MINORITY INFLUENCE*
Moscovici investigated the effect of minority influence using a group of 6 participants who
viewed a set of 36 blue-green coloured slides varying in intensity, then stated whether the
sides were blue or green. Participants were in a group where there are two confederates and
four participants. Confederates deliberately said the slide was green two-thirds of the trials,
thus producing a consistent minority view. When the confederates were consistent
participants gave the same wrong answer 8.42% of the trials however, when the confederates
were inconsistent agreement fell to 1.25%.
A minority changes the opinions of others through internalisation this occurs in four
processes consistency, commitment , flexibility and the snowball effect. Consistency allow
occurs in two ways synchronic consistency and diachronic consistency. Synchronic
consistency is when people in the minority are all saying the same thing which convinces the
majority their is something worth agreeing with and diachronic consistency is when the
minority say the same thing over time which allows more opportunity to be influenced.
Flexibility explains that the minority should accept counter arguments so they don’t appear
rigid. Commitment is when the majority is more likely to be influenced if the minority are
passionate about their views. The snowball effect is where overtime the minority become the
majority and tell others who tell others.
A strength is that there is research evidence that demonstrates the importance of consistency.
Moscovici et al found a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on other people than
an inconsistent opinion. Wood et al conducted a meta analysis of almost 100 similar studies
and found that minorities seen as being consistent were most influential. This confirms that
consistency is a major factor in minority influence.
A limitation is that minority influence is that the tasks involved a such as identifying the
colour of a slide as as artificial as Asch’s line judgement task. Therefore, Moscovici’s colour
task, is far removed from how minorities attempt to change majority opinion in real life. In
cases such as jury decision making and political campaigns outcomes are vastly more
important, sometimes a matter of life or death. This means that findings of minority inane e
studies such as Moscovici’s lack external validity and are limited in what they tell us about
how minority influence works in real life situations.
A limitation is that application of minority research is limited. Studies make a clear
distinction between majority and minority but real life social influence situations are much
more complicated than this. There is a lot more involved in the difference between minority
an majority than just numbers. For example, majorities usually have power and status and
minorities are tight knit groups who turn to each other for support. Therefore, research does
not reflect dynamics of the group so application to real life is limited.
There is research evidence to show that changed her minority position does involve deeper
processing of ideas. Martin et al gave participants a message supporting a particular
viewpoint and measured their support. One group of participants then heard a minority group
agree with the initial view while another group heard this from majority group. Participants
are finally exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again. Martin et al
found that people were less willing to change their opinions if you had listened to minority
group rather than if they were shared with the majority group. This suggests that the minority
Moscovici investigated the effect of minority influence using a group of 6 participants who
viewed a set of 36 blue-green coloured slides varying in intensity, then stated whether the
sides were blue or green. Participants were in a group where there are two confederates and
four participants. Confederates deliberately said the slide was green two-thirds of the trials,
thus producing a consistent minority view. When the confederates were consistent
participants gave the same wrong answer 8.42% of the trials however, when the confederates
were inconsistent agreement fell to 1.25%.
A minority changes the opinions of others through internalisation this occurs in four
processes consistency, commitment , flexibility and the snowball effect. Consistency allow
occurs in two ways synchronic consistency and diachronic consistency. Synchronic
consistency is when people in the minority are all saying the same thing which convinces the
majority their is something worth agreeing with and diachronic consistency is when the
minority say the same thing over time which allows more opportunity to be influenced.
Flexibility explains that the minority should accept counter arguments so they don’t appear
rigid. Commitment is when the majority is more likely to be influenced if the minority are
passionate about their views. The snowball effect is where overtime the minority become the
majority and tell others who tell others.
A strength is that there is research evidence that demonstrates the importance of consistency.
Moscovici et al found a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on other people than
an inconsistent opinion. Wood et al conducted a meta analysis of almost 100 similar studies
and found that minorities seen as being consistent were most influential. This confirms that
consistency is a major factor in minority influence.
A limitation is that minority influence is that the tasks involved a such as identifying the
colour of a slide as as artificial as Asch’s line judgement task. Therefore, Moscovici’s colour
task, is far removed from how minorities attempt to change majority opinion in real life. In
cases such as jury decision making and political campaigns outcomes are vastly more
important, sometimes a matter of life or death. This means that findings of minority inane e
studies such as Moscovici’s lack external validity and are limited in what they tell us about
how minority influence works in real life situations.
A limitation is that application of minority research is limited. Studies make a clear
distinction between majority and minority but real life social influence situations are much
more complicated than this. There is a lot more involved in the difference between minority
an majority than just numbers. For example, majorities usually have power and status and
minorities are tight knit groups who turn to each other for support. Therefore, research does
not reflect dynamics of the group so application to real life is limited.
There is research evidence to show that changed her minority position does involve deeper
processing of ideas. Martin et al gave participants a message supporting a particular
viewpoint and measured their support. One group of participants then heard a minority group
agree with the initial view while another group heard this from majority group. Participants
are finally exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again. Martin et al
found that people were less willing to change their opinions if you had listened to minority
group rather than if they were shared with the majority group. This suggests that the minority
