Moscovici et al. were trying to demonstrate minority influence and they predicted that the minority did indeed have an impact on the majority....but only if there was consistency.
(This is similar to Asch's findings which showed the number of the majority was of little relevance. What was important was the unanimity of responses given by the confederates or stooges.)
The experimental task involved naming the colour of slides. The answer was objective (as with Asch's study) and should therefore be unlikely to change people's opinion.
The sight of all participants was tested before the trial began, and each one tested postive which meant they were able to clearly see colours, supposedly, without a problem.
The groups consisted of six people. Two of which were stooges or confederates; these people were the minority. The other four were naive participants.
There were 36 critical trials and one 'control condition' aka a neutral trial (consisting of only naive participants).
In the consistent condition of the critical trials, the stooges called the blue side green every time.
In the inconsistent condition, they answered 'green' 24 times and 'blue' the remaining 12.
Control Condition - Less than 1% conformed
Consistent Condition - 8% gave the wrong answer (green) i.e. they conformed
Inconsistent Condition - 1.25% of responses was the wrong answer i.e. they conformed
Moscovici questioned the genre or 'type' of groups involved. In one group, the minority affected no one and in another, several participants were influenced by the minority.
A consistent minority can therefore adequately affect the majority's opinion. Although the minority does not have the numerical advantage, its consistency and 'unanimity' gave it an advantage.
- Deception through the use of stooges.
- Breach of a fundamental ethical principle: Informed Consent
- Low ecological validity due to its experimental conditions
- Extraneous variables were accounted for
- High level of control
- Control group makes the experiment more accurate.