what’s not.’’ On
the other hand, at the same early stage of the discussion, two other participants
expressed strongly negative views: ‘‘I distrust the scientists,’’ and ‘‘The drivers for this
[HBT science] are solely commercial.’’ As the discussion progressed, more comments
focused on the commercial aspects of science and on the single-minded attitude of
HBT scientists. The initially negatively inclined participants pursued their original
arguments, but towards the end of the discussion, those who were initially positive
wavered in their thinking. One stated that scientists were ‘‘struggling for money.’’
When asked if he thought that scientists work in the public interest, another replied,
‘‘I think they can get distracted.’’ Similar patterns of change were evident in most of
the other focus groups.
Changes in communicative self-efficacy. The t-test comparing the before and after
means on the Communicative Self-Efficacy scale showed a statistically significant
increase in self-efficacy scores from Time 1 (M 4.27, SD 1.00) to Time 2 (M
/ / /

4.59, SD 1.06), t (57)  3.56, p B.001. The effect as measured by eta2 (.18) is
/ / / /

large (Cohen, 1988), suggesting that participation in focus group discussions

increased participants’ confidence and motivation for participating in public
discussions regarding HBT.
It also was in the category of self-efficacy that the most notable evidence of change
emerged from the qualitative analysis of the focus group discussions. This was
particularly, though not exclusively, true of the groups of Maori and student
participants, whereas the business and mothers’ groups generally were more
confident in talking about the science from the start. Several participants from
each of the four groups stated at the beginning of discussion that they had little or no
knowledge of the topic with comments such as, ‘‘I know zero,’’ ‘‘I don’t feel overly
informed about the biotechnology,’’ and ‘‘I don’t really feel like I know enough to
comment on it.’’ Other participants went further in stating that they had little interest
in the topic or in learning about it because they felt that they had ‘‘no impact’’ or ‘‘no
control’’ over what would be done. As one Maori participant stated, ‘‘What we say is
not important.’’
The tracking of one student participant’s comments was revealing in that the
comments provided evidence of a progression from not knowing and not wanting to
know to expressing a desire to learn more. She began with, ‘‘I don’t really know much
about this stuff, and whenever the topic comes up, I don’t really say anything because
I don’t really know what it means.’’ Her next contribution to the discussion was, ‘‘It’s
just so complicated and you can’t trust anybody, and you don’t really know what to
132 T. E. Zorn et al.

believe that I think I’d rather just not really have an opinion about it, and just sort of
wait till, I don’t know.’’ However, later she suggested an increasing interest: ‘‘I think
that’s why I want to know more about it.’’ Then, when the discussion turned to the
possibility of meeting with scientists to discuss HBT issues, she said, ‘‘I’d want to be
more informed before I talked with a scientist.’’ Finally, she indicated an interest in
and a desire to be invited to participate further in the project, in the next phase, in
which nonscientists and scientists are brought together to discuss HBT. The shift
in willingness to engage in discussion of HBT as indicated by the comments of this
one student was echoed throughout the focus groups.
Demonstrating a similar shift towards increased communicative self-efficacy, both
focus groups of mothers engaged in lengthy discussion about the value of talking to
scientists. Both groups started with near-consensus opinion that there was little value
in talking to scientists, because, for instance, the mothers had no time for such
matters, doing so was ‘‘not going to make a difference,’’ and they assumed an inability
to communicate on the part of scientists. However, members of both groups then
began questioning their initial views on this issue.
For example, one mothers’ group initially uniformly agreed that there would be no
value in talking directly to scientists. Their objection rested primarily on the
argument that scientists would not be able to communicate effectively in a way that
other laypeople would understand. A typical comment was:
They should hire communicators. . . . It’s like when you go and buy a car; you talk
to the car salesman and not the maker of the car, because if you sat down and
talked to the maker of the car, there’d be no relation.
This line of conversation continued until a counter view was offered: ‘‘I guess you
don’t want it to be like Chinese whispers, though? What comes from the horse’s
mouth is what gets relayed. It doesn’t change.’’
The counter view re-emerged more strongly and with more support later in the
conversation when the participants were discussing the proposed dialogue sessions.
Although initially the comments echoed those of the earlier discussion, asking for
trained communicators to speak for the scientists, this time there was clear evidence
that participants had changed their minds as shown in the following transcript
excerpt:
Lisa: It would be really interesting to get that direct thing going on, I guess.
I didn’t think it would work initially but now I think it would be
interesting. . . .
Amy: I’d rather it was like, yes, a discussion thing and a dialogue thing where
they’re being questioned and they’re giving answers and it’s quite honest
and open, it’s great. . . .
Chris: I think that everybody, whatever you are, you are accountable for your
work. So you need to say, you need to explain why you’re doing that, and
what the result is going to be. I love the idea of the forum. . . .
Jan: I think I agree with everything that Chris has said.
In spite of similar reservations initially, at the end of each focus group, all but one of
the participants asked to be invited to forthcoming dialogue sessions with HBT
 Focus Groups and Influence 133

scientists. Although they had been given a monetary incentive to participate in the
focus groups, all said that they would attend dialogue sessions without payment. So,
despite their expressed lack of self-confidence, some change had occurred during the
focus group that helped participants to improve their self-efficacy, both in terms of
ability to talk to scientists about their concerns and interests in HBT, and in the
perceived utility of having such conversations.

Discussion and Conclusions

The picture that emerges from this case study is that focus groups provide a space for
participants actively to engage and influence each other, shifting some attitudes and
increasing their communicative self-efficacy when discussing controversial topics
such as HBT. Of the four attitudes we investigated, three changed as a result of focus
group participation, according to the quantitative analyses; qualitative analysis
suggested that at least some participants experienced a shift in each of the four
attitudes. Combined with the findings of three previous studies investigating attitude
change as a result of focus group participation (Morgan & Spanish, 1985; Sussman
et al., 1991; Waterton & Wynne, 1999), it seems safe to say that focus group
participation more often than not results in some change in attitudes regarding the
topic of discussion.
However, there were substantial differences in the degree to which each of the four
attitudes changed in these focus groups. A large effect of focus group participation
was found to occur for communicative self-efficacy, with participants demonstrating
and reporting increased confidence and motivation towards participating in public
discussions regarding HBT. In addition, concerns about HBT were heightened as a
result of focus group participation and attitudes toward HBT scientists became more
negative, although the effect sizes in these two cases were moderate. Finally, although
the questionnaire data indicated that there was no change in overall attitudes toward
HBT as a result of focus group participation, there was some evidence of such change
occurring communicatively within the focus group transcripts.
Explaining these differing effects is not simple. Based on existing theory and
research on group influence, it is perhaps least surprising that concern about HBT
increased. Scores on this scale already were extreme prior to the focus group
discussions (with an initial mean of 6.28 on a 7-point scale); thus, group members
would be expected to articulate a clear and extreme position on this issue, resulting
in both normative and informational influence (Campbell & Fairey, 1989).
Not surprisingly, the preponderance of participants’ arguments conveyed on this
issue, as observed in the qualitative analysis of the transcripts, suggested that there
are good reasons to be cautious about HBT and that it should be carefully
monitored. Thus, a group polarization effect (Isenberg, 1986) seems to have
occurred, with the mean score on this scale increasing to 6.43 after the focus group
discussions.
Although the shift in attitudes toward scientists also may reflect a group
polarization effect, that is less easily seen, given the neutral attitudes with which
134 T. E. Zorn et al.

participants entered the discussions (M 3.96). However, in spite of the neutral
/

position expressed on the questionnaires, qualitative analysis of the focus group

transcripts suggested that the preponderance of views expressed about scientists were
negative. Thus, consistent with the predictions of recent research on intragroup
influence (Boster & Cruz, 2002; Isenberg, 1986; Meyers & Brashers, 1999), a group
shift occurred toward a more negative view of scientists. In contrast, a wider and
more balanced range of views was expressed towards HBT generally, resulting in no
mean attitude change on this issue.
The shift in communicative self-efficacy is not likely to be explained as a process
of group polarization, even though participants’ scores on this scale started slightly
higher than neutral (M  4.27) and increased after focus group participation (M
/ /

4.59). That is, participants’ communicative self-efficacy was not itself a subject of
focus group discussion and, therefore, the shift cannot be explained either by
normative or informational influences (Campbell & Fairey, 1989). Rather, we argue
that the shift occurred because the focus group experience provided participants
with opportunities to observe and perform the task successfully (i.e., discussing the
subject in public); observe other participants perform successfully; receive
encouragement (e.g., positive nonverbal cues) from the facilitator; and experience
emotional arousal, such as enthusiasm (Bandura, 1986). It seems likely that
most participants felt positive about their performance in the focus group
discussion, and that this contributed to and resulted in enhanced communicative
self-efficacy.

Implications for Research and Practice

There are several implications for research and practice that emerge from this study.
First, the implications of the finding that attitudes shift as a result of focus group
discussion depend greatly on the researcher’s assumptions and goals in using focus
groups. Clearly, such shifts present a problem if the researcher’s goal is efficient
collection of aggregated individual opinions. That is, from a traditional/positivist
view of focus groups, the influence that occurs is seen as ‘‘contaminating’’
individual responses, resulting in an ‘‘inaccurate’’ reporting of their individual
views (Merton, 1987; Sussman et al., 1991). However, if a researcher wishes to use
focus groups to simulate everyday interaction or to facilitate empowerment of
participants, the finding that influence occurs during focus group discussion is
welcome news. That is, participants apparently negotiate and socially construct
their views through focus group discussion, which results in shifts in their attitudes.
Researchers considering focus groups to simulate everyday interaction, and
particularly influence processes, would be more confident in doing so as a result
of the findings from this study.
Second, the finding that communicative self-efficacy increased has important
implications for researchers or activists interested in empowering participants to get
involved in public dialogue. Although previous researchers have noted that focus
groups may facilitate empowerment by increasing participants’ understanding and
 Focus Groups and Influence 135

awareness of the issues discussed (Baker & Hinton, 1999; Kitzinger & Barbour, 1999;
Wilkinson, 1999), our finding suggests that, in addition to these benefits, participants
also may be empowered by increased confidence in their ability to speak out and
more motivated to do so as a result. However, as Cunningham-Burley et al. (1999)
warned, we should not overstate the empowerment that occurs. Because someone
feels more informed, motivated, and confident does not mean that he or she will be
allowed a meaningful voice in decision making. However, the implication of this
finding is that if having people want to participate in public dialogue on controversial
issues is a desirable goal, then we should find ways to get them involved in positive
dialogue experiences. Further research should investigate the long-term self-efficacy
effects of focus group participation, to see if the increased confidence and motivation
is sustained, and if indeed it leads to increased likelihood of taking action.
A third implication arises from the finding that shifts in Concern about HBT and
Attitude toward Scientists were both in a negative direction. That is, as a result of
participating in focus group discussion of HBT, people tended to have more negative
attitudes toward HBT scientists and heightened concerns about HBT science. This
finding, coupled with the fact that participants generally were more confident and
motivated to discuss the issue, suggests that the scientific community should consider
the need to engage the public in discussions about controversial science. Whether the
results would be different if representatives of the science community participated in
these discussions is a matter for future research. Indeed, the next phase of our
research is to put scientists into dialogue with non-scientists and compare the
findings with the findings from the present study.
Finally, the study demonstrates the value of using both qualitative and quantitative
methods in research, not for the purpose of using one to confirm the other, nor
necessarily using one in preparation for the other, but as empirical partners, offering
different perspectives on the same phenomenon. Although there was some
convergence of findings from these methods, each set of findings also raised
questions about the other. This is most apparent in the case of attitudes toward HBT,
where the quantitative findings suggested no overall attitude shift occurred but the
qualitative analysis suggested that, at least for some people, it did. The dual methods
also were beneficial in understanding changes in participants’ attitudes toward HBT
scientists. Given the neutral scores on the pre-test, a group polarization effect seemed
unlikely. However, qualitative analysis suggested that, in spite of the neutral scores,
the discussion was far from neutral; rather, a preponderance of negative views was
expressed, apparently resulting in overall more negative attitudes toward HBT
scientists. Putting quantitative and qualitative data into empirical conversation with
each other in this manner provided a richer understanding both of focus group and
influence processes and experiences. It also allows researchers to experiment with
alternative ways to present focus group data if we consider focus groups as
opportunities not only for data gathering but also for data making. In such data-
making cases, it is not enough to present focus group data as stand-alone exemplars
of collective opinion, removed from their social context. Instead, we encourage
scholars to present extended sections of focus group interaction to capture the
136 T. E. Zorn et al.

influence of communicative processes and contexts underpinning this methodolo-

gical tool.
Although the findings revealed important insights into influence processes that
occur within focus groups, there are obviously limitations to this project. The sample
size is relatively small and the discussion focused on a single topic: human
biotechnology. Considering the research process reflexively (Altheide & Johnson,
1994), we approached the focus groups initially with somewhat traditional
assumptions, since we largely intended them to prepare ourselves, and to serve as
a comparison, for future dialogue sessions. For example, in retrospect we might have
had more heterogenous focus group membership as this would have more readily
simulated the dialogue experiences in which these participants would later go on to
participate.
In spite of these limitations, this research focuses on an important and under-
researched area of group communication: influence in non-decision-making groups
(Meyers & Brashers, 1999). The findings offer useful insights for both focus group
researchers and researchers studying influence in groups and suggest that scholars
should reflect on their engagement of focus groups as a methodological tool and the
data that emerge in these contexts, adding to and expanding the conversation
initiated by Lunt and Livingstone (1996). Most importantly, this research suggests
that focus groups are not simply a means of data collection but, rather, they are
contextualized group communication events in which, like other group commu-
nication events, people assert their views and question, and learn and change. In
other words, participants influence each other and come away from the experience
changed in some ways.

Notes
[1] We acknowledge that there may be significant differences among approaches within these
‘‘camps.’’ In particular, we note that different orientations within the critical-interpretive
camp may lead, for instance, feminist researchers with an empowerment agenda (Wilkinson,
1999) to take a different approach to focus group interaction than interpretive researchers
primarily interested in describing the process of meaning or relationship negotiation
(Bormann, Bormann, & Harty, 1995; Liebes & Katz, 1990).
[2] To be clear, some researchers are not referring to various forms of attitude change when they
talk about the empowerment potential of focus groups. Often, empowerment enters
discussions about focus groups through the argument that such groups have the potential to
shape policy through informing policy-makers of participants’ views. Since focus groups are
used as a means of consulting the public about views on products, services, and policies, they
may be seen as enhancing meaningful participation in a democracy. However, Cunningham-
Burley et al. (1999) warned against this view, arguing that in their research in health services,
‘‘Even when empowerment was the aim, this has not been associated with increased
democratization of health service planning, merely increased consultation. Put bluntly, it is
still managers who choose . . . and the consumer has little influence’’ (p. 189).
[3] The groups were not completely distinct; for example, some of the business people may have
been Maori or mothers of preschoolers.
 Focus Groups and Influence 137

References
Aakhus, M. (2001). Technocratic and design stances toward communication expertise: How GDSS
facilitators understand their work. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 29 , 341
/371.
Allen, T. (2000). The environmental costs of genetic engineering. In R. Prebble (Ed.), Designer genes:
The New Zealand guide to the issues, facts and theories about genetic engineering (pp. 61
/69).
Wellington, New Zealand: Dark Horse.
Altheide, D. L., & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 485
/
499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Anderson, R., Cissna, K. N., & Arnett, R. C. (Eds.). (1994). The reach of dialogue: Confirmation,
voice, and community. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Aronson, E. (1999). The social animal (8th ed.). New York: Worth.
Asch, S. E. (1965). Opinions and social pressure. In A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta, & R. F. Bales (Eds.),
Small groups: Studies in social interaction (rev. ed., pp. 318
/324). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Authors (2004).
Baker, R., & Hinton, R. (1999). Do focus groups facilitate meaningful participation in social
research? In R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics,
theory and practice (pp. 79
/98). London: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: W. H. Freeman.
Barbour, R. S., & Kitzinger, J. (Eds.). (1999). Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and
practice . London: Sage.
Bauer, K. M., & Orbe, M. P. (2001). Networking, coping and communicating about a medical crisis:
A phenomenological inquiry of transplant recipient communication. Health Communication ,
13 , 141
/161.
Bernhardt, J. M., Lariscy, R. A. W., Parrott, R. L., Silk, K. J., & Felter, E. M. (2002). Perceived barriers
to Internet based health communication on human genetics. Journal of Health Communica-
tion , 7 , 325
/340.
Beston, A. (2002, August 13). Mixing ‘em up out in the cow shed. New Zealand Herald , p. A11.
Booth-Butterfield, M., Anderson, R., & Williams, K. (2000). Perceived messages from schools
regarding adolescent tobacco research. Communication Education , 49 , 196
/205.
Bormann, E. G., Bormann, E., & Harty, K. (1995). Using symbolic convergence theory and focus
group interviews to develop communication designed to stop teenage use of tobacco. In L. R.
Frey (Ed.), Innovations in group facilitation: Applications in natural settings (pp. 200
/232).
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Boster, F. J., & Cruz, M. G. (2002). Persuading in the small group context. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau
(Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 477
/494).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, T. J. (2000). Spiritual and ethical considerations. In R. Prebble (Ed.), Designer genes: The
New Zealand guide to the issues, facts and theories about genetic engineering (pp. 111
/117).
Wellington, New Zealand: Dark Horse.
Burgess, J., Harrison, C., & Maiteny, P. (1991). Contested meanings: The consumption of news
about nature conservation. Media, Culture and Society, 13 , 499
/519.
Calhoun, D. (2000). Who owns plants and who owns genes? In R. Prebble (Ed.), Designer genes: The
New Zealand guide to the issues, facts and theories about genetic engineering (pp. 119
/127).
Wellington, New Zealand: Dark Horse.
Campbell, J. D., & Fairey, P. J. (1989). Informational and normative routes to conformity: The effect
of faction size as a function of norm extremity and attention to the stimulus. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57 , 457
/468.
138 T. E. Zorn et al.

Carey, M. A. (1994). The group effect in focus groups: Planning, implementing and interpreting
focus group research. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods
(pp. 225
/241). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied business research: Qualitative and
quantitative methods . Milton, Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Connor, S. (2003, August 26). End to man’s blindness offers scientists insights. New Zealand Herald ,
p. B3.
Cooks, L. M., & Hale, C. L. (1992). A feminist approach to the empowerment of women mediators.
Discourse and Society, 3 , 277
/300.
Cunningham-Burley, S., Kerr, A., & Pavis, S. (1999). Theorizing subjects and subject matter in focus
group research. In R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research:
Politics, theory and practice (pp. 186
/199). London: Sage.
Derbyshire, D. (2003, June 24). Gene find offers hope for women. New Zealand Herald , p. A13.
Evans, D. (2000). Ethics and genetics. In R. Prebble (Ed.), Designer genes: The New Zealand guide to
the issues, facts and theories about genetic engineering (pp. 27
/35). Wellington, New Zealand:
Dark Horse.
Farquhar, C., & Das, R. (1999). Are focus groups suitable for ‘sensitive’ topics? In R. S. Barbour &
J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 47
/63).
London: Sage.
Fiske, J. (1990). Introduction to communication studies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Fukuyama, F. (2003). Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution . London:
Profile Books.
Gibson, M. K., & Schullery, N. M. (2000). Shifting meanings in a blue-collar worker philanthropy
program. Management Communication Quarterly, 14 , 189
/236.
Hacker, K. L., Goss, B., Townley, C., & Horton, V. J. (1998). Employee attitudes regarding electronic
mail policies. Management Communication Quarterly, 11 , 422
/452.
Hipkins, R., Stockwell, W., Bolstad, R., & Baker, R. (2002). Commonsense, trust, and science: How
patterns of beliefs and attitudes to science pose challenges for effective communication .
Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Research, Science and Technology.
Ho, M.-W. (1998). Genetic engineering: Dream or nightmare? Turning the tide on the brave new world
of bad science and big business . Dublin, Ireland: Gateway.
Hoijer, B. (1990). Studying viewers’ reception of television programs: Theoretical and methodo-
logical considerations. European Journal of Communication , 5 , 29
/56.
Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to communicating
in business and in life . New York: Currency.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50 , 1141
/1151.
Jackson, R. L., & Heckman, S. M. (2002). Perceptions of white identity and white liability: An
analysis of white student responses to a college campus racial hate crime. Journal of
Communication , 52 , 434
/450.
Jones, T. S., & Bodtker, A. (1998). A dialectical analysis of a social justice process: International
collaboration in South Africa. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 26 , 357
/373.
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between
research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness , 16 , 103
/121.
Kitzinger, J., & Barbour, R. S. (1999). Introduction: The challenge and promise of focus groups. In
R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and
practice (pp. 1
/20). London: Sage.
Koesten, J., Miller, K. I., & Hummert, M. L. (2002). Family communication, self-efficacy, and white
female adolescents’ risk behavior. Journal of Family Communication , 2 , 7
/27.
 Focus Groups and Influence 139

Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. (1967). Risky-shift phenomenon in small decision-making groups: A
test of the information exchange hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6 ,
467
/471.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Lederman, L. C., Stewart, L. P., Goodhart, F. W., & Laitman, L. (2003). A case against ‘‘binge’’ as the
term of choice: Convincing college students to personalize messages about dangerous
drinking. Journal of Health Communication , 8 , 79
/91.
Liebes, T., & Katz, E. (1990). The export of meaning: Cross-cultural readings of Dallas . Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (1996). Rethinking the focus group in media and communications
research. Journal of Communication , 46 , 79
/98.
Merton, R. K. (1987). The focused interview and focus groups: Continuities and discontinuities.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 51 , 550
/566.
Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. L. (1956). The focused interview: A manual of problems and
procedures . Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (1999). Influence processes in group interaction. In L. R. Frey (Ed.),
D. S Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Assoc. Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and
research (pp. 288
/312). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D. L., & Spanish, M. T. (1984). Focus groups: A new tool for qualitative research.
Qualitative Sociology, 7 , 253
/270.
Morgan, D. L., & Spanish, M. T. (1985). Social interaction and the cognitive organisation of health-
relevant knowledge. Sociology of Health and Illness , 7 , 401
/422.
Morrison, D. E. (1998). The search for a method: Focus groups and the development of mass
communication research . Luton, UK: University of Luton Press.
Morrison, M., & Krugman, D. M. (2001). A look at mass and computer-mediated technologies:
Understanding the roles of television and computers in the home. Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media , 45 , 135
/161.
O’Hara, L. S., & Meyer, M. (2003). ‘‘I never felt more uncomfortable in my life’’: University
students’ discursive constructions of ‘‘The Lesbian Convention’’. Communication Studies , 54 ,
137
/153.
Orbe, M. P., & Warren, K. T. (2000). Different standpoints, different realities: Race, gender, and
perceptions of intercultural conflict. Communication Quarterly, 48 , 51
/57.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes
to attitude change . New York: Springer-Verlag.
Riedlinger, M. E., Gallois, C., McKay, S., & Pittam, J. (2004). Impact of social group processes and
functional diversity on communication in networked organizations. Journal of Applied
Communication Research , 32 , 55
/79.
Roper, J., Zorn, T. E., & Weaver, C. K. (2004). Science dialogue: The communicative properties of
science and technology dialogue , Wellington: Ministry of Research, Science and Technology.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms (Vol. 27). New York: Harper.
Skatssoon, J. (2003, August 15). Scientists grow breast in pig. New Zealand Herald , p. B3.
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice . Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Stiff, J. B., Dillard, J. P., Somera, L., Kim, H., & Sleight, C. (1988). Empathy, communication and
prosocial behavior. Communication Monographs , 55 , 198
/213.
Stiff, J. B., & Mongeau, P. A. (2003). Persuasive communication (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Sussman, S., Burton, D., Dent, C. W., Stacy, A. W., & Flay, B. R. (1991). Use of focus groups in
developing an adolescent tobacco use cessation program: Collective norm effects. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 21 , 1772
/1782.
140 T. E. Zorn et al.

Tipene-Matua, B. (2000). A Maori response to the biogenetic age. In R. Prebble (Ed.), Designer
genes: The New Zealand guide to the issues, facts and theories about genetic engineering
(pp. 97
/109). Wellington, New Zealand: Dark Horse.
Waterton, C., & Wynne, B. (1999). Can focus groups access community views? In R. S. Barbour
& J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 127
/
143). London: Sage.
Wilkinson, S. (1999). How useful are focus groups in feminist research? In R. S. Barbour & J.
Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 64
/78).
London: Sage.
Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence:
A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin , 115 , 323
/345.
Zorn, T. E. (1993). Motivation to communicate: A critical review with suggested alternatives.
Communication Yearbook , 16 , 515
/549.