Minority Influence

Question 1

Minority influence

Answer 1

Societies are not typically static -> marketed by innovation, change and development.
If only majority influence, where would change come from? -> Influence of minorities
However, many minorities lack power -> how can initially powerless minorities come to exert influence?

Question 2

Theoretical background

Answer 2

The importance of behavioural style according to Moscovici
1- Consistency (over time and between members)
2- Investment (significant personal or material sacrifice, e.g. readiness for arrest, torture)
3- Autonomy (no ulterior motives, e.g. being manipulated/paid to protest, ideas are not genuine).
4- Rigidity (not dogmatic, yet consistent …)

Question 3

Conversion theory

Answer 3

Moscovici developed a conflict model – provoke conversion. (internalising minority’s behaviour and opinions through constant exposure)
Proposes minority influence is qualitatively different from majority influence -> Majority - primarily induces compliance (public conformity) through comparison processes (low attention to the issue) influences by peer pressure -> Minority - private change through cognitive conflict and restructuring through validation processes (high attention to the issue).
Dual process of influences (majority and minority).

Question 4

Moscovici et al (1969) study

Answer 4

4 naïve and 2 confederates -> visual colour perception task - actually blue slides that varied in intensity -> Consistent condition – 2 confederates called all slides green consistently -> Inconsistent condition - confederates called two-thirds of the slides green, one-third blue. They weren’t consistent.
Findings -> 0.2% green responses in control condition, 1.1% green responses in inconsistent condition, 8.2% green responses in consistent condition.

Question 5

Colour thresholds alternative study

Answer 5

Moscovici & Lage (1976)
Want to change if there was a genuine change -> Ostensibly a second experiment - a different experimenter administered a standardised test of colour discrimination -> Each participant tested alone. Both experimental groups showed lower threshold for green than the controls -> Minority - not just public behaviour but also private, cognitive changes.
Findings -> compared minority and majority influence -> consistent minority (2 confederates, 4 naïve), inconsistent minority (2 confederates; 4 naïve), a single consistent confederate.
* Unanimous majority (3 confederates; 1 naïve)
* Non-unanimous majority (4 confederates; 2 naïve)
Minority influence -> overt responses -> Two consistent confederates (10% green) -> Two inconsistent confederates (< 1% green) -> A single consistent confederate (1% green)
Compared minority and majority influence -> overt responses -> Two consistent confederates (10% green) -> Unanimous majority (40% green) -> Non unanimous majority (12% green)
But only the consistent minority condition shifted participants’ colour thresholds.

Question 6

Later or indirect effects

Answer 6

Conversion theory (1980) -> Attention to arguments > Private acceptance -> Latent (time) and indirect effects
Perez & Mugny (1987) -> exposure to pro-abortion message portrayed as either a majority or minority position -> Results: - no minority influence on attitudes toward abortion -> Increase in support for birth control! (indirect change on a related issue)
Alvaro & Crano (1997) -> exposure to a position advocating that gay people serve in the military in the US portrayed as either a majority or minority opinion -> Results: - Minority influence produced no change on related attitudes - Minority influence increased opposition to gun control! (indirect change on a related issue)
Minority influence may not have a significant effect on the target issue but may change similar issues related!

Question 7

Moscovici and Personnaz

Answer 7

Blue-green slide paradigm -> Exposure to consistent minority -> After-image effects -> Controversial and hard to replicate. Participants exposed to consistent minority reported the wrong colour paradigm.

Question 8

Wood et al 1994

Answer 8

Meta-analysis of over 100 studies -> Minorities are generally less persuasive than majorities on direct measures -> But not on indirect measures -> Persuasive compared to control conditions.

Question 9

Processes

Answer 9

When and how is minority influence likely to occur. They operate from different cognitive processes.
Systematic (slow, high effort) v heuristic (fast, low effort – superficial features): these routes operate independently and can occur simultaneously -> somewhat inconsistent findings.
* Mostly minority > systematic processing
* majority > heuristic processing

Question 10

Source-context-elaboration model

Answer 10

• Elaboration -> thinking about the message (different situations allow or encourage more or less elaboration (e.g. personal relevance)
• Low elaboration > heuristic -> Favours majority
• High elaboration > systematic processing -> Favours neither
• Intermediate elaboration > Conversion theory -> systematic processing of minority view

Question 11

Processes in minorities

Answer 11

Minorities appear to promote stronger attitudes -> More resistant to counter-persuasion attempts -> More predictive of behaviour.
Nemeth: difference between majority and minority influence is the type rather than the amount of thinking. Majority > anxiety > narrow focus on the message. Minority > relaxed > broader focus, divergent thinking

Question 12

Group membership

Answer 12

Minorities often belong to an outgroup -> We tend to be more persuaded by members of our ingroups (e.g., David & Turner, 1996)

Question 13

Self-categorization theory

Answer 13

(John Turner) -> Referent informational influence
Social influence: -> We perceive source disagrees with us -> Source is a member of our group -> We see the source’s position as prototypical, i.e. -> most typical of the in-group -> least typical of the out-group.