Explanations for resistance to social influence

• Identify the two explanations for resistance to social influence.


  The locus of control explanation.

  The social support explanation.
• Outline the locus of control explanation for resistance to social influence.


  LOC refers to how much a person believes they have control over events that happen in their life.

  It is measured along a continuum with a high internal LOC at one end and a high external LOC at the other.
• Outline the locus of control explanation for resistance to social influence.


  People with an internal LOC view themselves as having control over their own behaviour whereas people with an external LOC believe that their behaviour is controlled by forces outside of their control such as luck or fate.

  This means that people with an internal LOC are more likely to resist social influence.
• Outline the locus of control explanation for resistance to social influence.


  This is because they are more likely to take responsibility for their behaviour and so are more likely to resist pressures to obey unjust orders.

  People with an internal LOC are also more likely to resist pressures to conform because they view themselves as more of a leader than a follower and are less likely to seek social approval.
• Evaluate the locus of control explanation for resistance to social influence: supporting evidence. 


  A meta-analysis of research into the link between locus of control and conformity found that those with an external locus of control were more conformist than those with an internal locus of control. Supports a relationship between an individual's locus of control and how conformist they are.
• Evaluate the locus of control explanation for resistance to social influence: supporting evidence counter 


  Data from locus of control studies spanning the past several decades have found that people have become more resistant to pressures to obey but have also become more external in their locus of control. This is a limitation because if people have become less obedient, according to this explanation, they should have become more internal in their locus of control.
• Evaluate the locus of control explanation for resistance to social influence: supporting evidence.


  Milgram's obedience research was replicated whilst also measuring where each participant scored on the locus of control continuum. It was found that more people with an internal locus of control disobeyed the experimenter's instructions. This supports the idea that an internal locus of control makes someone less likely to resist pressures to obey.
• Evaluate the locus of control explanation for resistance to social influence: supporting evidence counter.


  Not everybody identified as having an internal locus of control disobeyed (only 37% did). This is a limitation as it suggests that having an internal locus of control is not always sufficient in making people less likely to resist social influence.
• Evaluate the locus of control explanation for resistance to social influence: somewhat exaggerated. 


  This is because it has been argued that an individual's LOC only plays a role in new situations. This is a limitation because it suggests it would have little influence over levels of conformity/obedience in familiar situations whereby our previous experiences will be more important. This means that people who have conformed or obeyed in a situation in the past are likely to do so again even if they have a high internal locus of control.
• Outline the social support explanation for resistance to social influence. 


  The social support explanation proposes that if there is a person who does not conform or obey, it makes it easier for others to also resist social influence.

  This is because observing people not conforming/obeying gives others the confidence to do the same.
• Outline the social support explanation for resistance to social influence. 


  Forms or social support include having a disobedient role model (for resisting obedience) and having an ally {for resisting conformity).

  Having a disobedient role model gives others the confidence to resist pressures to obey because it challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure.
• Outline the social support explanation for resistance to social influence. 


  Meanwhile, having an ally gives others the confidence to resist pressures to conform because it breaks the unanimity of the majority.

  This break in the unanimity of the majority reduces pressures to fit in and so people would be less likely to conform due to normative social influence.
• Evaluate the social support explanation for resistance to social influence: supporting evidence. 


  Asch's unanimity variation of his original conformity research, conformity rates reduced when one of the confederates gave a different answer to the rest of the majority. This is a strength because it supports the idea that receiving social support can help an individual feel more confident in resisting pressures to conform.
• Evaluate the social support explanation for resistance to social influence: supporting evidence counter. 


  Not everybody resisted pressures to conform despite having an ally. This is a limitation as it suggests that having social support is not always sufficient in making people less likely to resist conformity
• Evaluate the social support explanation for resistance to social influence: supporting evidence. 


  Milgram carried out a variation of his original obedience research whereby the participant was joined by a disobedient confederate (i.e. another person who refused to obey the experimenter's orders). This variation found that obedience rates were reduced when the participant was joined by the disobedient role model. This is a strength as it supports the proposal that receiving social support can give people the confidence to also resist social influence.
• Evaluate the social support explanation for resistance to social influence: contradictory evidence. 


  Not everybody joined by the disobedient role model resisted the pressure to obey (10% still obeyed to the full amount). This is a limitation as it suggests that having social support is not always sufficient in making people less likely to resist obedience. Therefore adds credibility.