resistance to social influence

• resistance to social influence

  = ability to withstand pressures to conform to the majority or to obey authority
• social support 


  = presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey, can help others to do the same, these people act as models.

  • eg: in Asch's research, the confederate who isn't conforming. - enables participant to be free to follow their own conscience, it shows the majority is no longer unanimous.
• resisting obedience

  = pressure to obey can be resisted if there is another person who is seen to disobey.

  • eg; Milgram's variations, rate of obedience dropped from 65% - 10% when the participant was joined by a disobedient confederate.
  • frees the participant to act from his own conscience
  • challenges the legitimacy of authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey.
• locus of control

  = the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives.

  • internals believe that the things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves.
  • externals believe the things that happen are outside their control.
  • individuals vary in their position on the locus of control scale.
• resistance to social influence

  = people with high internal locus of control are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey.

  • if a person takes responsibility for their actions and experiences they tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on the opinions of others.
  • people with a high internal locus of control tend to be more self-confident, more achievement orientated and have higher intelligence. These traits lead to better resistance to social influence. And characteristics of leaders, who have much less need for social approval.
• Evaluation- real world research support (social support)

  =Albrecht evaluated teen fresh start USA, an 8 week programme to help pregnant adolescents resist peer pressure to smoke.

  • social support was provided by a slightly older mentor.
  • findings: at end of programme those who had a mentor were significantly less likely to smoke than control group.
  • shows how social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real world.
• evaluation- research support for dissenting peers

  = Gamson- participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear programme.

  • researchers found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram did in his.
  • This was probably because the participants were in groups so could discuss what they were told to do
  • 29/33 groups of participants rebelled against their orders.
  • shows that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure.
• evaluation- research support

  strength= research evidence to support the link between locus of control and resistance to obedience.

  • Holland repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals.
  • found that 37% of internals didn't continue to the highest shock level, whereas only 23% of externals didn't continue.
  • internals showed greater resistance to authority.
  • shows that resistance is at least partly related to locus of control, which increases the validity of locus of control as an explanation of disobedience.
• evaluation- contradictory research

  limitation= evidence that challenges the link between locus of control and resistance.

  • Twenge analysed data from American locus of control studies conducted over a 40-year period.
  • data showed that over this time span, people became more resistant to obedience but also more external.
  • suggest that locus of control is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence.