Outline and evaluate the role of social support and locus of control in resisting social influence
Amongst the numerous studies investigating social influence, it is clear that not everyone blindly
obeys to the demands of authority or those around them. However, it begs the question as to why
some people are able to resist social influence more than others. Two suggested explanations are
social support and locus of control.
Asch conducted a study to investigate the effects of social support on conformity. He found that
when social support (i.e. a supportive was present, an individual is more able to resist conforming to
the majority. In one of the variations of his study, when an ally to the participant, who also gave the
correct answer, was present, conformity levels dropped dramatically from 33% to 5.5%. The main
benefit of having social support is that it breaks the unanimity of the majority, emphasising that
there are other possibilities and legitimate ways of thinking or responding. This implies that an ally
provides an independent assessment of reality, making an individual feel more confident in standing
up to the majority.
Allen & Levine (1969) investigated the importance of response order and wanted to see whether the
response order had any effect on conformity levels. In a conformity task, there were 2 conditions
where there were always 5 participants, 1 real participant and 4 confederates, and the real
participant always gave their answer last. There were two conditions. In one condition, the
confederate gave the right answer first. In the other condition, 3 confederates gave the wrong
answer before the fourth gave the right answer. When the confederate gave the right answer first,
the real participant was less likely to conform. This may be because they committed to giving the
correct answer despite what the rest of the confederates said.
Although, social support doesn’t always have to be valid to be effective. This was demonstrated in a
study by Allen & Levine. In a visual conformity task, Allen & Levine had an ally to the real participant
who wore thick rimmed glasses, suggesting a visual impairment, and an ally with seemingly fine
eyesight. Both providing support for the participant led to reduced conformity levels. Furthermore,
this was even more effective when the ally was perceived as having valid social support (i.e. the ally
that had better eyesight in a visual conformity task). Therefore, demonstrating that social support
doesn’t always have to be valid to be effective but having valid social support may have a more
significant effect on conformity.
Milgram tested the effect of social support on obedience. He suggested that if an ally is willing to be
disobedient, then they too will feel confident in going against an authority figure. Disobedient peers
can act as role models, which an individual can use to encourage their own behaviour. Individuals can
use the disobedience of others as a way of taking themselves out of a situation and preventing any
harm to a victim as a result of being obedient. In one of Milgram’s variations, the participant was
part of a team of three that were testing the learner and administering electric shocks. The other
two participants were confederates. Milgram found that when the confederates refused to continue
shocking the learner and withdrew from the study, the participant was also defiant and refused to
continue. This liberating effect meant only 10% continued to the maximum shock level, supporting
the view that social support can lead to reduced obedience levels.
In support of Milgram’s findings, there have been examples of disobedient peers providing social
support. For example, in 1943, in Nazi Germany, a group of German women protested to have their
husbands and sons released. They were imprisoned for being in a mixed race relationship or the child
of one. They stood in protest against the Gestapo (Nazi secret police), who threatened to open fire
on them if they refused to back down. Despite this, they stayed and continued to protest. As a result
Amongst the numerous studies investigating social influence, it is clear that not everyone blindly
obeys to the demands of authority or those around them. However, it begs the question as to why
some people are able to resist social influence more than others. Two suggested explanations are
social support and locus of control.
Asch conducted a study to investigate the effects of social support on conformity. He found that
when social support (i.e. a supportive was present, an individual is more able to resist conforming to
the majority. In one of the variations of his study, when an ally to the participant, who also gave the
correct answer, was present, conformity levels dropped dramatically from 33% to 5.5%. The main
benefit of having social support is that it breaks the unanimity of the majority, emphasising that
there are other possibilities and legitimate ways of thinking or responding. This implies that an ally
provides an independent assessment of reality, making an individual feel more confident in standing
up to the majority.
Allen & Levine (1969) investigated the importance of response order and wanted to see whether the
response order had any effect on conformity levels. In a conformity task, there were 2 conditions
where there were always 5 participants, 1 real participant and 4 confederates, and the real
participant always gave their answer last. There were two conditions. In one condition, the
confederate gave the right answer first. In the other condition, 3 confederates gave the wrong
answer before the fourth gave the right answer. When the confederate gave the right answer first,
the real participant was less likely to conform. This may be because they committed to giving the
correct answer despite what the rest of the confederates said.
Although, social support doesn’t always have to be valid to be effective. This was demonstrated in a
study by Allen & Levine. In a visual conformity task, Allen & Levine had an ally to the real participant
who wore thick rimmed glasses, suggesting a visual impairment, and an ally with seemingly fine
eyesight. Both providing support for the participant led to reduced conformity levels. Furthermore,
this was even more effective when the ally was perceived as having valid social support (i.e. the ally
that had better eyesight in a visual conformity task). Therefore, demonstrating that social support
doesn’t always have to be valid to be effective but having valid social support may have a more
significant effect on conformity.
Milgram tested the effect of social support on obedience. He suggested that if an ally is willing to be
disobedient, then they too will feel confident in going against an authority figure. Disobedient peers
can act as role models, which an individual can use to encourage their own behaviour. Individuals can
use the disobedience of others as a way of taking themselves out of a situation and preventing any
harm to a victim as a result of being obedient. In one of Milgram’s variations, the participant was
part of a team of three that were testing the learner and administering electric shocks. The other
two participants were confederates. Milgram found that when the confederates refused to continue
shocking the learner and withdrew from the study, the participant was also defiant and refused to
continue. This liberating effect meant only 10% continued to the maximum shock level, supporting
the view that social support can lead to reduced obedience levels.
In support of Milgram’s findings, there have been examples of disobedient peers providing social
support. For example, in 1943, in Nazi Germany, a group of German women protested to have their
husbands and sons released. They were imprisoned for being in a mixed race relationship or the child
of one. They stood in protest against the Gestapo (Nazi secret police), who threatened to open fire
on them if they refused to back down. Despite this, they stayed and continued to protest. As a result
