“Discuss two explanations of resistance to social influence. Refer to
evidence in your answer”
One explanation for resistance to social influence is social support. It is found
that the presence of people who resist pressures to conform helps others do
the same.
Evidence of conformity being reduced by a dissenting peer is seen in Asch
study where he found conformity reduced to 5.5% when one of the
confederates gave a different answer to the rest of the group, even when that
answer was clearly wrong. This shows that social support breaks the
unanimous position of the majority giving people the confidence to disagree.
This can be supported by other research such as Allen and Levine (1971). In an
Asch type study, they found that independence increased with one dissenter
even if it was clear they had problems with their vision. This reinforces the idea
that social support enables someone to be free from the pressures of the
group making it easier to demonstrate independent behaviour.
A dissenting partner is also seen to reduce obedience, freeing the participant
to act from their own conscience. Milgram found that obedience dropped from
65% to 10% when the participant was joined by a disobedient confederate.
Therefore, people are more likely to disobey If they can find an ally to join
them. This has research support such as Gavinson et Al (1982) in which he told
his participants to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil
company run a smear campaign. He found higher levels of resistance than
Milgram did, likely due to the participants being in groups so could discuss
what to do. This maintains the idea that peer support reduces obedience.
Another explanation of resistance to social influence is locus of control.
Proposed by Rotter (1966), it is the sense we have about what directs events in
our lives. People place on the scale, with people with internal locusts of control
(the belief that you are in control of what happens in your life) on one end and
people with external locusts of control (the belief that things are out of your
control and down to external factors) on the other.
People with high internal locusts of control have a better ability to resist
pressures to conform. If a person takes personal responsibility for their actions
they base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than the opinions of
others. They also have higher levels of intelligence and confidence than those
evidence in your answer”
One explanation for resistance to social influence is social support. It is found
that the presence of people who resist pressures to conform helps others do
the same.
Evidence of conformity being reduced by a dissenting peer is seen in Asch
study where he found conformity reduced to 5.5% when one of the
confederates gave a different answer to the rest of the group, even when that
answer was clearly wrong. This shows that social support breaks the
unanimous position of the majority giving people the confidence to disagree.
This can be supported by other research such as Allen and Levine (1971). In an
Asch type study, they found that independence increased with one dissenter
even if it was clear they had problems with their vision. This reinforces the idea
that social support enables someone to be free from the pressures of the
group making it easier to demonstrate independent behaviour.
A dissenting partner is also seen to reduce obedience, freeing the participant
to act from their own conscience. Milgram found that obedience dropped from
65% to 10% when the participant was joined by a disobedient confederate.
Therefore, people are more likely to disobey If they can find an ally to join
them. This has research support such as Gavinson et Al (1982) in which he told
his participants to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil
company run a smear campaign. He found higher levels of resistance than
Milgram did, likely due to the participants being in groups so could discuss
what to do. This maintains the idea that peer support reduces obedience.
Another explanation of resistance to social influence is locus of control.
Proposed by Rotter (1966), it is the sense we have about what directs events in
our lives. People place on the scale, with people with internal locusts of control
(the belief that you are in control of what happens in your life) on one end and
people with external locusts of control (the belief that things are out of your
control and down to external factors) on the other.
People with high internal locusts of control have a better ability to resist
pressures to conform. If a person takes personal responsibility for their actions
they base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than the opinions of
others. They also have higher levels of intelligence and confidence than those
