From this it was concluded that in order for minority social influence to be effective the smaller group must be consistent, and the members of the minority group must be in concurrence with each other. Inconsistent minorities have very little influence over majorities, as the variation makes their opinions appear unfounded.
This study is important as it demonstrates the effects a minority group can have over a majority. It can be credited for its use of an unambiguous task- the presence of an obvious correct answer ensures that any conformity is not due to a lack of certainty on the part of the participant, but however is due to the social influence of others. This is important as it shows a more realistic application to everyday life and human behaviour than when an ambiguous task is used- most situations in real life will be unambiguous, so by using an unambiguous stimulus we are provided with a more accurate representation.
However, the ecological validity is lowered by the fact that this is a laboratory experiment. The setting is artificial and so the results may not be generalized to everyday life as there may be discrepancies between usual human behaviour and that seen in an experiment of this sort. As a laboratory study there is also high risk of demand characteristics (where a participant works out the purpose of an experiment and so modifies his/her behaviour to help or hinder the researcher).
The benefits of the study being set in a laboratory are that the variables can be controlled more precisely, eliminating more confounding variables than in other types of experiment.
Due to the biased and atypical sample the study is lacking in external validity (the ability to apply the conclusions drawn to other different situations and groups of people- also known as ‘population validity’). The participants involved were female undergraduates; this may affect the way in which the results can be generalized. It has been found that women are more greatly affected by normative social influence than men are, meaning that women are more likely to conform. Therefore it can be expected that males and females will react differently to minority social influence. These findings relate to the female reaction in the situation can therefore only be generalized to this female population.
Similar differences may not only be found across genders but perhaps across cultures, social classes and age groups. Each different group may be more or less inclined to conform; therefore these results are not applicable to the world in general. In order to make this generalization, first several different studies would have to be carried out across different sample groups in order to determine whether or not there were significant differences present between the conformity levels.
Other studies have been carried out using a similar procedure and act to further the findings of Moscovici’s original research and correct some of the conclusions initially put forward.
Moscovici and Nemeth (1974) were interested in the effects of seating position of the minority participants. In the study there were five participants (one confederate, four in the majority). It was found that if the minority was to express an opinion whilst sat at the head of the table the influence was greater than if the minority chose to sit elsewhere. Although this does not contradict the 1969 experiment, it does suggest that consistency is not the only important factor in minority social influence. The place where the confederate sat shows the presence of situational factors in minority social influence.
An argument against the importance of consistency was put forward by Nemeth et al (1974). Participants carried out the original experiment but with two different conditions; in the first the minority gave the incorrect answer to every slide, and in the second the incorrect answers were given in an inconsistent fashion- however they followed a pattern; when the slides were bright the answer ‘green’ was given, but when the slides were dim the answer ‘green-blue’ was given.
Nemeth found that this second condition of inconsistent ‘patterning’ caused a higher agreement and conformity than the unrealistic constant incorrectness of the first condition. It was also found that only when the patterning was consistent were the levels of conformity still present (random wrong/right answers showed no conformity by the majority at all). This strongly suggests that consistency is not the cause of minority social influence as said in 1969, however regular inconsistency will have more of an effect.
This shows that although the original experiment wasn’t inaccurate in its assumptions, further research has been able to better determine the way in which minority social influence works. Moscovici’s (1969) study wasn’t in depth enough to explain the variables of consistency.
Further research was able to pick out two other important factors in the successfulness of minority social influence. A 1984 study by Mugny showed that when the minority were unreasonably confident the levels of conformity dropped. This is similar to the findings that unreasonable consistency (providing incorrect answers for every trail) was also counterproductive. Using moderate language and a patterned consistency are much more effective in raising the conformity level.
One argument proposed is that flexibility is a more important factor than consistency. Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987) found that when a minority of one refused to change his opinion on a matter (not compromising over the amount of compensation to be paid in a mock jury case) the person had no effect over the majority. When the minority member showed willingness to compromise there was evidence of influence over the majority at a later stage. Again this research takes Moscovici’s ideas a step further to refine his original research and to develop the ideas suggested.
An argument against Moscovici’s study is that the size of the majority must be taken into account. Clark and Maass (1990) found that when the majority of increased to 8 or 12 (from Moscovici’s original 4), compared to the minority of 2, the levels of conformity were completely lost. If the initial experiment had used a greater majority than 4 then there would have been no evidence of minority social influence.
This shows that generalisations cannot be made from the 1969 study as the conformity only occurs up to a certain number of people. Therefore the effects of minority influence may only be said to work when the minority to majority ratio is at a maximum of 2:4. These findings are not particularly useful as they cannot demonstrate applications in everyday life; such as when a jury majority of 11 is influenced by a minority of 1. This may be due to the method used in Moscovici’s study; perhaps a more realistic experiment method would show different results that could fully explain how human behaviour works in everyday life.
Moscovici’s (1969) study into minority social influence has acted as an important base for research. As a laboratory experiment it has limited ecological validity and mundane realism; however it has the positive attribute of fewer possible confounding variables. The study has been both supported and opposed by later research, however it appears that the idea of consistency suggested by Moscovici is not wrong but was not developed enough to fully explain minority social influence.
The experiment allowed for further developments of explanational theories; providing a suitable method to be used in studies, and initial ideas that were important for improvements on our psychological understanding of minority social influence.
