Resistance to Social Influence Flashcards
define resistance to social influence
2
ways in which individuals attempt to withstand perceived attempts to threaten freedom of choice
2 explanations of resistance to social influence; social support + locus of control
social support
3
social support = the perception that an individual has assistance available from other people
can come from supporters and dissenters
Asch found that the presence of social support enables an individual to resist pressures from the majority to obey and conform
role of social support in conformity
5
reduces conformity because…
- social support comes from supports and dissenters who break the unanimous position of the majority
- thus take away its power and influence because power of the majority comes from unanimity
- also raises the possibility that there are other equally legitimate ways of thinking and responding
- gives the presence of an ally, which makes the individual more confident in standing up against the majority as they’re not alone
role of social support in obedience
4
reduces obedience because…
- individuals will be more confident in their ability to resist if they have an ally who is willing to join them
- a disobedient peer acts as a role model and gives the person someone to follow as well as a way out of the situation
- shows the individual that there is another way to behave other than obeying
locus of control
9
refers to the extent to which individuals believe they can control the events affecting them — it is a perception of personal control over own behaviour
there are 2 types of LOC…
- internal = an individual believes they can make things happen and determine the future, what happens is a result of their own behaviour
- external = they believe there is nothing they can do about their future, things happen to them rather than because of them, events outside of their control such as luck cause the things that happen to them
people with an internal LOC are more likely to resist social influence because they….
- are more likely to be active seekers of information and engage in independent thought, meaning they are less likely to rely on the opinion of others — making them less vulnerable to social influence
- tend to be more achievement orientated and consequently more likely to become leaders rather than follow others
- this makes them better able to resist coercion
- more likely to see the consequences of their behaviour as their own responsibility, so will not blindly obey or conform as they believe they’ll still be responsible for their actions
x3 social support evaluation points
- evidence from Asch
- highly controlled environments
- support from Allen and Levine
social support evaluation
EVIDENCE FROM ASCH
4
in a replication of Asch’s original study, a dissenter was placed in the group who acted as an ally to the real participant by going against the majority and giving the correct answer
as a resulted, conformity dropped from 33% to only 5.5%
this supports the social support theory because when unanimity was broken by a dissenter, the conformity rate decreased which suggests that having an ally enables the individual to better resist social influence
this is largely because the ally makes the individual more confident in standing up to the majority because they longer have to do so alone
social support evaluation
ALLEN + LEVINE SUPPORT
3
they conducted an Asch type replication and found that when participants had no support from others and had to face the majority alone, the conformity rate was 97%
however, when there was a supporter conformity dropped to 36%
this suggests that social support in the form of someone willing to side with the participant reduces conformity and allows the individual to resist social influence
social support evaluation
HIGHLY CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS
5
much of the research that provides evidence for the theory is conducted in highly controlled environments and often use artificial tasks
researchers such as Asch try to recreate social experiences in these highly controlled environments, which may be problematic
largely because participant behaviour may not be representative of how they’d behave in real life
meaning that findings (like Asch’s 5.5%) may lack ecological validity and be difficult to generalise to real life settings
therefore, the social support theory may be limited in its ability to explain resistance to social influence in real life and should be viewed with caution because much of its supporting evidence lacks validity
x3 locus of control evaluation points
support from Avtgis
support from Holland
explains resistance to NSI more than ISI
locus of control evaluation
AVTGIS SUPPORT
4
conducted a meta analysis of studies of the relationship between LOC and various forms of social influence
found a positive correlation between type of LOC and scores of measures such as persuasion, social influence and conformity
concluded that people who had high scores of external LOC tended to be more easily persuaded, influenced and conformed more compared to those with an internal LOC
supports the theory as it suggests that people with external LOCs are less likely to resist social influence while having an internal LOC makes someone more likely to resist such pressures to conform and obey
locus of control evaluation
HOLLAND SUPPORT
3
conducted three versions of the Milgram experiment using participants with internal and external LOCs
overall, 37% of internals were disobedient and didn’t administer the strongest electric shock but only 23% of externals were disobedient
supports the theory as it suggests that having an internal LOC made the participants more likely to resist social influence
locus of control evaluation
EXPLAINS RESISTANCE TO NSI, NOT ISI
5
a criticism of the theory is that it explains resistance to NSI, but not resistance to ISI
a study by Spector measured LOC and predisposition to NSI and ISI
he found a significant correlation between LOC and predisposition to NSI — internals were more likely to resist conformity than externals
however, he found no relationship between LOC and predisposition to ISI — LOC did not appear to be a significant factor in resistance to ISI
suggests that personality factors such as LOC have limited ability to explain all resistance behaviour and other factors and theories should be considered
