MINORITY INFLUENCE
MINORITY INFLUENCE
SPECIFICATION: INCLUDING REFERENCE TO CONSISTENCY, COMMITMENT AND FLEXIBILITY
Minority influence occurs when a smaller group or an individual successfully changes the opinions and behaviours of the majority, a process known as conversion. Unlike majority influence, which typically leads to compliance, conversion involves private and public acceptance of a belief or behaviour, making it the most profound form of conformity. For conversion to occur, the minority must exhibit key behavioural traits, including commitment, consistency, and flexibility, to maximise their influence.
Minorities exert influence through informational social influence, providing logical arguments and evidence that encourage individuals in the majority to assess their existing beliefs critically. Unlike majority influence, which often results in immediate but superficial conformity, minority influence is a slow and systematic process that requires deeper cognitive engagement. Over time, as individuals re-evaluate their positions, they may adopt the minority's stance through internalisation.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MAJORITY AND MINORITY SOCIAL INFLUENCE
DIFFERENT PROCESSES
According to Moscovici (1980), majorities and minorities influence through different processes:
Majority influence → leads to public compliance (people conform to fit in).
Minority influence → leads to conversion (genuine internal change).
Majorities exert normative social pressure, whereas minorities encourage deeper cognitive processing, leading to lasting attitude shifts.
INSTANT VS DELAYED EFFECTS
Majority influence → produces instant effects because people conform to avoid looking foolish.
Minority influence → takes longer because people initially reject new ideas due to their source but later reconsider them in private (social cryptomnesia).
CONSISTENCY
Consistency refers to the ability of a minority to maintain a stable, unified, and unwavering position over time. It is one of the most critical factors in successful minority influence, as it signals confidence, commitment, and credibility to the majority.
A minority that is persistent in its views, despite opposition or ridicule, forces the majority to question their assumptions. When a group repeatedly presents the same message without contradiction, it disrupts the illusion of unanimity within the majority, making individuals more likely to reassess their stance (Hogg & Vaughan, 2002).
For minority influence to be effective, the group must maintain intra-individual and inter-individual consistency.
Intra-individual consistency means that a person maintains the same stance over time, avoiding contradictions or wavering in their position.
Inter-individual consistency means that all members of the minority present a united front, reinforcing the credibility of their argument by showing agreement among themselves.
Both types of consistency signal confidence, dedication, and impartiality, causing the majority to question their stance. Hogg & Vaughan (2002) argue that consistency leads the majority to reassess their views, creating doubt and uncertainty. This effect is potent when the minority persists despite opposition, social pressure, or rejection, forcing the majority to take notice.
If members of a minority fail to demonstrate either of these forms of consistency, the majority is unlikely to give them much attention. However, a consistent minority challenges the illusion of unanimity among the majority, making it easier for other members to express doubts.
EXAMPLES:
INTRA-INDIVIDUAL INCONSISTENCY: THE UK GREEN PARTY AND NUCLEAR ENERGY
The Green Party in the UK has historically been firmly anti-nuclear, opposing both nuclear weapons and nuclear power due to environmental concerns.
However, in recent years, some high-profile members, such as Baroness Natalie Bennett and certain Green MPs, have softened their stance on nuclear energy, arguing that it may be necessary for achieving net-zero emissions.
This shift in position has confused, particularly among long-time Green supporters who oppose nuclear power outright.
IMPACT: This lack of clear, consistent leadership has made it difficult for the Green Party to be taken seriously on energy policy, as voters and environmental activists question their credibility and commitment to their original principles.
❌ Failure: By changing their stance on nuclear power, the Green Party weakened their influence in the climate debate, as opponents could easily challenge their previous anti-nuclear arguments.
INTER-INDIVIDUAL INCONSISTENCY: THE UK ANTI-BREXIT MOVEMENT ("PEOPLE’S VOTE CAMPAIGN")
The People’s Vote Campaign was a minority movement advocating for a second referendum on Brexit, formed after the 2016 EU referendum.
Despite gaining support from some political figures and activists, the group was deeply divided on strategy:
Some wanted a second referendum.
Others wanted to cancel Brexit outright without a vote.
Some Labour members wanted a Brexit deal with closer EU ties, while others wanted to revoke Article 50 entirely.
These internal divisions confused the public and weakened the movement’s ability to rally support.
IMPACT: By the 2019 General Election, the movement had lost momentum, with voters rejecting its lack of a clear, unified message. The Conservative Party’s simple ‘Get Brexit Done’ slogan was far more effective, leading to the failure of the People’s Vote Campaign and the end of the second referendum push.
❌ Failure: The campaign’s lack of internal unity meant that the pro-Brexit majority quickly dismissed them, and their movement collapsed after the 2019 election.
CONCLUSION
A minority leader that changes its position over time (like the Green Party on nuclear power) loses credibility.
A minority group that is internally divided (like the People’s Vote Campaign) struggles to maintain influence.
Without consistency, minority influence fails, as the majority can easily ignore or reject their message.
FLEXIBILITY
A minority constantly shifting its viewpoint lacks credibility and will struggle to gain support. However, consistency should not be confused with rigidity—an excessively dogmatic stance can be off-putting rather than persuasive. Instead, a successful minority balances consistency with adaptability, making their position appear reasonable rather than stubborn.
While consistency and commitment are crucial, flexibility is equally essential for minority influence to be effective. Mugny (1982) suggested that because minorities lack power and status, they must be seen as cooperative and reasonable rather than rigid and uncompromising. A flexible approach makes the minority more persuasive, indicating a willingness to engage with the majority’s concerns and adjust their position slightly if necessary.
However, too much flexibility may weaken the minority's position, making them appear inconsistent or lacking conviction. Therefore, successful minority influence requires a balance—a firm stance adaptable enough to encourage discussion and negotiation without seeming weak or indecisive.
If members of a minority fail to demonstrate either of these forms of consistency, the majority is unlikely to give them much attention. However, a consistent minority challenges the illusion of unanimity among the majority, making it easier for other members to express doubts.
EXAMPLES OF RIGIDITY
A minority that is too uncompromising or aggressive may alienate potential supporters rather than attract them.
STOP OIL’S DISRUPTIVE TACTICS
Their consistent messaging on the urgency of climate action has kept them in the public eye. However, their extreme tactics, such as blocking roads and defacing artwork, have alienated much of the public. While their message is consistent, their lack of strategic flexibility has led to a backlash, reducing their overall effectiveness.
EXAMPLES OF FLEXIBILITY THAT WORKED
While consistency is crucial for minority influence, rigidity can be counterproductive. A minority that refuses compromise risks being ignored or dismissed by the majority. Instead, successful minority groups often use strategic flexibility, accepting partial victories to shift public opinion and achieve their ultimate goals gradually.
Here are three historical examples where flexibility helped a minority movement achieve progress:
THE SUFFRAGETTES AND THE PARTIAL VOTING RIGHTS COMPROMISE (1918)
The suffragette movement campaigned for equal voting rights with men, demanding universal suffrage for all women on the same terms as men. However, after years of protests, arrests, and hunger strikes, the government was not prepared to grant full equality. Instead, in 1918, Parliament passed the Representation of the People Act, which gave the vote to women over 30 who met property qualifications—far from the full equality they wanted. Had the suffragettes rejected this partial reform, they risked getting nothing. By accepting the compromise, they established a legal precedent for women voting. Ten years later (1928), full suffrage was granted to women on the same terms as men. The suffragettes gained partial success by showing flexibility, which paved the way for full voting equality.
THE LGBT+ MOVEMENT AND THE AGE OF CONSENT CAMPAIGN (1994 & 2000)
The LGBT+ rights movement campaigned for equal treatment, including equal age of consent laws for same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. In 1994, the UK government refused to lower the gay age of consent from 21 to 16 (to match heterosexuals) but did agree to reduce it to 18. Some activists wanted to reject this compromise, but others accepted it as progress, knowing that full equality could still be pursued later. In 2000, the LGBT+ movement successfully campaigned for full parity, and the age of consent was finally equalised at 16 for everyone. Had LGBT+ activists refused the reduction to 18, they may have remained stuck at 21 for years. Instead, by accepting incremental progress, they eventually achieved complete equality.
LGBT+ RIGHTS AND THE FIGHT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE (2004-2013)
In the 1990s and early 2000s, LGBT+ activists fought for same-sex marriage, but governments were reluctant to legalise it outright. Instead, in 2004, the UK government introduced civil partnerships, giving same-sex couples legal rights similar to marriage but without the title. Some LGBT+ activists criticised civil partnerships as "second-class" status, but others saw them as a stepping stone toward full marriage rights. By 2013, same-sex marriage was legalised in England and Wales, followed by Scotland (2014) and Northern Ireland (2020). If activists rejected civil partnerships, they might have received no legal recognition. Instead, they used civil partnerships as a foundation to push for full marriage equality.
WHY FLEXIBILITY WORKS IN MINORITY INFLUENCE
It prevents total rejection – If a minority group appears too extreme or uncompromising, the majority may ignore them completely.
It builds momentum – Small victories change public attitudes and create legal precedents for future progress.
It allows gradual change – Many social movements succeed through incremental reforms rather than immediate radical change.
These examples show that flexibility does not mean abandoning principles but being strategic about achieving change. These movements kept the conversation going by accepting partial progress, ultimately leading to complete victories in later years.
COMMITMENT
For minority influence to be effective, the minority group must demonstrate commitment to their cause. Commitment reinforces credibility, making the majority more likely to take the minority seriously. A committed minority shows passion, dedication, and perseverance, often investing significant time, effort, and resources despite opposition or personal cost.
Hogg & Vaughan (2002) suggest that commitment is significant when a minority challenges a substantial majority. When minority members continue their efforts despite adversity, it forces the majority to reconsider their position, as people assume that only a truly dedicated group would persist under such conditions.
One psychological explanation for this process is the augmentation principle.
THE AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE
The augmentation principle states that if an individual or group is willing to suffer for their beliefs, their argument is perceived as more credible. People assume that if someone is willing to endure hardship or personal risk, their cause must be essential and valid.
EXAMPLES OF COMMITTED MINORITIES USING THE AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE
THE SUFFRAGETTES (EARLY 20TH CENTURY)
The Suffragettes demonstrated extreme commitment to their cause, using militant tactics to demand women's voting rights.
They engaged in:
Hunger strikes while imprisoned, leading to force-feeding.
Chaining themselves to railings outside Parliament.
Vandalising property, such as smashing windows and setting fire to postboxes.
Despite these radical actions, their leader, Emmeline Pankhurst, was explicit that their movement should not harm human life.
IMPACT: Their commitment challenged the perception that women were weak, and they were serious about luggage and forced the government to take their demands seriously, leading to partial voting rights in 1918 and full suffrage in 1928.
FREEDOM FIGHTERS AND POLITICAL ACTIVISTS
Throughout history, many movements have used extreme personal sacrifice to gain credibility.
Nelson Mandela and the ANC fought against apartheid, with Mandela imprisoned for 27 years before being released and leading South Africa.
Mahatma Gandhi used hunger strikes to protest British colonial rule in India, reinforcing his commitment to nonviolent resistance.
The Freedom Riders (1961) were civil rights activists who rode segregated buses through the American South to challenge racial discrimination. Despite violent attacks, they remained committed, forcing federal intervention and the enforcement of desegregation laws.
WHEN COMMITMENT BACKFIRES: CAUSING HARM TO OTHERS
While suffering for a cause can increase credibility, commitment that causes harm to others can alienate public support. When a minority disrupts society, endangers lives, or engages in violence, their cause may be perceived as extreme rather than justified.
STOP OIL BLOCKING EMERGENCY SERVICES
Just Stop Oil activists have blocked roads and motorways, preventing ambulances and emergency services from reaching critical situations. While their commitment to climate action is undeniable, the public backlash has been severe, as many feel their actions cause harm rather than inspire change. The Suffragettes also disrupted daily life but avoided harming individuals, whereas Just Stop Oil has been criticised for risking lives.
THE IRA HUNGER STRIKES VS TERRORISM
Bobby Sands and other IRA prisoners went on hunger strikes in 1981, protesting for political prisoner status. This demonstrated extreme commitment, and Sands’ death from starvation led to international sympathy. However, the IRA’s broader campaign of violence, including the Brighton bombing (1984) and Hyde Park bombing (1982), undermined their credibility. While hunger strikes drew sympathy, bombings that killed civilians made it harder for the majority to support their cause.
CONCLUSION
The augmentation principle explains why minorities gain credibility through personal sacrifice. However, the way in which commitment is demonstrated can determine whether a movement succeeds or fails.
Commitment involving personal suffering (e.g., hunger strikes, imprisonment, peaceful protest) can enhance credibility and influence the majority.
When commitment harms innocent people (e.g., blocking emergency services or killing civilians), it often alienates public support and reduces the chances of success.
MINORITY INFLUENCE (6 MARKS)
Minority influence occurs when a small group persuades the majority to adopt their views, leading to internalisation (Moscovici, 1969).
One key factor is consistency—minorities must maintain their stance over time (intra-individual consistency) and show agreement among members (inter-individual consistency). Moscovici et al. (1969) demonstrated this in their blue-green slide study, where a consistent minority was more effective in influencing the majority than an inconsistent one.
However, strict consistency alone can make the minority seem rigid. Flexibility is crucial—minorities must appear open to compromise rather than dogmatic. Nemeth (1986) found that when a minority was willing to adapt slightly, they were more persuasive than those who remained inflexible. An example is the suffragettes, who initially demanded equal voting rights but later accepted gradual legal reforms, gaining broader support.
Commitment strengthens minority influence through the augmentation principle—if members take risks or sacrifice for their cause, it signals dedication. For example, the suffragettes endured imprisonment and hunger strikes, making their commitment undeniable, which increased their credibility and influence.
Thus, consistency, flexibility, and commitment are essential for successful minority influence.
RESEARCH INTO MINORITY INFLUENCE
AIM, PROCEDURE, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSION OF MOSCOVICI’S STUDY (1969)
AIM: Moscovici aimed to investigate whether a consistent minority could influence the majority in a simple colour perception task.
PROCEDURE: The study involved 32 groups of six female participants. Each group was shown a series of blue-coloured slides that varied in brightness and asked to state the colour aloud. However, two of the six participants were confederates in each group—individuals instructed to give predetermined answers.
The experiment had two conditions:
CONSISTENT CONDITION – The Confederates consistently identified the slides as green on all trials.
INCONSISTENT CONDITION – The Confederates identified the slides as green only on some trials but called them blue on others.
After this, participants were also asked to write down their responses privately to see if the influence of the minority changed when responses were anonymous.
FINDINGS
In the consistent condition, 8% of the majority agreed that the slides were green at least once.
In the inconsistent condition, conformity dropped significantly, showing that consistency was key.
When participants wrote down their answers privately, conformity increased, suggesting that some were influenced but reluctant to agree publicly.
CONCLUSION: Moscovici concluded that a consistent minority is more influential than an inconsistent one. The results suggested that minority influence does not work through direct public conformity but rather through private, internalised change, as more participants agreed with the minority when their responses were anonymous. This highlights the role of consistency in shaping long-term attitudes and beliefs.
EVALUATION OF MOSCOVICI ET AL. (1969) – MINORITY INFLUENCE STUDY
The study showed that a consistent minority (confederates who always called blue slides “green”) was more influential than an inconsistent minority (confederates who only said “green” some of the time). This supports the idea that consistency is crucial in minority influence. However, the study has been heavily criticised for its artificial setting, limited real-world applicability, and conflicting analyses of its results.
GENDER BIAS
A limitation of this study is that it involved only female participants, raising concerns about gender bias in the findings. It may not apply equally to males due to differences in socialisation. Therefore, the results may not generalise to mixed-gender groups or male-only settings.
A SNAPSHOT IN TIME IS NOT LONG ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE MINORITY INFLUENCE
Moscovici’s study attempted to demonstrate minority influence within a single laboratory session, yet real-world minority influence takes years, if not centuries, to bring about lasting social change. The struggle for women’s suffrage spanned millennia, with women only securing the right to vote in the 20th century after relentless activism. The Civil Rights Movement in the United States was not an overnight shift but the result of over a century of struggle following the abolition of slavery, with legal battles, mass protests, and resistance continuing long after the 1950s and 1960s. Similarly, LGBT+ rights have been fought for over centuries, with significant legal and societal progress only occurring in recent decades.
These examples highlight that fundamental social change is a slow and challenging process often met with resistance, backlash, and political struggles. Minority groups must persist through decades of activism, protest, and legal battles before their ideas gain acceptance. This gradual nature of minority influence contrasts sharply with the artificial conditions of Moscovici’s experiment, which attempted to demonstrate a fundamental societal process within a brief laboratory setting.
SAYING GREEN SLIDES ARE NOT CONTROVERSIAL
Minority influence is always controversial and divisive; without resistance, it would not be minority influence. However, Moscovici’s study failed to reflect this reality. Unlike real-world minority movements, which provoke hostility, backlash, and stigma, the study’s task carried no moral, social, or political consequences. Simply stating that a slide was green instead of blue was a neutral decision that lacked emotional or ideological depth.
Minority influence involves deeply held, controversial beliefs that challenge societal values and provoke prolonged struggles. Change does not happen instantly or without opposition. In contrast, Moscovici’s participants faced no real pressure or consequences—they merely responded to a colour perception task with no personal or societal stakes, making the study a poor reflection of genuine minority influence.
A clear example is the LGBT+ rights movement, which endured decades of legal oppression, discrimination, and criminalisation before public opinion shifted. Activists risked imprisonment, violence, and exclusion while pushing for equality. This stands in stark contrast to Moscovici’s study, where participants made inconsequential judgments in a controlled setting, failing to capture the complexity of how minority influence operates.
META-ANALYSES SHOW MINORITY INFLUENCE MAY BE WEAKER THAN MOSCOVICI CLAIMED
Later meta-analyses of minority influence studies (e.g., Wood et al., 1994) found only weak effects, suggesting that Moscovici’s findings may have been overstated.
Reanalysis of the trials found that most participants were not influenced by the minority, meaning the effect of minority influence was smaller than initially claimed.
TERRORISM AS A FORM OF MINORITY INFLUENCE AND PREVENTING RADICALISATION
Research into minority influence has significant real-world applications, particularly in understanding and preventing radicalisation and terrorism. Terrorist organisations represent a form of minority influence, using consistency, commitment, and flexibility to spread their ideology and recruit followers. Recognising these tactics is crucial for teachers, social workers, and law enforcement in identifying early signs of radicalisation and preventing individuals from being drawn into extremist beliefs.
Consistency is a key factor in radicalisation. Extremist groups maintain an unwavering stance, reinforcing their ideology through repeated messaging. This is evident in propaganda, recruitment strategies, and ideological teachings, which are consistently pushed through social media, underground networks, and direct peer influence. The more frequently individuals are exposed to these messages, the more persuasive they become—especially among isolated or vulnerable individuals who lack alternative viewpoints.
Commitment is another warning sign. Many extremist groups demand absolute dedication from their members, sometimes requiring them to sacrifice freedom, safety, or even their lives. This aligns with the augmentation principle, where individuals are more likely to internalise beliefs when they see others demonstrating extreme personal sacrifice. Acts such as suicide bombings, martyrdom, and long-term imprisonment for the cause serve as powerful demonstrations of commitment, reinforcing the group's influence over potential recruits.
Flexibility allows terrorist organisations to adapt their recruitment tactics to social, political, and cultural contexts. While their core ideology remains unchanged, they modify their messaging and outreach methods to target specific groups. For example, online forums and encrypted messaging apps provide individualised radicalisation pathways, gradually exposing individuals to more extreme ideas while making the transition seem logical and justified.
Understanding the mechanisms behind minority influence can help prevent radicalisation. Recognising the strategies extremist groups use allows educators, social workers, and law enforcement to identify early warning signs and intervene before individuals become fully radicalised. By addressing these influences early, it is possible to reduce the spread of extremist ideologies and protect vulnerable individuals from being drawn into terrorism.
OTHER RESEARCH ON MINORITY INFLUENCE
Wood et al.'s Meta-Analysis (1994): Wood et al. conducted a meta-analysis of over 97 minority groups to explore the impact of consistency on influence. They found that the most consistent groups had the highest level of influence, supporting the importance of consistency in minority influence. However, these findings are correlational, and causation cannot be established. Other unknown factors may also affect influence.
Nemeth's Study (1987): Nemeth supported the role of flexibility in minority influence. In groups of three participants and one confederate, they had to decide the compensation for a ski-lift accident victim. When the confederate, acting as a consistent minority, refused to change their position, it did not affect the majority. However, when the confederate was willing to be flexible and compromise, this influenced the majority to lower their demands, highlighting the need for minorities to exhibit flexibility.
Beyond Moscovici and Nemeth, research on minority influence has explored its role in real-world settings, such as jury decision-making. Studies suggest that a single dissenter in a jury can sway the majority, particularly when they are confident, consistent, and present strong arguments. For example, Clark (1994) found that jurors were more likely to be influenced when exposed to persuasive arguments based on actual legal cases, supporting the idea that a minority can influence verdicts.
Similarly, although primarily focused on majority influence, Asch’s (1951) conformity studies demonstrated the potential impact of a consistent minority. Participants were asked to compare line lengths in a group setting in his famous line judgment task. While most conformed to the majority’s incorrect answer, when just one confederate consistently dissented from the majority, conformity rates dropped significantly. However, although Asch’s study is often cited as evidence of minority influence, it may not truly reflect it. Many participants knew the correct answer and needed one person to confirm their doubts to avoid embarrassment or social rejection (normative social influence). In contrast, real minority influence requires people to be persuaded to accept an entirely new or controversial idea, which is far more complex than simply resisting conformity.
However, it is nearly impossible to replicate real-world minority influence in laboratory settings fully. As outlined earlier, social change takes years, sometimes centuries, and cannot be compressed into short experiments. Additionally, many minority movements provoke strong emotional, political, and ideological resistance, making it ethically and practically challenging to recreate in a controlled environment.
One example of a minority movement that failed to achieve its goals is the Red Brigades, a far-left terrorist organisation active in Italy during the 1970s and 1980s. Despite being consistent and committed to their ideology, their use of violence against others rather than themselves, such as assassinations and kidnappings, alienated the majority rather than persuading them. Additionally, the group refused to be flexible, rejecting moderate left-wing groups that could have helped them gain legitimacy. Their tactics led to widespread condemnation rather than influence, demonstrating that consistency alone is not enough—flexibility and non-violence are also crucial for minority influence to succeed.
Most research on minority influence, therefore, focuses on historical movements rather than artificial laboratory studies, as actual influence cannot be ethically or realistically studied in a short-term experiment. The time required, the controversy involved, and the resistance faced by actual minorities make it nearly impossible to capture the full complexity of minority influence in a lab setting.
OTHER MINORITY INFLUENCE FACTORS
Minority influence is primarily explained through consistency, commitment, and flexibility, as these are the key factors determining whether a minority group will succeed in influencing the majority. However, other theoretical mechanisms explain how minority influence can gain traction over time. Due to time and mark constraints, these are not typically included in AO1 descriptions. A six-mark AO1 question barely allows enough time to describe the core three factors in detail, meaning these additional explanations are better suited for AO2 (application) or AO3 (evaluation). They are also relevant for the social change question, which follows this topic in the social influence specification. Applying them rather than describing them is essential, as this would be AO1.
One such theoretical mechanism is the snowball effect (Van Avermaet, 1996). Minority influence often starts slowly, with resistance from the majority. However, once a few majority members begin adopting the minority’s viewpoint, the idea gains momentum. As more people convert, the viewpoint gradually becomes mainstream, creating pressure for others to conform. Eventually, it reaches a tipping point, where the minority view becomes the new majority. This explains why minority influence is often slow initially but can suddenly lead to widespread change.
Another key theory is group membership (Hogg & Vaughan, 1998). It suggests that people are more likely to be influenced by those they see as part of their in-group—individuals who share their identity, values, or experiences. This means minority influence is more effective when the message comes from within the majority group. If a minority is perceived as too different or opposing, the majority may reject their views purely based on identity rather than evaluating their arguments.
This is particularly important in controversial social movements where supporting the minority could result in social stigma or personal cost. For example:
Men and the suffrage movement – In the early 20th century, men who supported women's suffrage risked being labelled as weak or unmanly. If only women had advocated for voting rights, men might have dismissed the cause entirely. However, when other men began publicly supporting the movement, this provided a bridge, making it easier for more men to accept without fear of being "tarred with the same brush.
Heterosexual allies and LGBT+ rights – When homosexuality was criminalised and heavily stigmatised, heterosexual individuals may have feared being perceived as gay if they openly supported LGBT+ rights. This fear of association could prevent them from speaking out, even if they privately agreed. However, as more heterosexual people began advocating for equality, it became easier for others to follow without fearing social consequences.
Racial desegregation in the US – White Americans who supported civil rights risked backlash from their own communities. However, as more white individuals joined the movement, it became increasingly difficult to dismiss civil rights as just a "Black issue," helping the movement gain wider acceptance.
A final theoretical perspective is social cryptomnesia (the dissociation model) (Mugny & Perez, 1991). This theory suggests that minority influence is often delayed—new ideas are initially resisted, but over time, they become accepted without people remembering their origins. For example, many social movements that were once radical are now widely accepted, yet the original minority groups that pushed for change are often forgotten.
CONCLUSION
These additional theoretical mechanisms help explain how minority influence gains momentum and leads to long-term change. However, they cannot easily be tested in a laboratory due to time constraints and the complex, controversial nature of real-world minority influence. Most research relies on historical analysis, as accurate minority movements take years, if not centuries, to create meaningful social change. These theories are especially relevant in the social change question, which follows this topic in the social influence specification.
EXAMPLES OF MINORITY INFLUENCE
HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF MINORITY INFLUENCE
THE SUFFRAGETTE MOVEMENT (EARLY 20TH CENTURY)
A small group of women persistently campaigned for voting rights despite strong opposition.
The push for equal rights for LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly in legalising same-sex marriage, followed a similar pattern. Activists consistently campaigned for change, demonstrating commitment through decades of legal battles and public advocacy. Over time, the majority’s perception shifted, leading to significant legal and social advancements.
Their commitment and sacrifices (e.g., hunger strikes and imprisonment) increased support for their cause.
Over time, their message influenced public opinion, leading to legal reform in many countries.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT (1950s-60s, USA)
The Civil Rights Movement (1950s-1960s) – Led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr., civil rights activists remained consistent in their demands for racial equality despite resistance and persecution. Their commitment to non-violent protest demonstrated sacrifice and perseverance, strengthening their influence. Over time, their ideas gained widespread support, leading to landmark legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks, a committed minority opposed racial segregation.
Despite the hostility, their consistent, peaceful protests gradually shifted majority opinion and led to legal changes (Civil Rights Act 1964).
LGBTQ+ RIGHTS MOVEMENTS (20TH & 21ST CENTURY)
LGBTQ+ Rights Movement – The push for equal rights for LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly in legalising same-sex marriage, followed a similar pattern. Activists consistently campaigned for change, demonstrating commitment through decades of legal battles and public advocacy. Over time, the majority’s perception shifted, leading to significant legal and social advancements.
Once a heavily marginalised group, consistent advocacy and legal challenges led to significant social changes.
Over time, policies such as same-sex marriage and workplace protections were introduced globally.
MINORITY INFLUENCE IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
GALILEO GALILEI AND HELIOCENTRISM (17TH CENTURY)
The Catholic Church and scientific community initially rejected Galileo’s claim that the Earth orbited the Sun.
His ideas were eventually accepted through consistent publication of evidence, revolutionising astronomy.
DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION (19TH CENTURY)
Initially, most scientists rejected Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
Over time, as more evidence emerged, his ideas became the foundation of modern biology.
TESLA VS. EDISON (AC VS. DC ELECTRICITY, 1880s)
Nikola Tesla promoted alternating current (AC) despite Thomas Edison’s dominance in the electricity industry with direct current (DC).
Over time, AC technology proved superior and became the global standard.
MODERN EXAMPLES OF MINORITY INFLUENCE
GRETA THUNBERG AND CLIMATE ACTIVISM (2018–PRESENT)
A single teenager started striking for climate change outside the Swedish parliament.
Her persistence and consistent message led to a global movement (Fridays for Future), influencing governments and policymakers.
VEGANISM AND PLANT-BASED DIETS
Once considered extreme, veganism has gained mainstream acceptance due to consistent advocacy and scientific backing.
Supermarkets and restaurants now regularly offer plant-based options due to consumer demand.
MINORITY INFLUENCE EXAM QUESTIONS
1. Explain how a minority can bring about social change. (4 marks)
2. Using your knowledge of the psychology of social change, explain why recycling is now behaviour carried out by a majority of people in this country. (6 marks)
3. A small environmental group wants to encourage people to use public transport or bicycles instead of using their cars. Using your knowledge of the role of minority influence in social change, what advice would you give the environmental group? (6 marks)
4. Using an example, explain the role of social influence processes in social change. (6 marks)
5. Explain how social influence research helps us to understand social change. (6 marks)
6. Discuss the role of social influence processes in social change. (16 marks)
7. Read the item and then answer the question that follows.
A small group of environmentally aware sixth-form students is campaigning for their school to become ‘paper-free’ for six months. They recently met with a group of teachers who represent the teaching staff. The teachers told the students that the school could become ‘paper-free’ if the group of students could convince the rest of the student body it was a good idea.
Use your knowledge of conformity and minority influence to explain the factors determining how successful the small group of students will be.
