Outline and evaluate two explanations for resistance to social influence

Explanation 1: social support

- resisting conformity: pressure to conform is reduced if other people are not conforming. Asch's research showed that the dissenter does not have to give the 'right' answer. Simply someone else not following the majority frees others to follow their own conscience. The dissenter acts as a 'model'. The dissenter shows the majority is no longer unanimous

- resisting obedience: pressure to obey can be reduced if another person is seen to disobey. Milgram's research - obedient behaviour greatly decreased in the disobedient peer condition (from 65% to 10%). The ppts may not follow the disobedient peer but the dissenter's disobedience frees the ppts to act from their own conscience. A disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure.

Evidence for the role of support in resisting conformity: social support (AO3)

- there is evidence for the role of support in resisting conformity

- in a programme to help pregnant adolescents to resist pressure to smoke, social support was given by an old 'buddy' (Albrecht, 2006)

- these adolescents were less likely to smoke at the end of the programme than a control group who did not have a buddy

- this shows social support can help young people resist social influence in real-world situations.

Evidence for the role of support for dissenting peers: social support (AO3)

- a strength is evidence for the role of support for dissenting peers

- Gamson et al's (1982) groups asked to give evidence for an oil company to use in a smear campaign

- 29 out of 33 groups (88%) rebelled against orders, much higher than in Milgram's studies

- this shows the explanation is valid

Only 3% of Allen and Levine's (1971) ppts resisted conformity when there was no supporter

- only 3% of Allen and Levine's (1971) ppts resisted conformity when there was no supporter

- 64% resisted when a dissenter refused to conform

- however, only 36% resisted when the supporter clearly had poor eyesight and could not be relied on to judge the lines.

Explanation 2: Locus of control

- Rotter (1966) described internal verses external LOC

- internals believe things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves (eg doing well or badly in an exam depends on how hard you work)

- externals believe things happen outside their control - if they fail an exam they say it was because they had a teacher or had bad luck because the questions were hard

LOC is not just being internal or external

- there is a scale from one to the other and people differ in their position on it

- high internals at one end and high externals at the other, low internals and low externals lie in between.

People with internal LOC are more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey

- if someone takes personal responsibility for their actions (good or bad) they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs

- people with high internal LOC are more confident, more achievement oriented and have higher intelligence - traits that lead to greater resistance (also traits of leaders).

Evidence to support the role of LOC in resisting obedience: Locus of control (AO3)

- there is evidence to support the role of LOC in resisting obedience

- Holland (1967) repeated the Milgram study and measures whether ppts were internals or externals

- 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed greater resistance)

- only 23% of externals did not continue

- therefore resistance partly related to LOC, increasing the validity

Not all research supports the role of LOC in resistance: Locus of control (AO3)

- not all research supports the role of LOC in resistance

- Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American locus of control studies over 40 years (1960 to 2002), showing that people have become more independent but also more external

- this is surprising - if resistance was linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal

- therefore LOC may not be a valid explanation

A lot of studies (eg Holland 1967) show that having an internal LOC is linked with being able to resist social influence: Locus of control (AO3)

- a lot of studies (eg Holland 1967) show that having an internal LOC is linked with being able to resist social influence

- Rotter (1982) pointed out that LOC only significantly influences behaviour in new situations

- in familiar situations, our previous responses are always more important

- therefore, the validity of the LOC explanation is limited.