Outline and evaluate moscovicis reasearch into minority influence PDF

Preview

Summary

SHORT ESSAY ON MINORITY INFLUENCE...

Description

Outline and Evaluate (Moscovici’s) Research into Minority Influence Minority influence is a form of social influence where a group is exposed to the minority opinion. Three conditions are necessary for this to become the majority opinion. These are consistency, commitment and flexibility. If you use these it shows certainty and confidence in your ideas, increasing the effect of your influence. Moscovici researched these, believing that minority influence is based on internalisation. His lab experiment consisted of blue slides, all which varied in brightness. Participants were sked to name whether they were green or blue. He used three conditions, each with four participants and two confederates. In the first group the confederates said all 36 slides were green, and this resulted in 8.4% conformity. The second group had the confederates say 24 out of 36 slides were green, resulting in 1.3% conformity, and the final group was a control group, with no confederates. He found less than 1% conformity here. There is evidence to suggest minority influence is more effective than majority influence. Martin showed greater internalisation. In his study one group heard the opinion of the majority, and the other group heard the opinion of the minority. He found that the group who heard the minority were less likely to change their views. This shows it is more effective as it holds risks, meaning the people who did change their opinion faced larger consequences – augmentation principle. Furthermore, minority influence has been shown several times in real life and has caused social change. For example, the suffragettes believed that women should be able to vote. They eventually got the vote after 15 years, by using the three conditions. They used consistency, as their protests continued for a long amount of time, even when in prison, causing civil disturbances. They also used commitment as they were willing to take risks, going on hunger strikes and to prison. This shows evidence of the three conditions being used effectively in real life. There is also research support for flexibility by Nemeth and Brilmayer. They studied a simulated jury situation, in which participants had to judge how much compensation someone got. A confederate who compromised did exert some influence on the majority. However, decisions are more important during these situations, and may be a matter of life and death. Findings of Moscovici lack external validity and are limited in what they tell us about minority influence in real life. Moscovici’s study relies on artificial stimuli and tasks, resulting in a lack of mundane realism, as it does not reflect scenarios within minority groups in real life; the participants were unlikely to know each other or meet again. People in real life operate under different social constraints and often face a tougher opposition. They often know each other and are committed to the cause, as well as provide social support to each other. Laboratory experiments are unable to represent the differences in status that tend to separate minorities and majorities and thus the findings are likely to lack ecological validity, as the results lack generalisability. Furthermore, the research is culturally biased. The sample consisted of American females. It has been suggested that females are more likely to conform, and thus the results may be overexaggerated. This suggests further research is required to determine whether the results can be generalised to others, and whether people would respond to minority influence in the same way. Thus, lowering the validity of the findings....