Moscovici thought that minority influence operated in a different way to majority influence. Minority influence causes the majority to reassess their opinion, and that it actually changed underlying beliefs. This was in contrast to normative influence, which generally had little lasting effect. The results of the experiment seemed to back up his opinion.
Research was also conducted on majority influence and this was done by Asch, who brought changes to the ways people believed and provided the foundation for further research. Asch produced a variety of studies, one of which concentrated on the estimation given by of a group of participants. The participants were required to state which of a variety of parallel lines were the longest. There was a degree of ambiguity as the lines were of similar length.
In the control experiment, there were no confederates to distract the participant. In the non-control experiment, there were a number of confederates and a single participant. In turn, each of the group were required to state which of the lines was the longest. The participant was the penultimate to answer, and as such heard a variety of incorrect answers. In the control experiment, only 1 percent of trials resulted in an error. In the non-control experiment, 75% of participants made at least one error. Although Asch was generally concerned with how one can resist majority influence and pressure, his experiments are generally deemed to be demonstrative of the power of majority influence. There were many limitations labelled at the study which are based on the setting which led to artificiality and thus, the study cannot be generalised to other setting. The sample used was also biased since all participants were college students and they were all men.
When comparing both, majority influence would have more effect on decision making because there are a larger number of people who have the opinion, therefore you'd be more likely to internalise your views to their views. Minority influence works if the minority can provide information which backs up their opinion, and also if other people defect to the minority opinion. Minority influence can be shown through Clark's internalisation study which was a simulation of a court case.
Group pressure can be resisted as this is what occurs when people yield to minority influence as first they must have rejected the majority norm. The many real life examples of minority influence show its potential to bring about reform. The process by which the minority influences the majority is called conversion. People often conform with the majority whilst privately they are criticizing the position of the minority.
Maass (1982) says minority influence uses both normative and informational influence: Moscovici’s view that informational influence explains minority influence is challenged by Maass who suggests that there is normative influence at work, because to be effective the minority has to be part of the same “in group” as the majority.
The conformity that Asch found could also be explained by individual differences. Some evidence show that those who tend to conform are those with low self-esteem, high in need of social support or approval, high in anxiety and feelings of insecurity, low IQ and females. There is also the problem that those who conform in one situation might not conform in another.
Sherif (1935) carried out a study, which also showed conformity. . His experiment was based on a visual illusion called the autokinetic effect, whereby a stationary spot of light seen in an otherwise dark room appears to move. The participants were asked to say how much the light had moved. This was done individually first then they were placed in a group. This is where they heard two other participants answers which constituted the group situation and lead to a group norm. Conformity is expected in this kind of situation where participants were placed in a situation where group size was bound to have an influence. Most find that three to five people tend to have more of a conformity effect.
The other reasons why people tend can be explained by group unanimity, minority influence, cultural differences and group differences. Group unanimity in Asch’s study showed that when confederates were instructed to act as a ‘supporter’ to the participant and answered before the real participant and giving the correct answer conformity dropped. This showed that when participants did not felt different to the others because they weren’t the only ones giving a different answer. Supporters and dissenters are effective in reducing conformity because by breaking the unanimity of the group they legitimise the possibility of alternative ways of responding. Minority influence can arise because the minority have consistency of position which demonstrates certainty and commitment which is an alternative coherent view. Conversion can happen here because this is when people change their own views and beliefs to suit others ideas.
Studies that have been acknowledged show how far people would go by agreeing to things that are clearly wrong or agreeing to something they don’t know or disagree. This is just so that they feel part of a group. The many explanations above tell us why we as individuals in the twenty first century have to conform to feel ‘normal’ just so we can be accepted by our friends and even to the extent strangers.
