Discuss explanations of resistance to social infuencee (16 marks)
Social support suggests that the presence of a dissenter, who goes against the majority group,
can allow others to resist social infuence. The dissenter provides an ally for others to model their
resistant behaviour on, giving the individual confdence to think according to their own principles and
make their own decisions. Resistance to obedience is demonstrated by Milgram, where the presence of
disobedient confederates caused obedience to drop from 65% to 10%.
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which an individual believes that they can control events
in their lives. People with an internal LoC take personal responsibility for their actons, whereas people
with an external LoC believe their life is controlled by other factors such as luck and the environment.
People with an internal LoC have less need for social approval, so are more likely to resist normatve
social infuence (NSI). They are also more confdent in their abilites, so are more likely to resist
informatve social infuence (ISI).
Social support is strengthened by Asch’s research. He found that when a dissenter was present,
conformity dropped from 37% to 6%. This is further supported by Allen and Levine, who found that
conformity decreased when a dissenter with poor vision – who clearly could not judge the length of lines
– was present. This strengthens the view that social support enables a person to act independently and
resist social pressure from a majority group.
There is also research support for LoC. Holland studied Milgram’s partcipants and found that
37% of internal LoC partcipants did not contnue to the highest shock level, compared to 23% of
external LoC partcipants. However, Roter claims that LoC is only relevant in novel situatons, suggestng
that Holland’s fndings are due to the artfcial nature of the task, and therefore lack ecological validity.
In additon, Spector found a correlaton between LoC and NSI, but not LoC and ISI. The usefulness of the
LoC explanaton is limited, as research suggests it only applies to a small number of situatons, and
therefore lacks generalisability and explanatory power.
Contradictory research further weakens the validity of the LoC explanaton. Twenge conducted a
meta-analysis of LoC studies in America over a 40 year period, and found that resistance to obedience is
increasing, yet people are becoming increasing ‘external’ on the LoC contnuum. This challenges the idea
that an internal LoC leads to more resistance to social infuence. However, this critcism may not
undermine the explanaton, as these fndings may be explained by our changing society in which many
everyday events are outside of our personal control.
Word count: 162 + 263
Social support suggests that the presence of a dissenter, who goes against the majority group,
can allow others to resist social infuence. The dissenter provides an ally for others to model their
resistant behaviour on, giving the individual confdence to think according to their own principles and
make their own decisions. Resistance to obedience is demonstrated by Milgram, where the presence of
disobedient confederates caused obedience to drop from 65% to 10%.
Locus of control (LoC) is the extent to which an individual believes that they can control events
in their lives. People with an internal LoC take personal responsibility for their actons, whereas people
with an external LoC believe their life is controlled by other factors such as luck and the environment.
People with an internal LoC have less need for social approval, so are more likely to resist normatve
social infuence (NSI). They are also more confdent in their abilites, so are more likely to resist
informatve social infuence (ISI).
Social support is strengthened by Asch’s research. He found that when a dissenter was present,
conformity dropped from 37% to 6%. This is further supported by Allen and Levine, who found that
conformity decreased when a dissenter with poor vision – who clearly could not judge the length of lines
– was present. This strengthens the view that social support enables a person to act independently and
resist social pressure from a majority group.
There is also research support for LoC. Holland studied Milgram’s partcipants and found that
37% of internal LoC partcipants did not contnue to the highest shock level, compared to 23% of
external LoC partcipants. However, Roter claims that LoC is only relevant in novel situatons, suggestng
that Holland’s fndings are due to the artfcial nature of the task, and therefore lack ecological validity.
In additon, Spector found a correlaton between LoC and NSI, but not LoC and ISI. The usefulness of the
LoC explanaton is limited, as research suggests it only applies to a small number of situatons, and
therefore lacks generalisability and explanatory power.
Contradictory research further weakens the validity of the LoC explanaton. Twenge conducted a
meta-analysis of LoC studies in America over a 40 year period, and found that resistance to obedience is
increasing, yet people are becoming increasing ‘external’ on the LoC contnuum. This challenges the idea
that an internal LoC leads to more resistance to social infuence. However, this critcism may not
undermine the explanaton, as these fndings may be explained by our changing society in which many
everyday events are outside of our personal control.
Word count: 162 + 263
