Resistance To Social Influece -locus Of Controln

Question 1

What’s another factor that psychologists think may have an effect of resistance for social influence

Answer 1

Internal or external locus of control

Question 2

Who was locus of control proposed by

Answer 2

Julian rotter

Question 3

What did Julian rotter propose

Answer 3

Locus of control
 This refers to a person’s perception of the degree of personal control they have over their behaviour.
 Those people with a high external locus of control see their future and their actions as resulting largely from factors outside their control such as luck or fate.
 Those people with a high internal locus of control feel a stronger sense of control over their lives than people with an external locus of control. They are also more active seekers of information, rely less on the opinion of other, and are more likely to resist pressure from others. This means they are more likely to show resistance to social influence

Question 4

Describe ppl with an internal LOC

Answer 4

People who have an internal LOC are more likely to be able to resist pressures to conform or obey. This makes sense if you think about it- if a person takes responsibility for their actions and experiences (good or bad) then they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs and thus resist pressures from other people.
Another explanation for the link with greater resistance is that people with a high internal LOC tend to be more self-confident, more achievement orientated, have higher intelligence and have less need for social approval. These personality traits lead to greater resistance to social influence.

Question 5

Supporting evidence for locus of control

Answer 5

Evaluation-

Supporting evidence for Locus of control
There is supporting evidence for locus of control and resistance to social influence. For example, Oliner and Oliner (1988) interviewed two groups of non-Jewish people who had lived through the Holocaust and Nazi Germany. They compared 406 people who had protected and rescued Jews from the Nazis and 126 people who had not done this. Oliner and Oliner found that the group that rescued the Jews had scores demonstrating an internal locus of control. This study suggests that people who have an internal LOC are likely to act rather than just leave the situation to fate.

Furthermore,
Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were internal or external. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock (showed resistance). However 23% of externals did not continue. Research support of this nature increases the validity of the LOC explanation and our confidence that it can explain resistance to social influence

Question 6

Weakness of locus of control

Answer 6

One weakness of the locus of control theory in explaining resistance to social influence especially obedience is conflicting research evidence. For example, Twenge (2004) analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40 year period (1960 to 2002). The data showed that, over this time span, people have become more resistance to obedience but also show a more external locus of control. If resistance were linked to an internal LOC, we would expect people to have become more internal – this challenges the link between internal LOC and being resistant to social influence especially obedience.
This finding that people who are showing resistance to social influence are now showing a more external locus of control also questions how LOC is being measured – Julian Rotter devised a questionnaire in 1967 where society had very different viewpoints and there had been a World War only 22 years before! It also questions whether the Locus of Control questionnaire devised by Rotter in the 1960s is relevant in today’s world. Therefore Rotter’s questionnaire that measures a person’s LOC may lack temporal validity and not be relevant in today’s society.