AbstractIn reaction to the decades of research that tended to assume that social influence is synonymous with conformity, recent work has concentrated on the ability of a minority, by having a system of answers of its own, to influence the majority in the direction of their judgments. A study by Moscovici, Lage and Naffrechoux (1969) demonstrated this phenomenon but found that consistency of response, in the sense of repetition, was necessary for minority influence to be effected. They assumed that repetition was necessary to give the minority judgment the same value as that of the majority and to intensify the conflict that was engendered by the differences in opinion. Our position is that the lack of repetition in that study was construed to mean that the minority did not really have a position in which they were confident. As such, they were discounted. Thus, it is the attribution of consistency and confidence that leads to minority influence, not intensification of the conflict. The present study found that non‐repetitious behavior by a minority could be seen as reflecting consistency and confidence and could lead to minority influence provided the inconsistency was patterned with some property of the stimulus. Such ‘inconsistency’ was perceived as favorable and as effective as any other condition and even more effective than one of the repetitious condi