Resistance To Social Influence

Question 1

Resistance to social influence

Answer 1

‘The ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey the authority’

Question 2

What can influence resistance to social influence?

Answer 2

Situational factors and dispositional factors

Question 3

Resistance to social influence - social support

Answer 3

The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same

Question 4

Support for social pressure

Answer 4

-Asch’s research- the presence of the confederate giving the correct answer gave the naïve participants more confidence to give the correct answer
-Milgram’s variations- the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate

Question 5

Evidence for social support - conformity

Answer 5

Albrecht et al (2006):
Purpose - 8 week programme to help pregnant adolescents (aged 14-19 years old) resist peer pressure to smoke

Procedure - Half of participants paired up with a slightly older mentor ‘buddy’ to help resists peer pressure

Results - Smoking adolescents who had a ‘buddy’ were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants who didn’t have a ‘buddy’

Conclusion - This supports the idea that resistance to conformity can be achieved via social support

Question 6

Evidence for social support - obedience

Answer 6

Gamson et al (1982):
Participants - 33 groups

Setup - Participants were told to produce evidence that would be used by an oil company who wants to run a smear campaign (damage someone’s reputation) against an owner of a petrol station. The owner had been ‘engaged in an offensive lifestyle’.

Results - 29 out of 33 groups rebelled against orders

Conclusion - Supporters (participants that speak out against authority) can help others join in and rebel against authority

Question 7

Evidence against social support

Answer 7

Allen & Levine (1971):
Procedure - Asch - type task

Variation - a) no dissenter b) a dissenter with good eyesight and c) a dissenter with bad eyesight (thick glasses)

Results - 3% resisted with no dissenter present, b) 64% resisted in the presence of a dissenter with good eyesight and c) 36% resisted in the presence of a dissenter with bad eyesight

Conclusion - Social support does not always help. We can conclude this because the rate of resistance decreased from 64% to 36% when the dissenter’s eyesight was bad

Question 8

Resistance to social support - locus of control

Answer 8

‘refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our life’

On a spetrum - can have a high internal LOC ———–> high external LOC

Question 9

Who came up with locus of control?

Answer 9

Rotter (1966)

Question 10

Two types of locus of control

Answer 10

internal and external

Question 11

Internal LOC

Answer 11

The belief that things are happening because you are controlling them

Question 12

External LOC

Answer 12

The belief that things are happening outside of their control

Question 13

Characteristics of internal LOC

Answer 13

• I control what happens in my life
  -I take more responsibilities for my actions

Question 14

Characteristics of external LOC

Answer 14

-Things ‘just happen to me’ and are out of my control
-I take less responsibility for my actions

Question 15

Internal LOC resistance to social influence

Answer 15

-Independent thinkers
-Better able to resist SI because they rely on others opinions and are active seekers of information for themselves
-More achievement and goal orientated and so are mor likely to be leaders rather than following orders

Question 16

External LOC resistance to social influence

Answer 16

-More passive
-Less able to resist SI because they rely more on the opinions of others and accept their influence
-They believe events are out of their control and so are more likely to be followers

Question 17

Evidence for LOC

Answer 17

Holland (1967):
Purpose - Can LOC be caused to predict obedient behaviour?

Procedure - Repeat of Milgram’s study + measured the LOC for each participant (whether they were internal or external)

Results - 37% of ‘internals’ did not continue to 450V. 23% of ‘externals’ did not continue to 450V

Conclusion - Having an internal LOC partially predicts whether participants will disobey orders

Question 18

Evidence against locus of control

Answer 18

Twenge et al (2004):
Purpose - the check the link between LOC and the ability to resist over a lifetime

Procedure - Measure LOC twice, but 42 years apart (1960 and 2002). Then, measure how resistant these participants are to obedience

Results - Participants had gained a more external LOC
Participants had become more resistant to obedience

Conclusion - This is the opposite result of what was expected. This means that LOC is not a valid explanation for how people resists social influence.

Question 19

Evidence against LOC 2

Answer 19

Rotter (1982):
Maybe LOC is only important in a few situations.
In a familiar situation, individuals may continue conforming because they conformed before
In a new situation, individuals have to think more about their decisions, which is less automatic than a familiar situation.