Outline and evaluate one or more explanations for resistance to social influence (16 marks)
One explanation of resistance to social influence is locus of control, proposed by Rotter. A locus of control is
what we believe the events in our life may be caused by. There is a spectrum of LOC ranging from high internal
to high external. Someone who possesses an internal LOC believes that the events in their life are down to
their own actions and choices, whereas someone with an external LOC believes that the events in their lives
are down to ‘fate’ or ‘destiny’. People who possess an internal locus of control tend to be more outgoing and
confident than those with an external locus of control. Therefore, a person with a high internal LOC is most
likely to resist conformity and obedience as those who are internal have more confidence in their own beliefs
and choices compared to those with an external locus of control.
A strength of Rotter’s explanation for resistance to social influence is that there is research support. Shute
conducted a study in which liberal and conservative students were asked their opinions on drug taking, after
finding out their Locus of control. Shute found that students who possess an internal locus of control
conformed less with the liberal pro-drugs students than those who possess an external locus of control. This is
a strength as it supports the idea that people with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist social
influence.
A weakness, however, of this explanation for resistance to social influence is that it does not reflect in society
nowadays. Twenge found that over time (in the USA), resistance to social influence has become more
common. However, they also found that people are becoming more external over time. If Rotter’s theory was
correct, then as resistance increased, so would those who have an internal locus of control. This suggests that
having an internal locus of control does not have as large of an effect on resistance than Rotter proposed.
Another explanation for resistance to social influence is social support. A social support is someone who has
the same ideas as you, especially in terms of resisting conformity or obedience under authority. If someone
has a social support who is on the same side as them, they are much less likely to conform, or obey, in
whatever task they are performing. In situations of conformity, a social support allows a person to feel more
confident in their actions, and as though they are less likely to be ridiculed. In situations of obedience, a social
support allows the person to feel as though they will not be as harshly ‘punished’ when disobeying their
superior.
A strength of this explanation of resistance to social influence is that it has research support. Asch conducted a
variation of his original line study in which there was a dissenter, who went against the majority and acted as a
social support for the participant. As expected, when a social support was introduced, conformity levels in
Asch's study dropped from 32% to 5%. This is a strength as it provides empirical evidence to support the idea
that having a social support in conformity situations increases the levels of resistance to social influence.
One explanation of resistance to social influence is locus of control, proposed by Rotter. A locus of control is
what we believe the events in our life may be caused by. There is a spectrum of LOC ranging from high internal
to high external. Someone who possesses an internal LOC believes that the events in their life are down to
their own actions and choices, whereas someone with an external LOC believes that the events in their lives
are down to ‘fate’ or ‘destiny’. People who possess an internal locus of control tend to be more outgoing and
confident than those with an external locus of control. Therefore, a person with a high internal LOC is most
likely to resist conformity and obedience as those who are internal have more confidence in their own beliefs
and choices compared to those with an external locus of control.
A strength of Rotter’s explanation for resistance to social influence is that there is research support. Shute
conducted a study in which liberal and conservative students were asked their opinions on drug taking, after
finding out their Locus of control. Shute found that students who possess an internal locus of control
conformed less with the liberal pro-drugs students than those who possess an external locus of control. This is
a strength as it supports the idea that people with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist social
influence.
A weakness, however, of this explanation for resistance to social influence is that it does not reflect in society
nowadays. Twenge found that over time (in the USA), resistance to social influence has become more
common. However, they also found that people are becoming more external over time. If Rotter’s theory was
correct, then as resistance increased, so would those who have an internal locus of control. This suggests that
having an internal locus of control does not have as large of an effect on resistance than Rotter proposed.
Another explanation for resistance to social influence is social support. A social support is someone who has
the same ideas as you, especially in terms of resisting conformity or obedience under authority. If someone
has a social support who is on the same side as them, they are much less likely to conform, or obey, in
whatever task they are performing. In situations of conformity, a social support allows a person to feel more
confident in their actions, and as though they are less likely to be ridiculed. In situations of obedience, a social
support allows the person to feel as though they will not be as harshly ‘punished’ when disobeying their
superior.
A strength of this explanation of resistance to social influence is that it has research support. Asch conducted a
variation of his original line study in which there was a dissenter, who went against the majority and acted as a
social support for the participant. As expected, when a social support was introduced, conformity levels in
Asch's study dropped from 32% to 5%. This is a strength as it provides empirical evidence to support the idea
that having a social support in conformity situations increases the levels of resistance to social influence.
