resistance to social influence

2 main explanations for people resisting pressure to conform/obey

social support

locus of control

social support

having an ally makes it much easier to resist social pressure

presence of another person disobeying gives the individual enough courage to follow their own conscience

social support evidence - conformity

Asch’s variation: single dissenter reduced conformity rate from 32% to 5.5%

dissenter breaks unanimity of group which removes idea that group is correct

social support evidence - obedience

Milgram’s variation: real participant joined by 2 confederates (fellow teachers)

when these confederates didn’t continue the participants obedience dropped from 65% to 10%

social support from disobedient peers reduces obedience

why social support works

reduces normative pressure - being the only one that refuses is harder than being one of several

provides permission - seeing someone else resist legitimises own resistance

provides alternative source of information - reduces ISI in ambiguous situations

locus of control (Rotter, 1966)

describes a person’s perception of how much control they have over the events in their own life

measured on a continuum using Rotter’s locus of control scale

internal locus of control

belief: outcomes are determined by own actions, decisions and effort

effect on social influence: more likely to resist pressure - trust own judgment

characteristics associated with resistance: self confidence, need for personal control, higher intelligence, lower need for social approval

external locus of control

outcomes are determined by luck, fate or powerful others

effect on social influence: more likely to conform and obey - defer to other’s judgment

locus of control - supporting evidence

Holland (1967) - repeated milligrams procedures and measured ups locus of control an found 37% of internals didn’t obey to 450V compared with 23% of externals

Avtgis (1998) - meta-analysed studies on conformity and LoC, externals significantly more likely to conform than internal across many studies

strength - research support for social support (Allen and Levine 1971)

direct experimental evidence

Allen and Levine (1971) replicated ashes study with dissenting confederates

found conformity dropped sharply when when dissenter wore thick glasses and had obvious poor vision

shows dissenter does have to be credible - presence as ally is enough to break unanimity

strengthens solidity of social support as mechanism for resisting NSI - act of dissent matters more than quality of alternative answer

strength - research support for locus of control (Holland 1967)

Holland (1967) repeated milligrams procedure and measure pp’s locus of control

found 37% of internals resist obedience to 450V compared with only 23% of externals

Avtgis (1998) meta-analysis - externals constantly more conformist than internals across many independent studies

shows LoC effect is replicable across samples

strengthens validity of Rotter’s claim perceived control is linked to resistance

limitation - contradictory modern findings (Twenge et al. 2004)

meta-analysis shows LoC has become more external over past 50 years but resistance to social influence has increased not decreased

LoC explanation predicts opposite pattern

if external conform more than e amore external population would be more conformist

undermines validity of LoC as primary cause of resistance - other social/generational factors also drive resistance

limitation - role of LoC is overstated (Rotter 1982)

LoC only matters in novel situations

in familiar situations: prior experience is a much stronger predictor of resistance than personality

important as most everyday conformity pressures are family contexts

LoC may have weaker influence on real-world resistance than lab studies suggest

narrows scope of LoC explanation considerably

application - interventions for resistance (real-world value)

both have applied value

anti-bullying programmes: build social support networks so potential victims have an ally

critical thinking and self-efficacy training in schools: aim to shift learns towards a more internal LoC

interventions are designed on basis of social influence research and reduce harmful conformity

applied success (reductions in bullying and risky peer pressure behaviours) is strong evidence the underlying explanations capture something genuine about resistance