A03 Resistance to Social Influence

• Evaluation of Resisting Social Influence?


  +Research support social support - Allen & Levine (1971)

  +Support for social support

  +Research support for LOC - Holland (1967)

  - Research support for LOC - Rotter (1982)

  - Not all research supports the link between LOC & resistance -

  Twenge et al (2004)
• Research support for resisting social influence (social support)?


  P: We can look to Asch's variations to see the effects of social support in resisting conformity.

  E: In Asch variation where one confederate who disagreed, conformity dropped from 75% to 5%.

  E: Allen & Levine (1971) recreated this variation & implied that confederate had vision problems they found conformity decreased to 64%.

  L: This shows that people conform not just because they follow what someone else says but because a fellow dissenter allows to be free of the pressures of the group.
• Support for social support - resisting social influence?


  P: Furthermore, evidence for resistance to obedience comes from one of Milgram's variations.

  E: In this variation the real ppt was paired with 2 confederates who also played the role of teachers. They resisted/refused to go on and withdrew from the experiment early.

  E: In this variation, percentage of real ppt who proceeded to the full 450 volts, drooped from 65% (in OG) to 10%

  L: Showing that if the real ppt has support for their desire to disobey then they are more likely to resist the pressure of an authority figure.
• Research support for LOC - resisiting social influence?


  P: Holland (1967) able to support the suggestion that those with an internal LOC are more likely to resist pressure to obey than those with external LOC.

  E: He replicated Milgram's OG research and measured whether ppt were internal or external LOC

  E: Found 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock (resisted) whereas only 23% of externals did not continue. Basically, internal LOC ppt show more resistance to authority.

  L: This increases the validity of the LOC explanation & confidence that it helps to explain resistance.
• Role of LOC is exaggerated - resisting social influence - PART 1


  P: Issue with LOC explanation is the influence it has in causing obedience is overestimated.

  E: Rotter (1982) found LOC only comes into play in new situations. It has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations where our previous experiences always more important.

  E: This often overlooked, means people who have conformed / obeyed in specific situations in past likely to do so again even if they have high internal LOC.
• Role of LOC is exaggerated - resisting social influence - PART 2


  L: Thus LOC only used to explain obedient behaviour in limited range of situations. Suggests LOC not as an important factor has been suggested, thus questioning external validity of this explanation of resistance to social influence.
• Not all research supports the link between LOC & resistance - social influence


  P: Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 years (1960 to 2002), showing that people have become more independent but also more external.

  E: If resistance was linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal.

  L: This challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance. BUT the results may be due to a changing society where many things are increasingly outside of personal control