Resistance to social influence

• what are the two explanations for resistance to social influence

  social support and locus of control (LOC).
• who described the difference between internal and external LOC.

  rotter
• internals: place control with themselves

  believe things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves (e.g. doing well or badly in an exam depends on how hard you work).
• externals: place control outside themselves

  believe things happen outside their control. if they fail an exam they say it was because they had a bad teacher or had bad luck because the questions were hard.
• LOC: continuum

  people differ in how they explain successes and failures but it isn't simply about being internal or external. there is a continuum, high internal at one end and high external at the other, low internal and low external lie in-between.
• people with internal LOC are more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey:

  • if someone takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences (good or bad) they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs.
  • people with high internal LOC are more self-confident, more achievement-oriented, have higher intelligence and less need for social approval. these personality traits lead to greater resistance.
• strength: research evidence supports the link between LOC and resistance to obedience


  holland repeated the milgram study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed independence). only 23% of externals did not continue. so internals showed greater resistance. this support increases the validity of the LOC explanation and our confidence that it can explain resistance.
• limitation: the role of LOC in resisting social influence may be exaggerated

  rotter found LOC is only important in new situations. it has little influence in familiar situations where previous experiences are always more important. this is often overlooked. it means people who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, eve if they have a high internal LOC. this is a limitation because it means that LOC is only helpful in explaining a narrow range of new situations.
• pressure to conform can be reduced if other people aren't conforming. Asch's research showed that the dissenter doesn't have to give the 'right' answer. Simply someone else not following the majority frees others to follow their own conscience. The dissenter acts as a 'model'
• Asch's research also showed that if this 'non-conforming' peer starts conforming again, so does the naive participant
• pressure to obey can be reduced if others are seen to disobey. milgram's research: independent behaviour increased in the disobedient peer condition (from 35% to 90%). the participant may not follow the disobedient peer but the dissenter's disobedience frees the participant to act from their own conscience.
• strength of social support: research support

  Allen and Levine found independence increased with one dissenter in an Asch-type study. this occurred even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had problems with vision, meaning he couldn't judge the line lengths. so resistance is not motivated by following what someone else says but it enables someone to be free of pressure from the group.
• strength: research evidence supports role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience

  gamson et al. found higher levels of rebellion (i.e. independent behaviour) than milligram did. gamson's participants were in groups (to produce evidence that an oil company would use to run a smear campaign). in gamson's study 29 out of 33 groups of participants (88%) rebelled. this shows that peer support is linked to greater resistance