“Explain resistance to social influence.”
Resistance to social support refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to
conform to the majority or obey authority. This ability is influenced by both situational and
dispositional influences. Situational influences concern the environmental aspects of a
situation that may influence conformity. For instance, the pressure to conform can be
resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming, such as the presence of a
dissenter. This provides social support that enables a naive participant to be free to follow
their own conscience. This social support is evident, too, in resisting obedience, where if
another person is seen to obey this too reduces obedience rates. In Milgram’s variations, the
presence of a dissenter reduces obedience when the participant was joined by a disobedient
confederate obedience dropped to 10%.
Research support illustrates the real-world positive effects that social support can have in
reducing obedience. An 8-week programme committed to help pregnant adolescents resist
peer pressure to smoke employed a buddy mentor process, and it was found that this social
support significantly reduced the chance of smoking after the programme. Therefore, social
support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real
world and reduce harm.
Further research support that demonstrates the effect that social support can have in
resisting the influence of a group was committed in an Asch style task. When the dissenter
was someone with good eyesight, this reduced conformity by 65%, compared to with no
dissenter present only 3% resisted. Therefore, this research provides evidence that
demonstrates the impactful effects that social support can have on behaviour.
A dispositional explanation of resistance to social support was proposed by Rotter et al,
known as locus of control. This refers to the sense that we have about what directs events
within our lives. Individuals that possess an internal locus of control believe that they are
responsible for what happens to them in their lives, whereas in contrast individuals with an
external locus of control believe that it is mainly a matter of luck and external forces that
determines such events. LOC is a scale, and individuals vary in their position of it. People
who score highly on such a scale with a high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to
conform or obey. They are less concerned with fitting in or being correct, bing their decisions
on their own beliefs rather than depending on the opinions of others. In contrast, those with
an external LOC are likely to be unsure in the control they have over their own lives and thus
may be more susceptible to social pressure and influence.
Research support that illustrates the link between LOC and resistance to obedience was
committed by Holland et al. It was found that 37% of internals did not continue to the
highest shock level and showed resistance, whereas only 23% of internals did not continue.
Therefore, resistance must at least be partially related to LOC, which increases the validity of
the claims made by the explanation.
However, contradictory research disproves this link. Twenge et al analysed data from
American locus of control studies committed over a 40-year period, and it was found that
people become more resistant to obedience but develop a more external locus of control.
This disproves the alleged link between internal LOC + greater resistance, and thus
contradicts the explanation.
Resistance to social support refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to
conform to the majority or obey authority. This ability is influenced by both situational and
dispositional influences. Situational influences concern the environmental aspects of a
situation that may influence conformity. For instance, the pressure to conform can be
resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming, such as the presence of a
dissenter. This provides social support that enables a naive participant to be free to follow
their own conscience. This social support is evident, too, in resisting obedience, where if
another person is seen to obey this too reduces obedience rates. In Milgram’s variations, the
presence of a dissenter reduces obedience when the participant was joined by a disobedient
confederate obedience dropped to 10%.
Research support illustrates the real-world positive effects that social support can have in
reducing obedience. An 8-week programme committed to help pregnant adolescents resist
peer pressure to smoke employed a buddy mentor process, and it was found that this social
support significantly reduced the chance of smoking after the programme. Therefore, social
support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real
world and reduce harm.
Further research support that demonstrates the effect that social support can have in
resisting the influence of a group was committed in an Asch style task. When the dissenter
was someone with good eyesight, this reduced conformity by 65%, compared to with no
dissenter present only 3% resisted. Therefore, this research provides evidence that
demonstrates the impactful effects that social support can have on behaviour.
A dispositional explanation of resistance to social support was proposed by Rotter et al,
known as locus of control. This refers to the sense that we have about what directs events
within our lives. Individuals that possess an internal locus of control believe that they are
responsible for what happens to them in their lives, whereas in contrast individuals with an
external locus of control believe that it is mainly a matter of luck and external forces that
determines such events. LOC is a scale, and individuals vary in their position of it. People
who score highly on such a scale with a high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to
conform or obey. They are less concerned with fitting in or being correct, bing their decisions
on their own beliefs rather than depending on the opinions of others. In contrast, those with
an external LOC are likely to be unsure in the control they have over their own lives and thus
may be more susceptible to social pressure and influence.
Research support that illustrates the link between LOC and resistance to obedience was
committed by Holland et al. It was found that 37% of internals did not continue to the
highest shock level and showed resistance, whereas only 23% of internals did not continue.
Therefore, resistance must at least be partially related to LOC, which increases the validity of
the claims made by the explanation.
However, contradictory research disproves this link. Twenge et al analysed data from
American locus of control studies committed over a 40-year period, and it was found that
people become more resistant to obedience but develop a more external locus of control.
This disproves the alleged link between internal LOC + greater resistance, and thus
contradicts the explanation.
