8. resistance to SI Flashcards
SOCIAL SUPPORT IN RESISTING CONFORMITY
The pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming.
The fact that someone else is not following the majority is SOCIAL SUPPORT - it enables
the naive participant to be free to follow their own conscience. The confederate acts as a ‘model’ of independent behaviour.
Their dissent gives rise to more dissent because it shows that the majority is no longer unanimous.
SOCIAL SUPPORT IN RESISTING OBEDIENCE
The pressure to obey can be resisted if there is another person who is seen to disobey.
In one of Milgram’s variations, the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to
10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate.
The participant may not follow the disobedient person’s behaviour, but the point is the other person’s disobedience acts as a ‘model’ of dissent for the participant to copy and this frees him to act from his own conscience.
The disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey.
AO3 - strength of SOCIAL SUPPORT
real world application - Albrecth (pregnant teens resist smoking)
One strength is research evidence for the positive effects of social support.
For example, Albrecht et al. evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, an eight-week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke. Social support was provided by a slightly older mentor or ‘buddy’. At the end of the programme adolescents who had a ‘buddy’ were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants who did not have a ‘buddy’.
This shows that social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real world.
AO3 - strength of SOCIAL SUPPORT
research support - Allen and Levine (asch replication - dissenter)
Allen and Levine showed that social support can help individuals to resist the influence of a group. In an Asch-type task, when the dissenter was someone with apparently good eyesight, 64% of genuine participants refused to conform. When there was no supporter at all, only 3% of participants resisted.
This was even true when the dissenter was wearing thick glasses, indicating he had poor eyesight - resistance was 36%.
This means that another person not conforming removes the pressure of the participant not conforming, in line with the social support theory.
LOCUS OF CONTROL
Rotter proposed locus of control (LOC) as a concept concerned with internal control versus external control.
what is the difference
· Some people have an internal LOC - they believe that the things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves.
· Some people have an external LOC - they tend to believe the things that happen are outside their control.
THE LOC CONTINUUM
People are not just either internal or external. LOC is a scale, and individuals vary in their position on it. So,
high internal LOC is at one end of the continuum and high external at the other.
Low internal and low external lie in- between.
People with a high internal LOC are more able to
resist pressures to conform or obey.
If a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences, they tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on the opinions of others.
AO3 - strength of LOCUS OF CONTROL
research support - Holland (repeated Milgram’s study % measured LOC)
One strength is research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience.
Holland repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. 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. In other words, internals showed greater resistance to authority in a Milgram-type situation.
This shows that resistance is at least partly related to LOC, which increases the validity of LOC as an explanation of disobedience.
Another explanation is that people with a high internal LOC tend to be more self-confident, more achievement-oriented and have higher intelligence.
These traits lead to greater
resistance to social influence.
These are also characteristics of leaders, who have much less need for social approval than followers.
AO3 - limitation of LOCUS OF CONTROL
contradictory research - Twenge (data over 40 year period)
One limitation is evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance.
For example, Twenge et al. analysed data from American locus of control studies conducted over a 40-year period. The data showed that, over this time span, people became more resistant to obedience but also more external. This is a surprising outcome. If resistance is linked to an internal locus of control, we would expect people to have become more internal.
This suggests that locus of control is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence.
