Discuss research into minority influence. [16 marks]

ESSAY HINT: For this question, you should use research such as Moscovici’s study of consistency and Nemeth’s study of flexibility, including accurate detail about their procedures and findings. Your discussion should explain the strengths and limitations of this research and link each point directly to minority influence. For example, when discussing low external validity, compare artificial laboratory tasks with real-life minority influence in social-change movements. You may also use examples such as the women’s rights or civil rights movements to show how minority influence operates in practice.

Research into minority influence has examined the roles of consistency and flexibility. Moscovici et al. (1969) investigated whether a consistent minority could influence a majority during a colour-perception task. He placed 172 female participants in groups of six and showed them 36 slides, all of which were shades of blue. Two confederates either consistently described every slide as green or inconsistently described 24 as green and 12 as blue. Participants agreed with the minority on 8.2% of trials in the consistent condition, compared with only 1.25% in the inconsistent condition. Moscovici concluded that a consistent minority is more effective at influencing the majority.

Nemeth (1986) investigated the role of flexibility. Participants were placed in groups of four and asked to agree on the compensation awarded to a victim of a ski-lift accident. A confederate argued for a low amount and either refused to change this position or showed flexibility by suggesting a slightly higher amount. The inflexible minority had little or no influence, whereas the flexible minority was more likely to change the majority’s viewpoint. Nemeth concluded that flexibility is an important characteristic of successful minority influence.

One strength of Moscovici’s and Nemeth’s research is that both studies were conducted under highly controlled conditions. Moscovici standardised the number and colour of the slides and the responses given by the confederates, while Nemeth controlled whether the confederate behaved flexibly or inflexibly. This made it easier to establish whether consistency or flexibility caused changes in the majority’s responses. The standardised procedures also make the studies easier to replicate, allowing psychologists to check whether similar findings are obtained. Therefore, research into minority influence has high reliability and provides scientific evidence for the roles of consistency and flexibility.

However, both studies may have low external validity. Moscovici’s colour-perception task was artificial and had little relevance to everyday life. Although Nemeth’s compensation task was more realistic, participants were still making a hypothetical group decision in a controlled setting. These tasks differ from real-life examples of minority influence, such as political campaigns or social-change movements, where the issues are more complex and personally meaningful. Therefore, the findings may not fully explain how minority influence operates outside the laboratory.

A further limitation is that Moscovici’s study lacks population validity and may be affected by gender bias. The sample consisted entirely of 172 female American participants, meaning that the findings may not generalise to males or people from other cultures. The study may also be considered gynocentric because its conclusions were based entirely on female behaviour. Research has suggested that females may be more likely to conform, which could have influenced the results. Consequently, Moscovici’s findings may provide only a partial account of minority influence, and further research using a wider range of participants is needed.

Notes