Psychology - Social Influence - Resistance to social influence Flashcards
Social support
Explanation of resistance to social influence, when someone has an ally supporting their point of view. supported by research (Allen and Levine (1971))
How does social support allow avoidance of normative social influence?
They have support for their point of view so no longer fear being ridiculed.
What does Asch find happens in social support when the dissenter returns to conform?
So does the naive participant meaning the effect may only be short term
What percentage of pps didnât conform in Aschâs 1951 experiments?
0.24
In Milgrams 1963 experiment, how many pps did not obey the authority figure and went up to 450 volts?
14/40, 35%
In Hoflings experiment how many nurses disobeyed and did not administer the drug?
One nurse
In Zimbardoâs prison study how many of the guards resisted the pressure to behave sadistically towards prisoners?
36925
Allen and Levine (1971)
Conformity levels dropped in Aschâs line study when there was a dissenter which disagreed with the majority. This was even true in an âinvalidâ supporter condition where the confederate had difficulty with vision - this shows it is the presence of the supporter not ISI which allows us to resist pressure to conform.
Explanations for resistance to social influence
Social support (situational) and locus of control (dispositional)
Social support - conformity
The pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming.
Why does the non conforming person not have to give the right answer?
Because the fact that a person is not conforming allows a person to be free to follow their own conscience
What did Asch find in the conformity aspect of social support?
Conformity dropped to 5.5% when correct but 9% if incorrect
What did Allen and Levine find in social influence and conformity?
conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an Asch-type study (even if they had bad eyesight)
Social support - obedience
The pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person who is seen to disobey.
How does Milgramâs variations experiments show obedience dropping from social support?
When the real participant was joined by a disobedient confederate the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10%. They may not always follow the disobedient person but instead follow their own conscious
What is research supporting the role of a disobedient peer in resisting obedience?
(Milgrams variations). Gamson et al (1982)
What did Gamson et al (1982) want to look at?
Wanted to set up a situation where pps had to rebel against unjust authority
How did Gamson et al (1982) find participants?
They placed an advert in the local news in Michigan asking for volunteers to take part in a paid group discussion on âstandards of behaviour in the communityâ.
What did the participants who signed up to volunteer in Gamson et al (1982) initially experience?
Asked to attend a group discussion at a local holiday inn. When they arrived they were put into groups of nine and met by a consultant from a fictional HR company called MHRC conducting research into taking legal action against a petrol station manager
Why had the petrol station manager been sacked according to the consultant in âMHRCâ in Gamson et al (1982)?
Because his lifestyle was offensive to the local community
Why had the petrol station manager been sacked according to himself in âMHRCâ in Gamson et al (1982).
For speaking out on local TV against high petrol prices
After gaining info on the situation in Gamson et al (1982), what did the participants have to do.
Took part in a filmed group discussion about the sacking but became increasingly obvious that their opinions were irrelevant and MHRC wanted them to argue in favour of the sacking and were persuaded by the camera man to do so. Then asked to sign a form so it could be in court
What did rebellion against authority involve in Gamson et al (1982)?
Challenging two well established norms - obedience and commitment which were agreed when they said they would take part in the study
Of the 33 groups tested by Gamson, how many rebelled and how?
32 by establishing a strong group identity in which the members agrees the demands were unreasonable. 25/33 groups refused to sign the consent form and nine threatened legal action
What are the strengths of social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence?
- Research support, Aschs study (reduced to 5.5%) and Milgrams study (reduced to 10%) - Can be applied to real life, in Gamson study there was high ecological validity
What are the weaknesses of social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence?
- Not representative as in real life there are larger groups
who proposed locus of control?
Julian Rotter (1966)
Locus of control
Explanation of resistance to social influence, referring to a persons perception of the degree of personal control they have over their behaviour
External locus of control
See their future and actions as resulting from factors outside of their control (luck and fate).
Internal locus of control
Feel stronger sense of control over their lives and are active seekers of information and rely on the opinion of others and are more likely to resist social influence.
Why are people with an Internal LOC more able to resist pressures to conform or obey?
Because of a person takes responsibility for their actions then they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs so resist pressures
What do people with an internal LOC tend to be like?
Self confident, achievement orientated, higher intelligence and less need for social approval
Strengths of Locus of control explanation of resistance to social influence
- Research support, Oliner and Oliner (1988), Holland (1967)
Oliner and Oliner (1988)
Evidence for locus of control explanation for resistance to social influence
which group of people did Oliner and Oliner (1988) look at?
Two groups of non-jewish people who had lived through the holocaust and Nazi Germany comparing 406 people who has protected jews and 126 people who hadnât.
How did Oliner and Oliner (1988) assess LOC?
They found that the group that rescued the Jews had scores demonstrating an internal LOC and these people are more likely to act rather than leave the situation to fate
Holland (1967)
Evidence for locus of control explanation for resistance to social influence, repeated Milgramâs baseline study and measured their LOC. 37% of internals didnât continue to highest shock (resistance) 23% of externals didnât continue
Weaknesses of Locus of control explanation of resistance to social influence
- Conflicting research evidence, Twenge (2004) - Lacks temporal validity due to Rotters questionnaire
Twenge et al (2004)
Conflicting research evidence of locus of control explanation for resistance to social influence. used data from American obedience studies from a 40 year period. People have become more resistant to obedience but have a more external locus of control
Julian Rotterâs Questionnaire - weaknesses
Made in 1967 and society had different viewpoints than now and may not be relevant to todayâs world. lacks temporal validity
