Minority influence AO3
Research support for consistency
o Moscovivi et al (1969) – importance of consistency
o Wood et al (1994) – meta-analysis of 100 similar studies – consistent
minorities were most influential.
o Suggests consistency is a major factor.
Research support for depth of thought
o Change to a minority position involves deeper processing of ideas
o Martin et al (2003), gave ppt a message supporting a viewpoint and
measured their support.
One group heard minority agree and the other heard majority agree.
Ppts exposed to conflicting view and attitudes measured again.
Ppts less likely to change opinions if they heard the minority than if
they were shared with the majority.
o Suggests the minority message has been more deeply processed and had a more
enduring effect, supporting the central argument about how minority influence
works.
Research support for flexibility
o Nemeth (1986) used a group of 3 participants and one confederate in two
conditions of a mock jury situation. First condition - confederate (the minority)
would show inflexibility, arguing for a low level of compensation for the
imaginary ski lift accident and not changing from that level. Second condition -
confederate showed flexibility by raising his offer slightly.
o Majority more likely to lower the compensation level in the flexible condition
o Lacked external validity – experimental situation, ppts knew ski lift victim was
not real and no compensation would be paid.
o
Artificial tasks
o Research doesn’t reflect how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of
majorities in real life.
o In jury decisions or political campaigning, the outcomes are much more important.
o Lack external validity (ecological) and are limited explanations for minority influence
in real life situations.
Research support for internalisation
o In Moscovici variations, ppts could write down their answers so they were
private.
o Private agreement with minority was higher in these variations.
o Minority made the majority change their views but were reluctant to admit
this publicly.
o Moscovici said this is bc they didn’t want to be associated with minority
radicalism, fear of being considered radical/awkward/weird.
Limited real-world applications
o Social influence situations are much more complicated in real life.
o More involved in differences between minority/majority than numbers
Research support for consistency
o Moscovivi et al (1969) – importance of consistency
o Wood et al (1994) – meta-analysis of 100 similar studies – consistent
minorities were most influential.
o Suggests consistency is a major factor.
Research support for depth of thought
o Change to a minority position involves deeper processing of ideas
o Martin et al (2003), gave ppt a message supporting a viewpoint and
measured their support.
One group heard minority agree and the other heard majority agree.
Ppts exposed to conflicting view and attitudes measured again.
Ppts less likely to change opinions if they heard the minority than if
they were shared with the majority.
o Suggests the minority message has been more deeply processed and had a more
enduring effect, supporting the central argument about how minority influence
works.
Research support for flexibility
o Nemeth (1986) used a group of 3 participants and one confederate in two
conditions of a mock jury situation. First condition - confederate (the minority)
would show inflexibility, arguing for a low level of compensation for the
imaginary ski lift accident and not changing from that level. Second condition -
confederate showed flexibility by raising his offer slightly.
o Majority more likely to lower the compensation level in the flexible condition
o Lacked external validity – experimental situation, ppts knew ski lift victim was
not real and no compensation would be paid.
o
Artificial tasks
o Research doesn’t reflect how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of
majorities in real life.
o In jury decisions or political campaigning, the outcomes are much more important.
o Lack external validity (ecological) and are limited explanations for minority influence
in real life situations.
Research support for internalisation
o In Moscovici variations, ppts could write down their answers so they were
private.
o Private agreement with minority was higher in these variations.
o Minority made the majority change their views but were reluctant to admit
this publicly.
o Moscovici said this is bc they didn’t want to be associated with minority
radicalism, fear of being considered radical/awkward/weird.
Limited real-world applications
o Social influence situations are much more complicated in real life.
o More involved in differences between minority/majority than numbers
