Explanations of resistance to Social Influence 16 marks
One explanation of resistance to social influence is social support. This suggests that when
an individual has social support from another person they feel confident enough to resist
the social influence. This can be seen in conformity to Asch study, when a confederate
provided another wrong answer conformity dropped to 9% compared to the original 36%.
When a dissenter provided the correct answer conformity dropped even further to 5.5%.
This is because the dissenter provided social support leading to the participant feeling more
confident in their ability to go against the majority. This can also be seen in a variation by
Milgram in which to rebel ‘teachers’ refused to continue to the highest shock level leading
to a reduction from 65% to 10% going to 450v. Another explanation of resistance to social
influence is locus of control suggested by Rotter. This suggests that an individual with an
internal locus of control is more able to resist social influence due to their beliefs that they
are in control of their own life and actions, whereas someone with an external locus of
control is more likely to obey social influence due to the belief that their life is controlled by
external forces such as luck and fate. This leads to people with an internal locus of control
taking more responsibility for their actions.
One strength of the locus of control explanation for resistance to social influence is that
there is research to support it. For example, Shute found that people with an internal locus
of control were much less likely to conform to pro-drug attitudes and Atgis conducted a
meta-analysis and found that people with an external locus of control are much more easily
persuaded. This shows that locus of control suggested by rotter does influence how likely an
individual is to conform or obey, strengthening this explanation.
One limitation of the social support explanation of resistance to social influence is that it
lacks explanatory power. This is because it doesn’t explain why some people resisted social
influence before they had social support and it also can’t explain why not all people resist
social influence when social support is provided. This could suggest that there may be
further dispositional explanations that have not been explored and demonstrated that social
support is an incomplete explanation.
Additionally, research into the impact of social support lacks mundane realism, a limitation
of the explanation. This is because experiments such as Asch and Milgram use artificial tasks
that are not representative of everyday life, therefore it cannot be known if the influence of
social support would be the same in a real-world scenario. As a result, research into social
support lacks ecological validity.
Although having an internal locus of control may lead to resistance to social influence there
is a problem with causation providing a weakness to the explanation. This is because
although Elms and Milgram found that less obedient participants had an internal locus of
control this could be purely correlational. For example there could be alternative aspects or
personality or the individual leading to this resistance. One alternative could even be
intelligence leading to the individual resisting obedience and also making them more likely
to not believe in external factors such as luck and fate that they may view as illogical. This
shows that the internal locus of control may not be responsible for resistance to social
One explanation of resistance to social influence is social support. This suggests that when
an individual has social support from another person they feel confident enough to resist
the social influence. This can be seen in conformity to Asch study, when a confederate
provided another wrong answer conformity dropped to 9% compared to the original 36%.
When a dissenter provided the correct answer conformity dropped even further to 5.5%.
This is because the dissenter provided social support leading to the participant feeling more
confident in their ability to go against the majority. This can also be seen in a variation by
Milgram in which to rebel ‘teachers’ refused to continue to the highest shock level leading
to a reduction from 65% to 10% going to 450v. Another explanation of resistance to social
influence is locus of control suggested by Rotter. This suggests that an individual with an
internal locus of control is more able to resist social influence due to their beliefs that they
are in control of their own life and actions, whereas someone with an external locus of
control is more likely to obey social influence due to the belief that their life is controlled by
external forces such as luck and fate. This leads to people with an internal locus of control
taking more responsibility for their actions.
One strength of the locus of control explanation for resistance to social influence is that
there is research to support it. For example, Shute found that people with an internal locus
of control were much less likely to conform to pro-drug attitudes and Atgis conducted a
meta-analysis and found that people with an external locus of control are much more easily
persuaded. This shows that locus of control suggested by rotter does influence how likely an
individual is to conform or obey, strengthening this explanation.
One limitation of the social support explanation of resistance to social influence is that it
lacks explanatory power. This is because it doesn’t explain why some people resisted social
influence before they had social support and it also can’t explain why not all people resist
social influence when social support is provided. This could suggest that there may be
further dispositional explanations that have not been explored and demonstrated that social
support is an incomplete explanation.
Additionally, research into the impact of social support lacks mundane realism, a limitation
of the explanation. This is because experiments such as Asch and Milgram use artificial tasks
that are not representative of everyday life, therefore it cannot be known if the influence of
social support would be the same in a real-world scenario. As a result, research into social
support lacks ecological validity.
Although having an internal locus of control may lead to resistance to social influence there
is a problem with causation providing a weakness to the explanation. This is because
although Elms and Milgram found that less obedient participants had an internal locus of
control this could be purely correlational. For example there could be alternative aspects or
personality or the individual leading to this resistance. One alternative could even be
intelligence leading to the individual resisting obedience and also making them more likely
to not believe in external factors such as luck and fate that they may view as illogical. This
shows that the internal locus of control may not be responsible for resistance to social
