RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Explanations for resistance to social influence

• Social support – people may resist pressures to conform or obey if they have support from someone else who agrees with them and disagrees with the majority. This encourages them to act more independently and oppose any pressures of conformity / obedience.
  Asch: there were two real participants, so they felt more comfortable saying their answers
  Milgram: disobedient confederate refused to obey at a certain point and the obedience from the real participant fell to 10%

• Size of the group – if there are less participants, the conformity levels drop as the individual feels more comfortable to act independently – there is less pressure to conform / obey
  Milgram: Gameson (1982) found higher levels of resistance in their study than in Milgram’s because the participants in Gameson’s study were in groups. In the study, 29 out of 33 groups of participants rebelled against the given orders

• Giving answers in private – people are less likely to resist if they give their answers in private as they don’t know what the others are saying; they wouldn’t know if they are ‘wrong

• Locus of control – this concept was proposed by Rotter and refers to the extent to which an individual believes they have control in their lives over their actions and behaviours. It can be measured on a scale from ‘internal’ to ‘external’.
  internal LOC – individuals with an internal LOC believe they have a great amount of control over their lives and take accountability for their successes / losses. Internals are also more likely to resist influence as they can confidently demonstrate independence and are less likely to ‘follow the crowd’ or follow an order they believe is ‘wrong’
  external LOC – individuals with an external LOC believe that many things which happen to them are outside of their control. They appoint their successes / losses to ‘fate’ or ‘luck’ or other circumstances outside of their control. Externals are less likely to resist influence as they avoid personal responsibility for their behaviour and have require social approval

Case Study (LOC): Oliner and Oliner 1988

• Interviewed two groups of Non-Jewish people who lived through the Holocaust and Nazi Germany
• Compared 406 people who had protected and rescued the Jews from the Nazis to 126 people who had not done this
• Found that the group who rescued the Jews had scored demonstrating Internal Locus of Control

Evaluation

• Allen and Levine (1971) – found that conformity levels reduced when introducing a dissenter in a study very similar to Asch’s. Even if the dissenter wore glasses and claimed they had poor eyesight, conformity levels decreased; this supports the theory that having social support increases the resistance to conformity / obedience

• Holland (1967) – found that in a study like Milgram’s, 37% of people with an Internal Locus of Control refused to obey the maximum shock level, in comparison to 23% of people with an External Locus of Control. This supports the link between Locus of Control and resistance to obedience

• Twenge et al (2004) ­– found that throughout time periods, Americans have become more resistance to obedience, and they possess a more External Locus of Control. This contradicts the link discussed between locus of control and resistance to social influence as those with an external locus of control are supposed to be less likely to resist