Focus group composition: a comparison between natural and constructed groups

OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the effects of focus group composition. METHOD: In an early phase of an ongoing study of parental reception to messages about childhood immunisation, we conducted four focus groups; two with participants who had never met before (constructed groups) and two with participants who were part of a pre-established first-time mothers' group (natural groups). RESULTS: Marked differences were noted in the group dynamics, depth of interaction and diversity between groups. Discussions with constructed groups were animated, enthusiastic, expressed more divergent views and articulated greater complexities of the topic. Discussions with natural groups were generally flatter and less enthusiastic, displaying a higher level of apparent conformity to conventional wisdom. The need to protect other participants from potentially disturbing information about vaccination was expressed across groups but acted to censor natural groups, where participants knew more of each others' sensitivities. IMPLICATIONS: Insight into the factors contributing to such differences may enhance understanding of the contexts in which constructed groups are more appropriate. The processes of social censorship may be of primary interest to the researcher. However, where it is paramount to elicit a range of opinions about a potentially controversial topic, we suggest that natural groups in the delicate stage of norming be avoided. The peculiarities of each individual research circumstance are best explored in pilot studies.