Minority Influence

• A strength of minority influence research is that evidence demonstrates the importance of consistency.
• For example, Moscovici (1969) found a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on other people than an inconsistent opinion.
• Furthermore, Wood (1994) conducted a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found that minorites seen as being consistent were most influential.
• This strengthens both the internal validity and support for minority influence research as this confirms that consistency is a major factor in minority influence.
• Another strength of minority influence research is that evidence shows change to minority position involves deeper thought.
• For example, Martin (2003) gave participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint, and attitudes measured. Then they heard an endorsement of the view from either a minority or a majority. Finally they heard a conflicting view; attitudes measured again.
• People were less willing to change their opinions to the new conflicting view if they had listened to a minority group than if they listened to a majority group.
• This strengthens both the internal validity and support for minority influence research as this suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect.
• A limitation of minority influence research is that it often involves artificial tasks.
• For example, Moscovici's task was identifying the colour of a slide, far removed from how minorities try to change majority opinion in real life.
• In jury decision-making and political campaigning, outcomes are vastly more important, maybe a matter of life or death.
• This weakens both the external validity and support for minority influence research as the studies are limited in what they tell us about how minority influence works in real-life situations.