resistance to social influence Flashcards
social support & locus of control
how many explanations & name
2
- social support
- locus of control
describe social support
presence of people who resist pressures to conform/obey can help others do the same
example of social support regarding resisting conformity
asch
- conformity decreased to 5.5% if non-conforming confederate present
- social support breaks unanimous position of majority
example of social support regarding resisting obedience
milgram
- obedience decreased from 65% to 10% when real participant joined by disobedient confederate
- people are more confident to resist obedience if joined by an ally
definition for locus of control
the sense we have about what directs events in our lives. internals believe they’re mostly responsible for what happens to them but externals believe it’s mostly luck/outside forces
who first proposed locus of control
rotter (1966)
characteristics/beliefs of someone with internal locus of control
- high level of personal (control over life/behaviour)
- take personal responsibility
- actively seek info to help them & less likely to rely on others
- achievement orientated
- resist pressure
characteristics/beliefs of someone with external locus of control
- more likely to be influenced by others
- do not believe they exercise personal control over life
what is an individuals locus of control determined by
a continuum –> some do not always sit at either external or internal
how does locus of control lead to resistance of social influence
- people with internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to conform/obey as they have personal control/responsibility over their life
- these individuals tend to be more self-confident, achievement-orientated & have higher intelligence –> leader to greater resistance to social influence
evaluation of resistance to social influence - AO3
SOCIAL SUPPORT
+)
P: real-world research support for positive effects of social support
E: eg. albrecht et. al (2006) evaluated ‘teen fresh start usa’ - an 8-week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist the peer pressure to smoke. social support was provided by an older mentor/’buddy’. at the end of the programme, those who had a ‘buddy’ were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants without a ‘buddy’.
T: shows social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real-world
+)
P: research support for role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience
E: eg. gamson et. al (1982) found higher levels of resistance in their study (compared to milgram) where participants were told to produce evidence to help an oil company run a smear campaign. the participants were in groups to discuss & 29/33 groups (88%) rebelled against orders
T: peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining legitimacy of authority figure
-)
P: gamson’s research is not generalisable
E: participants that were used were from an individualistic culture (america) & societies are structured in different ways, & children are raised to perceive authority figures in different ways
T: suggests other cultures may respond differently to the role of dissenting peers
evaluation of resistance to social influence - AO3
LOCUS OF CONTROL
+)
P: research support
E: eg. holland (1987) repeated milgram’s baseline study & measured whether participants were internals/externals. he found 37% of internals did not continue to highest shock whereas only 23% of externals didn’t continue. thus, internals showed greater resistance
T: resistance is (at least) partly related to LOC, which increases it’s validity as an explanation for disobedience
-)
P: evidence to challenge link between LOC & resistance
E: eg. twenge et. al (2004) analysed data from american LOC studies conducted over 40-year period (1960-2002). data showed that people became more resistant to obedience but also more external.
T: suggests LOC is not a valid explanation for why/how people resist social influence
