SIVYER PSYCHOLOGY

View Original

RESISTING SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Rebecca Sivyer

RESISTING SOCIAL INFLUENCE: EXPLANATIONS OF RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE, INCLUDING SOCIAL SUPPORT AND LOCUS OF CONTROL

EXPLANATIONS FOR RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE

There are two key explanations for understanding why individuals are capable of resisting social influence and orders to obey or conform. These explanations are social support and locus of control, specifically emphasizing a strong internal locus of control. Both concepts are easily comprehensible and can be employed to elucidate how people withstand the pressure to obey or conform when asked to provide explanations.

SOCIAL SUPPORT

Social support and dissent constitute one explanation for individuals' ability to resist the pressure to obey or conform. When a person witnesses others refusing to comply with social norms or engage in conformity, it becomes easier for them to resist social influence. This increased confidence in their own viewpoint stems from observing others' defiance. Moreover, when others are also resisting, individuals feel less like a minority for going against the social norm, as they have social support from allies who share their resistance.

RESEARCH ON SOCIAL SUPPORT: Milgram

Research findings from Milgram's shock study support the social support explanation of resistance. In the original study, the majority of participants administered shocks up to 450 volts. However, in a variation of the study where confederates, seen by the participants as refusing to administer shocks, were present, obedience dropped dramatically, with only 10% of participants delivering the full 450 volts. This demonstrates how social support can bolster individuals' confidence in resisting obedience.

RESEARCH ON SOCIAL SUPPORT: Asch

Research evidence also demonstrates that social support aids in resisting conformity within groups. Asch conducted a variation of his famous line study by positioning a confederate just before the real participant, instructing them to give the correct answer while the preceding confederates provided incorrect responses. The results indicated a significant drop in conformity to 5.5%. Even when the confederate contradicted both the real participant and the preceding confederates, conformity still decreased to 9%. Asch concluded that breaking unanimity by providing social support for a different perspective reduced conformity, regardless of whether the support aligned with the real participant's view. Social support encourages individuals to consider alternative viewpoints and challenges the idea that the majority view is infallible, instilling the confidence to resist.

EVALUATION

While social support seemed to play a role in resistance in Milgram's research, it is important to note that this was a laboratory study, and participants were aware they were being observed. Behaviors exhibited by participants may have been influenced by demand characteristics, as they felt obligated to conform to the expectations of a psychological study. Additionally, the study's setting lacked ecological validity as it did not represent a natural or real-world situation. Therefore, the observed behaviors related to social support in a laboratory may not necessarily apply to real-world settings, and the findings of social support research may have limited external validity.

Another significant criticism of research into social support is its gender bias. For instance, Milgram's study only demonstrated the effect of social support with men, and its applicability to women or the presence of resistance between genders remains uncertain.

EVALUATION

Research has revealed that the order of responses is also a crucial factor in gaining social support. For instance, a study conducted by Allen and Levine (1969) compared two conditions: in one, a confederate answered correctly first, followed by all other confederates providing incorrect answers, with the real participant responding last. In the second condition, the confederate answered second to last before the real participant, with all other confederates providing incorrect answers. The results indicated significantly higher support for the confederate in the first condition, suggesting that an initial correct response engenders a commitment to the right answer, even in the face of disagreement. This highlights the impact of response order on resistance to social influence.

Another study conducted by Allen and Levine (1971) demonstrated that social support could facilitate resistance to social influence, even when the support was seemingly invalid. In one condition involving a visual task, a confederate wearing thick glasses (implying visual impairment) provided support against the majority opinion. Surprisingly, when the same scenario was recreated with a confederate who had no visual impairment, both instances still aided in resisting conformity. This emphasizes that any form of social support, whether perceived as valid or not, can help resist conformity, with the most effective support being perceived as credible.

LOCUS OF CONTROL (LOC)

Locus of control is a concept that can be easily understood as it pertains to the degree of control a person believes they have over their behavior and circumstances. It exists on a scale, ranging from internal (indicating a high level of personal control) to external (indicating that control lies outside their influence), and varies depending on different situations.

HIGH-INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL:

  • Individuals with a high internal locus of control perceive themselves as being in control.

  • They are confident in their own views and opinions.

  • They are less concerned about others' opinions and are less likely to be led by external influences.

  • They are more likely to resist social influence because they have confidence in their own beliefs.

HIGH-EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL:

  • Individuals with a high external locus of control believe that control over situations is beyond their influence.

  • They tend to be less confident in their own views and opinions.

  • They are more susceptible to external influences and are more easily led by others' viewpoints.

In essence, locus of control can be categorized as either internal or external, with individuals perceiving varying levels of control in different situations.

If you are tasked with a 12-marker question on explanations for resistance or independent behavior, you can utilize both social support and locus of control to provide a comprehensive response, worth 6 marks each.

LOCUS OF CONTROL (AO1)

One explanation for resistance to social influence can be attributed to individuals possessing a high internal locus of control (LOC). Locus of control, as proposed by Rotter (1966), refers to the extent to which a person believes they have control over themselves and their environment. Individuals with a high internal LOC tend to exhibit greater confidence and self-assuredness in their beliefs, along with a heightened awareness of how their actions influence their lives. As a result, they are less likely to conform or obey, as they recognize the internal control they possess. Conversely, individuals with a high external LOC attribute control to external factors, such as luck or fate. They tend to be less confident in their own views and are more passive, making them more susceptible to the influence of others and less likely to resist social pressures.

Milgram et al. investigated the backgrounds of participants who displayed the greatest resistance to authority figures in the shock study. Through follow-up interviews, it was revealed that these highly resistant individuals also possessed a high internal locus of control and scored highly on a measure of social responsibility. Similarly, Oliner et al. found that individuals who resisted social pressure during Nazi Germany and protected Jewish people tended to have a high internal locus of control and displayed a strong sense of social responsibility. These findings support the idea that both locus of control and social responsibility are plausible explanations for resistance to social pressure.

EVALUATION

A significant limitation of most research on how locus of control affects resistance to social influence is its reliance on correlational research. Consequently, it is challenging to establish causal relationships or definitively conclude that a high internal locus of control causes resistance. It is possible that personality variables play a more foundational role, with a high internal locus of control being a consequence of certain personality traits.

LOCUS OF CONTROL RESEARCH: Williams & Warchal (1981)

EVALUATION

Much of the research on locus of control as an explanation for conformity is inconclusive and may lack population validity. For instance, in Williams et al.'s study of 30 university students across various conformity scenarios, using Rotter's LOC scale, little difference was found in terms of conformity according to Rotter's LOC scale. The primary distinguishing factor was the participants' assertiveness, with those who conformed less being more assertive than those who conformed more. Assertiveness may be a more suitable explanation for resisting social influences than locus of control, particularly in the context of conformity scenarios. Additionally, older individuals may behave differently due to accumulated experience and knowledge, potentially being more self-assured.

LOCUS OF CONTROL RESEARCH: Spector (1983)

Spector utilized Rotter's LOC scale to assess 157 university students. Those with a high external LOC were observed to conform more in situations involving normative social pressure, where fitting in was perceived as necessary. However, situations of informational social influence, where individuals were uncertain about how to behave, did not result in conformity for either group. This suggests that individuals with a strong desire for acceptance, such as students seeking to fit in among peer groups, are more likely to conform than those with lower needs for social approval. This highlights the importance of perceived control in people's lives, particularly in situations where conformity might entail social benefits.

A major limitation of the locus of control explanation is its inability to account for acceptance or why some individuals possess a high internal or external locus of control. Consequently, it may not fully explain resistance to social influence in all contexts, suggesting that other factors or a more nuanced understanding of personality differences may be at play.

Research into locus of control provides us with a real-world understanding and possible real-world applications. Twenge et al. (2004) found that significantly more young Americans were showing a higher rate of external locus of control in samples of children between 1960 and 2002. Twenge believed the consequences of this were negative, as external locus of control was linked with poor educational performance, depression, and also higher rates of violent crimes, divorces, and mental health problems. This provides us with real-world applications, as if high external locus of control is linked with such negative consequences, developing ways to increase perceived control through CBT programs should help address this.