Resistance to Social Influence

• 𝙎𝙊𝘾𝙄𝘼𝙇 𝙎𝙐𝙋𝙋𝙊𝙍𝙏: 𝙍𝙀𝙎𝙄𝙎𝙏𝙄𝙉𝙂 𝘾𝙊𝙉𝙁𝙊𝙍𝙈𝙄𝙏𝙔

  The pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming (dissenting).

  In Asch's research, the dissenting confederate did not always give the 'right' answer, but simply the fact that someone else is not following the majority is social support. It enables the naive participant to be free to follow their own conscience. The confederate acts as a 'model' of independent behaviour and shows that the majority's unanimity is punctured.
• 𝙎𝙊𝘾𝙄𝘼𝙇 𝙎𝙐𝙋𝙋𝙊𝙍𝙏: 𝙍𝙀𝙎𝙄𝙎𝙏𝙄𝙉𝙂 𝙊𝘽𝙀𝘿𝙄𝙀𝙉𝘾𝙀

  The pressure to obey can be resisted if there is someone else present who is seen to disobey.

  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. The confederate acted as a 'model' of dissent for the participant to copy and this freed him to act from his own conscience. The disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey.
• 𝙇𝙊𝘾𝙐𝙎 𝙊𝙁 𝘾𝙊𝙉𝙏𝙍𝙊𝙇:

  Rotter (1966) proposed LOC as a concept concerned with internal vs external control.

  People with an internal LOC (called internals) believe that the things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves.

  People with an external LOC (called externals) believe that the things that happen to them are outside of their control.
• 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙇𝙊𝘾 𝘾𝙊𝙉𝙏𝙄𝙉𝙐𝙐𝙈:

  People are not just internal or external.

  LOC is a scale and individuals vary in their position on it. At one extreme there is are internals (high internal LOC), and at the opposite end there are externals (high external LOC).

  Low internal and low external lie in-between.
• 𝙍𝙀𝙎𝙄𝙎𝙏𝘼𝙉𝘾𝙀 𝙏𝙊 𝙎𝙊𝘾𝙄𝘼𝙇 𝙄𝙉𝙁𝙇𝙐𝙀𝙉𝘾𝙀:

  People with a high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey. They tend to take personal responsibility for their actions and experiences and therefore base their decisions on their own beliefs instead of depending on the opinions of others.

  People with a high LOC also tend to be more self-confident, more achievement-oriented and have higher intelligence. These traits lead to greater resistance to social influence, and are the characteristics of leaders (who have less need for social approval than followers).
• Resistance to social influence refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors.
• Social support is when the presence of other people who resist pressures to conform or obey helps others to do the same. These people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible.
• The Locus of Control (LOC) refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives. Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them (internal LOC). Externals believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces (external LOC).
• 𝙀𝙑𝘼𝙇𝙐𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉𝙎 𝙁𝙊𝙍 𝙎𝙊𝘾𝙄𝘼𝙇 𝙎𝙐𝙋𝙋𝙊𝙍𝙏:

  1. real-world research support (Susan Albrecht et al.)
  2. research support for dissenting peers (William Gamson et al.)
• 𝗦.𝗦.

  𝟭. 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟-𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗟𝗗 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗖𝗛 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧:

  One strength is research evidence for the positive effects of social support.

  Albrecht et al. (2006) evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, an eight-week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke. Social support was provided by a slightly older mentor or 'buddy'. Adolescents who had a buddy were significantly less likely to smoke than those who didn't.

  This shows that social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real-world.
• 𝗦.𝗦.

  𝟮. 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗖𝗛 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗣𝗘𝗘𝗥𝗦:

  Another strength is research evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience.

  Gamson et al.'s (1982) participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign. The researchers found higher levels of obedience than Milgram because the participants were in groups and discussed their orders. 88% of the participant groups rebelled.

  This shows that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure.
• 𝙀𝙑𝘼𝙇𝙐𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉 𝙊𝙁 𝙇𝙊𝘾𝙐𝙎 𝙊𝙁 𝘾𝙊𝙉𝙏𝙍𝙊𝙇:

  1. research support (Charles Holland)
  2. contradictory research (Jean Twenge et al.)
  3. limited role (Julian Rotter)
• 𝗟.𝗢.𝗖.

  𝟭. 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗖𝗛 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧:

  One strength is research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience.

  Holland (1967) repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to 450V (showed resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue. Internals showed greater resistance to authority in a Milgram-type situation.

  This shows that resistance is at least partly related to LOC, which increases the validity of LOC as an explanation of disobedience.
• 𝗟.𝗢.𝗖.

  𝟮. 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗗𝗜𝗖𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗬 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗖𝗛:

  One limitation is evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance.

  Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American LOC studies conducted over 40 years (1960-2002). The data showed that, over this period, people became more resistant to obedience but also more external. If resistance is linked to an internal LOC, we would have expected people to become more internal.

  This suggests that LOC is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence.
• 𝗟.𝗢.𝗖.

  𝟯. 𝗟𝗜𝗠𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗥𝗢𝗟𝗘:

  According to Rotter, the link between a high internal LOC and resistance only exists in new situations. LOC is irrelevant in familiar situations because it doesn’t affect our behaviour, and our previous responses have a stronger influence. For example, if you have refused to conform in the past, you will probably continue to do so even if you have a high external LOC.

  Therefore, LOC is valid because it is linked to resistance but its validity is limited because it does not predict resistance in new social situations.
• Milgram's research shows the effectiveness of social support because obedience dropped to 10% when the participant was joined by a disobedient confederate.
• When a dissenter refused to conform in Asch’s research, others followed because the dissenter showed the majority was not unanimous.
• Social support against conformity -> When one person disagrees with the majority.
• Social support against obedience -> When one person rebels against authority.
• Internal locus of control -> What happens to us is in our own hands.
• External locus of control -> What happens to us is down to chance.
• Allen and Levine -> Conformity decreased when there was one dissenter.
• Gamson et al. -> Obedience reduced when people supported each other in groups.
• Holland -> Internals showed greater resistance to authority.
• Twenge et al. -> People have become more external over time but also less obedient.
• Rotter -> First to propose importance of locus of control.
• People will follow a dissenter in breaking from the majority even if the dissenter is incorrect.
• People with a high internal locus of control have more self-confidence and less need for approval.
• Most of the participants in Gamson et al.'s study rebelled against their orders (88%).
• Outline two explanations of resistance to social influence.

  • 𝙇𝙤𝙘𝙪𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙡 - people with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist pressure to conform than those with an external locus of control; people with an internal locus of control believe they control own circumstances
  • 𝙎𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙎𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩 - defiance/non-conformity is more likely if others are seen to resist influence; seeing others disobey/not conform gives the observer confidence to do so