Feeling secure in a group may help dissenters make stronger arguments

When everyone in a meeting voices the same opinion, an organization can miss important warning signs and new ideas. A research team from KAIST suggests that when members feel securely accepted within their group, they can express dissenting opinions in greater detail and more persuasively, and other members may be more willing to use those opinions in decision-making.

KAIST announced that a research team led by professors Sujin Lee and Seungwon Jeong of its School of Business and Technology Management, working with professor Zoe Kinias of the Ivey Business School at Western University in Canada, presented findings suggesting that “group attachment security” can promote the expression and acceptance of minority opinions within groups. The findings are published in the journal Scientific Reports.

Security lowers the cost of dissent

Group attachment security refers to a psychological state in which a person perceives their group as a secure source of support. Members develop group attachment security when they receive emotional and relational support from the group and feel recognized as valued members. The more secure this attachment, the more members come to believe that voicing a different opinion will not lead to rejection or exclusion from the group.

People with dissenting opinions often hesitate to speak up because of potential backlash, even when they have crucial insights. This difficulty can be even greater within one’s own organization, where members face stronger expectations to align with the majority view.

Testing dissent from both sides

The researchers reasoned that when feeling secure in a group eases worries about relationships, members can focus on the best outcome instead of other people’s reactions. To test this, the team conducted two experiments using hypothetical decision-making scenarios, examining the perspectives of both minority opinion holders and the majority members who receive their opinions.

In the first experiment, participants were assigned to a group primed with attachment security or one that was not, then asked to express their opinions in a scenario in which they held a minority view.

Participants primed with group attachment security produced more detailed and persuasive arguments than those in the neutral condition. The research team also found that this difference occurred because the participants focused more on the problem and the content of their opinions.

In the second experiment, participants took the perspective of a majority member and evaluated selected arguments written by minority opinion holders in the first experiment. They rated arguments from the secure attachment condition as more persuasive than those from the neutral condition. Overall, participants reported less perceived expectancy violation and a greater willingness to use minority opinions from the secure condition.

The added pressure on insiders

In both experiments, the research team also distinguished minority members as either ingroup or outgroup members based on whether they shared a group identity with the majority opinion holders. This exploratory analysis examined whether group attachment security reduces relational concerns about expressing dissent. The researchers reasoned that minority members who shared a group identity with the majority might be less likely to dissent than outgroup minority members because ingroup members are generally expected to share similar opinions.

Most interactions between group attachment security and ingroup/outgroup membership were not statistically significant, with expectancy violation in the second experiment the only exception. Exploratory analyses, however, revealed a consistent pattern only among ingroup minorities: Group attachment security shaped the quality of minority opinions through greater task focus in the first experiment, and the majority’s willingness to use minority opinions through both reduced expectancy violation and greater perceived persuasiveness in the second experiment.

This finding suggests that belonging to the same organization does not necessarily make it easier to voice dissenting opinions. In fact, ingroup members may feel greater pressure to conform to the group’s shared assumptions or majority opinion, making it harder for them to point out problems with current practices or offer negative feedback. In such cases, confidence that expressing a different opinion will not jeopardize one’s relationships or standing within the group can help ease this burden.

Building security into organizational culture

This research also has practical implications for organizations that rely on external consulting or audits because members do not speak up enough about problems or suggest improvements. If members who are closest to an organization’s problems remain silent out of concern about damaged relationships or negative evaluations, the organization cannot fully draw on their knowledge or act on the warning signs they identify. To encourage members to speak up, organizations need to provide opportunities for them to do so and build an environment in which they have a stable, secure attachment to the group.

The findings also suggest that simply bringing together members from diverse backgrounds is not enough to realize the benefits of diversity. Diversity can contribute to decision-making and innovation only when members can safely express opinions that differ from the majority’s and when other members treat those opinions as useful information rather than as conflict or a challenge to the organization.

These findings could inform efforts to develop organizational cultures and leadership practices that reduce groupthink and make better use of members’ knowledge and perspectives at companies, research institutions and public organizations. Examples include leaders openly inviting counterarguments, recognizing the contributions of minority opinions and consistently reassuring members that voicing a different opinion will not harm their relationships or result in unfavorable evaluations within the organization.

Jeong and Lee explained, “Simply giving members the opportunity to voice a different opinion is not enough. Members need to be confident that they won’t be excluded from the organization for holding a different opinion, so they can explain their thoughts in greater detail and more persuasively, and the majority can receive that opinion as useful information for reaching a better decision rather than as conflict.”

Who’s behind this story?

Gaby Clark

MA in English, copy editor since 2021 with experience in higher education and health content. Dedicated to trustworthy science news.

Full profile →

Robert Egan

Bachelor’s in mathematical biology, Master’s in creative writing. Well-traveled with unique perspectives on science and language.

Full profile →