Exp for resistance

• Locus of control


  Rotter first proposed the concept of locus of control. It is a concept concerned within the level of control we perceive we have over our own lives. Internal LOC = more likely to RESIST SI. People with an internal LOC believe that things that happen are largely controlled by themselves.

  Whereas, those with an external LOC believe that the things that happen are outside their control.
• Social support:

  People are more likely to resist social influence (conformity / obedience) when there are other people who are also resisting the same pressures. When another person resists pressures to conform or obey, this enables us to be free to follow our own conscience. It could be argued that people who initially resists social influence act as a model for independent behaviour.
• Conformity:

  Asch's unanimity variation - When a dissenting confederate was introduced, resistance increased with less than 25% conforming regardless of whether the answer given by the confederate was correct or incorrect.
• Obedience:

  Milgram's variation - When the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate, resistance increased with obedience levels falling from 65% to 10%.
• REAL WORLD RESEARCH SUPPORT

  There is research evidence for the positive effects of social support on resistance to social influence. Albrecht 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 slight older mentor or 'buddy'. At the end of the programme, adolescents who had a buddy were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants who did not have a buddy. This shows that social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real world.

  Therefore, this increases the ecological validity of social support as it provides an accurate explanation for resistance to social influence within a real life setting.
• RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR DISSENTING PEERS

  There is research to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience. Gamson et al.'s (1982) participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign. The 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.

  9 out of 33 groups 88% of participants rebelled against their orders. This shows that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure. Therefore, this increases the internal validity of social support, as it appears to provide an accurate measure for why we are able to resist social influence/obedience.
• INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL

  People who have an internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey. They believe that they are in CONTROL of their own actions, they therefore take more personal responsibility and base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than the opinion of others.

  Those with an internal LOC also tend to have traits which lead to greater resistance such as being more more self-confident, more achievement-oriented, having higher intelligence and much less need for social approval than others
• RESEARCH SUPPORT

  Holland repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LOC. He found that 37% of those with an internal LOC did not continue to the highest shock level showing resistance, whereas only 23% of participants with an external LOC did not continue. This means that internals showed greater resistance to authority in a Milgram-type situation, which shows resistance is at least partly related to LOC. This is a strength because it increases the validity of LOC as an accurate explanation for why people resist the pressures to obey.
• CONFLICTING RESEARCH

  On the other hand, there is evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance. For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American LOC studies over a 40 year period. The data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant, but also more external. This is surprising as if resistance was linked to an internal LOC, we would expect people to have become more internal. Therefore, this reduces the internal validity of LOC as it may not be an accurate explanation for why people are able to resist social influence.