Moscovici et al (1969) researched the effect of minority influence with an experiment where out of groups of six women, two were confederates. The groups viewed blue slides through filters and had to state what colour they believed they were seeing. In the first experiment, the confederate minority consistently argued that the slides were blue; this caused the majority to agree with the minority (even though they were intentionally incorrect) in 8.42% of the trials with 32% giving the same answer as the minority at least once. In subsequent experiments of the same nature, when the minority did not show consistency in arguing their position (i.e. that the slides were green, not blue) then they were far less successful in convincing the minority to their position. The findings of this experiment empirically suggest that minorities can influence a majority and suggest that consistency is necessary for a greater amount of success.
This viewpoint was later questioned by Mugny and Papastamou (1980) who claimed that there was more to the success of minority influence than just consistency. They argued consistency is a complex issue and if the minority shows signs of being too inflexible, rigid and unwilling to compromise then they are viewed as too extreme; it is then very unlikely for the views of the majority to be changed.
To test this argument, Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987) set up mock juries to decide compensation in a trial. Each jury has one confederate amongst three participants. When the confederate rigidly argued for a small amount of compensation showing no signs of willingness to change his position, there was no effect on the majority. However when the confederate was willing to compromise, he lead the others to minimal compromise also. The findings from this research empirically augmented Moscovici’s original position – while consistency in the minority is still very important, an ideal amount of flexibility will also prove far more effective in influencing a majority.
In addition to this, Maass et al (1982) tested the idea that if a majority does not identify with the minority, their views are unlikely to be changed. Maass et al set up an experiment where a homosexual minority attempted to convince a heterosexual majority towards the need for gay rights, which proved unsuccessful. However, once a heterosexual minority attempted to convince a heterosexual majority about the need for gay rights, they were more successful than the homosexual minority. Maass claimed that this was because the heterosexual majority did not identify with the homosexual minority and so were much more unwilling to change their position than when a minority they did identify with (i.e. also heterosexual) attempted the same task.
If the views of a minority are in line with the general “mood of the time” in society (this is called zeitgeist, the spirit of the time) then the majority is much more likely to be persuaded to the minority’s viewpoint. Paicheler (1976) offers the example of the suffragettes who felt strong resistance 50 years ago, but in today’s society would be embraced. The problem with this theory is that if the zeitgeist lines up with the dominant view of society, by definition alone it cannot be called a minority view. This has been reconciled by Perez et al (1995) by the idea of social cryptoamnesia – as people cannot identify with the minority, they remember the ideas put forward by the minority but not those who put them forward. The influence of the minority group is therefore delayed and indirect, causing change after the group first appeared.
Much research has been carried out into minority influence and while psychologists have learned a lot from these experiments, some have made criticisms against them. Edward Sampson (1991) argues that the ecological validity of these experiments is questionable as they all take place in artificial settings, using groups that are not “real.” He argued that the groups were made of strangers who probably held very different views and were never likely to meet again, showing a lack of legitimate consistency. He also argued that real minority groups would be more passionate about their cause and place more effort into causing change. He also argued that research ignored the power structures in society, the social hierarchy where some groups have more power and influence than others. Another criticism is that these studies are all ethnocentric and pertain only to western culture.
