9. minority influence

what is minority influence

a form of social influence where a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours

it leads to internalisation or conversion - private and public attitudes and behaviours change

who studied minority influence

moscovici - blue slide, green slide study

how does minority influence work

1. consistency

2. commitment

3. flexibility

consistency

• the minority must be consistent in their views ie not fluctuate and overtime this consistency increases the amount of interest in others. two forms:

  1. synchronic - they are all saying the same thing

  2. diachronic - they have been saying the same thing for some time

• they make others rethink their views

• may produce a war of attrition where gradually a consistent stance can lesson the doubts

commitment

• the minority must demonstrate commitment to their view/cause - sometimes done through extreme activities, showing their extent of commitment

• majority members then pay even more attention (augmentation principle)

• strong commitment in the face of ridicule or hostility may lead the majority to think the minority have a point as they are willing to be publically mocked

flexibility

• Nemeth (1986) argued too much consistency may be seen as being rigid, unbending and dogmatic - instead members of minority group should be prepared to adapt their view to accept reasonable and valid counterarguments

• key is to strike a balance between the two

how does this explain the process of change

• consistency, commitment and flexibility in a minority group makes others think more deeply about their point - this deeper processing is important in converting a viewpoint

• overtime, increasing numbers of people switch from majority to minority, and the more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion - snowball effect

• gradually the minority view has become the majority view and a change has occurred

evaluation

• research support for consistency

• research support for deeper processing

• artificial tasks

• low explanatory power for both studies

research support for consistency

• key idea: consistency increases the influence of a minority

• supporting evidence: Moscovici et al.’s blue-green slide study showed that a consistent minority was more effective in changing the majority's views than an inconsistent one

  Wood et al. (1994) conducted a meta-analysis of 100 studies and found consistent minorities were the most influential

• explanation: consistency shows confidence and determination, which makes the minority's position seem more credible and persuasive

• application: highlights how presenting a consistent stance is crucial in real-world scenarios, like promoting social or political change

artificial tasks

• key idea: many minority influence studies lack external validity

• supporting evidence: Moscovici et al.’s study asked participants to identify the color of slides, which does not reflect how minorities influence in real-world scenarios, such as jury decisions or political campaigning so low mundane realism as there was no personal salience for the participants

• explanation: artificial tasks fail to capture the complexities of real-life minority influence, such as the stakes and pressures involved in significant decisions

• application: limits the extent to which findings from minority influence studies can be generalised to real-world situations

research support for deeper processing

• key idea: minorities encourage deeper thought and processing of their ideas

• supporting evidence: Martin et al. (2003) found that participants who heard a minority argument were more likely to change their opinions when exposed to conflicting views later, compared to hearing a majority argument

• explanation: this suggests the minority’s message is processed more deeply, leading to more lasting and thoughtful attitude change

• application: demonstrates how minority influence can encourage critical thinking and long-term change in areas like education or reform movements

low explanatory power

• limited in what they can tell us about minority influence in real life

• majorities usually have more power and status creating a hostile opposition, features absent from minority influence research where the minority is simply the smallest group