4. Participants: Groups of 5 participants (one is a stooge) drawn from an adult sample of students.
5. Procedure: The group of 5 had to deliberate on the amount of compensation due for a victim of an injury. After hearing the facts, everyone makes an individual verdict and is then taken to another room where there is a rectangular table with two seats either of the long side sides of the table and one at the head of the table. In half the groups the participants were asked to sit at the table with the confederate or stooge choosing the seat at the head or top of the table. In the other groups the experimenter tells everyone where to sit. They then deliberate the case. During the discussion, the confederate consistently adopts a deviant position, suggesting $3000 in compensation instead of $10,000 - $25,000 which was the view of the rest.
6. Results: The confederate exerts influence when he is consistent and when he is perceived as autonomous, because he has chosen his seat, whereas when seated by the experimenter he has little influence. Moreover, when he has been influential, this effect continues into the 2nd case. When he sits at the head of the table he is seen as more consistent and confident.
7. Discussion: This has interesting repercussions for the jury room where people sit around a long table. Could the effect be replicated in the classroom? Many examples exist where minorities have influenced the majority into adopting their views by being consistent over time.
