RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE Flashcards
what is locus of control?
this refers to the perception of how much control an individual has over events in their lives
how is locus of control measured?
it is measured on a scale of high internal to high external
what are individuals with high internal locus of control more likely to feel?
they feel like they are in control of the events in their life
what are individuals with high external locus of control more likely to feel?
they feel like the events in their life are controlled by external forces.
why are individuals with high internal locus of control more likely to resist social influence?
high internal locus of control makes us more likely to resist social influence as we feel more responsible for our actions and behaviours
why are individuals with high external locus of control less likely to resist social influence?
individuals with high external locus of control have lower self esteem and they need more social approval, so resistance to social influence is less likely to occur.
why are individuals with high internal locus of control more likely to resist social influence compared to individuals with high external locus of control?
individuals with high internal Locus of control show more independent behaviours and resist social influence compared to those with a high external locus of control which is probably because they have more self-confidence to resist social influence
AO3: how is ‘supporting evidence’ a strength to locus of control as a way of resisting social influence?
one strength to locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence is that there is evidence to support this. For example, Shute 1975 investigated the effects of peer pressure on attitudes towards drugs. They found that the participants with an internal locus of control showed a smaller conformity effect compared to participants with an external locus of control. Therefore, this supports the idea that individuals with a high internal locus of control are more likely to resist social influence and that they feel responsible for their behaviour.
AO3: how is ‘Hollands replication of Milgrams study as supporting evidence’ a strength to locus of control as a way of resisting social influence?
One strength to locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence is that there is evidence to support this. For example, Holland 1967 repeated Milgram’s electric shock study when looking into levels of obedience. They found that the participants who didn’t obey and shock the victims all the way to 450V had a higher internal locus of control. This supports the idea that individuals with higher internal locus’s of control are more likely to feel in control and responsible for their actions and behaviours. Therefore, this study supports the idea that individuals with higher internal locus’ of control are more likely to resist to social influence.
AO3: how is ‘its hard to measure’ a limitation to locus of control as a way of resisting social influence?
One limitation to locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence is that it can be hard to measure. This is because in order to identify what kind of locus of control you have, you need to complete a questionairres, which is a problem as a big issue with questionairres is the problem of social desirability bias. This is when the answers a participant gives may be favourably viewed by the researcher, meaning that the results of the questionairres may not truly reflect the participants views and behaviour. This therefore undermines the questionairres reliability and validity meaning we may have to take caution when using participants answers.
AO3: how is ‘cause and effect’ a limitation to locus of control as a way of resisting social influence?
One limitation to locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence is that there are issues with cause and effect. This is because self esteem has been commonly associated with resistance to social influence. Researchers have found that individuals with higher levels of self esteem are more likely to have higher locus of control, whereas, individuals with lower levels of self esteem are seen to have lower locus of control. This means that it is hard to conclude wether how much an individual resists social influence is due to their locus of control or how high their self esteem is. Therefore, researchers are unable to conclude a causal relationship between locus of control and resistance to social influence as there are other extraneous variables that effect this relationship that haven’t been accounted for.
what is social support?
it is when someone is able to resist the pressure to conform or obey if they have someone supporting them. this is because having someone with you helps to build your confidence to not obey or conform.
how does social support help reduce conformity?
the pressure to conform is reduced if there are other people present who are conforming. the dissenter doesn’t have to give the right answer but the important thing is that it breaks the unanimity as its the possibility that there are other legitimate answers raised.
what were Asch’s findings into social support in his conformity research?
Asch found that the presence of social support enabled an individual to resist conformity. however, the effect of a dissenter is not long lasting as if the confederate started conforming again, so did the real participant.
how does social support help reduce obedience?
if others are obeying it can make a harmful action appear acceptable. this means that disobedience can change peoples perception and thus make people confident about resisting obedience. disobedient peers are role models for acting in a way that is in accordance with our own conscience.
what did milligram find about social support in his obedience research?
milligram found that obedience rates dropped when participants were joined by a disobedient confederate.
AO3: how is ‘supporting evidence for the role of conformity’ a strength to social support as a way pf resisting social influence?
One strength to social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence is that there is supporting evidence for the role of conformity. For example, Allen and Levine found that social support can help individuals to resist the influence of a group. This is because in a task inspired by Asch’s line study, they found that when there was a normal dissenter, 64% of participants wouldn’t conform, whereas, when there was no dissenter only 3% refused to conform. Although as the results are not 100%, it suggests that there are other factors to why individuals are more or less likely to conform to the majority. This therefore supports the idea that when individuals have the support of others socially, the pressure to conform is reduced leading to them breaking the unanimity. However, there is also evidence to suggest that social support doesn’t always help as when the dissenter had poor eyesight, resistance levels were only 36% compared to the 64% when they supposedly had normal eyesight.
AO3: how is ‘supporting evidence for the role of obedience’ a strength to social support as a way of resisting social influence?
One strength to social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence is that there is supporting evidence for the role of obedience. For example, Gamson et al set up a situation where it appeared to participants that they were being manipulated into signing a statement which would then be used in a legal case by an oil company. The individuals were placed into small groups and they found that 88% of the groups rebelled at the idea of signing the statement and refused to do as they were told. This therefore supports the idea that individuals are more likely to rebel to authority and rules when they have the support of others socially rather than individually. However, the resistance to obedience levels were not 100%, suggesting that there may be other influences or explains to why some people still obeyed and signed the statement.
AO3: how is ‘nature of the evidence’ a limitation to social support as a way of resisting social influence?
One limitation to social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence is that there are problems with the nature of the evidence. This is because we have to careful when drawing definitive conclusions from the research. For example, the artificial nature of the line study means that it may lack ecological validity, making it harder to be generalised beyond the setting in which it took place in. There were also many extraneous variables within Gameson’s research such as the participants were being paid which may mean that social desirability bias was present as they may have behaved in a way they believed the researchers wanted so that they could recieve the money. They were all also left alone when discussing what they were going to do, this means that they had no control over the possibility that they either disobeyed or conformed to the group. Therefore, we are unable to conclude the extent to which the factors measured were the factors that led to the individual resistance of social influence.
