|
Advantages
- P = Research support for resistance to conformity
- E = Allen and Levine found that conformity decreased when there was a dissenterin an Asch-type study. It decreased even if the dissenter claimed to have sight problems.
- E = The dissenter lifted to pressure of having to conform to the majority
- L = Therefore, this evidence shows that having social support is important in being able to deviate from the majority view.
- P= Research support for resistance to obedience
- E = Gamson et al. found higher levels of independent behaviour than Milgram did, because his participants were in groups.
- E = This is because they were able to support each other in going against orders.
- L = Therefore, this shows that peer support is linked to greater resistance.
- P = Research supports the link between LOC and resistance to obedience.
- E = Holland repeated the Milgram study and measured whether the participants were internals or externals. 37% of internals didn't continue to the highest shock level, but only 23% of externals didn't continue.
- E = Internals showed greater resistance than externals.
- L = Therefore, this support increases the validity of the LOC explanation and increases our confidence that it can explain resistance
|
Disadvantages
- P = The role of LOC in resisting social influence may be exaggerated.
- E = Rotter found LOC is only important in new situations. Familiar situations are influenced more by previous experiences.
- E = People who have obeyed in the past are more likely to obey again in a similar situation, even if they have a high internal LOC.
- L = Therefore, this means the LOC can only explain a narrow range of new situations.
|
Comments
No comments have yet been made