AS SOCIAL INFLUENCE - RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Question 1

Describe social support

Answer 1

Conformity: the presence of a dissenter helps break conformity as we saw in Asch’s variation. Even when dissenter was wrong, it helped the naive ppt to say what they actually thought. However when dissenter starts to conform again, so does the naive ppt, so effects of social support aren’t long-lasting.

Obedience: a disobeying confederate in a Milgram variation dropped obedience from 65% to 10%; allows naive ppt to break free from the obedience and do what their conscience tells them to.

Question 2

Evaluate social support

Answer 2

(+ Conformity) Research support from Allen and Levine shows that in an Asch-style study, a dissenter who even siad he “had trouble seeing clearly” lowered conformity significantly; social support frees ppl from the pressure of the group
(+ Obedience) Gamson et al found in a Milgram-style study, 88% of groups rebelled; SS helps sig. break obedience

Question 3

Describe locus of control

Answer 3

Put forward by Rotter (1966) who said we can measure someone’s control over life events using a scale.

Internal LOC = believes in free will, total control over your own life
External LOC = believes in fate/ destiny i.e. they believe they have little contol over their life

Ppl w/ an int LOC are more likely to rebel as they believe its up to them to determine what happens. They also tend to be more self-confident and rigid in their decisions, and require less social approval.

Question 4

Evaluate LOC

Answer 4

(+) Holland (1967) recreated a Milgram-style exp and found int LOC ppl rebelled much more than ext LOCs.

(-) Rotter points out that LOC only really applies in new situations, not familiar ones, eg if you conformed before in a set situation, you’re likely to do the same again, no matter what your LOC is; so role of LOC is exaggurated