Social Influence L10 - Explanations Of Resistance To Social Influence - Social Support Flashcards
1
Q
Research support showing resistance
A
• In Asch’s 1951 experiment, 24% of pps did not conform at any point in the study
• In Milgram’s 1963 experiment, 14 (35%) of the 40 male pps did not obey the authority figure and went up to 450 volts
• In Hofling’s experiment, one nurse disobeyed and did not administer the drug
• In Zimbardo’s prison study, around two-thirds of the guards resisted the pressure to behave sadistically towards the prisoners
2
Q
What factors lead people to resist social pressure?
A
- social support - situational factor
- locus of control - dispositional factor
3
Q
Social support
A
- Having an ally can build confidence and allow individuals to remain independent
- Individuals who have support for their point of view no longer fear being ridiculed, allowing them to avoid NSI.
- Asch reports that if this dissenter then returns to conform then so does the naïve participant, meaning that the effect may only be short‐term
- people who have support for their point of view are less likely to obey orders and feel better able to resist the pressure if there is another person present who also does not obey
4
Q
Social support for conformity
A
- pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming
- The non-conforming person does not necessarily have to give the correct answer but the fact that this person is not conforming to the majority enables a person to be free to follow their own conscience
- E.g. In Asch’s variations, conformity rates dropped to 5.5% when there was one correct dissenter in the group, furthermore if the dissenter was incorrect then conformity rates dropped to 9%.
5
Q
Research evidence supporting this idea in resisting conformity
A
- Allen and Levine (1971) found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an Asch-type study – even if this person said that had problems with his/her vision and was wearing thick glasses
- competency doesn’t matter all that does is the different answer
-This shows how just having one person in a group whose view goes against the majority can lead an individual to resist conforming showing how social support is truly powerful
6
Q
Social support for obedience
A
- the pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person who is seen to disobey
- For example, in one of Milgram’s variations the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the real participant was joined by a disobedient confederate
-The person may not always follow the disobedient person’s behaviour but does have a will to follow or not follow based on his/her conscience. - Research evidence supports the role of a disobedient peer in resisting obedience - GAMSON, FIREMAN AND RYTINA (1982)
7
Q
GAMSON, FIREMAN AND RYTINA (1982)
A
- set up a situation in which pps were encouraged to rebel against unjust authority
- The researchers placed an advert in local newspapers in a town in Michigan, USA asking for volunteers to take part in a paid group discussion on ‘standards of behaviour in the community’. - Those who responded were asked to attend a group discussion at a local Holiday Inn and were put into groups of nine and met by a consultant from a fictional human relations company called MHRC
- The consultant explained that MHRC was conducting research for an oil company, which was taking legal action against a petrol station manager
- They argued that the manager had been sacked because his lifestyle was offensive to the local community. In contrast the manager argued that he had been sacked for speaking out on local TV against high petrol prices
- Pps were asked to take part in a group discussion about the sacking and this was filmed.
- Throughout, it became apparent that the pps’ own views were irrelevant and that MHRC wanted them to argue in favour of the sacking
- At a number of points during the discussion, the cameraman stopped filming and instructed different members of the group to argue in favour of the oil company’s decision to sack the manager
- Finally the pps were asked to sign a consent form allowing the film to be shown in a court case.
- Rebellion against authority in this context involved challenging two well-established norms in the situation – the norm of obedience and the norm of commitment, both of which pps had engaged in by agreeing to take part in the study.
8
Q
GAMSON FIREMAN AND RYTINA findings
A
- Of the 33 groups tested by Gamson, 32 rebelled in some way during the group discussion
- The pps established a strong group identity in which the members agreed that the demands of the authority were unreasonable
- This could be seen by the way in which they addressed the MHRC coordinator, saying that ‘we don’t want to go on record, even pretending that we agree with what we’re saying. We don’t. All three of us feel the same way’.
- In 25/33 groups, the majority of group members refused to sign the consent form allowing the film to be used in court. Nine groups even threatened legal action against MHRC.
- Gamson’s study clearly shows the notion of social support and the power of it when resisting obedience to authority
9
Q
Evaluation of social support (x3)
A
strengths
Research support
Apply to real life
weaknesses
Small groups
10
Q
Research support
A
- There is research to support the idea that social support can reduce social influence
- for example, in Asch’s study in terms of the one dissenter reducing conformity to 5.5%.
- Similarly in Milgram’s study when the real participant was joined by a disobedient confederate who refused to give the shocks, obedience rates went down to 10% - both these studies show the power of social support in reducing social influence.
11
Q
Apply to real life
A
- Another strength of social support studies is that they can be applied to real life
- for example, Gamson’s study had high ecological validity as the pps were unaware that they were participating in a psychological study so would not show demand characteristics.
- For example, the task given to the participants was very real to life – e.g. having a discussion about standards of behaviour in the community.
12
Q
Small groups
A
- The Social Support explanation is strong for explaining with you have a group size of under 10 people then one dissenter can influence non conformity or disobedience.
- However, in the real world, group sizes are massive (e.g. 100s) and having one dissenter in a big group will not have any influence on the majority.
- Thus studies explaining social support are restricted to small group sizes and may not represent the group sizes in the real world.
- Thus more research would be required to establish the effects of social support on resistance to social influence
