Resistance To Social Influence Flashcards
Two theories for resistance to SI
Social support
Locus of control
What social support is
Social support:
Presence of others who resist pressure to conform can help others do the same as the pressure and responsibility are divided.
These people are called DISSENTERS
They make others feel able to not conform
IN Aschs study when he had at least one confederate put correct answer throughout (5% conformed ) but then ‘against the grain’ 9% conformed - shows difference allows people to resist conformity
Evidence for social support
In aschs variation ( unanimity ) -
Found:
5% conformed when one gave correct answer
9% conformed when one gave random stillincorrect answer
Shows if you go against the grain it allows people to be less likely to conform
Rotter
Made the locus of control test
LOC =
Locus of control test: sense that people have about what directs events that happen in their lives.
Internal locus of control: things happen because of your own control. Usually come across as confident people, big achievers.
Eg: if an individual got a obit would be because they worked hard for it
External locus of control: things happen because of external factors. Usually come across as ur confident, as they place little value on internal and subjective decisions.
Eg: if an individual got a obit would be because they were lucky
Difference between internal and external locus of control
Locus of control test: sense that people have about what directs events that happen in their lives.
Internal locus of control: things happen because of your own control. Usually come across as confident people, big achievers.
Eg: if an individual got a obit would be because they worked hard for it
External locus of control: things happen because of external factors. Usually come across as ur confident, as they place little value on internal and subjective decisions.
Eg: if an individual got a obit would be because they were lucky
S/W of locus of control test
Pros
Holland ( supports locus of control allows us to resist obedience)
he replicated Milgrams study
37% ILOC : refused to give shock
23% ELOC : refused to give the shock
The results show people ( iloc ) who feel more control over their actions were more likely to refuse to give shock. However theres only a small difference of 14% between ILOC and ELOC.
If its not 100%, then there must be another explanation. Its not a complete/ the only explanation as to why people resisted obedience.
Oliner and Oliner (1988)
interviewed non Jewish survivors of ww2 and compared those who had resisted and protected Jews, asked ‘rescuers’
Rescuers were more likely to be ILOC
406 rescuers were more likely to have ILOC in contrast to 126 people who’d followed commands.
Evidence:
Spector ( 1983 )
supports idea that individuals with ILOC are less likely to conform.
Looked at Rottus’ scale to find whether conformity and locus of control are associated
From 157 students Spector found that people with an ILOC were less likely to conform that those with an ELOC, but only in situations of NSI.
Cons
Twenge ( 2004) : analysed data from american obedience studies over a 40 period from 60s to 2022.
This was a meta analysis ( analysis of multiple studies and all the results and change over time )
It was a longitudinal study looking at changeover time
Found:
people are more resistant to obedience over time however there are more people that have an ELOC.
This is a limitation of the locus of control explanation because it is contradicting, people should be more ILOC if we are more resistant to obedience.
Doesnt therefore support the theory and undermines whole theory of LOC
Oliner and oliner (1983)
Oliner and Oliner (1988)
interviewed non Jewish survivors of ww2 and compared those who had resisted and protected Jews, asked ‘rescuers’
Rescuers were more likely to be ILOC
406 rescuers were more likely to have ILOC in contrast to 126 people who’d followed commands.
SUPPORT ROTTERS LOC THEORYU
SPECTOR 1983
Spector ( 1983 )
supports idea that individuals with ILOC are less likely to conform.
Looked at Rottus’ scale to find whether conformity and locus of control are associated
From 157 students Spector found that people with an ILOC were less likely to conform that those with an ELOC, but only in situations of NSI.
SUPPORT ROTTER LOC THEORY
Twenge (2004)
Twenge ( 2004) : analysed data from american obedience studies over a 40 period from 60s to 2022.
This was a meta analysis ( analysis of multiple studies and all the results and change over time )
It was a longitudinal study looking at changeover time
Found: AGAINST ROTTER LOC
people are more resistant to obedience over time however there are more people that have an ELOC.
This is a limitation of the locus of control explanation because it is contradicting, people should be more ILOC if we are more resistant to obedience.
Doesnt therefore support the theory and undermines whole theory of LOC
Holland
Supports LOC THEORY
Holland ( supports locus of control allows us to resist obedience)
he replicated Milgrams study
37% ILOC : refused to give shock
23% ELOC : refused to give the shock
The results show people ( iloc ) who feel more control over their actions were more likely to refuse to give shock. However theres only a small difference of 14% between ILOC and ELOC.
If its not 100%, then there must be another explanation. Its not a complete/ the only explanation as to why people resisted obedience.
Allen and Levine (1971)
Allen and Levine: (1971)
Carried out similar test to Aschs dissenter variation
conformity decreased when there was one dissenter present, even when a dissenter wore thick glasses and said they had difficulties seeing lines.
> surely this could also be a locus of control argument? Cause if they have an ILOC it doesnt matter what the dissenter is like
Maybe an interactionist approach of that is better?
Study for social support in Milgram variation
Obedience: Milgram variation with three teachers, 2 dissenters. 65% > 10%,
up to 92.5% if 2/3 teachers(that are actors not actual ppts ) want to shock, that the third participant (teacher) does and then goes to 92.5% that go to 450 v
if the two dissenters leave and say they dont wanna shock anyone, then the teacher by themselves goes to 10%
problem: only situational, doesnt take into account dispositional factors.
What is social change through minority influence ( name the six steps )
The way things are socially changed from a small belief to a big belief
ACDASS
Attention: must be drawn to an issue, eg: marching, campaigning
CCF: Keeping the same message over time, but being willing to compromise to not appear rigid ( C and F )
Deeper processing of issue - people begin to think about it more deeply
Augmentation principle: minority demonstrates commitment through sacrifice (C)
Snowball effect; more and more people become increasingly more convinced by message
Social cryptomnesia: conformity/obedience: people have a memory that change has occurred but dont remebr how it happened. People then conform to majority position/opinion cause it is so common and popular.
What are the three factors to make something a wider known belief (CCF)
CCF
C: Consistency - constant discussion, bringing up dilemma over time constantly, must stick to values
C: Commitment - might be risk to job/personal life, harm to money/life, willing to make sacrifices
F: Flexibility - rigid thinking, willing to be reasonable and compromise in order to bring about change
What’s the augmentation principle
Minority demonstrating commitment though sacrifice to make social change
