10: Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence

Question 1

2 explanations of resistance to social influence

Answer 1

• Locus of Control
• Social support

Question 2

Outline Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence: Locus of Control

Answer 2

One exp of resistance to SI is the ‘LOC’ explanation, (Rotter, 1966).
LOC refers to a persons perceptions of personal control over their behaviour.
It is usually measured using self-report questionnaires where ppts are scored a long a continuum of ‘high internal’ to ‘high external’ with levels in between.

High internals perceive themselves as being in control over their behaviour and so are more likely to take personal responsibility for it (eg that happened because i made it happen).
High internals also tent to be active-seekers of information, more self-confident and less in need of social approval.

High externals perceive their behaviour as being controlled more by external influences such as other people or luck (eg that happened because i was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
They are usually less self-confident at more in need of social approval

It is therefore argued that people with high internal LOC are more likely to resist SI as they feel they have more personal control over their behaviour

Question 3

Evaluate Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence: Locus of Control
- Strengths

Answer 3

P: Support for LOC from Avtgis (1998)
E: Performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LOC and resisting conformity
E: found that individuals w internal LOC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform
L: supports the idea of differences in LOC being linked to differences in the ability to resist SI

P: evidence to support LOC from Holland (1967)
E: replicates Milgrams obedience research and measured whether ppts were internals or externals too
E: found that 37% of internals did not continue to highest shock level (they showed some resistance) whereas only 23% of externals did not continue. in other words, internals showered greater resistance to obeying authority.
L: supports the idea that having a high internal LOC does increase a persons chances of resisting SI

Question 4

Evaluate Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence: Locus of Control
- Limitations

Answer 4

P: Twenge et al (2004) research contradicts the LOC explanation
E: Analysed findings from obedience studies over a 40-year period (1960-2002)
E: found people have become more resistant to obedience but also more external
L: problem for LOC because i’d resistance were linked to an internal LOC, we would have expected people to have become more internal

Question 5

Outline Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence: Social Support

Answer 5

Another exp of resistance to SI is the ‘social support’ explanation.
Pressure to conform is at its most powerful when a group is ‘unanimous’’ (i.e every member of the group acts the same way)
Likewise, pressure to obey is at its most powerful when everyone obeys the figure of authority.

However, if at least one person in a group resists the pressure to conform or obey (a ‘dissenter’), this can help others to do the same.
These people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible by demonstrating how to resist as well as the consequences of resisting.
For example, if someone disobeys an authority figure but avoids punishment, this may reduce the fear of disobeying in others.
The social support provided by allies ‘frees’ others up to act accordingly to their own conscious.

Question 6

Evaluate Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence: Social Support
- Strengths

Answer 6

P: Evidence to support the SS explanation from Asch (1951)
E: it was found in his line judgement task that when one of a group of confederates became a dissenter and gave a diff answer to tue other confederates (who gave a deliberately wrong answer) conformity rate fell from 37% to 25%
E: this was true even when the dissenter gave a different incorrect answer to the majority - it still provided an escape from conforming
L: supports the view that social support helps people to resist social influence

P: further evidence to support comes from Milgram (1963)
E: found when ppts were ordered to give electric shocks with disobedient allies present rather than on their own the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 10%
E: concluded that these allies ‘freed up’ the ppts to also disobey
L: supports the view that we are more likely to resist pressured to obey if we have social support