8. Resistance to Social Influence

avatar
Created by
C

Cards (7)

    1. Resistance to Social Influence
    Rotter (1966)
    • Locus of Control - high internal or high external.
    • Personality explanation.
  • 1a. Resistance to Social Influence
    Rotter (1966)
    • High internal; personal responsibility.
    • Seek info that’ll help them personally, less likely rely on others.
    • High external; external factors.
    • Influenced by others, no personal control.
  • 1b. Resistance to Social Influence
    Other Support for Resistance:
    • Asch (1951); presence of non-conformist lowered conformity.
    • Milgram (1963); obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when Teacher joined by another disobedient confederate.
  • Resistance to Social Influence (Evaluation)
    Strength:
    P - evidence, positive effects of social support.
    E - Albrecht et al. (2006), evaluated programme to help adolescents resist peer pressure to smoke.
    E - social support provided by ‘buddy’; less likely smoke than control group.
    L - social support an help young people resist social influence IRL.
  • Resistance to Social Influence (Evaluation)
    Strength:
    P - evidence, supports role dissenting peers in resisting obedience.
    E - Gamson et al. (1982), participants told to produce evidence that’d help oil company run smear campaign.
    E - higher resistance than Milgram’s (1963) bc they were in groups to discuss (88% disobeyed).
    L - peer support = disobedience.
  • Resistance to Social Influence (Evaluation)
    Strength:
    P - support for link between LOC + resistance to obedience.
    E - Holland (1967), repeated Milgram’s baseline study to see if people internal/external.
    E - 37% internals didn’t continue to highest shock level; 23% didn’t continue.
    L - resistance related to LOC, meaning it’s valid explanation of disobedience.
  • Resistance to Social Influence (Evaluation)
    Limitation:
    P - evidence challenges link between LOC + resistance.
    E - Twenge et al. (2004), data from American LOC studies.
    E - data showed people more resistance to obedience but more external.
    L - if resistance linked to internal LOC, expect more internals so LOC not valid explanation.