Minority Influence

Question 1

What is meant by ‘minority influence’?

Answer 1

Minority influence is a form of social influence whereby a minority of people (sometimes just one person) persuade members of the majority to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours.

Question 2

What is Majority influence (compliance)

Answer 2

Majority influence is typically seen as resistant to change.
It maintains the status quo.
Majority influence is associated with compliance and normative social influence (desire to be liked).
It is usually quick to occur.

Question 3

what is minority influence

Answer 3

Minority influence is associated with bringing about change in society (social change).
Minority influence requires conversion (internalisation – both public and private acceptance) within individuals - informational social influence.
It is relatively slow to take place as it involves a change in an individual’s belief system.

Question 4

what are the three behavioural styles of influential minorities

Answer 4

Consistency
Commitment
Flexibility

Question 5

what is consistency

Answer 5

The minority must be consistent in their opinion – not changing their views or demands.

Question 6

what is commitment

Answer 6

The minority should be willing to put time and effort into their cause, and make sacrifices when necessary.

Question 7

what is flexibility

Answer 7

The minority must not be dogmatic – they must be willing to compromise when appropriate.

Question 8

what might consistency be

Answer 8

Agreement between people in the minority group (synchronic consistency) – they’re all saying the same thing.
Consistency over time (diachronic consistency) – they’ve been saying the same thing for some time now, maybe they’ve got a point as they’re not backing down

Question 9

what was the aim of Moscovici et al. (1969) study

Answer 9

To investigate the effects of a consistent minority on a majority.
(The ppts were first given eye tests to ensure they were not colour-blind)

Question 10

what was the procedure of Moscovici et al. (1969) study

Answer 10

Participants were told the study was about perception.
There were 128 female participants.
They were shown 36 slides, which were different shades of blue, and asked to state the colour of each slide out loud.
Participants were placed in groups consisting of four participants and two confederates. It was an independent groups design.

Question 11

what was the consistent condition in Moscovici et al. (1969) study

Answer 11

Two confederates answered ‘green’ for all of the 36 slides.

Question 12

what was the inconsistent condition in Moscovici et al. (1969) study

Answer 12

Two confederates answered ‘green’ 24 times and ‘blue’ 12 times

Question 13

what were the findings of Moscovici et al. (1969) study

Answer 13

The consistent minority had a greater affect on the majority (ppts said the slide was green on 8.2% of the trials) compared to an inconsistent minority (ppts said the slide was green on only 1.25% of the trials).
A third (32%) of all participants judged the slide to be green at least once in the consistent condition.

Question 14

what was the conclusion of Moscovici et al. (1969) study

Answer 14

Minorities can influence a majority, but not all the time and only when they behave in certain ways. This study shows how a consistent behavioural style is important in influencing majority members.

Question 15

what was the critisisms of Moscovici et al. (1969) study

Answer 15

Low Ecological Validity(artificial)

Low Population Validity: Moscovici used female students as participants (he thought they would be more interested in colours…) making this an unrepresentative sample (GYNOCENTRIC). It is therefore difficult to generalise the findings to males.

Ethical Issues: Lack of fully informed consent; deception (participants were told that they were taking part in a colour perception test).

Question 16

what is the augmentation principle.

Answer 16

Sometimes minorities engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views and demonstrate their level of commitment.
It is important that these activities are at some risk to the minority because this shows dedication to the cause – they are being seen to make personal sacrifices (not acting out of self-interest).
Majority group members then pay even more attention – ‘S/he must really believe in what s/he’s saying, so perhaps I ought to consider her/his view’.

Question 17

:(If they adopt a rigid position, then this could lead to a perception of the minority as dogmatic and narrow minded, which will not be persuasive is shifting the views of the majority.

Answer 17

A minority will be persuasive if they are able to demonstrate an ability to be moderate, co-operative and reasonable.
Successful minority influence therefore seems to require the minority to compromise and be slightly inconsistent in its position.
They need to be prepared to adapt their point of view and accept reasonable and valid counter-arguments.
Minorities are typically powerless compared to the majority, so they must negotiate their position with the majority rather than try to enforce it.

Question 18

Key Study: Nemeth (1986)

Answer 18

Nemeth created groups of three ppts and one confederate who had to decide how much compensation to pay to the victim of a ski-lift accident.
When the confederate, acting as a consistent minority, argued for a low amount and refused to change his position, he had no effect on the majority.
However, when he compromised a little and moved to offering a slightly higher amount, the majority changed their opinion to a lower amount.
This therefore shows how minorities need to be flexible to be persuasive.

Question 19

what did Nemeth’s study show about flexibility

Answer 19

Nemeth’s findings were supported by Mugny and Papastamou (1982) who asked participants to respond to questions about pollution.
They were exposed to a minority’s extreme views on how to control pollution.
When the minority refused to budge from their opinion, they were not persuasive.
However, when they appeared flexible by compromising, they were seen as less extreme, co-operative and reasonable and were more persuasive in changing majority opinions.