Resistance to social influence

• Resisting conformity:

  • Pressure to conform is reduced if others are not conforming. A dissenter acts as a ‘model’ which shows that majority is no longer unanimous
• Resisting conformity:

  • A dissenter enables naive participants to be free to follow their own conscience, e.g. in Asch’s study (line comparison study)
• Resisting obedience:

  • A disobedient model challenged the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey .e.g. In one of Milgram's variations the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate (electric shock study)
• Rotter proposed locus of control (LOC)
• Some people have an internal locus of control (LOC) - they believe that the things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves e.g. (doing well in a exam depends on how hard you work)
• Some people have an external locus of control (LOC) - they believe that things happen outside their control (e.g. failing a exam because they had bad luck)
• The locus of continuum: a scale from one to the other people differ in the position not just having a internal or external LOC
• Strength of social influence/support: research evidence for the positive effect of social support. Albrecht evaluated a programme to help pregnant adolescents to resist pressure to smoke, the adolescents given an older ‘buddy’ for social support were less likely to smoke than a control group who did not have a buddy.
• Strength of social influence/support: evidence for the role of support for dissenting peers. In Gamson et als study groups asked to give evidence for an oil company to use in a smear campaign, 29/33 groups rebelled against orders (much higher than in Milgram's study (electric shocks)) This shows how supporters can undermine legitimacy of authority and reduce obedience.
• Strength of social influence/support: evidence for the role of support for dissenting peers. In Allen & Levine’s study more people resisted to conform when a dissenter refused to conform.
• Strength of social influence: research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience. Holland repeated the Milgram study and measured whether participants were internals or exterals. 37% of internals showed greater resistance, 23% of externals resisted.
• Limitation of social influence: evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance. Twenge analysed data from Amercan LOC studies over 40 years, showing that people have become more independent but also more external, therefore LOC may not be a valid explanation of resistance to social influence.
• Limitation of role of locus of control: Rotter pointed out that LOC only significantly influences behaviour in new situations, our previous responses are always more important. Lack of validity, it can predict resistance in only some situations.