Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Minority Influence - Coggle Diagram
Minority Influence
-
Nemeth et al (1986)
FINDINGS: minority had no effect when they were inflexible. Majority were much more likely to change their view when minority compromised.
PROCEDURE: participants had to agree on compensation. Condition 1) minority argued low compensation and wouldn't change their position. Condition 2) minority argued low rate of compensation but compromised a slightly higher rate (flexible).
-
Moscovici et al (1969)
PROCEDURE: 2 confederates and 4 participants viewed 36 blue-green coloured slides and they had to say whether they thought the slides were blue or green. Condition 1) confederates consistently said slides were green. Condition 2) confederates were inconsistent about the colour of the slides. Condition 3) a control group - no confederates.
FINDINGS: 8% conformity rate when minority was consistent, dropped to 1.25% when they were inconsistent.
CONCLUSION: minority influence is smaller than majority influence and it results in internalisation (ISI).
Evaluation
Martin et al (2003) gave ppts a message supporting a particular viewpoint. They then heard the endorsement of the view by either a minority or a majority, then heard a conflicting view. People were less willing to change to the conflicting view if they had listened to a minority so message had been more deeply processed.
Wood et al (1994) conducted a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found that minorities seen as being consistent, were most influential.
Minority influence research rarely reflects the dynamics of real minority groups so findings may not apply to real life minority influence situations which have much more power.
-
-