minority influence

1 p

Strength=evidence for consistency

1 E

Moscovici et al. (1969): blue-green slide study

1 e

Significantly more people converted to minority when consistent, 8.42% vs 1.25% (vs 0.25% control no confederates)

1 L

So, presenting a consistent view is essential for MI

2 P

Limitation = low rates of conversion

2 E

8.42% low enough that MI consistency may not be useful explanation

2 e

In second experiment, ppts wrote answers down to more blue-green slides; more likely show a perceptual shift (rate over 75% of slides as green)

2 L

So, PPs in majority maybe reluctant to publicly admit conversion, but still (subconsciously) altered opinion

3 P

Limitation = artificial task

3 E

Lacks mundane realism, not representative of real life

3 e

Real life = more likely significant consequences to beliefs/behaviours, e.g. in jury decision-making

3 L

So, findings of research lack ecological validity so may not be applicable to real-world social situations

4 P

Strength = evidence for deeper thought processing

4 E

Martin et al. (2003): pps presented with either majority or minority support for a viewpoint they agreed with

4 e

Pps who shared the minority viewpoint were less willing to change their opinions

4 L

So, minority messages are  processed more deeply