Explanation for resistance to social influence

Question 1

What is the first explanation of resistance to social influence?

Answer 1

Social support

Question 2

What is social support?

Answer 2

The perception of assistance and solidarity available from others

Question 3

What does research suggest about social support?

Answer 3

When there are others in a social situation who defy attempts to make them conform or obey then it becomes much easier for an individual to resist such forms of influence
Dissenters represent a form of social support and means that the individual is not the person to break agreement within the group

Question 4

What was the piece of evidence supporting social support?

Answer 4

Allen and Levine (1971) - found that conformity was reduced on a task involving visual judgements if there was a dissenter (even if that dissenter wore thick glasses and admitted to sight problems). Suggesting dissenters help resist social influence even when they are not skilled in that area

Question 5

What two other pieces of research support social support?

Answer 5

Milgram - Found that when two confederates paired with the real participant left the study early on, declaring that they would go no further only 10% of participants gave the maximum 450v shock. This suggests that the creating of a group norm of disobedience put the participants under pressure to conform to the behaviour of the confederate
Mullen -Found that when disobedient models broke the law by jay-walking, participants were more likely to jay walk themselves than when disobedient models weren’t present, supporting the idea of disobedient models increasing resistance to social influence

Question 6

What is the second explanation for resistance of social influence?

Answer 6

Locus of control (LoC)?

Question 7

What is locus of control?

Answer 7

The extent to which individuals believe that they can control events in their lives

Question 8

Who identified LoC and what does it concern?

Answer 8

Identified as a personality dimension by Rotter (1966)
Concerns the extent to such people perceive themselves as being in control of their lives - individuals with a high internal LoC believe they can affect the outcomes of situations . Individuals with high external LoC believe things turn out a certain way regardless of their actions

Question 9

What does Rotter believe about individuals with internal LoC?

Answer 9

It makes them more resistant to social pressure with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey

Question 10

Give one piece of research that supports LoC?

Answer 10

Moghaddam found that Japanese people conform more easily than Americans and have more of an external LoC - suggesting that differences in resistance to social influence across cultures can be explained by difference in LoC

Question 11

What three other pieces of research support LoC?

Answer 11

Spector- Gave Rotter’s LoC scale to 157 uni students and found that participants with a high external LoC conformed more than those with a low external LoC, but only in situations that produced normative social pressure. Both types of participants didn’t conform in situations that produced ISI - suggesting that people with less of a need for acceptance into a social group will be more able to resist SI

Avtgis - Performed a meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity, finding that individuals with an internal locus of control were less easily persuadable and less likely to conform, supporting the ideas of differences in LoC being linked to differences in ability to resist SI

Holland - Tested a link between LoC and obedience and found no relationship between the two . However Blass reanalysed Holland’s data using more precise statistical analysis and found that participants with an internal LoC were more able to resist obedience than those with an external LoC

Question 12

What are the three other explanations for resistance to social influence?

Answer 12

Reactance
Ironic deviance
Status

Question 13

How does reactance affect resistance to social influence?

Answer 13

When freedom of choice of individuals is restricted they may react with reactance (rebellious anger) such as when adolescents rebel against conforming to adult rules
Hamilton (2005) found that Australian adolescente in a low-reactance condition who were told it’s fine To experiment with drugs if they know the health risks were less likely to smoke than those in a high reactance condition told never to smoke - suggests when freedom of choice is threatened - resistance will occurs (obedience as well as conformity)

Question 14

How does ironic deviance affect resistance to social influence?

Answer 14

If the truthfulness of a source of informational social influence is doubted then the chances of individuals conforming to the guidance given will be lessened
Conway and Schaller found that office workers conformed and used a software product if other employees recommended it but were less likely to conform if the colleagues had recommended it after being ordered by the manager to use that particular soft ware rather than alternatives. In this instance they attributed follow office workers behaviour as being determined by the Boss’s order (supports the idea that if individuals believe a source of informational influence is not genuine , conformity to that influence will be resisted - ironic deviance

Question 15

How does status affect resistance to social influence?

Answer 15

People of low status within a group (e.g new comers) are motivated to achieve higher status by exhibiting conformist behaviour ; therefore conformity is more able to be resisted if individuals perceive themselves as of higher status within a group (see Richardson’s study)

Question 16

What was Richardson’s study and what was its aim?

Answer 16

Distinction defeats group deviance. The unlikely relationship between differentiation and newcomer conformity
Aim= To test the effects of information on newcomers’ willingness to agree to group decisions and to assess how status of individuals affects attempts to make them conform to obviously wrong answers

Question 17

What was the procedure of Richardson’s study?

Answer 17

84 male and female students were assigned randomly to same sex groups of three. Two of each group were confederates and one was a naïve participant
Naïve participant led to believe that they were new comers to the teams - within each team the group members introduced themselves with the confederates going first
In each team confederates then described their biographical details as of high or low status - the teams then looked at two stock companies and based on info about them chose which to invest in (one was clearly superior)
Team members gave their opinion with the real participant going last . The two confederates chose the weaker of the two options

Question 18

What were the findings of the Richardson study?

Answer 18

In the teams where the confederates were believed to be of high status participants conformed to the group. The reverse was true where confederates were believed to be of low status

Question 19

Why is the Richard study important?

Answer 19

Explains the role of status in relation to the resistance of conformity

Question 20

What conclusions were drawn from Richardson’s experiment?

Answer 20

People perceived as lower status conform to the decisions to those group members of higher status even when they believe those decisions are wrong in order to attain higher status
People use competence-based clues about the status of other group members to determine the level of their conformist behaviour
People of higher perceived status within a group are more able to resist attempts to make them conform

Question 21

What does Richardson’s study link with?

Answer 21

Tarnow (2002) - found that a major contributory factor in 80% of air traffic accidents was a junior co-pilot not questioning an obviously wrong instruction from the captain. The captain had absolute authority so the co-pilots felt that they could not question this

Question 22

What is the evaluation of Richardson’s experiment?

Answer 22

The research has practical applications for the formation of groups (new group members shouldn’t be made to feel inferior if they are to give honest opinions and resist conformities to obviously wrong decisions
The study was unethical as it involved deceit - confederates not who they claimed to be so informed consent couldn’t be given
Implications = bad decisions made by high status people - given support by conformity of junior group members(supported by Tarnow)

Question 23

What is internal locus of control?

Answer 23

People who base their success on their own work and believe they control their life have an internal locus of control

Question 24

What is external locus of control?

Answer 24

People who attribute their success or failure to outside influences have an external locus of control.