Resistance to social influence eval Flashcards
Social support explanation
Allen and Levine found that 64% of participants refused to conform in an Asch-type task when one other person dissented. Only 3% resisted when there was no supporter. These outcomes fulfil a prediction of the explanation – most people will resist if they believe another person agrees with them in the face of a majority group (i.e. social support is effective).
On the other hand, the number of people prepared to resist dropped significantly to 36% when the supporter was someone with poor eyesight. Many participants must have concluded that the usefulness of this person’s support was low because they could not see the lines properly to judge them. This result also matches a prediction of the explanation (i.e. social support is ineffective).
This shows that social support is a valid explanation of resistance. Levels of resistance are high when the support is reliable. But resistance drops when people believe that the support offered by a dissenter is not helpful because it cannot be relied upon.
Limited role of LOC
Research studies show that being able to resist social influence is closely linked to having a high internal LOC (e.g. Holland). But according to Rotter this link only exists in new situations. LOC is irrelevant in situations that are familiar because it doesn’t really affect our behaviour.
In such situations, your previous responses have more influence on your current behaviour than your LOC. For example, if you have refused to conform with friends in the past in specific situations, you probably will continue to do so in these situations even if you have a high external LOC.
Therefore LOC is a valid explanation because it is linked to resistance. But its validity is limited because it does not predict resistance in new social situations.
Real-world research support
One strength is research evidence for the positive effects of social support.
For example, Susan Albrecht et al. (2006) evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, an eight-week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke. Social support was provided by a slightly older mentor or ‘buddy: At the end of the programme adolescents who had a ‘buddy’ were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants who did not have a ‘buddy’.
This snows that social support can help young peopie resist social intiuence as part or an intervention in the real world.
Research support for dissenting peers.
Another strength is research evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience.
William Gamson et al’s (1982) participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign. The researchers found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram did in his. This was probably because the participants were in groups so could discuss what they were told to do. 29 out of 33 groups of participants (88%) rebelled against their orders.
This shows that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure.
Research support
One strength is research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience.
Charles Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (i.e. they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue. In other words, internals showed greater resistance to authority in a Milgram-type situation.
This shows that resistance is at least partly related to LOC, which increases the validity of LOC as an explanation of disobedience.
Contradictory research
One limitation is evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance.
For example, Jean Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American locus of control studies conducted over a 40-year period (from 1960 to 2002). The data showed that, over this time span, people became more resistant to obedience but also more entemal. This is a surprising outcome. if resistance linked to an internal locus of control, we would expect people to have become more internal.
This suggests that locus of control is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence.
