Resistance to social influence

• What is resistance to social influence?

  The ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or obey authority
• AO1: situational factor: social support

  The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others do the same by showing resistance to social influence is possible
• Resisting conformity

  • Asch's unanimity variation showed that the naive ppt conformed less often in the presence of a dissenter
  • This suggests the pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people not conforming. It offers social support and allows the naive ppt to follow their own conscience
• Resisting obedience

  • In Milgram's variations, the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine ppt was joined by a disobedient confederate.
  • This suggests the disobedient person challenges the legitimacy of authority, making it easier for others to disobey too by freeing them to act with their own conscience
• Strength of social support as a situational explanation of resisting social influence - dissenters aid resisting obedience

  P: Research supporting the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience

  E: Gamson et al's ppts attended a group discussion and were being filmed on their opinion of an oil company firing a local station manager for a court case. Halfway through filming they were ordered to argue in favour of the firing. 32 / 33 groups rebelled.

  Ex: Because of the strong group identity they were able to decide amongst themselves that obeying would be unreasonable

  L: the pressure to obey can be resisted if there are others disobeying, supporting the social support explanation for resistance to S.I.

  C: Smith & Mackie (2000) argued disobedience may be due to systematic processing; ppts had time to think, unlike in Milgram’s study. Therefore, social support may not be the only reason for resistance.
• Strength of social support as a situational explanation - dissenting peers aid resisting conformity

  P: Research supporting the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity

  E: Allen & Levine replicated Asch's experiment and found that when a dissenter was introduced to the group, 64% of ppts refused to conform, yet when there was no dissenter only 3% of ppts resisted

  Ex: the addition of a dissenter freed the ppt of social influence where they felt they could follow their own conscience

  L: the pressure to conform can be resisted if there are others in the group not conforming, supporting the social support explanation for resistance to S.I.

  C: the study was later replicated with the difference of the dissenter having obviously poor eyesight (thick glasses). Resistance fell to 36%, suggesting that social support does not always help
• AO1: Dispositional factor - locus of control

  • Rotter (1966) suggests that people differ in the way they explain their successes and failures. You fall on a continuum of having either an internal locus of control or an external locus of control
  • Locus of control refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives   
  • High internal LOC - things that happen to you are within your control. For e.g. I did well in the exam because I worked hard
  • High external LOC - things that happen to you are outside of your control. For e.g. I did bad in the exam because the textbook is rubbish

  
• Who is more likely to resist the pressures to conform or obey?

  Internal LOC - more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey

  • they take personal responsibility for own actions and base decisions on their own beliefs and attitudes
  • therefore, higher sense of responsibility to act for themselves
  • they do not seek social approval
• Strength of locus of control as a dispositional explanation of resisting S.I. - link between LOC and resistance to S.I.

  P: research supporting the link between LOC and resistance to social influence

  E: Holland repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether ppts were internals or externals. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level, whereas only 23% of externals did not continue

  Ex: people with an internal LOC showed greater resistance to authority in a Milgram-type situation

  L: resistance to S.I. is at least partly due to LOC, increasing the validity of LOC as an explanation of social resistance

  C: Rotter points out that LOC is not necessarily the most important factor in determining whether someone resists S.I. A person's LOC only significantly affects their behaviour in new situations
• Weakness of locus of control as a dispositional explanation - research challenging the link between LOC and resistance to S.I.

  P: research challenging the link between LOC and resistance to S.I.

  E: Twenge et al formed a meta-analysis from American LOC studies conducted over a 40 year period. The data showed that, over this time span, people become more resistant to obedience but also more external

  Ex: people with an external LOC are more resistant, yet the LOC explanation of social resistance suggests resistance is linked to internal LOC

  L: such contradictory research, weakens the validity of LOC as an explanation for why people resist social influences

  C: the meta-analysis includes an all American sample, so findings cannot be applied to people of other cultures. Further investigation of other cultures are required to fully understand the effect LOC has on S.I.