Minority influence including reference to consistency, commitment and…

The idea

A small group changing what the majority privately believes works differently from conformity: it produces conversion and internalisation rather than public compliance, and it is slow. Moscovici had two confederates call clearly blue slides green. A consistent minority moved participants to agree on 8.42% of trials, against 1.25% when the minority was inconsistent and 0.25% in the control. Agreement between members and over time makes the majority stop and ask why anyone would hold such a view. Personal cost adds weight, since a group that risks something is taken more seriously, which is the augmentation principle. A rigid position is dismissed as dogmatic: in Nemeth's mock jury only the confederate willing to compromise moved the group. Deeper processing then spreads the view by a snowball effect.

What earns the marks

• The process is conversion: the majority is made to think about the message, so change is private and internalised rather than public compliance.
• Consistency: agreement between the members of the minority and agreement over time draws attention and signals a serious alternative view.
• Evidence: Moscovici's blue-green slide study produced agreement with the minority on 8.42% of trials when the minority was consistent, against 1.25% when it was not.
• Commitment: a minority that accepts personal risk or sacrifice is taken more seriously, which is the augmentation principle.
• Flexibility: Nemeth showed that a minority refusing to compromise is dismissed as rigid, while one that adjusts its position shifts the majority.
• The snowball effect: as more of the majority convert, the minority view gathers momentum until it becomes the new majority position.
• Evaluation: Martin found a message backed by a minority was more resistant to a counter-argument than the same message from a majority, which supports the deeper-processing account.
• Evaluation: identifying the colour of a slide carries no consequences, so the research lacks external validity when applied to jury decisions or political campaigns.
• Evaluation: laboratory groups have no history and face no hostility, whereas real minorities are abused and ostracised, so the difficulty of the task is understated.

Common mistakes and how to put them right

• Describing this as a small group conforming to the majority.

  Put it right: The direction is reversed - the few change the many.

• Treating consistency as one person repeating themselves, when it has to be shown both across the members of the group and across time.

• Getting flexibility backwards and arguing that a minority should never give ground, when the finding is that some compromise increases influence.

• Quoting 8.42% as though it were a large effect without noting that it is agreement on a small proportion of trials.

Exam tips

• Explain the process, not just the three factors. The marks are in saying why consistency makes the majority think, not in naming it.
• In an application question, match each factor to a specific detail of the campaign described in the stem.
• Have a clear contrast with conformity ready, because questions often ask you to compare influence that runs in the two directions.