Resistance to social influence

• Social support - conformity is reduced by a dissenting peer


  Pressure to conform is reduced if other people are not conforming.

  Asch's research showed that the dissenter doesn't have to give the right answer; simply someone else not following the majority frees others to follow their own conscience. The dissenter acts as a 'model'.

  • Asch's research also showed that if this 'non-conforming' peer starts conforming again, so does the naive participant.
• Social support - obedience is reduced by one other dissenting partner.


  Pressure to obey can be reduced if another person is seen to disobey.

  Milgram's research: independent behaviour increased in the disobedient peer condition (35% to 90%).

  The participant may not follow the disobedient peer but the dissenter's obedience frees the participant to act from their own experience.
• Locus of control.

  • Externals place control outside themselves.
  • Internals place control with themselves.
• Locus of control (LOC) - there is a continuum.


  People differ in how they explain successes and failures but it isn't simply about being internal or external. There is a continuum: high internal at one end, and high external at the other.
• Locus of control - internals show greater resistance to social influence.

  1. If someone takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences (good or bad) they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs.
  2. People with high internal LOC are more self-confident, more achievement oriented, have higher intelligence and less need for social approval. These personality traits lead to greater resistance.
• Research evidence for social support reinforces the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity. 


  Allen found independence increased with one dissenter in an Asch-type study. This occurred even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had vision problems. So, resistance is not motivated by following what someone says but it enables someone freedom from group pressure.
• Research evidence supports the link between LOC and resistance to obedience.

  Hollands repeated the Milgram study and measured whether participants where internals or externals. 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level. Only 23% of externals didn't continue. So, internals showed greater resistance. This support increases the validity of the LOC explanation and our confidence that it can explain resistance.
• A limitation is not all research supports the link between LOC and resistance. 


  Twenge analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 years, showing that people have become more independent but also more external. If resistance was linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal. This challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance. However, the results may be due to a changing society where many things are increasingly outside personal control.