Moscovici’s studies have found evidence that a minority can in fact have influence over a majority. But what factors manifest this influence? Moscovici, Lage, and Naffrechoux (1969) found that minorities could influence the majority even when not endowed with power, status, or expertise. In later studies, Moscovici confirmed his two step process to gain influence as a minority. First the minority had to create a conflict with the majority norm, an accepted idea. Then, to exert influence, the minority needed to be consistent to appear confident and knowledgeable. Current research suggests that consistency is the foundation of minority influence, yet I will argue that status, as a supplement to consistency, also plays a major role. As long as the minority appears consistent, status could potentially bolster the conversion effect, in three main ways. First, those with the status of an “expert” on a subject could be more influential than those of the same status. Second, people who value the traits associated with dissenters might join in the dissent in order to be attributed those traits. Finally, people may publicly agree with a minority opinion in order to join the company of a minority with a desired social status.
The effect of expert status on a group of naïve subjects could be demonstrated using the experimental methodology of the Moscovici, Lage, and Naffrechoux study. Confederates, who claimed, with consistency and conviction, that blue shapes were actually green, were able to influence some of the test subjects to make the same claim. In that study, the confederates were of no higher status than the test subjects. However, it is possible to create a variation on this design such that the confederates are proclaimed expert on color. The expert confederates would likely have had a greater influence over the naïve subjects than did the inexpert confederates, and their opinion might even become the majority. The subjects would be more likely to question themselves, and find the confederate opinion legitimate. In addition, some would publicly agree with the confederates in order to put themselves in the same status, but would disagree privately, and still know that the shapes were blue. This contradicts Moscovici (1980), who argued that minority influence tends to change the subject’s idea privately, but without a change publicly. Conversely, majority influence tends to change the subject’s idea publicy, but not privately. He termed the effect of minority influence conversion, and majority influence compliance. However, it seems that when status is involve, the minority gains a degree of majority influence as well, as expert opinion can increase both compliance and conversion.Certain people may also join any consistent minority to increase their own status, instead of only giving weight to high-status minorities. As we discussed in class, the UC Berkeley student who consistently protested in support of nudity had certain attributes—conviction, daring, fearlessness—that can be applied to any minority seeking to influence others. Students who publicly supported the movement were attributed the same characteristics, which are considered desirable, especially among young men. Even though the supporters may have not been interested in having the same sanity of educational status as the leader, and may not have believed his arguments, they could have joined the minority publicly to improve their own social status. Once again, students who supported the movement publicly may have privately disagreed, but being part of any major movement is considered desirable. Certain societal norms gave the minority position more status and therefore more influence. For instance, many high school and college students value chaos and passion. Apathy is considered low status. The promise of increasing one’s status simply by agreeing with a minority may be a tempting option.
This theory carries over to many high school and college situations. These age groups value risk-taking and individuality, and also feel alienated from society as a whole. Individualistic cultures emphasize the value of standing out and being different, so minorities might have more influence in such cultures. At first, people seek ways to be individuals, and become inspired in some way. If two people have the same tastes, they may form a small group, settling on a style. A trend may be formed, depending on their status and consistency. At Stuyvesant High School from 1999-2003, a minority of students were very socially liberal. They happened to be more physically attractive than most of the other students. To be a part of this group, or perhaps because they respected the attractive people’s ideas, many students who previously acted one way began to get pierced, experiment with homosexuality, and go to liberal rallies. There seemed to be a definite conversion of ideas among most of these students, rather than compliance. The group gradually grew over four years, as Nemeth, Wachtler, and Endicott (1977) found that a larger minority was more likely to exert influence, since their argument was considered more credible if they had more supporters. The group partied together, sat in the hallways together, ate together, and went to outside rallies together.
At least one incident at Stuyvesant High School demonstrates how students can join a minority group with which they do not even agree. This liberal group decided to protest that the school no longer allowed students to leave the building during a free period. Most students did not care about this issue, and may have not even respected the liberal group. However, hundreds of students decided to skip their class and chant on the second floor that the rule was unfair. It was “fun” and “cool” and simple to protest against the establishment, so they joined the liberal group’s demonstration. When the administration threatened to suspend the protesters, those who were simply complying went back to class. The administration knew that most of the protesters would leave with that threat, because most students were not seriously interested in the issue, and had no credibility. Joining the minority in this protest consisted of mostly compliance rather than conversion, indicating that when minority influence includes status, and joining the group at least temporarily is simple, there can be a majority influence effect.
This minority group at Stuyvesant High School has grown due to their status and consistency to the point that New York Magazine covered the school in the February 6, 2006 issue, and wrote about petting in the school, cuddle parties, and widespread sexual experimentation. One line in particular mentioned that one of these liberal girls was dating the most popular boy in school. When this boy decided he wanted a committed relationship, the girl ended her playing with other girls. Her lack of commitment to her previous lifestyle shows that it had attained majority group status. The original members had all graduated, and the minority group no longer converted the new members. The minority group’s demonstrated lack of commitment to these ideas may soon further reduce their legitimacy, and the liberal ideas may prove to be a relic of the former student body that was rigid with their ideas. Since they are no longer at the high school, their influence might have diminished, and since they had no contact with the current students, the current students might lack good reasons for their ideas.
Conforming to a minority group produces a greater sense of belonging, rather than lacking a defined role, and may also increase status. As a result, people may join a minority not only because they agree with the minority, or because they wish to be seen as the same status, but also because they want to be part of a group, and because they want to be attributed the traits of minority protesters. When status is involved, a minority group may win more converts to their beliefs, but they will also gain compliance among some. This may give some minorities less credibility, knowing that some of their members may only be involved in order to increase their status.
