resistance to social influence: ao3

Question 1

Strength of loc - research support by Oliner and oliner 1988 (resistance to social influence)

Answer 1

P; one strength of locus of controls implications in resistance to social influence comes from Oliner and Oliner 1988
E:they interviewed 2 groups of non Jewish people who lived through the holocaust and nazi germany. One group had 406 ppl who protected the Jews whilst the other group had 126 ppl who didn’t protect them. They found the group that helped the Jews had scores demonstrating an internal locus of control
E: therefore this study supports rotters claim that those with a high loc believing that they are solely responsible are less likely to conform as these ppts did not conform to the nazi propaganda against Jews
L: therefore this study clearly demonstrates the significant role that having an internal loc can have in resisting social pressures

Question 2

Weakness - issue of social desirability in loc test (resistance to social influence)

Answer 2

P: one’s loc is determined by a questionnaire which is a self report method
E: this method suffers from a few problems, most notably social desirability
E: ppts may be giving answers that don’t reflect how they really feel but how they want to be perceived. this is made more understable by the claim that people with a internal loc are more confident, intellgent and dont crave social approval. thse are all desirable traits hence ppl will answer dishoneslty as they want to be painted in a positive llight in the researchers eyes.
L: this therefore makes it hard to know whether or not the answers ppts provide are valid which as a result weakens the validity of supporting evidence of loc in resisting social influence

Question 3

Weakness loc - correlational results (resistance to social influence)

Answer 3

P: the relationship between loc and resistance to social influence is only correlational
E: there are other factors that have been implicated in the reason why ppl are able to resist social influence. Such as level of social status and personal morals
E: individuals who see an action as morally wrong are likely to resist pressure to conform. Individuals of higher social status may feel more empowered to resist social pressures
L: hence the correlation bet loc and resistance doesn’t imply causation especially when taking other factors into consideration

Question 4

limitation - not all research supports the link bet loc and resistance (resistance to social influence)

Answer 4

P: a limitation is that not all research supports the link between loc and resistance
E: twenge et al analysed data from american loc studies over 40 years, showing that people have become more resistant to obedience but also more external
E: this doesnt support rotters claims as increased resistance to obedience should be linked to have an internal loc whereby personal responsibiltiy for actions is stronger.
L: thus loc may not be a complete explantion for resisting authority. the fact that modern day society has less control over things eg natural disasters and economic cycles may explain this

Question 5

strength of social support - milgram research (resistance to social influence)

Answer 5

P; one strength of ss as providing an explantion for resisting obedience is milgrams study in the 1950s
E: he conducted a variation of his original experiment in which he gave ppts social support in the form of 2 confederate teachers. one refused to continue at 150v and other at 210v.
E: the obedince rates dropped from 65 to 10% clearly showing how social support makes pressures to obey less apparent and reduces legitimacy of authority.
L: this echos rotters claims and thus gives his explanation of resistance to social influence credibility

Question 6

stength of ss - asch (resistance to social influence)

Answer 6

P: social support has been shown to reduce pressures to conform
E: in ashcs unanimity variation where a non conforming confederate gave a correct answer or different incorrect one conformity levels dropped to 5-9%
E; this shows how ss and people not conforming can act as models to others allowing them to follow their own consience
L: thus supporting rotters claims on explanations of resisting social influence giving increased credibility

Question 7

Counter point to asch and milgrams variations

Answer 7

As there are still some individuals who continue to obey and conform, even with the presence of significant social support, 10% of participants in the Milgram variation and in 5.5% of the critical trials in the Asch variation, it seems social support is incomplete as an explanation for resistance, and there are other important factors; these may be dispositional, such as the individual’s locus of control, or if they have an authoritarian personality.