Minority influence

What happens as a result of majority influence?

People identify with the majority and are try to ‘fit in’ with their opinions.

What happens as a result of minority influence?

This, in contrast, creates a conversion process whereby, provided the minority adopt a consistent and committed approach, people scrutinise the message itself.

What do people want to understand about the minority?

They want to understand why the minority hold this position.

What happens as a result of this?

Conversion to the minority position tends to be deeper and longer lasting when it occurs.

This is because people have internalised the minority’s point of view.

What does research suggest, in order to bring about this conversion process?

That minorities must adopt a particular behaviour style - being consistent, committed and flexible in their arguments.

CONSISTENCY: why is a consistent approach successful for minority influence?

If the minority adopt a consistent approach, others reassess the situation and consider the issue more carefully.

They would previously have assumed the minority was in error, when first exposed to the minority with a differing view.

COMMITMENT: why is commitment successful for minority influence?

As it suggests certainty, confidence and courage in the face of a hostile majority.

Joining a minority inevitably has a greater cost for the individual than staying with the majority. The degree of commitment shown by minority group members is typically greater than this cost.

This greater commitment persuades the majority to take the minority seriously.

FLEXIBLITY: why does flexibility lead to a successful influence from the minority?

Minorities are typically powerless comatose to the majority, so they must negotiate their position with the majority rather than trying to enforce it.

What did Mugny (1982) say about flexibility?

He distinguished between rigid and flexible negotiating styles.

He argued that a rigid minority that refuses to compromise is perceived as narrow-minded.

He also argued that a minority that is too flexible risks being seen as inconsistent.

So some, but not too much flexibility is most effective - according to Mugny.

KEY STUDY: What year did Moscovici’s study into minority influence take place?

1969.

What was tha aim of Moscovici’s blue/green study?

What was the procedure of the study? (part 1)

Each group comprised of 4 naïve participants and a minority of 2 confederates.

They were shown a series of blue slides varying only in intensity and were asked to judge the colour of each slide.

What were the experimental conditions? (Procedure part 2)

The ‘consistent’ experimental condition - the confederates repeatedly called all of the blue slides ‘green’.

The ‘inconsistent’ condition - the confederates called the slides ‘green’ on two-thirds of the trials, calling the remaining slides ‘blue’.

Control condition - comprised of six naïve participants, no confederates. Here, participants called the slides ‘blue’ throughout.

What were the findings of the study?

The consistent minority influenced the naïve participants to say ‘green’ on over 8% of trials.

The inconsistent minority exerted very little influence, achieving similar results to the control group.

What were participants asked to do after the main study was over? (additional procedure)

To individually sort 16 coloured discs into either ‘blue’ or ‘green’.

Three of these discs we’re unambiguously from the blue end of the colour spectrum, three were unambiguously from the green end.

The remaining ten discs were ambiguous in that they could be considered blue or green.

What did participants have to do to do this?

They had to establish a threshold point where everything one side of the point would be judged as ‘blue’, and everything the other side ‘green’.

What were the findings of this additional procedure?

Participants who had been in the ‘consistent’ and ‘inconsistent’ minority conditions set their thresholds at different points.

Those in the consistent condition judged more of the chips to be green than those in the inconsistent condition.

This effect was even greater for participants who hadn’t gone along with the minority during the experiment. This suggests that the influence was more at a private than a public level.

What is the conclusion of Moscovici’s research?

Although levels of conformity are nowhere near as great as with majority influence, a consistent minority is far more influential than an inconsistent one.

Positive eval

Research support for flexibility - Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987) simulated jury situation. Group members in the experiment discussed the amount of compensation to be paid to someone involved in a ski-lift accident.

When a confederate put forward an alternative point of view and refused to change his position, this had no effect on other group members. A confederate who compromised did exert influence on the rest of the group.

Minority influence has a positive impact - Nemeth (2010) argued that minority influence ‘opens the mind’. People consider more options and are more creative. This leads to better decisions being made.

Negative eval

Majority are stubborn - Nemeth (2010) claimed the the majority view the dissenting beliefs of the minority as deviant. The members of the majority don’t want to be ridiculed by being associated with a ‘deviant’ point of view.

As a result, the majority persists, limiting opportunities for the minority.