Factors affecting minority influence

• Minority influence

  • Minority influence requires individuals to reject majority behaviours/beliefs, and be converted to the views of the minority. The minority attempts to change views through informational social influence (using reasoned arguments to convince members of the majority to change sides), so this is likely as a result of internalisation
• Behaviours affecting minority influence

  1. Consistency
  2. Commitment
  3. Flexibility
• Consistency


  The minority needs to demonstrate that it is confident in its view. If they repeat the same message over time (diachronic consistency) then the argument seems more powerful.
• Commitment


  If the minority are willing to suffer for their views, also known as the augmentation principle, and still hold them, then this is likely to cause members of the majority to take them seriously
• Flexibility


  • If a minority is seen as totally inflexible in their view (dogmatic) then minorities will not be persuasive
  • They need the ability to consider valid counter arguments and slightly compromise
• Supporting research: Consistency

  • Researcher: Moscovici (1969)
• Procedure: Moscovici (1969)

  • Groups consisting of 4 participants and 2 confederates were shown 36 blue slides of different shades in two conditions.
  • In the first the consistent minority of two confederates stated that every slide was green.
  • In the second confederates stated that 24 of the 36 slides were green (inconsistent minority)
• Findings: Moscovici (1969)

  • When the minority was consistent, 32% of participants gave the same answer as the minority on at least one trial, and the wrong answer was given by participants on 8.4% of trials.
  • This compares to only 1.25% of trials where the wrong answer was given by participants when the minority was inconsistent, proving that consistency was vital
• Methological Strength: Moscovici (1969)

  • The study used a controlled experimental design, allowing for the manipulation of variables and the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships.
  • This strengthens the internal validity of the study and increases confidence in the findings
• Methological Weakness: Moscovici (1969)

  • Study has been criticised for its artificiality and lack of ecological validity
  • The task of identifying the colour of slides in a laboratory setting may not fully reflect the complexities of real-world social influence situations
  • Therefore, the generalisability of the study's findings to real-life settings may be limited
• Supporting research: Flexibility

  Nemeth (1986)
• Procedure: Nemeth (1986)

  • He used a group of 3 participants and one confederate in two conditions of a mock jury situation
  • In the first the confederate (the minority) would show inflexibility, arguing for a low level of compensation for the imaginary victim of a ski lift accident and not changing from that level
  • In the second the confederate showed flexibility by raising his offer slightly. In this flexible condition the majority were much more likely to lower their compensation level closer to that of the confederates than in the inflexible condition
• Limitation: Nemeth (1986)

  As this was an experimental situation with the participants aware that the ski lift victim was not real, and no money would be paid, we may question the external validity of this experiment.