Evaluation

• Evaluate research support for consistency

  • Wood et al 1994
  • Meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies.
  • Found minorities that were consistent to be more influential.
• evaluate research support for depth of thoughts?

  • martin et al 2004
  • gave participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measure their support.
  • one group - heard a minority group agree with the view.
  • another group - heard a majority group agree.
  • participants met with conflicting view.
  • less likely to change their opinions when they listen to the minority group.
  • the minority message was more deeply processed
• evaluate artifical tasks?

  • Identifying a colour of a slide is artifical.
  • Doesn’t show how minorities affect majority in real life.
  • In cases such as jury decision making and political campaigning, the outcomes are important.
  • Findings are lacking external validity.
• evaluate research support for internalisation?

  • in a Moscovici variation, participants write down their answer privately.
  • agreements with minority were greater.
  • they were convinced by the minority and changing their own views but reluctant to admit this publicly.
  • moscovici suggested- they didnt want to be associated with the minority position, for fear of being considered radical, awkward or weird