DICUSS TWO EXPLANATIONS FOR RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Social support refers to the people who resist pressures to obey or conform and the
presence of such people who act as models, can help others to do the same. Pressures to
conform can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming. As we
saw in Asch research the person not conforming does not have to give the right answer, but
as they are not following the majority, others follow their own ‘conscience’. Locus of control
refers to the sense we have about what directs events in our lives. People are on a spectrum
with a high internal LOC on one end and a low external LOC on the other. With a high
internal LOC, people are more able to resist the pressures to conform as they take personal
responsibility for their actions. These people are often more confident, and more
achievement orientated. being responsible for actions. With a low external LOC, people
believe everything happens outside their control and that external factors are always
responsible for actions. These people often submit to social influence.
Evidence to support social support comes from Allen and Levine who found if an ally was
given, even if they gave ‘invalid’ support, conformity decreased suggesting that any type of
ally allows an individual to assess reality, but it had more impact on resistance to conformity
when the ally conforms to the same belief. However, this study does not reflect a real life
setting and so lacks ecological validity meaning it’s hard to generalise to the eider
population.
Evidence to support Locus of Control comes from Spector who found that there was a
significant correlation between locus of control and normative social influence which
supports the idea that externals have a greater need for social approval than internals. This
implies internals don’t seek majority acceptance and so are less likely to conform in
situations. However, everyone no matter if they were an internal or an external was found
to be susceptible to informational social influence.
Further evidence to support Locus of control comes from Holland who found that 37% of
‘internals’ refused to obey to the maximum shock level in a Milgram-type study, compared
to 23% of ‘externals’, showing a link between locus of control and resistance to obedience.
However, Twenge found that over time, Americans have become more resistant to
obedience, but they have also become more external in their locus of control. This weakens
the suggestion that having an internal locus of control leads to resistance to social influence.
This suggests that the theory of locus of control is too deterministic.
Social support refers to the people who resist pressures to obey or conform and the
presence of such people who act as models, can help others to do the same. Pressures to
conform can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming. As we
saw in Asch research the person not conforming does not have to give the right answer, but
as they are not following the majority, others follow their own ‘conscience’. Locus of control
refers to the sense we have about what directs events in our lives. People are on a spectrum
with a high internal LOC on one end and a low external LOC on the other. With a high
internal LOC, people are more able to resist the pressures to conform as they take personal
responsibility for their actions. These people are often more confident, and more
achievement orientated. being responsible for actions. With a low external LOC, people
believe everything happens outside their control and that external factors are always
responsible for actions. These people often submit to social influence.
Evidence to support social support comes from Allen and Levine who found if an ally was
given, even if they gave ‘invalid’ support, conformity decreased suggesting that any type of
ally allows an individual to assess reality, but it had more impact on resistance to conformity
when the ally conforms to the same belief. However, this study does not reflect a real life
setting and so lacks ecological validity meaning it’s hard to generalise to the eider
population.
Evidence to support Locus of Control comes from Spector who found that there was a
significant correlation between locus of control and normative social influence which
supports the idea that externals have a greater need for social approval than internals. This
implies internals don’t seek majority acceptance and so are less likely to conform in
situations. However, everyone no matter if they were an internal or an external was found
to be susceptible to informational social influence.
Further evidence to support Locus of control comes from Holland who found that 37% of
‘internals’ refused to obey to the maximum shock level in a Milgram-type study, compared
to 23% of ‘externals’, showing a link between locus of control and resistance to obedience.
However, Twenge found that over time, Americans have become more resistant to
obedience, but they have also become more external in their locus of control. This weakens
the suggestion that having an internal locus of control leads to resistance to social influence.
This suggests that the theory of locus of control is too deterministic.
