Minority Influence and Social Change

• What is minority influence?

  A form of social influence in which a minority persuades others to adopt their beliefs and behaviours
• What are the 3 things a minority must do to achieve change?

  1. Consistency
  2. Commitment
  3. Flexibility
• What research support is there for consistency?

  • Moscovici (blue/green slide study) showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on changing the views of people than an inconsistent opinion
  • Participants gave the same wrong answer 8% of the time when consistent compared to 1% when inconsistent
  • Consistent opinion is more influential
• Main processes in Minority Influence

  Consistency - keeps same beliefs over time (makes people rethink their own views)

  
  

  Flexibility - accept possible compromise so they are seen as reasonable and shows they can adapt their point of view

  (Must have a balance between consistency and flexibility)

  
  

  Commitment - more powerful when dedication is shown e.g augmentation principle where you risk your life for the cause
• Minority Influence AO3: Research support for deeper processing

  • A message was presented supporting a particular viewpoint
  • One group heard the majority group agree while another group heard a minority group agree
  • PPs were exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again
  • Those who listened to the minority are less likely to change their view suggesting their view was deeply processed
• Minority Influence AO3: Artificial Tasks

  • Minority influence research is very artificial e.g moscovici and asch
  • This means it is not a true reflection with how minorities usually act in real life
  • Findings of minority influence are lacking external validity and are limited in what they can tell us in real life situations
• Minority Influence AO3: Power of minority influence

  • Consistent minority was low at 8% suggesting minority influence is rare and not a useful concept
• What are the steps in Social Change?

  1. Drawing attention
  2. Consistency
  3. Deeper processing
  4. Augmentation principle
  5. Snowball Effect
  6. Social Cryptomnesia
• Lessons from conformity in social change

  • In Asch's study the dissenter broke the power of the majority and allowed PPs to follow their views which can combat social change
  • Different approach is normative social influence which draws attention to what the majority are doing so they also follow e.g letters that encourage you to recycle
• Lessons from obedience in social change

  • Milgram demonstrated the importance of disobedient role models e.g the learner refused to give PPs shocks in one variation
  • Zimbardo shows how obedience can lead to social change through gradual commitment where one small instruction is followed and eventually bigger orders are as well
• Social Change AO3: Research Support for normative influences

  • Researcher wanted to see if they could change energy use habits of some people
  • Hung messages on the front doors of house every week for one month
  • There were 2 groups and both were encouraged to reduce energy but one group had been told other people had been reducing their energy as well
  • The group that was aware of other people' behaviour decreased their energy uses showing NSI is a valid explanation in creating social change
• Social Change AO3: Barriers to social change

  • People still resist social change
  • PPs were less likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways because they did not want to be associated with stereotypes
  • Environmental activists are described in negative ways
• Social Change AO3: Minority Influence explain change

  • Social Change is due to the type of thinking that minorities inspire
  • Considering minority arguments engage in divergent thinking
  • This leads to better decisions and more creative thinking
  • Dissenting minorities are valuable as they stimulate new ideas and open minds in ways majorities cannot
• Minority Influence research into flexibility

  • Investigated flexibility with PPs in groups of 4 with 1 confederate where they had to agree on the amount of compensation they would give in a ski accident
  • There were 2 conditions: in one the confederate was inflexible and in the other they kept their view of low compensation but compromised a little
  • With the flexibility the majority were more likely to change their mind