EVALUATION

• RESEARCH SUPPORT OF MINORITY INFLUENCE?

  Moscovici et al
• MOSCOVICI RESEARCH?

  METHOD: laboratory experiment

  DESIGN: independent groups

  IV: if minority influence was consistent or not

  DV: percentage of trials where people incorrectly said slides were green

  SAMPLE: 172 women with no colour blindness
• PROCEDURE OF MOSCOVICI'S RESEARCH?

  1. Participants divided into groups of 6 (4 participants, 2 confederates)
  2. Asked to judge 36 slide colours (all were blue)
  3. CONDITION 1: confederate identified all 36 as green (consistency)
  4. CONDITION 2: confederate identified 24 as green, 12 as blue (inconsistency)
  5. CONTROL GROUP: no confederates
• FINDINGS OF MOSCOVICI'S RESEARCH?

  • CONTROL: participants identified all 36 slides as green 0.25% of time
  • CONDITION 1: participants identified all 36 slides as green 8% of time (32% said slides were green at least once)
  • CONDITION 2: participants (identified slides as green) conformed 1% of time
  • minority had greater influence when consistent
• CRITICISM OF MOSCOVICI'S RESEARCH?

  LIMITED

  • cannot generalise
  • biased sample
  • only carried out on women
  • beta bias

  LACKS MUNDANE REALISM

  • estimating slide colours does not reflect real instances of minority influence
  • e.g. huge social change (women being able to vote)
  • results lack ecological validity
  • cannot be used to explain minority success in more complex situations
• CRITICAL POINTS OF MINORITY INFLUENCE?

  FAILS TO CONSIDER OTHER FACTORS - CLARKE

  • 200+ college students
  • read court case summary and had to decide if accused was guilty
  • all given evidence for defendant's guilt (only some given information about defence)

  FINDINGS

  • minority jurors only led people to change mind when had evidence to back up points
  • participants influenced by amount of defectors who moved to minority
  • concluded 4 was the amount needed to cause social influence