Part 7: Explanations of resistance

Cards (18)

  • Resistance to social influence: Refers to ability to withstand pressure to conform to majority or obey authority, defined as an independent role model. Influenced by both situation and dispositional factors.
  • Social support: Perception that an individual has assistance available from other people, part of supportive network. Can cause resistance to social influence because independent role models demonstrate disobedience is an available option.
  • Resisting conformity (situational factor): Social support can help to resist, when someone does not conform, this breaks unanimous position of majority and thus pressure is reduced. Dissenters are likely to be effective as raise possibility that there are other equally legitimate ways of thinking/responding providing an independent assessment of reality.
  • Resisting obedience (situational factor): Social support shows individuals are generally more confident in ability to resist temptation to obey if there's an ally willing to join them in opposing authority figure. Disobedient peers thus act as role models for individual's own behaviour, challenging legitimacy of authority making it easier for other to disobey.
  • (+)Supported by Asch - In one variation, when he introduced presence of an ally who gave correct answer (social support for real participant) caused conformity levels to decrease 36.8% to 5.5%. Social support breaks unanimity of a majority with individual rejecting thus valid explanation of resting conformity. Therefore, individual rejects, as facilitated by normative social influence and informative social influence!
  • (+)Supported by Milgram - In one variation, participant in group of three testing learner (other two were confederates and refused to shock learner). Only 10% issued 450v as opposed to 65% in original study with no social support, validating it as an explanation of resisting obedience.
  • (+)Supporting research - Rees and Wallace (2015) showed social support provided by friends helped adolescents resist conformity pressures from majority. Individuals with majority of friends who drank alcohol were significantly more likely to have engaged as well over previous 12 months. However, individuals resisted if a friend or two did. Supports findings from lab based experiments on social influence, suggesting theory that social support increases individual's ability to resist.
  • (+)Gamson et al also gave support to the idea that larger groups provide a stronger social support system, which makes resisting social influence much easier. These researchers found that when participants were placed in groups, 88% resisted the pressure to conform to the same smear campaign which other confederates had developed. This also clearly demonstrates the significant influence of social support systems.
  • The locus of control put forward by Rotter (1966) and is a form of attributional style. Measurement, along a scale, of an individual’s sense of control over their lives, to what extent they feel that events in their lives are under their own personal control, versus under the control of other external powers like fate.
  • People with more of an internal locus of control conform and obey less: They take more responsibility for their own actions and see themselves as having more control than someone with a high external locus of control, thus more likely to make decisions based on their own moral code, as opposed to someone else’s, and to be leaders, not followers. E.g. ‘I won the award because I worked hard for it.
  • The opposite goes for those with an external locus of control - since they believe that the majority of their life events are beyond their control, this means that they are more likely to act on behalf of another (as their agent) and shift responsibility onto this individual, and are particularly susceptible towards obedience. E.g. ‘I won the award because it was meant to be – it was my destiny’
  • (+)Link between locus of control and obedience. For example, Atgis (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of studies considering locus of control and likeliness to conform. It was found that those who scored highest on the eternal locus of control were more easily persuaded and more likely to conform. Therefore, having an external locus of control leads to a greater rate of conformity.
  • (+)Link between locus of control and social responsibility. Oliner and Oliner (1988) interviewed two groups of non-Jewish people who had lived through the holocaust. They also interviewed 406 people who protected and rescued Jews from Nazis and 126 people who did not. The rescuers were found to have an internal locus of control and also scored higher on measures of social responsibility. However, this also draws doubt over the direct link between locus of control and resistance to obedience - questioning perhaps measures of social responsibility are more influential.
  • (+)Individuals with high locus of control more likely to demonstrate independence. Shute (1975) found those with an internal locus of control less likely to conform to peer pressure on attitudes to drugs. Thus validates theory.
  • (+) Internal locus of control shows greater resistance to authority - Holland (1967) repeated Milgram's baseline study. Found 37% of internals did not continue to highest shock level (resistance) whereas only 23% of externals discontinued, thus increases validity of Locus of control explanation of resistance to obedience.
  • (-)The locus of control explanation is only valid for novel situations, as suggested by Rutter (1982). Previous experiences are always more influential than LOC when an individual is making a decision as to how to act. This means that LOC is a limited explanation for only some cases of obedience, it may have been exaggerated, thus brings notion of other possible alternatives.
  • (-)Oversimplistic - Rotter's measure of locus of control is too general and inflexible as the two attribution styles can be used interchangeably and at different times. For example, people may show an internal LOC when studying hard for exams as they believe they are responsible however, the same person may show an external LOC when in relationships believe success is dues to external forces such as luck, fate. Thus, theory ignores complexity of human behaviour and does not consider influence of situational factors on independent behaviour.
  • (-)Contradictory research - Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American LOC studies conducted over a 40 year period. Data showed that over this time span, people became more resistant but also more external. Surprising outcome, because if resistance is linked to an internal LOC then expectation would be for people to have become more internal. Suggesting, LOC lacks validity in explaining resistance.