Social Influence- Resistance To Social Infleunce Flashcards
Meaning of resistance to social influence
Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors.
What are the explanations to resistance to social influence
Social support
Locus of control
Social support
People are more likely to resist social influence if they have an ally- someone else who supports their point of view. Having an ally can help an individual build confidence and remain independent because it breaks the uniformity of the group and suggests that another point of view is possible.
Social support- conformity
Social support can help people to resist conformity. The pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming. Demonstrated in Asch’s (1955) research the person not conforming doesn’t need to be giving the ‘right’ answer but simply the fact that someone else is not following the majority appears to enable a person to be free to follow their own conscience. This other person acts as a model.
Asch’s research also showed that if this non conforming person starts conforming again, then so does the naive ps. Thus the effect of dissent is not long lasting.
Social support- obedience
Social support can help people to resist obedience. The pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person who is seen to disobey. In one of Milgram’s variations, the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine ps was joined by a disobedient confederate. The ps may not follow the disobedient person’s behaviour but the point is that the other person’s disobedience acts as a model for the ps to copy that frees him to act from his own conscience
Social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence strengths (AO3)
-evidence to support it- in one of a Asch’s (1951) variations, one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. In this variation, the rate of conformity dropped to 5%. This demonstrates that if the real ps has support for their belief (social support), then they are more likely to resist the pressure to conform. This is a strength because Asch clearly demonstrates that social support lowers the pressure of the group making it easier to demonstrate independent behaviour further supporting social support as an explanation of resistance.
-research evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity- 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. This is a strength because it demonstrates that, resistance is not motivated by following what someone else says but it enables someone to be free of pressure from the group.
-research evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resistance to obedience- Gamson el al (1982) found higher levels of rebellion (independence) than Milgram did. Gamson’s ps were in groups (they had to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company to run a smear campaign). In Gamson’s study 29 out of 33 groups of ps (88%) rebelled. This is a strength because it shows that peer support is linked to greater resistance.
Locus of control
Refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives. Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them (internal locus of control). Externals believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces (external locus of control)
Internal locus of control
People with an internal locus of control believe that they have control over events in their life and feel that their actions are their own choice and responsibility. They are less concerned with social approval. Individuals with an internal locus of control are, therefore, more likely to be able to resist pressures to conform or obey, as if a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences (good or bad) then they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs and thus resist pressures from others. A person with an internal LOC tends to be more self-confident, more achievement- oriented, have higher intelligence and have less need for social approval.
External locus of control
People with an external locus of control believe that they have no control over their life and outside factors such as luck and fate influence their daily lives and decisions. They are more concerned with social approval, individuals with an external locus of control are therefore less independent and find it harder to resist social influence. People who have an external LOC are less likely to be able to resist pressures to conform or obey, as if a person does not take personal responsibility for their actions and experiences (good or bad) then they are less likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs and thus not resist pressures from others.
Locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence strengths (AO3)
-research support for internal LOC being an explanation to resist conformity- Spector (1983) used Rotter’s locus of control scale to determine whether locus of control is associated with conformity. Spector found that individuals with a high internal locus of control were less likely to conform that those with a high external locus of control , but only in situations of normative social influence, where individuals conform to be accepted. There was no difference between the two groups for informational social influence. This suggests that normative social influence, the desire to fit in, is more powerful than information social influence, the desire to be right, when considering locus of control. This is a strength because these results suggests an individual with a strong personality (internal LOC) is likely to resist social influence, in particular, the pressure to conform, especially in situations of normative social influence, therefore supporting LOC being an explanation for resistance to social influence.
- research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience- 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 23% of externals did not continue. So internals showed greater resistance. This is a strength because the study adds support to the explanation and increases the validity of the LOC explanation adding confidence that LOC can explain resistance.
Locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence limitations (AO3)
-research contradict the explanation- Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American locus of control 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 is a limitation because the research challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance.
-research to suggest that LOC can not explain resistance in all situations. Rotter (1982) found LOC is only important in new situations. It has little influence in familiar situations where previous experiences are always more important. 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 locus of control. This is a limitation because it means that LOC is only helpful in explaining a narrow range of new situations.
