Social Influence - Resistance to Social Influence

Question 1

What is the locus of control?

Answer 1

• People with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist social influence. This is because:
• They take personal responsibility for their actions and experiences, so they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs and thus resist pressures from others.
• They tend to be more self-confident, achievement-oriented and have higher intelligence and have less need for social approval. Again, this means that they will trust their own beliefs and decisions and thus resist pressures from others.
• They are achievement-oriented and so are more likely to become leaders than followers.
• Internal locus of control is when someone believes they control their own fate, and external locus of control is a belief that what will happen will happen - internals give themselves control, externals give others control

Question 2

What is social support?

Answer 2

• In terms of conformity, social support breaks the unanimity of the majority. This raises the possibility that there are other, equally legitimate ways of thinking or responding. The ally acts as a model, and makes the individual feel more confident to follow their own conscience and make their own decision. Therefore, the model frees the person to give their own answer.
• In terms of obedience, a dissenter reduces the unanimity of the group. This makes it easier for others to act independently as they free the individual to act from their own conscience. They may not necessarily copy the dissenter’s behaviour. However, they do demonstrate that disobedience is possible as well as how to do it.

Question 3

Evaluation of resistance to social influence - locus of control strengths

Answer 3

1. One researcher 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 (showed some resistance) whereas only 23% of externals did e.g. internals showed greater resistance to authority
   - This suggests that locus of control is an important factor in resisting social influence, and the conclusions have external validity

Question 4

Evaluation of resistance to social influence - Locus of control weaknesses

Answer 4

1. Some researchers analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40 year period, finding that over time, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external
   - This suggests that there are extraneous variables that may make the locus of control a less important factor in resistance, and emphasises life experience and a changing society have had more effect, even if it still has some influence on resisting influence
2. Some researchers have suggested that the role of LOC in resisting social influence is exaggerated, arguing it only comes into play in new situations. It has little influence over behaviour in familiar situations where previous experience is always more important. This means that people who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, even with a high level of internal locus of control
   - This suggests it may lack generalisability, and that it may be scenario dependent

Question 5

Evaluation of resistance to social influence - Social support strengths

Answer 5

1. Some researchers have found higher levels of resistance in their obedience studies than Milgram - it is thought that this is because the participants were in groups (had to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign) - in the study, 88% rebelled
   - This is a strength as it has external validity as social support allows resistance to obedience and has ecological validity
2. Some researchers found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an Asch-type study - more importantly, this even occurred even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had difficulty with his vision, and so was no longer in the position to judge the line lengths accurately
   - Increases internal validity - even the breaking of unanimity just a small amount causes a lack of conformity as someone else has modelled an alternate response

Question 6

Evaluation of resistance to social control - social support strengths cont.

Answer 6

3. Some researchers have studied whether the response position of the person providing social support made any difference to a participant resisting the majority. In one condition, a confederate answered first (giving the right answer), while other confederates all gave the same wrong answer. The real participant always answered fifth (last). In the second condition, the confederate answered fourth (after the other confederates). Support was significantly more effective in the first condition than the second condition. They concluded that a first correct answer, in confirming the participant’s own judgement, produces an initial commitment to the correct response that endures even though other group members disagree.
   - This suggests conclusions are reliable, and that early validation of ideas makes social support more influential - group position may have an effect, as those who had their thoughts immediately confirmed gives them the confidence and model to dissent too - the existence of an alternate response immediately provides validation to ideas
   - Counter - There may be other extraneous variables that make it less important, such as situational variables

Question 7

What does resistance to social influence include?

Answer 7

It involves disobedience and non-conformity, with non-conformity occurring in two ways -

1. Independence - involving a lack of consistent movement either towards or away from social expectancy
2. Anti-conformity - involving a consistent movement away from social conformity, for instance adopting the behaviour and norms of a minority group

Question 8

Erika Richardson (2009) - Aims and Procedure

Answer 8

Aim -

• To test the effects of information on newcomers’ willingness to agree to group decisions
• To assess how the status of individuals affects attempts to make them conform to obviously wrong answers

Procedure -

• 84 male and female students were assigned randomly to same-sex groups comprising of three people; two of each group were a confederate, and the other was a naive participant - within each group the members introduced themselves, with the confederates going first
• In each group the confederates described biographical details (level of education, amount of experience etc) as of high or low status - the teams then took some information about two stock companies and decided which one to invest money in, with one clearly superior to the other
• Team members gave their own opinion, with the real participant always answering last - the confederates chose the weaker of the two stock companies

Question 9

Richardson (2009) - Findings and Conclusions

Answer 9

Findings -
- In the teams where the confederates are believed to be a high status, participants conformed to the group decision, with the reverse being true when confederates were believed to be of low status

Conclusions -

• People of perceived lower status conform to the decisions of those group members of perceived higher status, even when they believe those decisions are suspect, in order to gain higher status
• People use competence-based clues about the status of other group members to determine the level of their conformist behaviour
• People of perceived higher status within a group are more able to resist attempts to make them conform
• Therefore, status affects conformity levels; conformity is more likely to be resisted if a person perceives themselves of a higher status in the group

Question 10

Other factors that increase resistance to conformity

Answer 10

Reactance -

• When the freedom of choice is restricted, they may react with reactance, rebellious anger, such as when adolescents rebel against conforming to adult rules
• Hamilton (2005) found that Australian adolescents in a low-reactance condition, who were told it was normal to experiment with drugs as long as they were aware of health risks, were less likely to smoke than those in a high-reactance condition who were told to never smoke, implying that when freedom of choice is threatened, resistance will increase

Ironic deviance -

• If the truthfulness of the source of ISI is doubted, then the chances of individuals conforming to the guidance given will be lessened
• Conway and Schaller (2005) found that office workers conformed and used a software product if other employees recommended it, but were less likely to conform if the colleagues had recommended it after being ordered by the office manager to use that particular software, rather than alternatives
• In this instance, they attributed fellow office workers’ behaviour as being determined by the boss’ orders - this supports the idea that if individuals believe a source of ISI is not genuine, conformity to it will be resisted

Question 11

Other factors involved in resistance to SI - Systematic Processing

Answer 11

• Individuals are less likely to obey orders that have negative consequences if they have time to consider the consequences of what they have been ordered to do
• Exceptions to this include institutional and military settings, where a rapid response mindset is trained
• Supporting research from Martin et al (2007) identified that when an unreasonable order was given time to be considered, people were less likely to obey, showing its importance to resisting SI

Question 12

Other factors involved in resistance to SI - Morality

Answer 12

• Research from Milgram (1974) has shown that individuals who make decisions on whether or not to obey an order on moral considerations are far more resistant to social influence
• Milgram found one participant whom did not fully obey did so because of his need to obey a ‘higher authority’ of God, as he was a vicar, and so morality helped him to resist authority

Question 13

Other factors involved in resistance to SI - Personality

Answer 13

• Although support for the idea of certain personality characteristics allowing resistance to SI, the existing research does suggest that individuals who can emphasise with the feelings of others are more able to resist orders with destructive consequences