1.8: Locus of control Flashcards Preview

Psychology Si 16 markers > 1.8: Locus of control > Flashcards

Flashcards in 1.8: Locus of control Deck (22)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks)

A

Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives

2
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.

A

Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966)

3
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC

A

People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC

4
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.

A

People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval

5
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.

A

Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey

6
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

First AO3 PEEL paragraph

A

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence

7
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
Example

A

For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform

8
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
Who is this further supported by?

A

This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue

9
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
What does this do?

A

This:

  1. Suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence
  2. Increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence
10
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.

Second AO3 PEEL paragraph

A

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory

11
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
Example

A

For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external

12
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external.
If

A

If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, we would expect people to have become more internal

13
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, we would expect people to have become more internal.
What does this do?

A

This:

  1. Challenges the link between an internal LoC and increasing resistant behaviour
  2. Invalidates the previous supporting research
14
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, we would expect people to have become more internal.
This challenges the link between an internal LoC and increasing resistant behaviour and invalidates the previous supporting research.
However,

A

However, it is possible that the results are due to a changing society where many things are out of personal control

15
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, we would expect people to have become more internal.
This challenges the link between an internal LoC and increasing resistant behaviour and invalidates the previous supporting research.
However, it is possible that the results are due to a changing society where many things are out of personal control.

Third AO3 PEEL paragraph

A

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of LoC is that it plays a limited role in resistance to social influence

16
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, we would expect people to have become more internal.
This challenges the link between an internal LoC and increasing resistant behaviour and invalidates the previous supporting research.
However, it is possible that the results are due to a changing society where many things are out of personal control.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of LoC is that it plays a limited role in resistance to social influence.
Why is this?

A

This is because the role of LoC in resisting social influence has been exaggerated

17
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, we would expect people to have become more internal.
This challenges the link between an internal LoC and increasing resistant behaviour and invalidates the previous supporting research.
However, it is possible that the results are due to a changing society where many things are out of personal control.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of LoC is that it plays a limited role in resistance to social influence.
This is because the role of LoC in resisting social influence has been exaggerated.
Example

A

For example, Rotter (1982) points out that LoC only comes into play in novel situations.
It has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations where our previous experiences will always be more important

18
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, we would expect people to have become more internal.
This challenges the link between an internal LoC and increasing resistant behaviour and invalidates the previous supporting research.
However, it is possible that the results are due to a changing society where many things are out of personal control.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of LoC is that it plays a limited role in resistance to social influence.
This is because the role of LoC in resisting social influence has been exaggerated.
For example, Rotter (1982) points out that LoC only comes into play in novel situations.
It has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations where our previous experiences will always be more important.
What does this mean?

A

This means that people who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, even if they have a high internal LoC

19
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, we would expect people to have become more internal.
This challenges the link between an internal LoC and increasing resistant behaviour and invalidates the previous supporting research.
However, it is possible that the results are due to a changing society where many things are out of personal control.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of LoC is that it plays a limited role in resistance to social influence.
This is because the role of LoC in resisting social influence has been exaggerated.
For example, Rotter (1982) points out that LoC only comes into play in novel situations.
It has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations where our previous experiences will always be more important.
This means that people who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, even if they have a high internal LoC.
What does this show?

A

This shows that LoC is not a valid explanation for resistance to social influence

20
Q

Discuss locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence (16 marks).
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives.
Locus of control was identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966).
People with an internal LoC are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external LoC.
People with an internal LoC believe they control their own circumstances and are less concerned with social approval.
Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence.
For example, Avtgis performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform.
This is further supported by Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had an internal or external LoC.
He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
This suggests that LoC is a valid explanation of resistance to social influence and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, research into LoC as an explanation of resistance to social influence is contradictory.
For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American studies into locus of control over a 40 year period, from 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external.
If resistance to social influence was linked to an internal LoC, we would expect people to have become more internal.
This challenges the link between an internal LoC and increasing resistant behaviour and invalidates the previous supporting research.
However, it is possible that the results are due to a changing society where many things are out of personal control.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that One limitation of LoC is that it plays a limited role in resistance to social influence.
This is because the role of LoC in resisting social influence has been exaggerated.
For example, Rotter (1982) points out that LoC only comes into play in novel situations.
It has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations where our previous experiences will always be more important.
This means that people who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, even if they have a high internal LoC.
This shows that LoC is not a valid explanation for resistance to social influence.

Fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph

A

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that other explanations of resistance to social influence are better, such as systematic processing

21
Q

Two psychology students were discussing the topic of social influence.
‘I find it fascinating how some people are able to resist social influence,’ said Jack.​
‘It must be the result of having a confident personality.’​

‘I disagree,’ replied Sarah. ‘I think resisting social influence depends much more on the presence of others.’​

Discuss two explanations of resistance to social influence (16 marks)​.
What is the AO2 application?

A

The AO2 application is that Jack suggests that dispositional factors are more important in resisting social influence, whereas Sarah suggests that situational factors are more powerful

22
Q

Two psychology students were discussing the topic of social influence.
‘I find it fascinating how some people are able to resist social influence,’ said Jack.​
‘It must be the result of having a confident personality.’​

‘I disagree,’ replied Sarah. ‘I think resisting social influence depends much more on the presence of others.’​

Discuss two explanations of resistance to social influence (16 marks)​.
The AO2 application is that Jack suggests that dispositional factors are more important in resisting social influence, whereas Sarah suggests that situational factors are more powerful.

A
  1. A ‘confident personality’ could be read as having an internal LoC that makes someone better able to resist social influence
  2. ‘The presence of others’ relates to whether ‘they’ are seen to be conforming, suggesting that social support is influential in resisting social influence