(8) 🧑🧑🧒🧒 explanations of resistance to social influence Flashcards
what are the two explanations of restistence to social influence?
social support and locus of control
what reduces conformity and why?
observing dissenting individuals; they
act as a model of independent behaviour, increasing one’s confidence and encouraging them to follow their own conscience.
what reduces obedience and why?
observing defiant individuals; they
act as a model of independent behaviour, increasing one’s confidence and encouraging them to follow their own conscience.
how does observing these individuals reduce conformity/obedience?
dissenting/defiant individuals contribute to diffusion of responsibility, so people perceive consequences of their actions as less severe.
who identified LoC?
Rotter (1966) identified internal LoC (believe things that happen are controlled by themselves) and external LoC (believe their lives are controlled by external forces; such as others, fate, luck or gov).
name four characteristics of someone with a high internal LoC:
• takes personal responsibility for their actions so decisions are based on personal beliefs and not external pressures
• high self-esteem
•high intelligence
• less concerned with social approval; more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey
✅ - social support has real-world applications
evidence: 2006 study where pregnant adolescents who received SS to help resist pressure to smoke were much less likely to smoke than a control group without SS
explain: SS can be used to create effective interventions in real world, like reducing peer pressure in harmful situations
✅ - research support for social support +
(possible 🦄 for both)
evidence: Asch’s line study (1951), conformity drops from 32% to 5.5% when a defiant confederate disagreed with the majority
+ Milgram’s variations (1963), rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when there was a dissenting confederate refusing administer the shock
explain: SS leads to conformity resistance by reducing unanimity of group, and obedience resistance by undermining legitimacy of authority
✅ research support for LoC
evidence: Holland (1967) repeated Milgrams baseline study but measured Ps LoC
- 37% of internal Ps didn’t continue to 450V
- 23% of external Ps didn’t continue to 450V
explain: supports validity of LoC explanation as internals more likely to to disobey
❌ - contradictory research
🦄 - societal changes
evidence: Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data on LoC and resistance over 40 years finding that over time, people became more disobedient but also more external
explain: challenges link between internal LoC and increasing resistant behaviour
🦄 - could be due to societal changes rather than individual psychological factors as they play a big role in shaping behaviours and attitudes over time.
🧠
for SS a03, there are 2 studies mentioned. after naming the researcher, summarise their study.
• strength - 2006
> pregnant adolescents more likely to resist pressures to smoke with SS than control group w/o SS
• strength - Asch (1951) & Milgram (1953)
> 32% down to 5.5% w defiant individual
65% down to 10% w dissenting individual
🧠
for LoC a03, there are 2 studies mentioned. one includes a counterpoint. after naming the researcher, summarise their study.
• strength - Holland (1967) = valid
> repeated Milgrams baseline study but measured Ps LoC. 37% of internals didn’t continue to 450V, only 23% of externals didn’t continue to 450V
• limitation - Twenge et al (2004)
> 40yrs of LoC and resistance data finding that over time, people more disobedient but more external
🦄: 🧑🧑🧒🧒changed rather than🧍🏾♀️ pysch factors
