Clark (1998/99) – 12 Angry Men
Aim: To test that the minority could exert its influence through the information presented and the persuasive nature of the minority’s argument and that the minority could influence the majority through the changes in behaviour or ‘defections’.
Procedure
* In the 1st study, Clark used 220 psychology students- 129 male and 91 female. * P’s were asked to play the role of jurors and to make up their minds about the guilt or innocence of the young man (from the movie). * P’s were given a four-page booklet with a summary of the plot of the film- 12 Angry Men. This contained evidence for the defendant’s guilt: 1) He purchased and used a rare knife from a local store. 2) He had been seen by two eyewitnesses- one old man and the other a woman in the apartment opposite. * Clark varied whether or not the students were given information for the defendant’s innocence. * In the 2nd study, Clark focused on the impact of behaviour, or people defecting to the minority position. * P’s were given a three-page summary of the jury’s discussion (from the film) This contained the main counter-arguments (from the movie): 1) The lawyer had produced in court an identical ‘rare’ knife, which he had bought from a nearby junk shop. 2) The man could not have seen or heard the murder as his old age and disabilities meant it took him long to get to the window in the apartment. 3) The old woman could not have seen the defendant as she had very bad eyesight and was not wearing glasses. * Clarke presented different scenarios to the p’s in which he showed the varying number of defectors- from 1 to 6. * He asked the p’s to use a 9-point scale to judge whether or not the defendant was guilty.
Findings
1st study- a minority juror only led people to only led people to change their minds when they could provide counter-evidence. If they did not provide evidence, people did not move from the majority position.
2nd study- participants were influenced by the number of defectors to the ‘not guilty’ position. When they heard that four or seven jurors had defected, they were more likely to adopt the ‘not guilty’ position themselves. Seven defectors had no more influence than four. After four people had changed their minds, ‘a ceiling of influence’ is reached, meaning that more defectors do not produce more influence.

Conclusion
1st study- The information given by the minority is important.
2nd study- Minorities can influence people to change their views through changing their own behaviour.

Evaluation * Ecological Validity- Artificial conditions within a lab study do not simulate real life situations * Population Validity- p’s are American psychology students * Demand Characteristics from the questionnaire * P’s may have had prior information concerning the film producing skewed results. * High internal validity