SOCIAL INFLUENCE - Locus Of Control Flashcards
[Locus of control AO1
- Locus of control was proposed by Julian Rotter
- Locus of control refers to a person’s perception of the degree of control they have over their actions.
- High external locus of control – Future and actions result of factors OUTSIDE of their control, such as luck and fate
- High internal locus of control – stronger sense of control over their lives than those with an external locus of control and are active seekers of information and rely less on the opinions on others so are MORE LIKELY TO RESIST PRESSURE FROM OTHERS – therefore are likely to show more resistance to social influence
- If a person is more likely to take responsibility for their own actions then they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs and feel less of a need to conform or obey
- People with high internal LOCs generally are more self-confident, achievement-oriented and have less need for social approval
- Examples (exam failure)
What is locus of control explaining in reference to social influence?
Resistance to social influence
Who was locus of control proposed by?
Julian Rotter
Locus of control definition
• Locus of control refers to a person’s perception of the degree of control they have over their actions
What does it mean to have a high external locus of control?
An individual believes that their future and actions are a result of factors outside of their control, such as luck or fate
What does it mean to have a high internal locus of control?
An individual has a stronger sense of control over their lives than those with an external locus of control and are active seekers of information and rely less on the opinions on others so are MORE LIKELY TO RESIST PRESSURE FROM OTHERS – therefore are likely to show more resistance to social influence
What are the general attributes of an individual with a high internal locus of control?
• People with high internal LOCs generally are more self-confident, achievement-oriented and have less need for social approval
Why are individuals with a high internal locus of control more able to resist social influence?
• People with high internal LOCs generally are more self-confident, achievement-oriented and have less need for social approval
Locus of control AO3
• Supporting evidence (+) – Oliner and Oliner (1988) interviewed 2 groups of non-Jewish people who lived through the Holocaust and Nazi Germany. 406 people who protected and rescued Jews and 126 people who did not were compared; those that rescued Jews were found to have an internal locus of control so this means that those with an internal LOC are likely to act rather than leave the situation to fate.
• Supporting evidence (+) – Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether participants were internal or external. 37% of those with an internal locus of control did not continue to the highest shock level (showed resistance). However 27% of external locus’s also did not continue. The difference in percentage increases the validity of the LOC explanation.
• Conflicting research (-) – Twenge (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of American obedience studies between 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over time, people have become more resistant to obedience but also show a more external locus of control. This challenges the link between LOC and resistance to social influence.
• Lack of temporal validity (-) – Julian Rotter’s LOC questionnaire was made when society had very different viewpoints than it has now; the questionnaire was made only 22 years after a World War therefore raising the question if the questionnaire is relevant in today’s society.
What are the strengths of locus of control as an explanation for the resistance to social influence?
• Supporting evidence (+) – Oliner and Oliner (1988) interviewed 2 groups of non-Jewish people who lived through the Holocaust and Nazi Germany. 406 people who protected and rescued Jews and 126 people who did not were compared; those that rescued Jews were found to have an internal locus of control so this means that those with an internal LOC are likely to act rather than leave the situation to fate.
• Supporting evidence (+) – Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether participants were internal or external. 37% of those with an internal locus of control did not continue to the highest shock level (showed resistance). However 27% of external locus’s also did not continue. The difference in percentage increases the validity of the LOC explanation.
What are the weaknesses of locus of control as an explanation for resistance to social influence?
• Conflicting research (-) – Twenge (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of American obedience studies between 1960 to 2002 and the data showed that over time, people have become more resistant to obedience but also show a more external locus of control. This challenges the link between LOC and resistance to social influence.
• Lack of temporal validity (-) – Julian Rotter’s LOC questionnaire was made when society had very different viewpoints than it has now; the questionnaire was made only 22 years after a World War therefore raising the question if the questionnaire is relevant in today’s society.
