Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Moscovici 1969 - Coggle Diagram
Moscovici 1969
Procedure
They were then placed in a group consisting of four participants and two confederates. They were shown 36 slides which were clearly different shades of blue and asked to state the colour of each slide out loud.
In the first part of the experiment the two confederates answered green for each of the 36 slides. They were totally consistent in their responses. In the second part of the experiment they answered green 24 times and blue 12 times.
In this case they were inconsistent in their answers. Would the responses of the two confederates influence those of the four participants? In other words, would there be minority influence?
Aim
To investigate the effects of a consistent minority on a majority. Moscovici (1969) conducted a re-run of Asch’s experiment, but in reverse.
Instead of one participant amongst a majority of confederates, he placed two confederates together with four genuine participants. The participants were first given eye tests to ensure they were not colour-blind.
Results
In condition one it was found that the consistent minority had an affect on the majority (8.42%) compared to an inconsistent minority (only 1.25% said green).
n condition one it was found that the consistent minority had an affect on the majority (8.42%) compared to an inconsistent minority (only 1.25% said green).
A third (32%) of all participants judged the slide to be green at least once.
Evaluation
Strengths
A strength of Moscovici's theory of minority influence is that there is research support that demonstrates the importance of consistency. For example, Moscovici et al's study showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on other people than an inconsistent opinion. Another example is by Wood et al 1994 who carried out a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were most influential. This is a strength because it suggests that consistency is a major factor in minority influence... Suggests validity.
A strength is that there is research evidence to show that change to a minority position does involve deeper processing of ideas. For example, Martin et al 2003 gave ppts a message supporting a viewpoint and measured their support. One group of ppts then heard a minority group agree with the initial view while another group heard this from a majority group. Ppts were finally exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again. Martin et al found that people were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to a minority group rather than if they were shared with a majority group. This is a strength because it suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect, supporting the argument about how the minority influence process works.
Weaknesses
However, a weakness of Moscovici's theory of minority influence is that other research suggests consistency is not the most important factor. For example, Nemeth's 1986 study found that when a mock jury had to discuss how much compensation was to be given to the victim of a ski lift accident, a minority of one person suggesting a lower amount of money then compromising slightly, won over the majority opinion because the minority was being flexible compared to when they were just consistent. This is a weakness because Moscovici does not take into account that consistency without flexibility would not win over a majority which suggests the emphasis on consistency as the most important factor may not be valid.
A weakness of Moscovici's study is the tasks involved, such as identifying the colour of a slide, are as artificial. Research is therefore far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life. For example, in cases such as jury decision making and political campaigning, the outcomes are vastly more important, sometimes even literally a matter of life or death. This is a weakness because it means the findings of minority influence studies are lacking in external validity and are limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real life social situations.
Conclusion
Minorities can influence a majority, but not all the time and only when they behave in certain ways (e.g. consistent behavior style).