Discuss explanations for resistance to social influence (16 marks)
One explanation for resistance to social influence refers to social support (SS) as being
influential in providing others with the confidence to resist social pressures. In having a
dissenter or a disobedient peer, this person can act as a role model for others and makes
them less susceptible to social influence.
Locus of control (LOC) provides an alternative explanation and refers to a person’s
perception of personal control over their own behaviours and lives. LOC can be placed on a
continuum, with high internal on one end and high external on the other. Those who have
high internality perceive themselves to have more control and self-efficacy, and are therefore
more likely to resist social influence and thus, less likely to be influenced by others as they
are active seekers of information and will only engage with behaviours that align with their
personal beliefs and views. Externals on the other hand are more likely to be influenced by
others as they believe their lives are dictated by fate, luck and other external factors.
One limitation of LOC is that not all research supports the link between LOC and resistance.
Twenge et al analysed data from American LOC studies over a 40-year period from 1960-
2002. Data showed that people have become more resistant to obedience but also more
external. This challenges the theory of LOC as if people were becoming more resistant to
influence, they should also have an internal LOC as opposed to external. This challenges the
link between internal LOC and increasing resistant behaviour.
A further strength of LOC explanation, is that it is supported by Spector’s research. He
investigated 157 undergraduate students and he found a correlation between LOC and a
predisposition to normative social influence, with externals more likely to conform, this effect
however, was not observed with informational social influence. On one hand, this supports
the idea that those with high internality can resist social influence. However, there is limited
explanatory power as LOC is related to normative but not informational social influence. This
therefore weakens LOC as an explanation as it does not explain the link between LOC and
informational social influence and therefore further research is needed.
A strength of social support is that there is real world application. An example of this is the
1943 Rosenstrasse protest where German women protested to free 2000 Jewish men who
were deemed the husbands and sons. Despite vigorous threat by the German police, the
women banded together and set the men free. Milgram found that the presence of
disobedient peers gave the pp’s confidence , in the same way that the women defied
authority of the police, given by the courage of their peers.
Q1. Outline and explain the findings of Milgram’s investigation into the effect of location on
obedience.
Milgram measured obedience using the electric shock. In one of his variation studies he changed the
location of the obedience study from the prestigious university setting [Yale University] to a run-down
building. The status of the location changed the participant’s perception of the legitimacy of the
authority of the investigator. Therefore, the experimenter had less authority. Therefore, obedience fell
to 47.5% compared to the baseline study where the obedience rate was 65%. This shows that there
was a higher authority at Yale than in the run-down office which led to higher obedience levels than in
, a run down building.
(Total 4 marks)
Q3. Outline and evaluate locus of control as an explanation for resistance to social influence.
Locus of control [LOC] is an explanation to resistance to social influence. LOC is how much a
person believes that they have control over their own behaviour. LOC can be placed on a
continuum with high internal on one end and high external on the other. One type of LOC is
internal LOC which is when individuals feel that they have greater control over behaviour and
take responsibility for their actions. They are more likely to resist social pressures as they base
their decisions on their own beliefs. Another type of LOC is external LOC where individuals
believe that their behaviour is controlled by external forces such as fate or luck and thus they’re
less likely to resist social pressures.
One strength of the LOC explanation is that there’s research evidence that supports the link between
LOC and resistance to obedience. For example, Holland repeated Milgram’s baseline study and
measured whether participants were internals or externals. He found that a higher number of internals
[37%] didn’t continue to the highest shock level [i.e. they showed some resistance] than externals
[23%]. This therefore reinforces the idea that internals have greater resistance to social influence.
This is a strength as research of this nature increases the validity of the LOC explanation and our
confidence that it can explain resistance. However, there’s contradictory research which weakens the
argument that there’s a link between LOC and resistance. For example, Twenge et al analysed data
from American LOC studies over a 40 year period. The data showed that over this time span people
have become more resistant to obedience but also more external. If resistance were linked to internal
LOC we would expect people to have become more internal. This is thus a limitation as it challenges
the link between internal LOC and increasing resistant behaviour. However, it’s possible that the
results are due to a changing society where many things are out of personal control.
(Total 8 marks)
Q10. A senior army instructor is advising new instructors how to ensure discipline in training
classes. He says, ‘Always wear your instructor jacket [power of uniform] and stand up close
[proximity to legitimate authority figure] when giving instructions. Make them all understand who has
responsibility for the exercise. Serious problems should always be dealt with in the instructors’ office
[location].’
Referring to research into obedience, explain three reasons why the instructor’s advice should be
effective.
One reason why the instructor’s advice should be effective as his advice emphasises the power of
uniform as the jacket conveys legitimate authority which means that people are more likely to obey.
This can be seen in Milgram's experiment where the participants obeyed the experimenter who wore
a lab coat.
Another reason is that the advice includes proximity as the instructor advises the new instructors to
stand up close when giving instructions. Standing up close means that people are more likely to follow
instructions as seen in Milgram’s experiment where the authority figure was more effective when in
the same room.
One explanation for resistance to social influence refers to social support (SS) as being
influential in providing others with the confidence to resist social pressures. In having a
dissenter or a disobedient peer, this person can act as a role model for others and makes
them less susceptible to social influence.
Locus of control (LOC) provides an alternative explanation and refers to a person’s
perception of personal control over their own behaviours and lives. LOC can be placed on a
continuum, with high internal on one end and high external on the other. Those who have
high internality perceive themselves to have more control and self-efficacy, and are therefore
more likely to resist social influence and thus, less likely to be influenced by others as they
are active seekers of information and will only engage with behaviours that align with their
personal beliefs and views. Externals on the other hand are more likely to be influenced by
others as they believe their lives are dictated by fate, luck and other external factors.
One limitation of LOC is that not all research supports the link between LOC and resistance.
Twenge et al analysed data from American LOC studies over a 40-year period from 1960-
2002. Data showed that people have become more resistant to obedience but also more
external. This challenges the theory of LOC as if people were becoming more resistant to
influence, they should also have an internal LOC as opposed to external. This challenges the
link between internal LOC and increasing resistant behaviour.
A further strength of LOC explanation, is that it is supported by Spector’s research. He
investigated 157 undergraduate students and he found a correlation between LOC and a
predisposition to normative social influence, with externals more likely to conform, this effect
however, was not observed with informational social influence. On one hand, this supports
the idea that those with high internality can resist social influence. However, there is limited
explanatory power as LOC is related to normative but not informational social influence. This
therefore weakens LOC as an explanation as it does not explain the link between LOC and
informational social influence and therefore further research is needed.
A strength of social support is that there is real world application. An example of this is the
1943 Rosenstrasse protest where German women protested to free 2000 Jewish men who
were deemed the husbands and sons. Despite vigorous threat by the German police, the
women banded together and set the men free. Milgram found that the presence of
disobedient peers gave the pp’s confidence , in the same way that the women defied
authority of the police, given by the courage of their peers.
Q1. Outline and explain the findings of Milgram’s investigation into the effect of location on
obedience.
Milgram measured obedience using the electric shock. In one of his variation studies he changed the
location of the obedience study from the prestigious university setting [Yale University] to a run-down
building. The status of the location changed the participant’s perception of the legitimacy of the
authority of the investigator. Therefore, the experimenter had less authority. Therefore, obedience fell
to 47.5% compared to the baseline study where the obedience rate was 65%. This shows that there
was a higher authority at Yale than in the run-down office which led to higher obedience levels than in
, a run down building.
(Total 4 marks)
Q3. Outline and evaluate locus of control as an explanation for resistance to social influence.
Locus of control [LOC] is an explanation to resistance to social influence. LOC is how much a
person believes that they have control over their own behaviour. LOC can be placed on a
continuum with high internal on one end and high external on the other. One type of LOC is
internal LOC which is when individuals feel that they have greater control over behaviour and
take responsibility for their actions. They are more likely to resist social pressures as they base
their decisions on their own beliefs. Another type of LOC is external LOC where individuals
believe that their behaviour is controlled by external forces such as fate or luck and thus they’re
less likely to resist social pressures.
One strength of the LOC explanation is that there’s research evidence that supports the link between
LOC and resistance to obedience. For example, Holland repeated Milgram’s baseline study and
measured whether participants were internals or externals. He found that a higher number of internals
[37%] didn’t continue to the highest shock level [i.e. they showed some resistance] than externals
[23%]. This therefore reinforces the idea that internals have greater resistance to social influence.
This is a strength as research of this nature increases the validity of the LOC explanation and our
confidence that it can explain resistance. However, there’s contradictory research which weakens the
argument that there’s a link between LOC and resistance. For example, Twenge et al analysed data
from American LOC studies over a 40 year period. The data showed that over this time span people
have become more resistant to obedience but also more external. If resistance were linked to internal
LOC we would expect people to have become more internal. This is thus a limitation as it challenges
the link between internal LOC and increasing resistant behaviour. However, it’s possible that the
results are due to a changing society where many things are out of personal control.
(Total 8 marks)
Q10. A senior army instructor is advising new instructors how to ensure discipline in training
classes. He says, ‘Always wear your instructor jacket [power of uniform] and stand up close
[proximity to legitimate authority figure] when giving instructions. Make them all understand who has
responsibility for the exercise. Serious problems should always be dealt with in the instructors’ office
[location].’
Referring to research into obedience, explain three reasons why the instructor’s advice should be
effective.
One reason why the instructor’s advice should be effective as his advice emphasises the power of
uniform as the jacket conveys legitimate authority which means that people are more likely to obey.
This can be seen in Milgram's experiment where the participants obeyed the experimenter who wore
a lab coat.
Another reason is that the advice includes proximity as the instructor advises the new instructors to
stand up close when giving instructions. Standing up close means that people are more likely to follow
instructions as seen in Milgram’s experiment where the authority figure was more effective when in
the same room.
