resistance to social influence

• Two explanations for resistance to social influence

  1. social support
  2. locus of control
• Social support

  Resisting conformity - pressure to conform is reduced if others are not conforming. Asch's research showed that the dissenter doesn't have to give the right answer. Someone who does not follow the majority frees others to follow their own conscience.

  Resisting obedience - Pressure to obey can be reduced if someone is seen to disobey. Milgrams research showed obedience decreased in the disobedient peer condition. The participants may not follow the disobedient peer but the dissenter's disobedience frees the participants to act from their own conscience
• Internal Locus of control

  Internals believe things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves . People with high internal locus of control are more likely to resist pressures to conform and obey. If someone takes personal responsibility for their actions are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs. They are more confident, achievement-orientated and have a higher intelligence. This leads to greater resistance.
• External Locus of control

  Externals believe things happen outside their control. They are less likely to resist pressures to conform as they are more likely to need social approval.
• Locus of control

  Rotter described internal versus external LOC. Locus of control is not just being internal or external but there is a scale from one to the other and people differ in their position on it. High externals are at one end and high internals at the other, low internals/externals lie in between.

  High externals believe things happen outside their control. They are less likely to resist pressures to conform as they are more likely to need social approval.
• Evaluation

  One strength is real world application. In a programme to help pregnant adolescence to resist pressure to smoke, social support was given by an older 'buddy'. These adolescence were less likely to smoke at the end of the programme than a control group who did not have a buddy. This shows social support can help young people resist social influence in real world application.
• Evaluation

  One strength is evidence for the role of support for dissenting peers. Gamson groups asked to give evidence for an oil company to use in a smear campaign. 29 out of 33 groups rebelled against orders, much higher than in Milgram's studies. This shows how supporters can undermine legitimacy of authority and reduce obedience.
• Evaluation

  One strength is evidence to support the role of locus of control in resisting obedience. Holland repeated the Milgram study and measured whether participants were internals and externals. 37% of internals did not continue to the highest level contrast to 23% of externals did not continue to the highest level. Therefore resistance partly related to locus of control, increasing the validity of this explanation of disobedience.
• Evaluation

  One limitation is there is a limited role of locus of control. A lot of studies show that having an internal locus of control is linked with being able to resist social influence. However, Rotter pointed out that locus of control only significantly influences behaviour in new situations. In familiar situations, our previous responses are always more important. Therefore, the validity of the locus of control explanation is limited because it can predict resistance in some situations but not in others.