An agent-based model of indirect minority influence on social change and diversity

References

• Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 195–228). Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2010). Social identity and self-categorization. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 179–193). London, UK: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1996). Cognitive responses to minority or majority-based communications: Factors that underlie minority influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 105–121.10.1111/bjso.1996.35.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1997). Indirect minority influence: Evidence for leniency in source evaluation and counterargumentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 949–964.10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.949
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Axelrod, R. (1997). The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, 203–226.10.1177/0022002797041002001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandstätter, V., Ellemers, N., Gaviria, E., Giosue, F., Huguet, P., Kroon, M., & Perez, J. A. (1991). Indirect majority and minority influence: An exploratory study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 199–211. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420210303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, R. D. III. (1990). Minority influence: The role of argument refutation of the majority position and social support for the minority position. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 489–497.10.1002/ejsp.v20.6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway, J. H. (1970). The game of life. Scientific American, 223, 120–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crano, W. D. (1977). Primacy versus recency in retention of information and opinion change. The Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 87–96. doi:10.1080/00224545.1977.9923987
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crano, W. D. (2001). Social influence, social identity, and ingroup leniency. In C. K. W. de Dreu & N. K. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 122–143). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Crano, W. D. (2010). Majority and minority influence in attitude formation and change: Context/categorization – Leniency contract theory. In R. Martin & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Minority influence and innovation: Antecedents, processes, and consequences (pp. 53–77). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crano, W. D., & Alvaro, E. M. (1998). Indirect minority influence: The leniency contract revisited. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1, 99–115.10.1177/1368430298012001
   Google Scholar
• Crano, W. D., & Chen, X. (1998). The leniency contract and persistence of majority and minority influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1437–1450.10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1437
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crano, W. D., & Lyrintzis, E. (2015). Structure and change of complex political attitudes. In J. P. Forgas, K. Fiedler, & W. D. Crano (Eds.), Social psychology and politics (pp. 21–39). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• David, B., & Turner, J. C. (2001). Majority and minority influence: A single process. In C. K. W. de Dreu & N. K. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 91–121). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• De Dreu, C. K. W., & De Vries, N. K. (1993). Numerical support, information processing, and attitude change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 647–662. doi:10.1002/ejsp
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Dreu, C. K. W., & De Vries, N. K. (1996). Differential processing and attitude change following majority versus minority arguments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 77–90. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01084.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vries, N. K., De Dreu, C. K. W., Gordijn, E. H., & Schuurman, M. S. (1996). Majority and minority influence: A dual role interpretation. European Review of Social Psychology, 7, 145–172. doi:10.1080/14792779643000001
   Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7, 117–140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of cognitivedissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fink, E. L., & Kaplowitz, S. A. (1993). Oscillation in beliefs and cognitive networks. In W. D. Richards Jr & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 12, pp. 247–272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Galam, S. (2002). Minority opinion spreading in random geometry. The European Physical Journal B – Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 25, 403–406. doi:10.1140/epjb/e20020045
   Google Scholar
• Galam, S., & Moscovici, S. (1991). Towards a theory of collective phenomena: Consensus and attitude changes ingroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 49–74. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420210105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gawronski, B. & Strack, F. (Eds.). (2012). Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, K., Rand, D. G., Ert, E., Lewis, K., Hershman, S., & Norton, M. I. (2014). The emergence of ‘us and them’ in 80 lines of code. Psychological Science, 25, 982–990. doi:10.1177/0956797614521816
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpern, J. Y., Pass, R., & Seeman, L. (2014). Decision theory with resource-bounded agents. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 245–257. doi:10.1111/tops.12088
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hastie, R., & Stasser, G. (2000). Computer simulation methods for social psychology. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 85–116). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holland, J. H. (2006). Studying complex adaptive systems. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 19, 1–8. doi:10.1007/s11424-006-0001-z
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, J. C., Rand, D., Lewis, K., Norton, M. I., & Gray, K. (2017). Agent-based modeling: A guide for social psychologists. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 387–395. doi:10.1177/1948550617691100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarman, M., Nowak, A., Borkowski, W., Serfass, D., Wong, A., & Vallacher, R. (2015). The critical few: Anticonformists at the crossroads of minority opinion survival and collapse. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18, 6.10.18564/jasss.2663
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judd, C. M., Drake, R. A., Downing, J. W., & Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Some dynamic properties of attitude structures: Context-induced response facilitation and polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 193–202.10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.193
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, N. L., Stasser, G., & Davis, J. H. (1979). Model testing, model fitting, and social decision schemes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 399–410.10.1016/0030-5073(79)90006-0
   Google Scholar
• Larson, J. R. (1997). Modeling the entry of shared and unshared information into group discussion: A review and basic language Computer Program. Small Group Research, 28, 454–479. doi:10.1177/1046496497283007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine, J. M., & Tindale, R. S. (2015). Social influence in groups. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 2: Group processes (pp. 3–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14342-001
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann, C. C., & Rajaram, S. (2015). Memory transmission in small groups and large networks: An agent-based model. Psychological Science, 26, 1909–1917. doi:10.1177/0956797615605798
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacCoun, R. J. (2012). The burden of social proof: Shared thresholds and social influence. Psychological Review, 119, 345–372. doi:10.1037/a0027121
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Determinants and consequences of cognitive processes in majority and minority influence. In J. P. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes (pp. 315–330). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2008). Majority versus minority influence, message processing, and attitude change: The source-context-elaboration model. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 237–326). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S00652601(07)00005-6
   Google Scholar
• Martin, R. & Hewstone, M. (Eds.). (2010). Minority influence and innovation: Antecedents, processes and consequences. Hove: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, W. A., Conrey, F. R., & Smith, E. R. (2007). Situating social influence processes: Dynamic, Multidirectional Flows of influence within social networks. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 279–300. doi:10.1177/1088868307301032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuire, W. J. (1990). Dynamic operations of thought systems. American Psychologist, 45(4), 504–512.10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.504
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuire, W. J., & McGuire, C. V. (1991). The content, structure, and operation of thought systems. In R. S. Wyer & T. Srull (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 4, pp. 1–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Monroe, B. M., & Read, S. J. (2008). A general connectionist model of attitude structure and change: The ACS (Attitudes as Constraint Satisfaction) model. Psychological Review, 115, 733–759. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.3.73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209–239). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moscovici, S. (1985). Innovation and minority influence. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 9–52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511897566
   Google Scholar
• Moscovici, S., & Faucheux, C. (1972). Social influence, conformity bias, and the study of active minorities. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 149–202). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365–379.10.2307/2786541
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nettle, D. (1999). Using social impact theory to simulate language change. Lingua, 108, 95–117. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00046-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowak, A., & Lewenstein, M. (1996). Modelling social change with cellular automata. In R. Hegselmann, U. Mueller, & K. G. Troitzsch (Eds.), Modelling and simulation in the social sciences from the philosophy of science point of view (pp. 249–285). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-015-8686-3
   Google Scholar
• Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latané, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97, 362–376.10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1996). The conflict elaboration theory of social influence. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (Vol. 2, pp. 191–210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Prislin, R. (1996). Attitude stability and attitude strength: One is enough to make it stable. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 447–477. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199605)26:3<447::AID-EJSP768>3.0.CO;2-I
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prislin, R., & Crano, W. D. (2012). A history of social influence research. In A. W. Kruglanski & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 321–339). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pulick, E., Korth, P., Grim, P., & Jung, J. (2016). Modeling interaction effects in polarization: Individual media influence and the impact of town meetings. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 19(2), 1. doi:10.18564/jasss.3021 http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/19/2/1.html
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Read, S. J. & Miller, L. C. (Eds.). (1998). Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Ron, S. (2006). Cognition and multi-agent interaction: From cognitive modeling to social simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic Models of Segregation. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143–186. doi:10.1080/0022250x.1971.9989794
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smaldino, P., Pickett, C., Sherman, J., & Schank, J. (2012). An agent-based model of social identity dynamics. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 15, 7. doi:10.18564/jasss.203 http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/15/4/7.html
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, E. R., & Conrey, F. R. (2007). Agent-based modeling: A new approach for theory building in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 87–104. doi:10.1177/1088868306294789
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stasser, G. (1988). Computer simulation as a research tool: The DISCUSS model of group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 393–422.10.1016/0022-1031(88)90028-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stasser, G. (1999). A primer of social decision scheme theory: Models of group influence, competitive model-testing, and prospective modeling. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 3–20.10.1006/obhd.1999.2851
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Davis, J. H. (1980). Influence processes in decision-making: A modeling approach. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 431–477). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Stasser, G., & Taylor, L. A. (1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 675–684. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.675
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallacher, R., Coleman, P., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2010). Rethinking intractable conflict: The perspective of dynamical systems. American Psychologist, 65, 262–278.10.1037/a0019290
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (1997). The emergence of dynamical social psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 73–99.10.1207/s15327965pli0802_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (2007). Dynamical social psychology: Finding order in the flow of human experience. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 734–758). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Vallacher, R. R., Read, S. J., & Nowak, A. (2002). The dynamical perspective in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 264–273.10.1207/S15327957PSPR0604_01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Neumann, J. (1966). Theory of self-reproducing automata. (A. W. Burkes, Ed.. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323–345.10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.323
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar