Resistance to social influence Flashcards
How can we resist social influence?
Social support
Locus of control
Define resistance to social influence
Ability of people to withstand social pressure to conform to majority/obey authority
Influenced by both situational + dispositional factors
Define social support
People who resist pressures to conform/obey act as an ally (role model)
Other legitimate ways of thinking
Ally = builds confidence
Individual can remain independent
Models show resistance to social influence is possible
–> no longer fear of being ridiculed .: resist NSI.
Example of resisting conformity:
Asch –> confederate acted as model of independent behaviour.
Their dissent allows others top dissent –> majority no longer unanimous
Example of resisting obedience:
Milgram’s variations:
obedience dropped from 65% –> 10% when ppt joined by disobedient confederate
persons disobedience acts as a model of dissent for ppt to copy.
Frees him to act from his own conscious.
Challenges legitimacy of authority figure
Evidence supporting social support:
Rank + Jacobson (1977)
Replicated Hofling’s experiment
Instructed to administer Valium 3x recommended level
–> telephoned instructions from real, known doctor
Nurses able to consult each other
only 2/18 nurses prepared medication as requested
Shows that dissenting ally makes people MORE confident in ability to resist.
–> other legitimate ways of thinking
Evaluation of SS:
Real-world research support:
Albrecht et al (2006)
Teen Fresh start USA = aimed to help pregnant adolescence 14-19 (resist peer pressure to smoke)
Assigned older buddy.
Buddy = less likely to smoke compared to control group
Implications to other areas of society
–> likelihood of baby with health issues reduced
Healthcare providers = use resources on less preventable issues
Evaluation of SS:
Research support:
Gamson et al (1982)
ppts told to produce evidence -> smear campaign for oil company
Worked in groups –> discuss
High levels of resistance compared to Milgram’s study.
88% rebelled –> peer support = greater resistance.
Undermined legitimacy of authority figure.
Evaluation of SS:
Social support explanation:
Allen + Levine (1971)
Asch-like study
No support = 3% resisted
Dissenter with good eyesight = 64% refused to conform
–> .: social support effective + valid
HOWEVER
Dissenter with poor eyesight = 36% resisted
–> usefulness of persons support was low
When support is reliable = good
Define locus of control:
Dispositional explanation of resistance
Refers to sense we each have about what directs events on out lives.
Internals = they are responsible
Externals = outside forces
Acts as a continuum
What are internal LOC more likely to do?
Resist pressure to obey/conform
as they take personal responsibility for their actions.
High internals = more self-confident, more achievement orientated, more intelligent
Evaluation of LOC:
Research support:
Holland (1967):
Repeated Milgrams baseline study + measured if ppts were internals/externals
37% internals = not continue to highest level (showed resistance)
23% of externals = not continue
internals showed greater resistance to authority in Milgram-type situation
Increases validity of LOC as explanation for disobedience
Evaluation for LOC:
Contradictory research
Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American LOC over 40 year period (1960-2002)
Over time people = more resistant to obedience but more external
If resistance linked to LOC = should be more internal
LOC not valid explanation of resisting SI
Evaluation for LOC:
Limited role of LOC
Rotter (1982) –> LOC not necessarily most important factor in determining whether someone resists SI.
LOC role depends on situation
LOC only significantly affects behaviour in new situation
If you conformed/obeyed in past specific situation –> do so again regardless of high internal/external LOC.
Validity limited = doesn’t predict resistance in new social situations
