Social influence

outline and evaluate Asch’s conformity research- AO1

• Asch devised an experiment to assess conformity to others

• his baseline procedure tested 123 American men

• each in a group with 5-7 confederate participants

• each trial had a line X and 3 comparison lines A, B, C

• a comparison line is clearly the same length, and participants had to out loud say which one matched

• naïve participant always sat last or second last, confederate participants always gave incorrect answers

• on average conformed to incorrect answer 36.8% of the time, individual differences saw 25% never conform

• variables investigated:

• group size- varied confederates from 1 to 15, conformity increased with group size until a point, 3 confederates conformity was 31.8%, presence of more made little difference, people are very sensitive to the views of others as only a couple needed to conform, don’t want to stand out

• unanimity- introduced a confederate who gave a different answer to the majority, in one version they gave the correct answer, the other just a different incorrect, conformity decreased with a dissenter to a quarter of what it was, even when dissenter was still disagreeing with participant, influence of majority depends largely on unanimity, non-conformity more likely when cracks in majority’s view

• task difficulty- made comparison lines more similar to stimulus, conformity increased, situation is more ambiguous, conformed due to ISI

outline and evaluate Asch’s conformity research- AO3

• +ve: support on effects of task difficulty, Lucas et al. asked participants to solve maths problems, given fake answers from 3 other students, participants conformed more when problems were harder, supports Asch in claiming task difficulty is a variable that affects conformity

• -ve: artificial task and situation, participants knew they were in a research study, high risk of reacting to demand characteristics and going along with what they thought was right, no consequences of conforming or reward for getting it correct, low ecological validity and ability to generalise findings especially to situations with consequences of conforming

• -ve: sample only included American men, groups didn’t resemble those in everyday life, other research suggests women conform more due to concern about social relationships and being accepted, US is individualist culture, conformity studies in collectivist cultures found higher conformity rates, low population validity

• -ve: issues with individual differences, in the baseline a quarter of participants never conformed whereas others conformed more than 1 in 3 times, Lucas et al. found participants with higher confidence in their maths abilities conformed less than those with low confidence, individual-level can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables, Asch didn’t consider this, reduces validity of findings

discuss types and explanations of conformity- AO1

• normative social influence- going along with the majority through fear of rejection or being seen as an outcast, a desire to be liked

• leads to compliance- conforming for emotional reasons, opinions or behaviour changes publicly but not privately, superficial change, temporary

• informational social influence- going along with the majority through acceptance of new information, desire to be right, common in new or ambiguous situations or in a crisis, where we don’t know what to do

• leads to internalisation- conforming as you genuinely accept group opinion/behaviour, accepted privately as well as publicly, permanent

• identification is the other type of conformity- valuing a group and so changing opinions or behaviours publicly to be accepted, privately don’t always agree with everything

discuss types and explanations of conformity- AO3

• +ve: NSI can be used to explain Asch’s findings, people conformed as they wanted to fit into the group, not because they genuinely agreed that the incorrect line was the right answer, Asch’s research also supports NSI, Asch interviewed participants, some said they conformed as they felt self-conscious giving a different answer and were afraid of disapproval, when writing answer down conformity fell to 12.5%, answers were given privately so no normative group pressure, at least some conformity is due to a desire to not be rejected from a group

• +ve: research support for ISI, Lucas et al. found participants conformed more when maths problems were difficult than when they were easy, this is because they were more confident in their answer when it was easy, but when it was hard they thought maybe the group was right and they had done something wrong, they did not want to be wrong so relied on others, this shows ISI is valid as the results are what ISI would predict

• -ve: hard to distinguish between NSI and ISI e.g. Asch found conformity decreased with a dissenter present, this may be due to the dissenter providing social support so reducing NSI or making majority’s opinion seem less trustworthy so reducing ISI, the variables aren’t measurable reducing validity and making it more subjective, often both NSI and ISI occur in real life

• -ve: NSI doesn’t take into account individual differences, nAffiliators are more concerned with being liked by others than most people, nAffiliators are more likely to conform, gender and culture can also play a part, women seen as more likely to conform due to concern about social relationships and being accepted, collectivist cultures also more likely, level of expertise or confidence e.g. Lucas found people more confident in their maths skills were less likely to conform, NSI underlies conformity for some more than others, individual differences cannot be fully explained by one general theory

describe and evaluate Zimbardo’s research into social roles (aims, procedure and findings)- AO1

• wanted to investigate conformity to social roles

• set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford university

• observational study- controlled, participant- Zimbardo took role of prison superintendent, overt

• 24 emotionally stable, student volunteers were randomly assigned to roles of either prisoner or guard

• prisoners were ‘arrested’, blind folded, strip searched and deloused

• guards were given a baton, dark glasses and uniform, told to maintain order

• prisoners’ daily routines heavily regulated by guards working in shifts

• given some rights e.g. 3 meals, 3 supervised trips to toilet, 2 visits a week

• prisoners were dehumanised by forced to wear a smock and cap, referred to as numbers

• encouraged to identify with their role as the prisoners had to ‘apply for parole’ if they wanted to leave, guards told they had complete control over prisoners

• within 2 days prisoners rebelled

• guards became harsher e.g. frequent head counts at night

• prisoners became subdued and depressed- 3 released due to psychological disturbances, one went on hunger strike

• guards became more brutal and aggressive

• study ended after 6 days rather than 2 weeks

• showed social roles have a strong influence on behaviour- even volunteers like prison chaplain behaved as if they were in a prison not study

describe and evaluate Zimbardo’s research into social roles (aims, procedure and findings)- AO3

• +ve: good internal validity, control over key variables, emotionally-stable participants chosen and randomly allocated roles, reduced impact of individual differences, any changes in behaviour must have been due to the role, increases confidence in drawing conclusions

• -ve: methodological issues, sample bias- small sample, only American students, demand characteristics reduce internal validity, lack of mundane realism- participants were acting based on stereotypes rather than conforming e.g. a guard claimed his based his role off a film character, explain why prisoners rioted- they thought prisoners do that, Zimbardo played a dual role, his own behaviour affected the way events unfolded, validity of findings questions, suggests findings tell us little about conformity to social roles

• -ve: ethical issues, lack of informed consent- whether or not consent gained was sufficiently informed, deception, lack of protection from psychological harm- participants soon became distressed, whether or not the distress should have been anticipated

• -ve: Zimbardo exaggerated conclusions from results, only 1/3 of guards behaved in a brutal manner, 1/3 applied rules fairly, 1/3 helped the prisoners, they sympathised and reinstated privileges, most guards resisted situational pressures to conform to a brutal role, overstated the conformity to social roles, didn’t show how individual differences influenced behaviour, replication study by Reicher and Haslam in Britain found different results, guards uncomfortable in role- didn’t want authority, prisoners became aggressive and intimidating towards guards, reduces reliability of Zimbardo’s results

outline and evaluate Milgram’s baseline research- AO1

• measured obedience using electric shock experiment

• 40 American men volunteered- paid $4.50

• when they arrived there was a fixed draw that made them a Teacher and a confederate a Learner, there was also an Experimenter

• Experimenter ordered Teacher to give increasingly strong shocks to the Learner when they got a question wrong- shocks were fake but the Teacher didn’t know

• all participants delivered shocks up to 300V, 5 stopped at 300V, 65% went to highest level 450V

• collected qualitative data from observations, participants were sweating, stuttering

• before the study Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict participant’s behaviour, they estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450V, shows findings were unexpected

• participants were debriefed and ensured behaviour was entirely normal, 84% in follow-up questionnaire said they were glad they did it

outline and evaluate Milgram’s baseline research- AO3

• +ve: can easily be replicated therefore reliability can be assessed, it was a lab experiment so it is easier to control the variables so that it is only the independent variable that is manipulated, can determine whether the IV does cause the DV to change, conclusions can be more reliable

• -ve: methodological issues, situation was artificial so loss of external validity, lack of mundane realism in electric shock task, 75% said they believed shocks were real, demand characteristics may cause participants to behave differently if they didn’t believe shocks were real- Perry listened to tapes and reported only half believed shocks were real, investigator effects cause participants to change behaviour- unwanted influence a researcher has on the outcome of a study e.g. body language

• +ve: research support, Sheridan and King conducted a study like Milgram’s, participants gave real shocks to a puppy due to orders from experimenter, 54% of men and 100% of women gave a shock they thought would be fatal, suggests effects of Milgram’s study were genuine because people behaved obediently even when shocks were real, French game show, participants thought they were contestants who gave (fake) electric shocks to other participants, 80% delivered maximum shock of 460V to an ‘unconscious’ man, behaviour was almost identical to Milgram’s e.g. nervous laughing, biting nails, supports Milgram’s findings on obedience to authority, shows findings weren’t due to special circumstances

• -ve: ethical issues, lack of protection from harm- participants were clearly distressed, deception- participants thought the learner was another volunteer rather than a confederate, thought the allocation of roles was random, thought the shocks were real, informed consent- due to the deception participants couldn’t give their full informed consent, participants were initially given the right to withdraw but later on during the experiment is was made very hard for them to do so

discuss research into situational variables and what they tell us about why people obey- AO1

• Milgram:

• Proximity- in baseline teacher could hear learner but not see him

• in proximity variation teacher and learner were in same room and obedience dropped from 65% to 40%

• touch proximity variation teacher had to force learner’s hand onto electroshock plate if he refused to and obedience was 30%

• remote instruction variation experimenter left the room and gave instructions to teacher over the phone, obedience decreased to 20.5%, participants frequently pretended to give shocks

• decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences of their actions e.g. when teacher and learner were separate, teacher was less aware of harm they were causing another person so more obedient

• Location- in baseline it was conducted at Yale, in location variation it was in a run down office block, obedience fell to 47.5%

• this is because the prestigious university gave Milgram’s study legitimacy and authority, participants more obedient because they perceived the Experimenter shared this legitimacy, obedience was expected, obedience was still quite high in the office block as participants perceived scientific nature of experiment

• Uniform- in the baseline the experimenter wore a grey lab coat, in uniform variation experimenter was called away at the start and the role was taken over by a member of the public in everyday clothes, obedience rate was lowest at 20%

• this is because the lab coat was a symbol of authority, we accept someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate and granted by society, someone without uniform has less right to expect obedience

discuss research into situational variables and what they tell us about why people obey- AO3

• -ve: methodological issue with Milgram, high risk of demand characteristics, likely participants didn’t believe study was real, variations make it even more likely than baseline study due to extra manipulation of variables e.g. experimenter being replaced by member of the public is so contrived many participants may have worked out the truth, unclear whether findings are genuine due to obedience or whether participants saw through the deception

• +ve: consistent findings, other research shows situational variables influence obedience, field experiment in NYC, Bickman had 3 confederates dress up in different outfits in the street- jacket and tie, milkman outfit, security guard uniform- and ask passers-by to do different things e.g. pick up litter or handing a coin over for parking meter, people twice as likely to obey assistant dressed in security guard than jacket and tie, also the field experiment means increased validity as reduced risk of demand characteristics, counteracts previous point

• -ve: unsure whether findings are culturally generalisable, Meeus et al. used a more realistic study on Dutch participants, participants ordered to say stressful things in an interview to a confederate desperate for a job, 90% obeyed, also investigated proximity and when person giving orders wasn’t present obedience decreased dramatically, suggests findings not limited to Americans, however these are both individualist cultures, Smith and Bond found only 2 replications that took place in culturally different places to US- India and Jordan, all other countries are quite similar to US and have similar notions about role of authority, may not be appropriate to conclude findings apply to all cultures

• -ve: explanation is problematic, situational perspective has been criticised by Mandel that it offers an excuse for evil behaviour e.g. offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to say that Nazis were just obeying orders, Milgram’s explanation ignores dispositional factors such as personality, implying Nazis were victims of situational factors beyond their control, could be oversimplifying it- authoritarian personality may be more accurate, also doesn’t take into account mass killings of Jews occurred in close proximity without protest

discuss situational explanations for obedience- AO1

• agentic state:

• when a person acts on behalf of an authority figure

• the actor feels no personal responsibility or guilt for their actions

• this is the opposite of autonomous state where people act according to their own principles

• the change to agentic state is called agentic shift and occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure, the authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position on the social hierarchy

• people can stay in an agentic state even when they don’t want to due to binding factors- aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce moral strain they are feeling

• strategies include shifting blame to victim or denying damage

• legitimacy of authority:

• when a person recognises their own and other’s positions in a social hierarchy

• leading to recognition of the authority figure’s right to issue a demand

• legitimacy is increased by visible symbols of authority e.g. uniform

• includes the legitimacy of the setting, order or system

• destructive authority creates issues e.g. powerful leaders like Hitler can use their legitimate authority for destructive purposes

discuss situational explanations for obedience- AO3

• +ve: research support, Milgram’s studies support role of agentic state in obedience, most participants resisted giving the shocks at some point and asked experimenter questions about the procedure e.g. Who is responsible if the learner is harmed?, when the experimenter said they were responsible the participants often went through the procedure with no further objections, shows once they perceived they were no longer responsible for their actions they were more obedient

• -ve: neither explanation can account for instances of disobedience, Rank and Jacobson found 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient despite doctor being an obvious authority figure, almost all nurses remained in autonomous state and ignored legitimate authority, suggests individual differences can have a large impact, and so obedience may be more dispositional rather than situational, other explanations like authoritarian personality may be more accurate

• +ve: real world explanation, My Lai massacre during Vietnam war, American soldiers killed unarmed civilians and burned villages to the ground, only one soldier faced charges and he had the same defence as Nazis that he was only doing his duty by following orders, hierarchy in US army and COs had legitimate authority as recognised by the government and society, COs had the power to issue order and entitled to expect obedience, also had the power to punish anyone who disobeys, accepted by soldier due to the structured hierarchy they are in, soldiers assume they should follow orders as they stem from legitimate authority even when they are brutal, supports idea that respect for legitimate authority can lead to blind and destructive obedience

• +ve: legitimacy of authority can also account for cultural differences, studies show countries differ in degree to which people are obedient to authority e.g. in Milgram-style studies only 16% of Australian women went up to 450V compared to 85% of Germans, shows how in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience, reflects how different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures

discuss authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience- AO1

• a dispositional explanation, suggests obedient behaviour is due to internal traits like personality type, rather than external situational factors

• traits develop from strict parenting, conditional love and impossibly high standards

• creates hostility and resentment in child but can’t express feeling directly to parent out of fear so displaces them onto others who are perceived to be weaker- scapegoating

• traits include dogmatic respect for authority

• obedient towards people of perceived higher status

• hostile towards people perceived as having a lower status

• see society as weaker than it once was and needs strong, powerful leaders to enforce traditional values

• everything is either right or wrong, uncomfortable with uncertainty

• Adorno based the theory on research: studied 2000 middle-class, white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups, used F-scale to measure Authoritarian personality

• found those who scored high on F-scale were very conscious of status of themselves and others and showed extreme respect to those of higher status, had a certain cognitive style that had fixed, distinct stereotypes, strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

discuss authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience- AO3

• -ve: issues with research theory is based off, small sample, response bias with the F-scale- if participants just select agree for all questions they get a high score, relies on self-report methods where people can be inaccurate, show them to have an authoritarian personality even when they don’t, F-scale may not be measuring Authoritarian personality at all, furthermore F-scale only measures tendency towards extreme form of right-wing ideology, this has been argued to be a politically biased interpretation of Authoritarian personality, right-wing and left-wing ideologies have a lot in common e.g. both emphasise importance of complete obedience to political authority, Adorno’s theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience to authority across whole political spectrum, concept of Authoritarian personality may not be valid if method of measuring it is so flawed

• -ve: difficulty establishing cause and effect between parenting style and authoritarianism and obedience as it is based on retrospective data, level of education could impact authoritarianism and obedience, shows correlation rather than causation

• +ve: research support, Elms and Milgram interviewed 20 people who had been fully obedient in the original obedience study, completed F-scale as part of the interview, participants scored significantly higher than comparison group of disobedient participants, groups were clearly disobedient in terms of authoritarianism, supports Adorno’s view that obedient people may show similar characteristics to people with an Authoritarian personality

• -ve: can’t explain all behaviour, situational factors may have greater influence on obedience levels, they can more easily explain Milgram’s findings- in Elms and Milgram follow up study characteristics unusual for authoritarians were found in the participants e.g. didn’t experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood, authoritarianism cannot explain obedience in the majority of a country’s population e.g. in pre-war Germany millions displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behaviour, despite personalities varying, extremely unlikely they all possess an authoritarian personality, alternative view is that most of the Germans identified with the anti-Semitic Nazi state- a social identity theory approach, Adorno’s theory is limited, alternative explanations more realistic

outline and evaluate explanations for resistance to social influence- AO1

• social support:

• non-conformity or defiance more likely if others are seen to resist influence, seeing others not conform or disobey gives observer confidence to do so

• for obedience a disobedient role model challenges legitimacy of authority

• for conformity having an ally breaks unanimity of group, not following majority is social support, makes person feel free to follow their own opinion, acts as a model

• locus of control:

• dispositional explanation

• Rotter proposed locus of control as a concept about what people believe things are controlled by

• it is a spectrum, internal- they control what happens, external- things that happen are out of their control

• people with internal locus of control are more likely to resist pressure to conform and less likely to obey than those with external locus of control

• people with internal believe they control their own circumstances, enables greater personal efficacy and self-confidence

• characteristics of a leader- less concerned with social approval, more intelligent

outline and evaluate explanations for resistance to social influence- AO3

• +ve: research support for social support, Albrecht et al. evaluated a programme to help pregnant teens resist peer pressure to smoke, social support provided to some by a slightly older mentor, at the end of the programme the adolescents with the mentor were significantly less likely to smoke than those without, shows social support can help young people resist social influence in the real world, can have practical application

• -ve: social support isn’t a complete explanation, in an Asch-type task when there was a dissenter with apparent good eyesight 64% didn’t conform, when dissenter had apparent poor eyesight (thick glasses) resistance was only 36%, participants must have concluded the usefulness of the support was low as they didn’t trust their ability to see and judge the lines properly, social support only affects resistance to conformity when it is trusted

• +ve: evidence to support locus of control causing resistance to social influence, Holland repeated Milgram’s baseline study, measured whether participants were internals or externals, 37% internals didn’t continue to highest shock level, only 23% externals didn’t continue, internals showed greater resistance to authority, research support for social support, Asch’s study showed when a dissenter introduced, conformity reduced, shows resistance at least partly related to LOC, increases LOC as an explanation for resistance

• -ve: LOC has inconsistent effects, Twenge et al. analysed data from American LOC studies from 40 year period, data showed people became more resistant to obedience but also more external, if resistance was linked to internal we would expect people to become more internal, suggests LOC is not a valid explanation for how people resistant obedience, Rotter also pointed out LOC only significantly affects behaviour in new situations, if you have conformed or obeyed in a specific situation in the past, likely you will do so in the same situation regardless of internal or external, LOC not necessarily most important factor in determining if someone will resist social influence, situational factors could be more important

outline how minority influences contribute to social change- AO1

• minority influence is where one person or a small group influence the beliefs and behaviours of others- leads to internalisation

• different to conformity as that is the majority doing the influencing

• 3 main processes:

• consistency- must be consistent with their views, repeatedly give same message, draws attention to minority view, makes majority reassess their belief and consider view more carefully and so may adopt minority point of view

• synchronic consistency is everyone in the group saying the same thing

• diachronic consistency is a minority saying the same thing for a long time

• commitment- minority shows they are willing to give up something for their belief, members shows dedication by making sacrifices, shows minority not acting out of self-interest, can also draw more attention, majority takes the argument more seriously and so may adopt it as their own- augmentation principle

• flexibility and non-dogmatic- minority shows they are willing to listen to other viewpoints, majority will then listen to their viewpoint and consider it more deeply

• overtime increasing numbers switch from majority viewpoint to minority, the more this happens the faster the rate of conversion, this is known as the snowball effect

• crypto-amnesia: original source of influence is forgotten, people remember change occurred but don’t remember how it happened

• gradually the minority view becomes the majority view and change has occurred

outline how minority influences contribute to social change- AO3

• +ve: research support for consistency, Moscovici et al. did a study where 6 people viewed a set of 36 blue slides, had to say if they were blue or green, two confederates who consistently said slides were green, participants gave wrong answer on 8.42% of the trials, second group exposed to an inconsistent minority (confederate said green 24 times and blue 12), only 1.25% of trials were answered wrong, control group had no confederates and only 0.25% of trials were answered wrong, shows consistent minority opinion had greater effect on changing the views of others, Wood et al. carried out meta-analysis of 100 similar studies, found minorities seen to be consistent were most influential, suggests presenting a consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority trying to persuade a majority

• +ve: research support for flexibility, Nemeth, participants placed in groups, had to agree on amount of compensation to give a victim of a ski-lift accident, one participant was a confederate, in one condition the confederate argued for low rate of compensation and refused to change their position, on the other minority argued for low rate but compromised by offering slightly higher rate, Nemeth found in inflexible condition minority had little or no effect on majority, in flexible condition majority was much more likely to compromise and change their view

• +ve: when participants wrote down their answers privately in Moscovici’s study they were more likely to agree with the minority view, suggests the view expressed is superficial and may not be how people actually think, more people influenced than prepared to admit, don’t want to be associated with minority out of fear of being seen as weird, means those who do publicly agree hold views strongly- internalisation, valid form of social influence, although rare, influences people powerfully and permanently

• -ve: issues with research, tasks are artificial, research is not representative of how minorities create change in real life, no real consequences in research, it can be dangerous to be a minority in real life, in the real world majorities have power and status, research often has clear minorities and majorities, lack external validity, limited in what they show about how minority influence works in real-world scenarios, Moscovici’s findings are very low anyway- highest is 8%, suggests minority influence is quite rare, there may be more pressure in a research setting with smaller groups to agree with majority but in the real world greater support can lead to minority being more influential

discuss different ways social change can be brought about- AO1

• social change is where whole societies, not just individuals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs or behaviours

• minority influence processes:

• minorities contribute by being consistent, committed and flexible

• consistency- must be consistent with their views, repeatedly give same message, draws attention to minority view, makes majority reassess their belief and consider view more carefully and so may adopt minority point of view

• commitment-minority shows they are willing to give up something for their belief, members shows dedication by making sacrifices, shows minority not acting out of self-interest, can also draw more attention, majority takes the argument more seriously, deeper processing, and so may adopt it as their own- augmentation principle

• flexibility and non-dogmatic- minority shows they are willing to listen to other viewpoints, majority will then listen to their viewpoint and consider it more deeply

• overtime increasing numbers switch from majority viewpoint to minority, the more this happens the faster the rate of conversion, this is known as the snowball effect

• crypto-amnesia: original source of influence is forgotten, people remember change occurred but don’t remember how it happened

• gradually the minority view becomes the majority view and change has occurred

• e.g. votes for women- suffragettes, gay rights

• conformity processes:

• social support- shown by Asch and the impact of the dissenter on conformity

• normative social influence- informing people about what others are doing i.e. drawing attention to what majority are doing

• informational social influence- improving education/knowledge

• obedience processes:

• Milgram showed impact of disobedient role models

• Zimbardo showed obedience can be used to create social change through gradual commitment, once small instruction obeyed it is harder to resist bigger ones

• governments can bring about social change through power and making new laws e.g. changing rules on recycling and the environment

discuss different ways social change can be brought about- AO3

• +ve: research support for NSI, shown social influence processes based on psychological research do work, Nolan et al. studied if they could change people’s energy-use habits, researchers hung messages on the front doors of houses in California every week for a month, message was most residents were reducing their energy usage, control group were just asked to reduce energy, significant decreases in energy usage in first group, shows conformity to majority influence can lead to social change through NSI (or ISI), it is a valid explanation

• -ve: some studies show people’s behaviour is not always changed through exposing them to social norms, individual differences and depends on the type of behaviour, Foxcroft et al. reviewed 70 studies where social norms approach was used to reduce student alcohol use, researchers found only a small reduction in drinking quantity, no change in frequency, NSI doesn’t always produce long-term social change

• +ve: psychologists can explain how minority influence causes social change, Nemeth claims social change is due to minorities inspiring a type of thinking, when people consider minority arguments they engage in divergent thinking- broad not narrow thinking, thinking actively searches for information, weighs up more options, Nemeth argues it leads to better decision making and more creative solutions to social issues, shows why dissenting minorities are valuable- stimulate new ideas and open minds in a way majorities can’t

• -ve: despite there being ways a minority can influence a majority, people still resist social change, research found participants didn’t want to be associated with the minority due to their negative connotations