Classic study: Moscovici et al. (1969)

Aim and participants

Aim: to see whether a minority can influence a majority, and whether the consistency of the minority is the key to its influence.

Participants: 172 female students (liberal arts, law and social sciences), tested in groups of six: four naive participants (the majority) and two confederates (the minority). Women were chosen because they were thought to be more involved in judging colour. The group first took an eye test together, which showed everyone had normal vision (so the confederates' answers could not be put down to poor sight).

Procedure

Participants were told it was a study of colour perception. They saw 36 slides, all clearly blue, varying only in brightness (filters changed the light intensity), and named the colour aloud.

• Consistent condition: the two confederates said 'green' on all 36 trials.
• Inconsistent condition: the confederates said 'green' 24 times and 'blue' 12 times, in random order.
• Control groups: six naive participants with no confederates.

The confederates' seating was varied (side by side in some groups, apart in others). A second part tested private perception: participants individually judged ambiguous blue-green discs (from the Farnsworth test), written privately behind screens.

Results and conclusions

• Consistent minority: 8.42% of the majority's answers were 'green'.
• Inconsistent minority: 1.25% green.
• About 32% of participants said 'green' at least once.
• Green answers were significantly higher than in the control groups.
• In the private discrimination test, participants exposed to the consistent minority classed more of the ambiguous discs as green than control participants, so the minority affected private perception as well as public answers.

Conclusion: a consistent minority can influence the majority's answers and even their perception; behavioural style (consistency), not social pressure, is the source of influence.

Evaluation

Strengths: well controlled (lighting, slides, eye test) with control groups for comparison; Wood et al. (1994), a meta-analysis of 97 studies, supports the role of consistency.

Weaknesses: all female students, so the findings may not generalise to men or other groups; an artificial laboratory task with strangers lacks ecological validity; deception about the aim (justified by Moscovici to avoid demand characteristics); the effect was small.

Worked example

Calculate how many times more green answers the consistent minority produced than the inconsistent minority.

1. Consistent: 8.42%. Inconsistent: 1.25%.
2. 8.42 / 1.25 = 6.74.

Answer: About 6.7 times as many.

Check yourself

1. The consistent minority produced 8.42% green answers and the inconsistent minority 1.25%. What is the difference in percentage points?
   Show answer

   7.17 percentage points. 8.42 - 1.25 = 7.17 percentage points.

2. In the inconsistent condition the confederates said 'green' on 24 of 36 trials. What percentage of trials is that? Give your answer to 1 decimal place.
   Show answer

   66.7 %. 24 / 36 x 100 = 66.7%.

3. How was each group made up?
   • One naive participant and seven confederates
   • Two naive participants and four confederates
   • Six confederates and no naive participants
   • Four naive participants and two confederates
   Show answer

   Four naive participants and two confederates. The minority was two confederates among four real participants.

4. Why did participants take an eye test before the task?
   • To show everyone had normal vision, so the confederates' answers could not be explained by poor eyesight
   • To find the best seat for each participant
   • To measure their conformity
   • To decide which participants would be confederates
   Show answer

   To show everyone had normal vision, so the confederates' answers could not be explained by poor eyesight. It made the minority's answer a matter of judgement, not eyesight.

5. What was the independent variable?
   • The number of green answers given by the majority
   • The gender of participants
   • Whether the minority was consistent or inconsistent
   • The brightness of the room
   Show answer

   Whether the minority was consistent or inconsistent. Consistency was manipulated; green answers were measured.

6. Give one weakness of Moscovici et al. (1969).
   Show answer

   The sample was all female students, so the results may not generalise to men or the wider population.. Sample, artificiality and deception are the main criticisms.

Practise with instant feedback Print this lesson

Sources

• Pearson Edexcel International Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced Level in Psychology specification (issue January 2026)
• Pearson International A Level Psychology component guide: WPS01
• Simply Psychology: Moscovici and minority influence
• IAL Psychology revision site: Moscovici et al. (1969)

Last updated 8 November 2026. Spotted a mistake? Tell us.