Resistance to Social Influence

• Internal Locus of control

  Believe they have control over their own behaviour, take responsibility of their actions, are confident in their decision making, do not seek social approval. They are less likely to conform or obey because they are able to resist social influence.
• External Locus of control

  Believe their behaviour is controlled by external forces such as fate or luck, are less confident in their decision making and often seek social approval. They are more likely to conform or obey because they are less able to resist social influence.
• Strength

  • research evidence to support it - Holland - repeated Milgram's study and measured whether participants had an internal or external locus of control - found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level whereas only 23% of externals didn't - shows that those with an internal locus of control showed more resistance.
• Limitation

  • not all research supports the link between them - Twenge analysed data from American LOC studies over a 40 year period which showed people have become more independent so we would have expected more internal LOC but there were more externals - this challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance.
• Limitation

  • exaggerated - Rotter found that LOC is only important in new situations - means that people who have obeyed in previous situations are more likely to again even if they have an internal LOC - therefore LOC is only helpful in resistance to social influence in a small range of situations.
• Social Support


  Allows people to resist to social influence. They are less likely to conform or obey because they are supported by others who also choose not to conform or obey. This gives them confidence in their own attitudes or behaviour, allowing them to show independent behaviour.
• Resistance to conformity


  Social support can help people to resist conformity; the pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people who are also not conforming. The presence of this 'dissenter' allows a person freedom to demonstrate independent behaviour, they act as a model.
• Strength of resistance to conformity

  • convincing research evidence to support it - Asch - found conformity rates fell to 5.5% from 36.8% when another confederate disagreed - social support gave participants confidence
• Resistance to obedience


  Social support can help people to resist obedience; the pressure to obey is reduced if there are other people who are also not obeying. A person may not follow the behaviour of the individual who is not obeying, but their disobedience again frees the participant to show independent behaviour.
• Strength of resistance to obedience

  • convincing research evidence to support it - Milgram - found obedience fell to 10% from 65% when their were 2 confederates who refused to obey - social support gave participants confidence in their own behaviour or attitudes.
• Strength of social support

  • Evidence to support it - Allan and Levine who found that independence increased with one dissenter in a similar study to Asch - occurred even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had problems with sight - presence of another person who is not conforming allows an individual to be free of group pressure.
• Strength of social support

  • Research evidence to support it - Gamson et al who carried out a study asking participants to work in groups to provide evidence that would be used to help a smear campaign - found higher levels of resistance from participants than Milgram as 88% rebelled - this shows support from peers is linked to greater resistance to stress.