Obedience: resistance to social influence

• Social support is when the presence of people who resist social influence gives an individual the confidence to resist too.

  • The dissenters act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible.
  • This reduces conformity and obedience.
• In cases of conformity, the presence of a dissenting ally can help break the unanimity of the group.

  • For example, in Asch’s conformity experiments, when one confederate gave the correct answer, conformity rates dropped.
  • This is because the dissenting ally reduced the pressure of normative social influence by showing that others can resist the majority.
• In situations of obedience, having others disobey authority can make resistance easier.

  • In one of Milgram’s variations, when participants were paired with confederates who refused to administer shocks, obedience rates dropped from 65% to just 10%.
  • The disobedient confederates acted as role models, empowering participants to disobey the authority figure.
• Locus of control (LoC) refers to a person’s perception of how much control they have over events in their life. This was first proposed by Rotter (1966).

  • This can influence how likely they are to resist social influence.
  • A person can have an internal or external locus of control.
• Individuals with an internal locus of control believe they are in control of their own actions and outcomes. They are more likely to resist social influence because they take personal responsibility for their actions and are less dependent on others for guidance.
• Individuals with an external locus of control believe their actions are controlled by external factors like fate, luck, or authority figures. They are more likely to conform or obey because they feel less in control of their decisions.
• Resistance to social influence refers to the ability of people to withstand social pressures to conform to the majority or obey authority.

  • The ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors.
• While social support and locus of control are distinct factors, they often interact.

  • For instance, individuals with an internal LoC may find it easier to take advantage of social support because they feel confident in their ability to make independent decisions.
  • Conversely, those with an external LoC might rely more on others' dissent to resist authority.
• A strength of resistance to social influence is that research evidence supports the role of locus of control in resistance. For example, Holland (1967) replicated Milgram’s obedience study and found that 37% of participants with an internal locus of control refused to continue to the highest shock level, compared to only 23% of those with an external locus. This suggests that individuals with an internal LoC are more likely to resist obedience, increasing its validity.
• A limitation of resistance to social influence is that there is contradictory evidence. Twenge et al. (2004) conducted a meta-analysis and found that people have become more resistant to social influence over time but also have a stronger external locus of control. This contradicts the idea that an internal LoC leads to resistance, suggesting that other factors, such as changes in societal norms, may be more influential in explaining resistance to social influence.
• One strength of social support as an explanation is that there is supporting research evidence. Studies show that having an ally can significantly increase resistance to social influence. For example, Asch (1956) found that when one confederate gave correct answers and disagreed with the majority, conformity rates dropped from 75% to 5%. Similarly, Milgram (1974) found that obedience rates dropped from 65% to 10% when participants were joined by two disobedient peers. These studies provide strong empirical support for the idea that social support can help people resist pressures to conform and obey, increasing the validity of this explanation.