Moscovici et al. (1969) Influence of a Consistent Minority on the Responses of a Majority in a Color Perception Task.
172 participants were used in total with each condition consisting of six participants; four naïve participants (the majority), and two confederates (the minority). Participants in their groups of six were asked to estimate the colour of 36 slides - all the slides were blue, but of differing shades. In the consistent condition, the two confederates described all the slides as green. In the inconsistent condition, the two confederates answered green 24 times and blue 12 times. Moscovici et al. (1969) used a control condition which involved no confederates, just six participants. 8.42% of responses in the consistent minority condition were green. Only 1.25% of responses in the inconsistent minority condition were green.
They aimed to investigate the influence of a minority upon a majority within a group. They wanted to investigate innovation (social pressure exercised by a minority) to find out if behavioural style is a general source of influence. They investigated whether the consistency of the behaviour of a minority, the fact that it resolutely maintains a well-defined point of view in a coherent manner, is a powerful source of influence. Part 2 aimed to test whether the minority influence had a lasting effect on participant perception.
Sample: The participants were liberal arts, law and social science students. Female participants were preferred because of their greater involvement in evaluating the colour of an object. They were told that this would be an experiment on colour perception. An explanation of the meaning of ‘light intensity’ was given prior to the experiment. The stimuli used consisted of slides with two different types of filters mounted in them: (1) photo filters permitting the passage of a beam of light in the blue scale. (2) neutral filters which reduced light intensity. In a set of six slides, three slides were more luminous than three others, colour was projected onto the slides on the screen.
Each experimental group consisted of four participants and two confederates. Participants were seated in a row in front of the screen on which. They were asked to judge the colour and variation in light intensity of a series of slides. Before passing a judgment, the whole group took a Polack test collectively for two reasons. First, to eliminate participants with visual abnormalities; and second, to emphasize to everyone that the group had normal vision. This ensured that the confederate responses could not be attributed (by the participants) to a difference in vision. The participants were given instructions about the responses they could give, how the experiment would be conducted, as well as how to estimate light intensity in numerical terms (0 for the dimmest to 5 for the brightest). They were also told that the first trial would be for practice.
During the practice trial the confederates answered at random. In the experimental conditions, the six different slides were presented six times, the order of the slides varying systematically from one series to the next. In total, there were 36 trials. Each showed six slides and lasted 15 seconds, followed by approximately 5 seconds of darkness before the next six were shown. In each trial the two confederates exerted influence by calling the colour "green.
Confederate variation: in 12 groups the confederates were seated side by side and gave the first and second responses, in the 20 other groups they occupied the first and fourth places. This was aimed at making the second confederate appear more independent of the first confederate. Stimulus variation: to test the impact of the commitment to the first response, in 13 groups (including where confederates were seated in position 1 and 4), the continuity of the sequence of the stimuli was interrupted by two one-minute pauses after a sequence of 12 slides.
At the end of the experiment the participant completed a questionnaire about the stimuli and other group members. The real objectives were explained before leaving the room.
In a follow-up to the first experiment, Moscovici et al conducted a test with 11 groups of participants where they diversified the consistency degree of the confederates. Confederates answered 24 times "green" and 12 times "blue," the dispersion of "blue" answers being randomized. Eleven groups participated to this experiment.
Participants were told that another researcher interested in vision phenomena, would like their participation in another project that was independent of this one. Ten groups participated in this experiment. The material consisted of 16 disks in the blue-green zone of Farnsworth 100-hue set perception test. Three disks from each end of the "blue" and "green" scale were unambiguous, the other 10 stimuli might appear ambiguous. They isolated the subjects using cardboard screens and they had to write their responses individually. Each disk was presented on a neutral background for 5 seconds and it was placed in the centre of the table, visible to everyone. The 16 disks were presented 10 times in a random order.
Participants changed their response (giving 4 or more green responses) in 43.75% of the groups, with 32% of participants yielding to the minority. 57% per cent of the subjects, or two subjects per group on the average, gave the same response as the confederates. The confederates' seating position, and the way the slides were presented (continuous or discontinuous) did not have any differentiation effect. Participants were more likely to give similar responses to the confederates when light intensities were weak than when they were strong.
Irrespective of the luminosity the proportion of green response was significantly higher in the experimental groups than in the control groups. Where one or several responses of the confederates were inconsistent, only 1.25% green responses were recorded, suggesting an influence of the behaviour style of a minority.
The data reflected an effect of interaction between minority and majority in the modification of the participant’s individual perceptual code, affecting more participants than the change of verbal responses in the main experiment.
The post-experimental questionnaires showed: (a) The divergence of opinion or response of the consistent minority constrains the participants and the perceptive change is not an attraction towards the minority. (b) The relative certainty of the majority is probably weakened because of the confrontation/conflict with the minority.
As far as female subjects are concerned, a consistent minority can influence a majority at the level of verbal and perceptual responses. It is the behavioural style not the pure amount of social pressure which is revealed to be at the origin of influence exerted. The consistent minority provoked a real modification in the norm of the majority. Overall, it is conceivable that minorities are more capable of changing the majority's code than social response, while the majority would have more influence on an individual's verbal response than intellectual or perceptive code.
Moscovici et al. (1969) controlled for extraneous variables such as lighting levels which may affect judgement of colour so the results were a more reliable measure of minority influence being the cause of decision making.
All participants were offered a free eye test to establish good eyesight for example, whether they were colour- blind or not. Using standardised controls like testing for colour-blindness reduces extraneous variables that may have affected participants' ability to complete the colour perception task.
Participants in their groups of six were asked to estimate the colour of 36 slides - all the slides were blue, but of differing shades. Participants were randomly allocated into one of the three conditions of the experiment on minority influence which reduced experimenter bias.
Moscovici et al.’s (1969) conclusion that a consistent minority can influence a majority has supporting evidence from Wood et al. (1994) whose meta-analysis with 97 studies found that minorities perceived to be consistent were influential in changing the views of the majority.
A biased sample of 172 American female participants were used in total with each condition consisting of six participants; four naïve participants (the majority), and two confederates (the minority). The sample used is not generalisable to those who are not female or American as others may not respond in the same way to a minority influence.
Moscovici et al. (1969) used a laboratory experiment in which participants were randomly allocated to either a consistent, inconsistent or control condition. Moscovici et al.’s (1969) laboratory environment is artificial therefore having low ecological validity as it lacked the atmosphere of real-life situations in which minorities like pressure groups have influence over a majority.
Moscovici et al. (1969) deceived his participants informing them that the experiment involved a colour perception test, although unethical Moscovici’s argument was that demand characteristics may have affected their ability to get valid results.
State two results of Moscovici et al.’s (1969) study. (2) October 2017
Suggest one improvement that could be made to Moscovici et al.’s (1969) study. (2) October 2017
Describe the procedure used in Moscovici et al.’s (1969) study. (4) June 2018
Explain one strength and one weakness of Moscovici et al.’s (1969) study. (4) June 2018
Assess Moscovici’s (1976) theory that a minority can socially influence groups. (8)
Evaluate the classic study by Moscovici et al. (1969). (8) January 2020
Evaluate the classic study by Moscovici et al. (1969). (12) January 2019