Resistance to Social Influence Flashcards
How does social support reduce pressure to conform?
When one or more people dissent from the majority, it frees others to follow their own conscience.
What role does a dissenting peer play in conformity situations, according to Asch’s research?
The dissenter acts as a model, showing that the majority is not unanimous—even if they don’t give the ‘right’ answer.
How can pressure to obey an authority figure be reduced by social support ?
Obedience decreases when a peer is seen disobeying the authority.
What were Milgram’s findings regarding the presence of a disobedient peer?
Obedience dropped significantly from 65% to about 10% when a disobedient peer was present, challenging the legitimacy of the authority figure.
What is the difference between internal and external locus of control?
Internals believe they control their own fate and actions, whereas externals attribute outcomes to external factors (e.g., luck or a bad teacher).
On what continuum is locus of control measured?
There is a scale ranging from high internal LOC to high external LOC, with most individuals falling somewhere in between.
How does an internal LOC affect resistance to social influence?
People with an internal LOC tend to resist pressures to conform or obey because they take personal responsibility for their actions.
What traits are associated with individuals having a high internal LOC?
They are generally more confident, achievement-oriented, and intelligent—traits that contribute to their resistance to social influence.
strength (1) of SOCIAL SUPPORT (resistance to social influence)
One strength is evidence for the role of support in resisting conformity.
In a programme to help pregnant adolescents to resist pressure to smoke, social support was given by an older ‘buddy’ (Albrecht et al. 2006).
These adolescents were less likely to smoke at the end of the programme than a control group who did not have a buddy.
This shows social support can help young people resist social influence in real-world situations.
strength (2) of SOCIAL SUPPORT (resistance to social resistance)
Another strength is evidence for the role of support for dissenting peers.
Gamson et al’s (1982) groups asked to give evidence for an oil company to use in a smear campaign.
29 out of 33 groups (88%) rebelled against orders, much higher than in Milgram’s studies.
This shows how supporters can undermine legitimacy of authority and reduce obedience.
strength of LOCUS OF CONTROL (resistance to social resistance)
One strength is evidence to support the role of LOC in resisting obedience.
Holland (1967) repeated the Milgram study and measured whether participants were internals or externals.
37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed greater resistance). Only 23% of externals did not continue.
Therefore resistance partly related to LOC, increasing the validity of this explanation of disobedience.
limitation of LOCUS OF CONTROL (resistance to social resistance)
One limitation is not all research supports the role of LOC in resistance.
Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from
American locus of control studies over 40 years (1960 to 2002), showing that people have become more independent but also more external.
This is surprising - if resistance was linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal
Therefore LOC may not be a valid explanation of resistance to social influence.
strength (2) of SOCIAL SUPPORT (resistance to social influence)
