Resistance To Social Influence Flashcards
(19 cards)
Resistance to social influence
‘The ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey the authority’
What can influence resistance to social influence?
Situational factors and dispositional factors
Resistance to social influence - social support
The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same
Support for social pressure
-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
Evidence for social support - conformity
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
Evidence for social support - obedience
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
Evidence against social support
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
Resistance to social support - locus of control
‘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
Who came up with locus of control?
Rotter (1966)
Two types of locus of control
internal and external
Internal LOC
The belief that things are happening because you are controlling them
External LOC
The belief that things are happening outside of their control
Characteristics of internal LOC
- I control what happens in my life
-I take more responsibilities for my actions
Characteristics of external LOC
-Things ‘just happen to me’ and are out of my control
-I take less responsibility for my actions
Internal LOC resistance to social influence
-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
External LOC resistance to social influence
-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
Evidence for LOC
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
Evidence against locus of control
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.
Evidence against LOC 2
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.
