AO3 -minority influence

• Strength for minority influence

  • Mosovici et al. (1969) blue or green slides?
  • 1st group: 2 confederates consistently giving wrong answer (green), Px gave wrong answer 8.42% of trials
  • 2nd group: Px were exposed to inconsistent minority who gave the answers: green, 12 times and blue 24, times (agreement with green fell to 1.25%)
  • 3rd group: control group, no confederates, so only gave wrong answer on 0.25% of trials
• What did Mosovici et al.'s (1969) blue-green slides study show?

  A consistent minority had a greater effect on changing views than an inconsistent opinion
• One limitation of minority influence research

  • Tasks involved are artificial like Moscovici et al's task of identifying the colour of a slide
  • Research is therefore far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life
  • Such as jury decision-making and political campaigning, the outcomes are vastly more important, sometimes even literally a matter of life or death
  • Findings of minority influence studies lack external validity and are limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real-world social situations
• Point - Martin et al. (2003)

  • evidence shows that a change in the majority's position does involve deeper processing of the minority's ideas
• Evidence - Martin et al. (2003)

  • presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured Px agreement
  • one group heard a minority group agree with the initial view
  • another group heard a majority group agree with it
  • Px were finally exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again
• Explanation - Martin et al. (2003)

  • people were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to a minority group than if they had listened to a majority group
  • this suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect, supporting the central argument about how minority influence works
• Counterpoint - Martin et al. (2003)

  • real-world social influence situations are much more complicated
  • majorities usually have a lot more power and status than minorities
  • minorities are very committed to their causes - they have to be because they often face very hostile opposition
  • these features are usually absent from minority influence research - the minority is simply the smallest group
  • therefore Martin et al.'s findings are very limited in what they can tell us about minority influence in real-world situations
• Mosovici - 68% of Px never agreed with minority, perhaps only some are receptive to minority groups
• There are a range of minorities that have caused social change due to minority influence, for example

  • the gay rights movement
  • environmental groups
  • the suffragettes
  • these groups have been consistent to their message and in some cases suffered
  • however eventually caused the social change they aimed for
• Mosovici et al.'s study was about consistency
• Martin et al.'s research is based around deeper processing
• Flexibility has been shown to help minorities influence members of the majority

  • Nemeth (1987) asked three real participants and one confederate to act as a mock jury and decide on the level of compensation for the victim of an (imaginary) serious ski lift accident
  • When the confederate was inflexible, arguing for a low level of compensation ($50,000) and not changing position during negotiations, they were less able to convince members of the majority to lower their offers, than when they showed flexibility by increasing their offer to $100,000 during the negotiation
• Lab-based studies on factors affecting minority influence, such as Moscovici and Nemeth, are highly artificial and may not be valid when generalised to real-world minority influence. In real life, those trying to convince us are often friends and family, and the topics are likely to be important social issues, not meaningless tasks like stating the colour of a slide.
• (+) There are many real-life examples of minority groups using commitment, flexibility and consistency to influence members of the majority population.

  • e.g. the suffragettes showed commitment by going on hunger strike
  • leaders of the civil rights movement delivered speeches with a consistent message of equality
  • the LGBTQ+ rights movement campaigned for civil partnerships, a strategic (flexible) compromise that ultimately led to the ultimate goal, the full legalisation of same-sex marriage