Social Support and Resistance to Conformity and Obedience

Social Support for Non-Conformity and Non-Obedience

• Having an ally or dissenter provides support for resisting pressure to conform or obey.

• Dissenter helps in deviating from the majority, reducing fear of ridicule and normative social influence.

• Easier to resist authority figures with someone sharing consequences.

Research Evidence: Gamson et al. (1982)

• Study on participants generating evidence for an oil company's smear campaign.

• Findings:

  • Higher resistance levels compared to Milgram's research.

  • Group settings and task discussions contributed to resistance.

  • 88% of groups rebelled against given instructions out of 33 participants.

• Conclusion: Peer support undermines authority legitimacy, leading to disobedience.

Locus of Control

• Refers to individuals' belief in controlling events in their lives.

• High internal locus of control: Events result from own behavior.

• High external locus of control: Events determined by powerful others, fate, or chance.

Resistance to Social Influence and Internal Locus of Control

Introduction

• Individuals with high internal locus of control have better control of behavior and are more likely to resist social influence.

• They are confident, less reliant on approval, and take responsibility for their actions.

Research Findings Supporting Resistance to Social Influence

• Milgram's obedience study: Obedience dropped to 10% with disobedient confederates and rose to 92.5% with obedient confederates.

• Asch's conformity study: Conformity dropped to 5.5% when a confederate dissented from the majority.

Role of Internal Locus of Control in Resistance

• Elms and Milgram (1974): Disobedient participants had high internal locus of control and social responsibility.

• Oliner & Oliner (1988): Rescuers during the Holocaust had high internal locus of control and social responsibility.

  Aim

  • To determine if having an internal locus of control leads to resistance to social influence.

  Procedure

  • Two groups of non-Jewish Holocaust survivors interviewed:

    • Rescuers of Jews (406 individuals).

    • Non-rescuers (126 individuals).

  • Comparison of the two groups.

  Findings

  • Rescuers had higher scores indicating an internal locus of control.

  • Rescuers showed higher levels of social responsibility.

  Conclusion

  • Suggests that individuals with an internal locus of control exhibit more independent behavior.

  Locus of Control: Research Limitation

  • Study by Jean Twenge et al. (2004).

  Aim

  • To present evidence challenging the link between Locus of Control and resistance to social influence.

  Procedure

  • Evaluation of data from a 40-year American locus of control research.

  Findings

  • People became more resistant to obedience.

  • Increased external locus of control observed.

  Conclusion

  • The locus of control theory alone may not fully explain resistance to social influence.

Evaluation of Research

• Lack of internal validity in correlational studies.

• Not all studies support the association between locus of control and resistance to social influence.

• Williams and Warchal (1981): Conformity may be more related to assertiveness than locus of control.

Conclusion

• While internal locus of control may contribute to resistance to social influence, other factors like assertiveness may also play a role.