Resistance

• External Locus of Control - Outcomes outside your control. Determined by “fate” and independent of your hard work or decisions. Eg: we lost the domino game, we were unlucky with the tiles we got.
• Internal Locus of control - outcome within your control. Determined by your hard work or decisions. Eg: I’m going to make it to the top.
• People with higher Internal LOC are more able to resist social influence as they take responsibility for their own behaviours. They are more likely to be self-confident, achievement orientated, higher intelligence, seek less social approval.
• Oliner and Oliner interviewed 2 groups of non-Jewish people who lived through the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. They interviewed 406 people who rescued and protected Jewish people from the nazis and 126 who hadn’t. They found the ‘rescuers‘ were more likely to have an internal LOC.
• Twenge et al analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40 year period (1960-2002). Data showed people have become more resistant to obedience but more external. If resistance was linked to internal LOC we would expect people to become more internal, so it challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance. However results may be due to a changing society where things are increasingly outside personal control.
• Holland recreated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. He found 37% internals didn’t continue to highest shock level, whereas only 23% externals didn’t continue. Internals showed greater resistance to authority. Increases validity of LOC explanation.
• Social support: presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others do the same. These act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible.
• Social support and conformity: in Asch’s study we see when a dissenting confederate is placed with the group, conformity drops. Participant has social support and feel less need to conform
• Social support and obedience: one of Milgram’s variations when genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate obedience dropped by 10%. Participant may not follow disobedient behaviour but the other person’s disobedience acts as a model.
• Research support for resistance to conformity: research supports role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity. Alan and Levine found that conformity decreased when there was more than 1 dissenter in an Asch-type study. This happened even when the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had difficulty with his vision. This supports the view that resistance isn’t just motivated by following what someone says , but it enables people to feel free of group pressures.
• Research support for resistance to obedience: research supports role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience. Gamson et al found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram. Probably because his participants were in groups (they had to produce evidence that would help an oil company run a smear campaign). 29/33 groups (88%) rebelled. Shows peer support is linked to greater resistance.