Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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.
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.
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
that on group conformity and decision making* has important implications for
/
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
/
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.
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 /
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
considered a priori to include four scales: Attitude towards HBT (items 5-12)* /
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
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.
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
/ /
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
/ / / /
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.
participants entered the discussions (M 3.96). However, in spite of the neutral
/
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.
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.
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.