Social Influence 16 marker plans
12) Read the item and then answer the question that follows.
Two psychology students were discussing the topic of social influence.
‘I find it fascinating how some people are able to resist social influence’, said Jack.
‘It must be the result of having a confident personality.’
‘I disagree’, replied Sarah. ‘I think resisting social influence depends much more on
the presence of others.’
Discuss two explanations of resistance to social influence. As part of your
discussion, refer to the views expressed by Jack and Sarah in the conversation above
Resistance to social influence refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressures
to conform to the majority or to obey authority and the ability to do this is influenced by both
dispositional and situational factors. There Are two explanations are locus of control (LOC)
and Social Support relating to Jack and Sarah’s conversation.
Jack believes resistance to social influence is based on having a ‘confident personality’
which can be inferred as a dispositional factor that links with the Locus of Control (LOC).
LOC is to what extent a person has a sense of personal control over their own behavior.
LOC is measured on ‘the personality scale’ (Rotter, 1966). Which ranges from high internal
to high external LOC, however generally people aren’t completely internal/external, most of
us are placed on this continuum scale. If a person has an internal LOC they feel personal
control and responsibility for their behaviour and fate, they’re less concerned with social
approval. And are therefore tend to be less conforming and less obedient, and more likely to
resist social influence to conform/obey as they feel more confident, achievement-oriented,
and responsible for their actions. Whereas individuals with external LOC will more commonly
submit to social influence.
Holland's (1967) research supports the link between LOC and resistance to obedience. He
replicated Milgrim's obedience research and measured whether the participants were
internals or externals. He found 37% of internals didn’t continue to the highest shock level
(e.g. showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals didn’t continue. So internals
showed greater resistance to authority, which increases the validity of the LOC explanation
in increasing a person's chances of resisting social influence.
These results suggest Jack is partly correct as an individual with a ‘confident personality’ (an
internal LOC) is more likely to resist the presence of social influence. However, he is also
wrong, as the results show that not everyone with a ‘confident personality’ did show
resistance so it wouldn’t be valid to generalize that everyone with an internal LOC is more
resistant to social influence as 63% are not.
On the other hand, Sarah provides a situational explanation for the resistance to social
influence as the ‘presence of others’ links to Social Support (SS). SS is being in the
presence of people who are deviant and resist the pressures to obey or conform. These
pressures can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming because
it builds confidence and allows individuals to remain independent and avoid normative social
influence. Social support can be in the form of disobedient role models (obedience), as it
challenges the legitimacy of an authority figure. Or having an ally (conformity) which breaks
12) Read the item and then answer the question that follows.
Two psychology students were discussing the topic of social influence.
‘I find it fascinating how some people are able to resist social influence’, said Jack.
‘It must be the result of having a confident personality.’
‘I disagree’, replied Sarah. ‘I think resisting social influence depends much more on
the presence of others.’
Discuss two explanations of resistance to social influence. As part of your
discussion, refer to the views expressed by Jack and Sarah in the conversation above
Resistance to social influence refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressures
to conform to the majority or to obey authority and the ability to do this is influenced by both
dispositional and situational factors. There Are two explanations are locus of control (LOC)
and Social Support relating to Jack and Sarah’s conversation.
Jack believes resistance to social influence is based on having a ‘confident personality’
which can be inferred as a dispositional factor that links with the Locus of Control (LOC).
LOC is to what extent a person has a sense of personal control over their own behavior.
LOC is measured on ‘the personality scale’ (Rotter, 1966). Which ranges from high internal
to high external LOC, however generally people aren’t completely internal/external, most of
us are placed on this continuum scale. If a person has an internal LOC they feel personal
control and responsibility for their behaviour and fate, they’re less concerned with social
approval. And are therefore tend to be less conforming and less obedient, and more likely to
resist social influence to conform/obey as they feel more confident, achievement-oriented,
and responsible for their actions. Whereas individuals with external LOC will more commonly
submit to social influence.
Holland's (1967) research supports the link between LOC and resistance to obedience. He
replicated Milgrim's obedience research and measured whether the participants were
internals or externals. He found 37% of internals didn’t continue to the highest shock level
(e.g. showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals didn’t continue. So internals
showed greater resistance to authority, which increases the validity of the LOC explanation
in increasing a person's chances of resisting social influence.
These results suggest Jack is partly correct as an individual with a ‘confident personality’ (an
internal LOC) is more likely to resist the presence of social influence. However, he is also
wrong, as the results show that not everyone with a ‘confident personality’ did show
resistance so it wouldn’t be valid to generalize that everyone with an internal LOC is more
resistant to social influence as 63% are not.
On the other hand, Sarah provides a situational explanation for the resistance to social
influence as the ‘presence of others’ links to Social Support (SS). SS is being in the
presence of people who are deviant and resist the pressures to obey or conform. These
pressures can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming because
it builds confidence and allows individuals to remain independent and avoid normative social
influence. Social support can be in the form of disobedient role models (obedience), as it
challenges the legitimacy of an authority figure. Or having an ally (conformity) which breaks
