minority influence

• what are the three factors determining wether a minority can influence a majority?

  commitment, consistency and flexibility
• what is minority influence most likely to lead to?

  internalisation
• what does consistency make the majority do?

  rethink their own views

  challenge established social norms
• what does consistency show?

  confidence
• what are the two types of consistency?

  synchronic and diachronic
• what is synchronic consistency?

  people in the minority are all saying the same thing
• what is diachronic consistency?

  the minority have been saying the same thing for a long time
• what is commitment?

  the minority may engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their cause
• what is the augmentation principle in relation to commitment?

  the extreme activities from the minority will increase the interest from the majority group members
• what is flexibility?


  it is showing willingness to listen to others
• what are flexible minority groups seen as being?

  more persuasive
• what did Nemeth 1986 argue in relation to flexibility?

  if the minority is seen as being inflexible and uncompromising then the majority are unlikely to change
• what is the process of change?

  over time all three factors make people think about the topic and there is a gradual conversion of the majority to the minority belief - the more this happens the faster the rate of conversion (snowball effect)
• why is Nemeth 1986 a strength?

  • ppts put into groups of 4 and had to agree on the amount of compensation for a victim of a ski lift accident
  • one ppt was a confederate and there were two conditions
  • condition 1- when minority argued for a low rate and refused to change his position
  • condition 2- when the minority argued for a low rate but compromised
  • condition 1- minority had little to no effect on majority
  • condition 2- minority was much more likely to compromise
• what is a weakness of minority influence studies?

  studies are artificial such as Moscovic stating the colour of slides. Real life situations are more complicated such as fathers for justice campaign. -> findings lack EXTERNAL VALIDITY and have limited real world application
• what is a further weakness of minority influence studies?

  they dont capture the commitment that the minorities show towards their causes including the social support when majority hostility threatens to overwhelm them -> lacks mundane realism
• what was the Martin et al 2003 study - strength

  • gave ppts a message supporting a viewpoint then measured their support
  • CONDITION 1- ppts then heard a minority group endorsing the same view
  • CONDITION 2- ppts then heard a majority group endorsing the same view
  • both groups then given a conflicting view.
  • People were less willing to change their opinion to the new conflicting view if they had listened to a minority group than the majority group
• what was Moscovici et al 1960?

  • a group of 6 people (4 ppts and 2 confederates) shown 36 slides which were clearly different shades of blue. Asked to state the colour aloud
  • CONDITION 1- 2 confederates answered green every time (consistent)
  • results - ppts gave the sane wrong answer 8.42% of the time
  • CONDITION 2- 2 confederates said green 24 times and blue 12 times (inconsistent)
  • results - ppts gave the same incorrect answer 1.25% of the time