“Discuss two explanations of resistance to social influence. Refer to evidence in your
answer”
One explanation for resistance to social influence is social support. It is found that the presence of
people who resist pressures to conform helps others do the same.
Evidence of conformity being reduced by a dissenting peer is seen in Asch study where he found
conformity reduced to 5.5% when one of the confederates gave a different answer to the rest of the
group, even when that answer was clearly wrong. This shows that social support breaks the
unanimous position of the majority giving people the confidence to disagree. This can be supported
by other research such as Allen and Levine (1971). In an Asch type study, they found that
independence increased with one dissenter even if it was clear they had problems with their vision.
This reinforces the idea that social support enables someone to be free from the pressures of the
group making it easier to demonstrate independent behaviour.
A dissenting partner is also seen to reduce obedience, freeing the participant to act from their own
conscience. Milgram found that obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the participant was
joined by a disobedient confederate. Therefore, people are more likely to disobey If they can find an
ally to join them. This has research support such as Gavinson et Al (1982) in which he told his
participants to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign.
He found higher levels of resistance than Milgram did, likely due to the participants being in groups
so could discuss what to do. This maintains the idea that peer support reduces obedience.
Another explanation of resistance to social influence is locus of control. Proposed by Rotter (1966), it
is the sense we have about what directs events in our lives. People place on the scale, with people
with internal locusts of control (the belief that you are in control of what happens in your life) on
one end and people with external locusts of control (the belief that things are out of your control
and down to external factors) on the other.
People with high internal locusts of control have a better ability to resist pressures to conform. If a
person takes personal responsibility for their actions they base their decisions on their own beliefs
rather than the opinions of others. They also have higher levels of intelligence and confidence than
those with external locusts of control, further leading to greater resistance to social influence.
There is research that supports the idea that people with internal locusts of control are less likely to
conform. Spector (1983) found that from 157 students individuals with a high internal LOC were less
likely to conform than those with high external LOC, proving that LOC does make a difference. There
is also research that shows that people with internal LOCs are also less likely to obey. Holland (1967)
repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. 37% of
internals showed independence compared to only 23% of externals. This increases the validity of the
locus of control explanation.
answer”
One explanation for resistance to social influence is social support. It is found that the presence of
people who resist pressures to conform helps others do the same.
Evidence of conformity being reduced by a dissenting peer is seen in Asch study where he found
conformity reduced to 5.5% when one of the confederates gave a different answer to the rest of the
group, even when that answer was clearly wrong. This shows that social support breaks the
unanimous position of the majority giving people the confidence to disagree. This can be supported
by other research such as Allen and Levine (1971). In an Asch type study, they found that
independence increased with one dissenter even if it was clear they had problems with their vision.
This reinforces the idea that social support enables someone to be free from the pressures of the
group making it easier to demonstrate independent behaviour.
A dissenting partner is also seen to reduce obedience, freeing the participant to act from their own
conscience. Milgram found that obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the participant was
joined by a disobedient confederate. Therefore, people are more likely to disobey If they can find an
ally to join them. This has research support such as Gavinson et Al (1982) in which he told his
participants to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign.
He found higher levels of resistance than Milgram did, likely due to the participants being in groups
so could discuss what to do. This maintains the idea that peer support reduces obedience.
Another explanation of resistance to social influence is locus of control. Proposed by Rotter (1966), it
is the sense we have about what directs events in our lives. People place on the scale, with people
with internal locusts of control (the belief that you are in control of what happens in your life) on
one end and people with external locusts of control (the belief that things are out of your control
and down to external factors) on the other.
People with high internal locusts of control have a better ability to resist pressures to conform. If a
person takes personal responsibility for their actions they base their decisions on their own beliefs
rather than the opinions of others. They also have higher levels of intelligence and confidence than
those with external locusts of control, further leading to greater resistance to social influence.
There is research that supports the idea that people with internal locusts of control are less likely to
conform. Spector (1983) found that from 157 students individuals with a high internal LOC were less
likely to conform than those with high external LOC, proving that LOC does make a difference. There
is also research that shows that people with internal LOCs are also less likely to obey. Holland (1967)
repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. 37% of
internals showed independence compared to only 23% of externals. This increases the validity of the
locus of control explanation.
