A03

• Point: One strength is that research has shown that social influence processes based on psychological research do work.

  Evidence: Nolan (2008) investigated how different types of messages would influence people’s energy-use habits.

  Explain: They found significant decreases in energy usage among residents who received messages about their neighbours' energy-saving behaviours compared to those who received control messages.

  Link: Therefore, this suggests that normative social influence can be a valid mechanism for fostering behavioural change on a societal level.
• Point: However, some studies show that people's behaviour is not always changed through exposing them to social norms.

  Evidence: Foxcroft (2015) reviewed 70 studies on social norms interventions aimed at reducing student alcohol use. 

  Explain: They found only a small reduction in drinking quantity with no effect on drinking frequency. 

  Link: Therefore, this indicates that normative influence may not consistently lead to long-term social change.
• Point: Another strength is that psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change.

  Evidence: Nemeth (2009) argues that minorities inspire a different type of thinking that eventually leads to social change.

  Explain: This ‘divergent thinking’ is much broader and leads to better decisions and creative solutions to social issues.

  Link: Therefore, this highlights the value of dissenting minorities in stimulating new ideas and fostering open-mindedness to drive social change and progress.
• P: One limitation is that deeper processing may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change.

  E: Mackie (1987) presents evidence suggesting that majority influence, rather than minority influence, may trigger deeper processing when individuals encounter conflicting views.

  E: This is because individuals like to think that other people also share their views and think similarly and would be forced to think hard if this was not the case.

  L: Therefore, this raises doubts about the validity of the notion that deeper processing is a central mechanism of minority influence.