Minority influence

What is minority influence?

Small group influences the larger group to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours

Minority influence is most likely to led to…

…internalisation

How does minority influence occur?

Consistency

Commitment

Flexibility

How does consistency cause minority influence?

When a minority is consistent in their views, it increases the amount of interest from other people - it is more convincing when they have had this view for a long time

What is synchronic consistency?

Agreement between people in the group, all saying the same thing

What is diachronic consistency?

Consistency over time - they’ve been saying the same thing for some time now

How does commitment cause minority influence?

Minorities may engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views → greater risk = greater commitment.

What is the augmentation principle?

The majority pays more attention to the minority’s views as they believe that the minority really believe in what they are saying

How does flexibility cause minority influence?

• Nameth (1986) argues extreme consistency can be off-putting - someone who repeats the same argument and behaviours can be seen as rigid and dogmatic.

• Minority therefore need to be prepared to adapt their views and accept reasonable and valid counter arguments.

• Most success when there is a balance between consistency and flexibility.

What is the snowball effect?

The minority view eventually becoming the majority view

How does the snowball effect work?

• When a new view is consistent, committed and flexible, it may make you stop and think about it (compared to something you already agree with).

• The more this deeper processing happens, the faster rate of conversation → just like a snowball that gathers more snow as it rolls along

What was Moscovici et al. (1969)’s blue-green slides method?

• 6 people were asked to view a set of 36 blue-coloured slides that varied in intensity.

• They had to state whether the slides were blue or green.

• In each group, there were 2 confederates who constantly said the slides were green.

What were Moscovici et al.’s findings?

• Participants gave the same answer as confederates on 8.42% of the trials.

• A second group, exposed to an inconsistent minority, this dropped to 1.25%.

• In a third control group with no confederates, participants only identified the wrong colour on 0.25% of the trials.

What research support is there for consistency?

• Moscovici et al. (1969)’s blue-green slide study shows a consistent minority had a greater effect on changing the view of the majority than inconsistent.

• Wood et al. (1994)’s meta-analysis of 100 similar studies found that minorities who were seen as consistent were the most influential.

What research is there to support the snowball effect?

• Martin et al. (2003) presented a particular viewpoint and measured participants’ agreement. One group heard a minority agree and the other heard the majority agree.

• Participants were then exposed to a conflicting view → they were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to the minority than the majority.

• Suggests minority’s message had been more deeply processed and had a more significant effect.

What evidence challenges the snowball effect?

• Studies such as Martin et al.’s make clear distinctions between minority and majority → controlled conditions.

• However, in real-life, social influence situations are more complicated → majorities usually have more power and status, and minorities have to be more committed due to hostility they face.

• In research, minorities are simply presented as the smaller group, removing any real-life struggles.

• Suggests Martin et al.’s findings are limited in telling what minority influence is like in real-life.

Why does Moscovici et al.’s study lack external validity?

• Choosing a coloured slide is an artificial task → research is far removed from how minorities attempt to influence the majority in real life.

• In cases such as a jury decision-making and political campaigns, the outcomes are much more important than in the study.

• Suggests findings are not telling about minority influence in real life.

How does Moscovici et al. show that minority influence situations is not a significant factor?

The figure for agreement with the consistent minority was only 8%, suggesting minority influence is a rare and unhelpful concept