Alternative transcript:

people are less flexible with their opinions if they had listened to the minority group over the majority group In a variation of Moscovici's research, the participants were able to write their answers down, so their answers were private, rather than stated out loud. Surprisingly, private agreement with the minority were greater in these circumstances. It appears that members of the majority were being convinced by the minorities' argument and changed their own views, but were reluctant to admit this publicly Mackie suggests that we tend to believe that the majority share similar beliefs to our own. If the majority express a different view to the one we hold, we consider it carefully to understand why this is the case. By contrast, people tend not to waste time trying to process a minority view or message that is different as we don't put value on a small group Nemeth (2010) argues that even with this factors such as commitment and consistency, it's still difficult to convince people of the value to dissent (rebel) as people accept the principle only on the surface i.e. it appears they are being tolerant or democratic by looking at things differently. Other factors are also important in whether a decision is made to go along with a minority. For example, if we value the minority, like them or know them Explanation This means that findings from research such as Moscovici lack external validity and the tasks lack mundane realism and therefore this limits what the research tells us about minority influence in real life situations This suggests that the minority message had been thought about more and had a more long lasting effect compared to the majority view - this show us that deeper processing is involved in minority influence This shows us that the minority's view (the slides being green when in fact they're blue) has been internalised and it wasn't just to fit in with a group situation (as they could have answered truthfully on paper) this shows that minority influence is most likely because of ISI and we take on their view as our own This suggests that the role of deeper processing maybe isn't as important in minority influence as first believed. This contradicts the original theory and therefore this casts doubt over whether it's important or not in minority influence This demonstrates the idea that consistency, commitment and flexibility aren't the only factors in if a minority is successful or not. It shows us that this theory is too simplistic and minority influence is more complex than we may think