SI - resistance to social influence (AO3)

Question 1

What is a strength of the explanation that an internal locus of control can increase resistance to obedience? - Supportive empirical obedience

Answer 1

===> Holland (1967) replicated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether ppts. were ‘internals’ or ‘externals’. 37% of internals resisted compared to only 23% of externals. Demonstrates individuals with internal loci of control showed greater resistance to authority. However, results are correlational so don’t establish causation. Though does increase validity of LOC explanation of resistance to social influence

Question 2

What is a limitation of the LOC explanation of resistance to social influence? - Contradictory evidence

Answer 2

===> Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from LOC studies in USA between 1960-2002 and it showed people have become more resistant to obedience but more external in their LOC. Rutter’s LOC explanation links higher resistance to internal LOC but this wasn’t the case. Challenges relationship between 2 constructs and lowers validity of explanation

Question 3

What is a strength of social support as an explanation of resistance to conformity? - Supportive empirical evidence

Answer 3

===> Allen and Levine (1971) found conformity decreased when there was a dissenter in an Asch type study. Decrease even occurred when they wore thick glasses and said he had trouble seeing, suggesting the dissenter might not be confident in his answer. Supports argument that it’s not just about conforming by following what someone else is saying but that the dissenter actually frees people from the group pressure of NSI, increasing validity of explanation

Question 4

What is a strength of social support as an explanation for resisting obedience? - Supportive empirical evidence

Answer 4

===> Gamson et al (1982) found higher levels of resistance to orders than those found in Milgram. Ppts. were instructed to help assist an oil company run a smear campaign against one of their managers but 88% of groups rebelled compared to only 35% in Milgram. Likely to be because ppts. were in groups, whereas in Milgram they were acting individually. Provides evidence that social support of groups is linked to greater resistance to follow orders from someone with higher levels of authority