Social support and social change

• The presence of others resisting pressures to conform/obey and not follow the majority is social support. These people act as models to show that resistance to social influence is possible, which allows the naïve participant to be free to follow their own conscience.
• Asch altered his procedure to give participants allies as social support (breaking the unanimity.) • They were confederates and instructed to give a different answer to the rest of the group. • Asch found that conformity reduced to 5.5% • The person acts a ‘model’ of dissent for the participant to copy and this frees others to act from their own conscience.
• The pressure to obey can be resisted if there is another person who is seen to disobey. In one of Milgram's variations, the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate. • The disobedience acts as model of dissent for the participant to copy. • The disobedient model also challenged the legitimacy of authority figure making it easier for other to disobey.
• Internals LOC believe that they are mostly responsible for the outcome of their actions. Don’t rely on the opinions of others and are more likely to be leaders. Externals LOC believe that things that happen are outside their control, blame others when things go wrong. Life is something that ‘happens’ to them.
• High Internals LOC Takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences, they tend to base their decision on their own beliefs rather than depending on the social approval/opinions of others. They are more self-confident, achievement-orientation and higher intelligence , these traits lead to greater resistance to social influence.
• High Externals LOC Are more likely to be influence by others as they don't believe they exercise personal control over their lives.
• One strength is research evidence for positive effects of social support This shows that social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention. Susan and Albrech et al (2006) evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, an eight-week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke. Social support was provided by a slightly older mentor or ‘buddy’. At the end of the programme adolescent who had a ‘buddy’ were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants who did not have a ‘buddy’.
• Another strength is research evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience. This shows that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure. William Gamson et al (1982) participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign. This is probably because the participants were in groups so could discuss what they were told to do. 29 out of 33 group of participants (88%) rebelled against their orders.
• Research that can be used to support that people will resist conformity through social support


  • Allen and Levine (1968)
• Allen and Levine (1968) study


  1. Replicated Asch's original study

  2. Gave participants an ally who gave a different answer to the confederates

  3. Ally wore really thick glasses to suggest there was a problem with their eyesight
• Conformity still decreased even though there was reason to question the ally's judgement
• The presence of others

  Will aid resistance to social influence, even when the competency of this support is questionable
• One strength is research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience. Charles Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether participants were internalsor externals. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed independence/resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue. In other words, internal showed greater resistance to authority. This shows that resistance is partly related to LOC, which increases the validity of LOC as an explanation of obedience.
• One limitation is evidence that challenge the link between LOC and resistance
• Jean Twenge et al (2004)


  • Analysed data from American locus of control studies conducted over a 40-year period (from 1960 to 2002)
  • The data showed that, over this time period, people became more resistant to obedience but also higher levels of external LOC
• If resistance is linked to an internal locus of control


  We would expect people to have become more internal
• This weakens the suggestion that having an internal locus of control leads to resistance to social influence