Guided group discussion and the reported use of toxic products: The persuasiveness of hearing others’ views

Guided group discussion (Lewin et al., 1952, Werner, 2003 and Werner and Adams, 2001) was used to persuade groups to replace their toxic home and garden chemicals with nontoxic alternatives. We hypothesized that discussion would allow participants to hear others endorse the new information, and this normative information would facilitate persuasion. Approximately two months after the group discussion, we obtained questionnaires from the organizer of the meeting and a member of the group who had missed the meeting because of another obligation (i.e., not because of disinterest in the topic). Most organizers were female and analyses were limited to females. This quasi-experimental matched control group design indicated that those who attended the meeting were more favorable towards using nontoxics and more interested in sharing leftover toxic products with friends (instead of discarding them). Path and mediation analyses showed that the organizer’s evaluation of the meeting predicted her final attitude, and perceptions that the group endorsed the material (perceived group norm) partially mediated this relationship. A second mediation analysis showed that evaluation of the meeting predicted intention to share leftover toxics and this relationship was fully mediated by the organizer’s impression that the group would also share leftovers. The results support the idea that persuasion is based both on individual evaluation and normative influence, especially when people are not confident others will accept the behavior, such as sharing leftover toxic products.

► A separate-control-group design evaluated the persuasiveness of group discussion.
► After the meeting, participants favored nontoxic home and yard care products.
► This effect was mediated by perceptions the group also endorsed the message.
► Results support guided group discussion as an effective change intervention.