Minority influence AO3

• Findings of minority influence studies lack external validity and are limited in what they can tell about how minority influence works in real-life social situations
• Research supports that change to a minority position involves deeper processing of ideas
• Private agreement with the minority position was greater when responses were written down rather than stated out loud
• Martin et al. (2003) found that people were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to a minority group rather than a majority group
• Minority messages are more deeply processed and have a more enduring effect, supporting the central argument about how the minority influence process works
• Majorities usually have more power and status than minorities, while minorities are very committed to their causes and often face hostile opposition
• Minorities can be tight-knit groups whose members know each other well and turn to each other for support
• Moscovici et al.'s study showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on other people than an inconsistent opinion
• Members of the majority were convinced by the minority's argument but were reluctant to admit it publicly
• Wood et al. (1994) found that minorities seen as consistent were most influential
• Limitation of minority influence research: tasks involved are artificial and far removed from real-life situations like jury decision making and political campaigning
• Real-life social influence situations are more complicated than research studies, involving power dynamics, status, commitment, and group dynamics