Social Influence Flashcards
(7 cards)
Resistance to social influence
Resistance to social influence refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or obey authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational + dispositional factors.
Social support
Firstly, social support plays a crucial role in resistaing conformity and obedience, as demonstarted by Asch’s research and varations of milgrams studies. The presences of others who disent from the majority cretaes an enviroment where indvduals feel less isolated in their own opposition. In aschs research on conformity, for example, when just one other indvdual in the group refused to conform to the majorities incorrect answers, the pressure to conform significantly decreased. This is bc the dissenter acts as a model of independt behaviour, demonstrating that it’s possible to resist the group and still maintain social credibility. The presense of even a single dissenter breaks the illusion of unamity, which is a powerful force encouraging conformity. It signals to the indvdual that their indepenet perspective is valid and provides a psychological safety net for resitaing social influence.
Locus control
Furthermore, Locus of control, a concept introduced byRotter in 1966, further deepens our understanding of resistance. This psychological dimension ranges from an internal to an external orientation. Individuals with a high internal locus of control perceive themselves as responsible for their successes and failures, attributing outcomes to their efforts and decisions. Conversely, those with an external locus of control attribute outcomes to external factors like luck or circumstance. The continuum of locus of control reveals that those with a strong internal orientation are more likely to resist social influence because they base their actions on personal beliefs rather than external pressures. These individuals, often confident, achievement-driven, and highly intelligent, exhibit lower dependence on social approval, which aligns with the traits of effective leaders. Collectively, social support and a high internal locus of control underscore the psychological mechanisms that empower resistance to social influence and foster individual autonomy.
Social support (AO3)
The real-world application of social support as a mechanism for resisting social influence is illustrated in a 2006 program designed to help pregnant adolescents resist the pressure to smoke. This intervention employed the use of social support by pairing the adolescents with an older buddy who acted as a source of guidance and encouragement. The outcomes of the program, when compared with a control group, demonstrated that those who had the support of a buddy were significantly more successful in resisting the temptation to smoke. This finding underscores the practical efficacy of social support in real-life situations, particularly in empowering vulnerable individuals to resist negative social pressures. By providing a tangible model of resistance and fostering a sense of solidarity, the buddy system exemplifies how social support can counteract the influence of peer pressure, encouraging autonomous and health-conscious decision-making. This example highlights the potential for structured social interventions to mitigate the effects of harmful social influence, particularly among impressionable groups such as adolescents.
LOC (AO3)
The role of LOC in resiting si may be overstated, as found by rotter et al (1986). Their research suggests that the influence of loc is most sigificant in novel situations, where indvuduals relay more heavily on their dispositions to make descions. In more familiar contexts however, the role of LOC diminsions, as previous experiences provide confidence and thus have a greater role in shaping responses.
Describe authortrian personality
The authoritarian personality is a dispostional explanation for obedience that argues individuals are predisposed to obey through a combination of psychological and social factors rooted in early life experiences. Adorno et al. (1950) suggested that this personality type develops in response to strict, punitive parenting, where fear and suppressed hostility toward authority figures are displaced through scapegoating. This is thus a psycodynamic explanation. This dynamic fosters traits such as uncritical obedience to authority, strict adherence to societal rules, (hostility toward out-groups minorities. These traits create a framework that equates compliance with morality and makes dissent psychologically uncomfortable. Obedience is further reinforced by a fear of societal chaos, where authority figures are seen as necessary for stability, and by social systems that reward conformity and punish resistance. As a result, individuals with authoritarian personalities are drawn to power structures that promise order, viewing obedience not merely as a choice but as an essential moral and social duty
Evaluate AP
A significant strength of this theory is its research support, such as the study conducted by Milgram and Elms in 1966. They found that participants who exhibited full obedience in Milgram’s original obedience experiments scored significantly higher on the F-scale—a measure of authoritarian traits—compared to disobedient participants. This suggests a correlation between authoritarianism and obedience, reinforcing Adorno’s notion that certain personality traits, such as a rigid adherence to conventional norms and submission to authority figures, may predispose individuals to obedience.
One major limitation of the authoritarian personality theory lies in its inability to fully explain large-scale obedience, such as that seen in Nazi Germany. Adorno’s framework assumes that individuals with authoritarian traits are predisposed to obedience, yet the widespread conformity and participation in atrocities during the Holocaust cannot plausibly be attributed solely to personality traits. Social identity theory offers a more compelling explanation, suggesting that individuals align with group norms, particularly when identifying strongly with an in-group and viewing an out-group as a threat. This alternative perspective underscores the social and situational factors influencing obedience, suggesting that Adorno’s dispositional approach is overly narrow and less realistic when accounting for mass behavior. Thus, while the authoritarian personality theory offers valuable insights, it is insufficient as a standalone explanation for obedience and must be integrated with broader theoretical perspectives.
A critical limitation of the Authoritarian Personality construct lies in its overt political bias, which undermines its validity as a general explanation for obedience. The original F-scale items were explicitly framed in right-wing ideological terms thereby conflating authoritarianism with conservatism. As a result, individuals who dissent from right-wing political positions may score low on the F-scale regardless of their genuine propensity to submit to authority, while those who merely share its ideological content inflate their “authoritarian” scores. This ideological entanglement means the scale cannot adequately capture authoritarian tendencies in left-wing or apolitical contexts, nor explain obedience to authority figures whose agendas diverge from right-wing doctrine. Consequently, the theory’s predictive power is circumscribed: it may account for obedience within a narrow political spectrum but fails as a universal framework for understanding why people comply with authority across diverse ideologica
