Resistance to social influence

define resistance to social influence

the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority

can be influenced by both situational and dispositional factors

define social support

the presence of people who resist pressures to conform/obey can help others do the same

these people act as models

describe social support in conformity

pressure to conform is reduced if there are others present who are not conforming

non-conforming person acts as a “model“ = Asch’s study shows the model does not have to give the right answer to help reduce conformity in others

Asch’s study shows that when the non-conforming model starts conforming again, so does the naive pp = effect not long-lasting

describe social support in obedience

pressure to obey is reduced if there is another person who is seen to disobey

research has shown that people are generally more confident in their ability to resists temptations to obey if they have an ally willing to join them

Milgram’s variation = rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the pp was joined by a disobedient

one strength is research support for social support

support does not need to be valid to be effective

Allen and Levine (1971) found independence increased with one confederate in an Asch-type study (even if the confederate wore thick-lensed glasses and said he had problems with his vision)

suggests resistance is not motivated by following what someone says but it enables freedom of the pressure from the group

one strength is research support for social support in resistance to obedience

Milgram’s variation = real pp was paired with two additional confederates who also played the role of teachers = the two confederates refused to go on and withdrew from the exp early

% of pps who proceeded to the full 450V dropped from 65% to 10%

shows that if the pp has support for their desire to disobey, they are more likely to resist the pressure of an authority figure

strengthens explanation that resistance to social pressures is situational

define locus of control

Rotter (1966) refers this to how much a person believes they have control over themselves and their world

describe locus of control

internal LOC = belief that the individual is mostly responsible for what happens to them

external LOC = belief that things happen without their own control (e.g. due to fate/luck)

individuals with a high internal LOC are more confident/self-assured in their beliefs and are more aware of how their own actions affect them = believe they are less likely to be led by conformity/obedience thus resisting social influences

one strength is research support for locus of control

Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether pps were internals or externals = 37% of internals did not continue to 450V (showed independence), only 23% of externals did not continue

shows internals showed greater resistance to authority = increases the validity of the LOC explanation to explaining resistance

one strength is real life support for locus of control

Oliner and Oliner (1998) interviewed non-Jewish survivors of WW1 and compared those who had resisted orders/protected Jewish people to those who had not = found 406 rescuers were more likely to have a high internal LOC compared to 126 who had followed orders

supports idea that high internal LOC makes individuals less likely to follow orders

however, many other factors that may have caused individuals to follow orders = difficult to conclude that LOC is the only factor

one limitation is the limited role of locus of control

the role of LOC in resisting social influence may be exaggerated

Rotter (1982) suggested LOC only comes into play in new situations

LOC has very little influence over our behaviours in familiar situations where our previous experiences will be more important

this point is often overlooked when discussing LOC and resistance