Resistance to Social Influence PDF

Resistance to social influence **Key terms:** **Resistance to social influence:** Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors...

Resistance to social influence **Key terms:** **Resistance to social influence:** Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors. **Social support:** The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same. These people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible. **Locus of control (LOC):** Refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives. Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them (internal locus of control). Externals believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces (external locus of control). **Social support:** - **Resisting conformity** The pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming. As we saw in Solomon Asch\'s research (see page 16), the confederate who is not conforming may not be giving the \'right\' answer. Simply the fact that someone else is not following the majority is social support. It enables the naive participant to be free to follow their own conscience. The confederate acts as a \'model\' of independent behaviour. Their dissent gives rise to more dissent because it shows that the majority is no longer unanimous. - **Resisting obedience** The pressure to obey can be resisted if there is another person who is seen to disobey. In one of Milgram\'s variations, the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate. The participant may not follow the disobedient person\'s behaviour but the point is the other person\'s disobedience acts as a \'model\' of dissent for the participant to copy and this frees him to act from his own conscience. The disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey. **Locus of control:** Rotter (1966) proposed locus of control (LOC) as a concept concerned with internal control versus external control. Some people have an internal LOC (internals) - they believe that the things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves. For example, if you do well in an exam it is because you worked hard, if you don\'t do well, it is because you didn\'t work hard. Some people have an external LOC (externals)- they tend to believe the things that happen are outside their control. So, if they did well in an exam it was because they used an excellent textbook (ours, obviously). If they failed, they might blame it on the textbook (not ours) or they had bad luck because the questions were hard. **The LOC continuum:** People are not just either internal or external. LOC is a scale and individuals vary in their position on it. So, high internal LOC is at one end of the continuum and high external at the other Low internal and low external lie in-between. **Resistance to social influence:** People with a high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey. If a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences (as internals do), they tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on the opinions of others. Another explanation is that people with a high internal LOC tend to be more self- confident, more achievement-oriented and have higher intelligence. These traits lead to greater resistance to social influence. These are also characteristics of leaders, who have much less need for social approval than followers. **Evaluation for social support:** - **Real-world research support** One strength is research evidence for the positive effects of social support. For example, Susan Albrecht et al. (2006) evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, an eight-week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke. Social support was provided by a slightly older mentor or buddy. At the end of the programme adolescents who had a buddy\' were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants who did not have a buddy. This shows that social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real world. - **Research support for dissenting peers** Another strength is research evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience. William Gamson et al\'s (1982) participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign. The researchers found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram did in his. This was probably because the participants were in groups so could discuss what they were told to do. 29 out of 33 groups of participants (88%) rebelled against their orders. This shows that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure. - **Evaluation extra - Social support explanation** A study by Vernon Allen and John Levine (1971) showed that social support can help individuals to resist the influence of a group. In an Asch-type task, when the dissenter was someone with apparently good eyesight, 64% of genuine participants refused to conform. When there was no supporter at all only 3% of participants resisted. However, the study also showed that social support does not always help. This is because when the dissenter had obviously poor eyesight (thick glasses) resistance was only 36%. **Evaluation for locus of control:** - **Research support** One strength is research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience. Charles Holland (1967) repeated Milgram\'s baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (i.e. they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue. In other words, internals showed greater resistance to authority in a Milgram-type situation. This shows that resistance is at least partly related to LOC, which increases the validity of LOC as an explanation of disobedience. - **Contradictory research** One limitation is evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance. For example, Jean Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American locus of control studies conducted over a 40-year period (from 1960 to 2002). The data showed that, over this time span, people became more resistant to obedience but also more external. This is a surprising outcome. If resistance is linked to an internal locus of control, we would expect people to have become more internal This suggests that locus of control is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence. - **Evaluation eXtra - limited role of LOC** As we have seen, many studies (eg Holland 1967) show that having an internal LOC is linked with being able to resist social influence. However, Rotter (1982) points out that LOC is not necessarily the most important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence. LOC\'s role depends on the situation. A person\'s LOC only significantly affects their behaviour in new situations. If you have conformed or obeyed in a specific situation in the past, the chances are you will do so again in that situation regardless of whether you have a high internal or high external LOC.