The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs minority influence
Abstract
A comparison of influence processes exerted by a majority versus a minority is made, both theoretically and empirically. In this study, comparing the two processes in the same experimental setting, it was hypothesized that subjects would ‘follow’ the majority more than the minority, that is, they would be more influenced to adopt the exact same position. However, it was predicted that subjects exposed to the minority would be stimulated to find new solutions to the problem, solutions that were not offered by the minority but that the subjects would not have found by themselves. Further, these solutions would tend to be correct rather than incorrect. Results support these predictions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0046408 · Cited by 4,819
Cited by
Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259200 · Cited by 2,776
The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation
Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998) · California Management Review · doi:10.2307/41165946 · Cited by 1,702
What Differences Make a Difference?: The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x · Cited by 1,276
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.236 · Cited by 1,035
Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how.
Leung, A. K.-Y., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2008) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.63.3.169 · Cited by 975
Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.003043 · Cited by 518
Social Identification, Self-Categorization and Social Influence
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/14792779108401862 · Cited by 382
Enhancing AI-Assisted Group Decision Making through LLM-Powered Devil's Advocate
Chiang, C.-W., Lu, Z., Li, Z., & Yin, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3640543.3645199 · Cited by 142
Hogg, M. A. (2010) · Handbook of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002031 · Cited by 138
The Diversity Gap: When Diversity Matters for Knowledge
Sulik, J., Bahrami, B., & Deroy, O. (2022) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916211006070 · Cited by 80
Cognition is a matter of trust: Distrust tunes cognitive processes
Mayo, R. (2015) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/10463283.2015.1117249 · Cited by 78
Civil political discourse in a democracy: The contribution of psychology
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2000) · Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327949pac0604_01 · Cited by 75
Kim, Y.-S., Reinecke, K., & Hullman, J. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2017.2745240 · Cited by 60
Barnett, P. E. (2011) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2011.570435 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Nemeth, C. J., & Wachtler, J.
- Venue
- European Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1983-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-55
- ISSN
- 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0992
- OpenAlex
- W2109962316
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 27.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
