Weaknesses

• P: Explanations rely on studies such as Moscovici, Milgram and Asch
• B: Research above is artificial - fake scenarios or lacking mundane realism e.g. green/blue slides.

  Evidence that supports social change can be criticised for their methodology. Possible demand characteristics? (link to a study and explain)

  Problems with the sample being used? means the results cannot be generalised? (link to a study and explain).
• S: This suggests that the research findings may lack external validity and cannot explain how SOCIAL CHANGE works in real life.
• History challenges the view that the minority can bring about social change quickly.
• There is a strong tendency for people to maintain the status quo (i.e. the position as it stands) so people are less likely to engage in social change. So, it may only enable a very slow and gradual change. Nemeth argued that minority influence is very weak and may be delayed. For example, social change such as attitudes towards drink driving and smoking have taken decades to shift.
• This suggests that using minority influence to explain social change may be limited, because the effects are very fragile and weak.