Resistance social influence

• Resistance to social influence refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform/ obey to the majority/authority. This is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors.
• One theory that explains resistance to social influence is social support. Social support is the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey. This can help others to do the same. These people act as models to show others that resistance to social inference is possible.
• In terms of conformity, social support makes conformity reduced by a dissenting peer, this effect isn't long lasting. In terms of obedience a dissenter reduces the unanimity of the group. This makes it easier to act independently as they free the individual to act from their own conscience. They may not necessarily copy the dissenter/ allies who act as models. However, they do demonstrate that disobedience/ not conforming is possible as well as how to do it by challenging a legitimate authority figure or a person in power which makes it easier for others not to conform/obey.
• Conformity- Asch:

  • In one of the variations, one of the Confederates was instructed to give the right answer throughout.
  • Conformity dropped to 5% support for their belief likely to resist the pressure to conform
  • Conformity reduced when 1 of the confederates give a different answer to the rest of the group.
  • This was true when confederates answer was different wrong answers from the others in the group.
  • Social support breaks the unanimous position of the majority.
• Obedience: Milgram

  • 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 to join them
• There is also a locus of control theory, which refers to the sense we have about what directs the events in our lives. Rotter (1968) proposed the concept of locus of control- a concept concerned with internal vs external.
• People with an internal locus of control believe that they are mostly responsible for what happens to them. Those with an internal locus of control are more self-confident, achievement oriented, more intelligent and so have less of a need for social approval; this means that they will only trust their own beliefs and decisions and so will resist social pressures from others. Also they take personal responsibility for their actions and experiences, so are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs, meaning that they resist pressures from others.
• People with an external locus of control believe that it is mainly a matter of luck or external forces e.g. fate that decide what happens to them e.g. if they failed a driving test they may blame the examiner who was too strict which they couldn't control. Therefore, they are in more need of social approval and so less likely to resist social influence.
• Continuum: people differ in the way they explained their successes and failures but this is not simply a matter of being internal and external- there is continuum.
• Strength for LOC: ability to resist social influence from research studies. E.g. Holland (1967) repeated Milrgam's baseline study and measured whether the ppts were internals/externals. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (showed resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did. This supports that an LOC is linked to increased resistance, as internal showed greater resistance to authority, so the explanations may be valid.
• Strength for using social support is to explain resistance to social influence from research studies. Gamson et al (1982) found higher levels of resistance in their obedience studies in Milgram. In their study ppts were put into groups and were asked to produce evidence that would be used to help the oil company run a smear campaign. However they found only 88% rebelled (29 out of 33). This clearly supports the theory as it suggests that peer support is linked to greater social influence and so it's a valid explanation of resistance to SI.
• Strength: social support explanation for resisting social influence is that research supports this. Allen + Levine (1971) found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in Asch type study. More importantly this occurred even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had difficulty with his vision and so couldn't judge the length of the lines well. This clearly supports the validity of the explanation for resistance to social influence as it suggests that social support enables a person to be free from pressure to follow the group, even if the support they give isn't valid.
• Weakness: LOC as an explanation of resisting social influence, from research studies. Rotter et al (1982) found LOC is only important in new situations, it has little influence in familiar situations where previous experiences are always more important. This clearly shows the validity of the explanation as it cannot explain why some people who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again even if they have a high LOC and thus it can't fully explain resistance to social influence only in old ones, not new ones so it is not a completely valid explanation