Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence

Question 1

State the two explanations of resistance to social influence:

Answer 1

• Locus of Control
• Social Support

Question 2

Locus of control explanation:

Answer 2

Refers to how much a person believes they have control over their own behaviour. This is a dispositional explanation as it identifies personality dimension.
- It is measured on a continuum + individual will either have an external or internal LoC - and their scores will fall somewhere between the two extremes

Question 3

State the two Loci of control:

Answer 3

• External LoC
• Internal LoC

Question 4

Explain Internal Locus of Control:

Answer 4

• individual attributes the cause of behaviour to personal (internal) factors within their control
• believe they have responsibility over own behaviour and actions

Question 5

Explain External Locus of Control:

Answer 5

• individual attributes cause of behaviour to external factors outside their control
• less likely to take responsibility for their actions

Question 6

A person with INTERNAL LoC believes their beh is mainly caused by:

Answer 6

their own personal decisions and efforts

Question 6

A person with EXTERNAL LoC believes their beh is mainly caused by:

Answer 6

luck, fate or other external circumstances

Question 6

Depending on where the individual falls on the continuum: they can either be:

Answer 6

High or low internal LoC
OR
High or low external LoC

Question 7

Who came up with theory of Locus of Control:

Answer 7

Rotter (1966)

Question 8

How does Rotter propose that individuals with an ILOC resist to social influence:

Answer 8

Rotter proposes that individuals with ILOC would be better at resisting social pressures (such as need to conform or obey) + act independantly as they feel incontrol of situations and feel they have choice to obey or conform or not. + Less concerned w/ social approval of others + will not conform to win approval.

Question 9

What are the two social influences:

Answer 9

• to conform
• to obey

Question 10

Strength of LoC as explanation of resisting obedience - supporting research.

Answer 10

Blass (1991) investigated link between LoC + obedience - found ppl w/ ILOC more likely to resist obeying than those w/ ELOC. Therefore LOC is important factor in ability to disobey orders from authority figure.
+ Oliner and Oliner found rescuers of Jews from the Nazis during the Holocaust had internal locus of control when compared with non-rescuers.
SB: shows that there is real life and controlled research support on idea that having ILOC leads to less obedience.
Increases validity of LOC as explanation of resisting obedience.

Question 11

Strength of LoC as explanation of resistance to social influence - supporting evidence.

Answer 11

Avtgis et al conducted meta-analysis on conformity studies such as Asch - found those who scored higher on ELOC - more easily persuaded + more likely to conform than those w/ low score. SB: shows higher rates of conformity in ppl with an ELOC - plausible that those w/ an ILOC r less likely to look to others when deciding how to behave, thus allowing them to resist pressures to conform/obey.
Increases validity of LOC as explanation of resisting obedience.

Question 12

Weakness of LoC - methodology can be criticised.

Answer 12

LoC been assessed by Rotter scale - 23 item fixed choice scale. Consists of pairs of statements + for each item respondent asked to indicate which of 2 statements more closely fits their views. Problem of social desirability bias - respondents may feel need to ‘say the right thing’ to please researcher. - cast doubt on validity of how respondents r categorised into either ELOC or ILOC. - may be case that ppl w an ELOC change responses to seem like they have ILOC bc they feel like it is more desirable. Decreases validity of LOC as explanation of resistance to social influence.

Question 13

Define social support:

Answer 13

Presence of other ppl who resist pressures to conform or obey and therefore help others to do the same.

Question 14

Explain social support and resisting CONFORMITY:

Answer 14

• presence of support from someone who is also not conforming makes easier to resist social pressure bc individual feels more confident to reject majority position - reduces chance of conformity
• having an ally who shares individuals view breaks unanimity of group
• when unanimous position of majority is broken - individual feels ‘freed up’ to think, respond or behave in diff way to majority

Question 15

Explain social support and resisting OBEDIENCE:

Answer 15

• presence of other ppl who disobey (disobedient role models) - serve to reduce obedience
• obedience of others makes even harmful actions appear acceptable
• seeing another person disobeying empowers observer to disobey and challenge legitimacy of authority figure.

Question 16

Strength of social support as explanation of resisting social influence - supporting evidence

Answer 16

Asch found having social support helps individual resist conformity pressures from majority - he found conformity dropped dramatically to 5.5% when one ally confederate gave an answer different to other confederates and so resisted the majority. Supports idea of social support bc when ppt has support of another individual - less likely to feel scared of ridicule + feel more confident in their decisions + rejecting majority. Increases validity of SS as explanation of resisting social influence.

Question 17

Strength of social support as explanation of resisting social influence - supporting evidence.

Answer 17

In one variation of Milgram’s experiment - ppt was one pf a team of 3 testing the learner. Presence of 2 disobedient confederates who refused to continue shocking the learner and withdrew was sufficient to encourage disobedience in genuine ppt - only 10% of genuine ppts continued to max 450v.
SB: shows that presence of disobedient role models allows ppt to also disobey as have support from another individual and this undermines perceived legitimacy of authority figure - decreasing obedience.
Increases validity of SS as explanation of resisting social influence