Outline and evaluate two explanations of resistance to social influence.
(16 marks)
Resistance to social influence refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressures
to conform to the majority or to obey authority and ability to do this is influenced by both
situational and dispositional factors. The two explanations are social support and locus of
control (LOC).
Social support refers to the presence of people who resist pressures to obey or conform and
acts as model and can help others to do the same. Pressures to conform can be reduced if
there are other people present who are not conforming. As we saw in Asch research the
person not conforming does not have to give the right answer, but as they are not following
the majority, free other to follow their own conscience, dissenter acts like model. But Asch
study showed this is not long term, because if the non-conforming dissenter starts to
conform with group again so will the ppt, previously given confidence breaks away from
conformity. Whereas obedience can be reduced by one other dissenting partner. In
Milgrams variation, obedience dropped to 10% from 65% when disobedient confederate
was introduced, also act as model for other to copy.
Locus of control, refers to the sense we have about what directs events in our lives. Rotter
proposed the concept of LOC a concept concerned with Internal believe things happen to
them are largely controlled by themselves and are responsible for their own actions and
fate. External believe everything happens outside their control, external factors are always
being responsible for actions. People are not completely internal, external, most of us are
placed on a continuum scale where you can be anywhere between external, internal.
Internal LOC more likely to resist social influence generally more confident, achievement
orientated where external more commonly submit to SI.
A strength of social is research supports the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity.
For example, Allen and Levine (1971) conducted a study similar to Asch’s study with three
conditions: C1 – the participant was given a supporter with extremely poor vision (evident
from the glasses that he wore with thick lenses), C2 – the participant was given a supporter
with normal vision C3 – the participant was not given a supporter. Allen and Levine found
that in conditions one and two there was a significant drop in the level of conformity
compared to condition three where there was no support for the lone participant. Thus, this
is a strength because the research from Allen and Levine supports the idea that social
support (even unreliable dissenters) can decrease the level of conformity and lead to more
independent behaviour.
Another strength is research from Milgram supports the idea that social support leads to
more independent behaviour and resistance of social influence. For example, in one of
Milgram’s variations, the real participant was paired with two additional confederates, who
also played the role of teachers. In this variation, the two additional confederates refused to
go on and withdrew from the experiment early. In this variation, percentage of real
participants who proceeded to the full 450 volts, dropped from 65% (in the original) to 10%.
This shows that if the real participant has support for their desire to disobey, then they are
(16 marks)
Resistance to social influence refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressures
to conform to the majority or to obey authority and ability to do this is influenced by both
situational and dispositional factors. The two explanations are social support and locus of
control (LOC).
Social support refers to the presence of people who resist pressures to obey or conform and
acts as model and can help others to do the same. Pressures to conform can be reduced if
there are other people present who are not conforming. As we saw in Asch research the
person not conforming does not have to give the right answer, but as they are not following
the majority, free other to follow their own conscience, dissenter acts like model. But Asch
study showed this is not long term, because if the non-conforming dissenter starts to
conform with group again so will the ppt, previously given confidence breaks away from
conformity. Whereas obedience can be reduced by one other dissenting partner. In
Milgrams variation, obedience dropped to 10% from 65% when disobedient confederate
was introduced, also act as model for other to copy.
Locus of control, refers to the sense we have about what directs events in our lives. Rotter
proposed the concept of LOC a concept concerned with Internal believe things happen to
them are largely controlled by themselves and are responsible for their own actions and
fate. External believe everything happens outside their control, external factors are always
being responsible for actions. People are not completely internal, external, most of us are
placed on a continuum scale where you can be anywhere between external, internal.
Internal LOC more likely to resist social influence generally more confident, achievement
orientated where external more commonly submit to SI.
A strength of social is research supports the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity.
For example, Allen and Levine (1971) conducted a study similar to Asch’s study with three
conditions: C1 – the participant was given a supporter with extremely poor vision (evident
from the glasses that he wore with thick lenses), C2 – the participant was given a supporter
with normal vision C3 – the participant was not given a supporter. Allen and Levine found
that in conditions one and two there was a significant drop in the level of conformity
compared to condition three where there was no support for the lone participant. Thus, this
is a strength because the research from Allen and Levine supports the idea that social
support (even unreliable dissenters) can decrease the level of conformity and lead to more
independent behaviour.
Another strength is research from Milgram supports the idea that social support leads to
more independent behaviour and resistance of social influence. For example, in one of
Milgram’s variations, the real participant was paired with two additional confederates, who
also played the role of teachers. In this variation, the two additional confederates refused to
go on and withdrew from the experiment early. In this variation, percentage of real
participants who proceeded to the full 450 volts, dropped from 65% (in the original) to 10%.
This shows that if the real participant has support for their desire to disobey, then they are
