resistance to social influence - evaluation

Question 1

The role of LOC in resisting social influence may be exaggerated

Answer 1

• Rotter (1982) found LOC is only important in new situations.
• This is often overlooked. It means people who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, even if they have a high internal LOC.
  ➢ This means that LOC is only helpful in explaining a narrow range of new situations.

Question 2

Twenge et al (2004)

Answer 2

• Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 years (1960-2002), showing that people have become more independent but also more external.
• If resistance was linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal.
  ➢ This challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance.

Question 3

Research evidence supports the link between LOC and resistance to obedience - Holland (1967)

Answer 3

• Holland (1967) repeated the Milgram study and measured whether Ps were internals or externals
• 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level. Only 27% of external did not continue.
  ➢ So internals showed greater resistance. This increases the validity of LOC.

Question 4

Research evidence supports the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity - Allen and Levine (1971)

Answer 4

• Allen and Levine (1971) found independence increased with one dissenter in an Asch-type study
• This occurred even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had problems with vision (he couldn’t judge the line lengths)

Question 5

Research evidence supports the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience - Gamson et al (1982)

Answer 5

• Gamson et al (1982) found higher levels of rebellion than Milgram did. Gamson’s Ps were in groups.
• In Gamson’s study 29 out of 33 groups of Ps (88%) rebelled
• peer support can lead to disobedience