Resistance to Social Influence

• Locus of control refers to the sense we have about what directs events in our lives.
• Rotter proposed the concept of locus of control - a concept concerned with internal vs external
• Locus is defined as a position, point or place, or more specifically, a location where something occurs. A person's locus of control may be internal or external
• Control can be defined as the power to determine outcomes by directly influencing actions, people and events
• A high score on Rotter's locus of control test (9 or more) indicates external locus of control.
• People differ in the way they explain their successes and failures but this is not simply a matter of being internal or external - there is a continuum
• Internal LOC:

  High level of personal control over their lives and behaviour. Take personal responsibility for it. I made it happen.
• How does internal LOC relate to social influence?

  High internals actively seek out information which will help them personally and are less likely to rely on others. They are more achievement orientated. They can resist pressure from others
• External LOC:

  The belief that life is determined by external/environmental factors, such as luck. Wrong place, wrong time
• How does external LOC relate to SI?

  High externals are more likely to be influenced by others as they don't believe they exercise personal control over their lives.
• Holland repeated Milgram's study and measured whether pps were internals or externals. 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (showed independence). Only 23% of externals did not continue.
• How many externals were obedient?

  77%
• How many internals were obedient?

  63%
• This shows evidence for internal LOC being able to resist social influence - means we can predict behaviour in obedience studies
• Twenge et al analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40 year period (1960-2002). The data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but more external.
• This counters the argument for internal and external LOC because according to the theory internals should be more resistant. Suggests that there is less pressure to be influenced by others - society has less control. Theory does not stand through time - lacks temporal validity and contemporary validity
• Rotter et al found that LOC is only important in new situations - it has little influence in familiar situations where previous experiences are always more important.
• This does not support the theory - not applicable in all situations, does not apply if we are an expert/ have previous experience of a situation - don't follow others and less likely to be influenced by them
• Social support is the presence of other people who act as models to show that resistance to social influence is possible. The effects of this can be seen is=n both conformity and obedience
• Asch found that conformity reduced to 5.5% when one of the confederates gave a different answer to the rest of the group - social support breaks the unanimous position of the majority
• Obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate - social support - people are more confident to resist obedience if they can find an ally who is willing to join them
• Allen and Levine found independence increased with one dissenter in an Asch-type study. Even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had vision problems
• Having a dissenter breaks unanimity. Resistance is not motivated by following what someone else says but it enables someone to be free of the pressure from the group
• Gamson et al found higher level of resistance in their study than Milgram. This was probably because they were in groups. They had to produce evidence to help an oil company run a 'smear campain'. 29/33 groups (88%) rebelled - peer support is linked to greater resistance
• Minority influence is a form of social influence in which a minority (sometimes just one person) persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. This leads to internalisation, in which we agree publicly and privately with the minority view
• How is minority influence different to conformity?

  With conformity, the majority are doing the influencing, in this case it is the minority. Conversion to minority influence tends to be deeper and longer lasting as people have internalised the minority's view point rather than just trying to fit in.
• What are the three factors of minority influence?

  commitment, flexibility and consistency
• commitment: show dedication and engage in extreme activities = augmentation principle
• Flexibility: open to and accept other reasoning
• Consistency: synchronic consistency - everyone says the same

  diachronic - have been saying the same thing over time
• Moscovici: a group of 6 people were asked to view a set of 36 blue coloured slides that varied in their intensity of colour and then state whether the slides were blue or green
• Two confederates who consistently gave the wrong answer saw the rest of the group give the wrong answer on 8.42% of trials, 32% gave the wrong answer at least once, compared to 1.25% with an inconsistent minority. A control group with no confederates got it wrong 0.25% of the time
• Conclusion: a consistent minority is more effective than an inconsistent minority. An inconsistent minority is more effective than no minority.
• Lacks ecological validity, lacks construct validity, reliable
• Ecological validity: low

  Population validity: low - small group

  Mundane realism: low - not real life/ realistic

  High control - makes it reliable
• Wood et al carried out a meta-analysis of 100 studies similar to that of Moscovici and found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were the most influential.
• In a Moscovici variation, participants were allowed to write their answers down. Found higher levels of agreement with the minority
• The theory has real life application - Rosa Parks, Suffragettes

  However - in real life, is the minority and majority as obvious as they make it in the studies.
• Social change is when whole societies, rather than just individuals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs and behaviours which become the norm
• Draw attention: provided through social proof - provide the evidence - if different to the view of the majority it creates conflict that we naturally want to reduce - stress hormones - fight or flight e.g. children not getting as much time with their fathers