Explanations for Resistance of Social Influence

• Resistance to social influence occurs in 2 ways:

1. Disobedience

2.  Non-conformity – independence / anti-conformity

• Independence – involves a lack of consistent movement either towards or away from social expectancy (doing your own thing).

• Anti-conformity – involves a consistent movement away from social conformity e.g. adopting the behaviour and norms of a minority group.

• Research suggests that when others in a social situation defy attempts to make them conform and obey then it becomes much easier for an individual to resist such forms of social influence.

SOCIAL SUPPORT AND RESISTANCE TO CONFORMITY.

• In a variation of Asch’s study, if the participant saw a dissenter disagreeing with the majority’s wrong answer, conformity dropped sharply.
• Dissenters provide moral / social support.
• Major way of resisting conformity is to break the agreement of the majority – if they do not all agree, their impact is greatly reduced.
• Early social support appears to be more influential. The sooner someone speaks out, the greater the chances of their rallying others and resisting the majority.
• Allen & Levine (1971) - conformity was reduced on a task involving visual judgements if there was a dissenter, even if the dissenter wore glasses with thick lenses and admitted to a sight problem.  Suggests dissenters help resist social influence, even when not skilled in particular situations.
• Asch (1956) - if a dissenter answers correctly from the start of the study, conformity drops from 32% to 5.5%.

• Asch (1956) also found if confederate only starts to dissent later in the study, conformity still drops but to 8.5%.  Suggests that social support received earlier is more effective than social support recieved later.

• The presence of disobedient models has been shown to be a powerful source of social support.
• Like dissenters to conformity, disobedient models reduce the unanimity of a group, so easier for individuals to act independently.
• Such people seem to demonstrate that disobedience is actually possible, as well as how to do it.
• In one of Milgram's variations, after confederate teachers had refused to obey, a participant commented "I didn't realise I could refuse to obey"
• Disobedient models can additionally be seen as a form of conformity, since they create a group norm for individuals to follow suit.
• Milgram (1974) found that when two confederates paired with the real participant left the study early on, declaring they'd go no further, only 10% of participants gave the maximum 450v shock.  Suggests that the creation of a group norm of disobedience put the participants under pressure to conform to the beahviour of the disobedient confederates.
• Mullen et al. (1990) found that when disobedient models broke the law by jay-walking, participants were more likely to jay-walk than when disobedient models weren't present, supporting the idea that disobedient models increase resistance to social influence.

• LoC identified as a personality dimensions by Rotter (1966).
• Concerns the extent to which people see themselves as being in control of their own lives.
• Individuals with high INTERNAL LoC believe they can affect the outcomes of situations. Generally thought such people cope better with stress and remain healthier as a result.
• Indivudals with high EXTERNAL LoC believe things turn out a certain way, regardless of their actions. Tend to blame others for your situation and often feel helpless. This might be linked to agency theory where control is also external.
• Internal LoC refers to the belief that things happen as a result of an individuals choices and decisions.
• External LoC refers to the belief that things happen as a result of luck, fate or other uncontrollable external forces.
• Rotter believed that having an internal LoC makes individuals more resistant to social pressure, with those seeing themselves in control of a situation more likely to percieve themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey.
• LoC related to legitimate authority - it's about where we see the responsibility for our actions lie.
• Arguable whether we can define people by their LoC.  Might be personal pref. for one over other but all of us will show both elements in our personality.  Likely to be the SITUATION that dictates what we display at any one time.

• Spector (1983) gave Rotter's LoC scale to 157 uni students.  Found those with high external LoC conformed more than those with a low external LoC BUT only in situations that produced NSI.
• Both types of participants did not conform in situations that produced ISI.
• Suggests that people with less of a need for acceptance into a social group will be more able to resist social influence.

• Shute (1975) exposed undergraduates to peers who expressed either conservative or liberal attitudes to drug taking.  Found those with an internal LoC conformed less to expressing pro-drug attitudes.  Supports idea that having an internal LoC increases resistance to conformity.

• Moghaddam (1998) found that Japanese people conform more easily then Americans and have more of an external LoC.  Suggests that differences in resistance to social influence across cultures can be explained by differences in LoC.

• Avtgis (1998) performed meta-analysis of studies involving LoC and conformity .  Found that individuals with an internal LoC were less easily persusadable and less likely to conform.  Supports idea that differences in LoC are linked to differences in ability to resist social influence.

• Studies have only shown weak correlations between LoC and obedience.
• Holland (1967) tested for link between LoC and obedience.  Found no relationship.Blass (1991) reanalysed Holland's data and found participants with an internal LoC were more able to resist obedience than those with an external LoC.  Thos with an internal LoC were particularly resistant if they thought the researcher was trying to force or manipulate them to obey.  Suggests personal control in a situation is important as those with high internal LoC like to feel they have choice over their behaviour.

• Schurz (1985) found no relationship between LoC and obedience aongst Austrian participants, who gave the highest level of what they thought to be painful, skin-damaging bursts of ultrasound to a learner. But participants with an internal LoC tended to take more responsibility for their actions than those with an external LoC.  Again suggests that feeling of personal control may be related to resistance of social influence.

• Jones & Kavanagh (1996) investigated the link between moral disengagement and individual differences in LoC.  Found those with high external LoC more likely to obey unethical authority figures.  Possible explanation for corporate fraud and institutional abuses of power where junior staff members fail to resist immoral/criminal directives given to them by more senior managers e.g. North West Flight 5179 / Wayne Jowett

1. Reactance

2. Ironic Deviance

3. Status

REACTANCE:

• When freedom of choice is restricted, individuals may react with reactance (rebelleious anger) i.e. teens rebel against conforming to adult rules.
• Hamilton (2005) found that Australian adolescents in a low-reactance condition, who were told it was normal to experiment with drugs as long as they were aware of the health risks, were less likely to smoke than those in a high-reactance condition who were told to never smoke.
• Implies that when freedom of choice is threatened, resistance will occur.
• Could be argued to be obedience as well as conformity.

IRONIC DEVIANCE:

• If the truthfulness of a source of ISI is doubted, chances of individuals conforming to guidance is lessened.
• Conway & Schaller (2005) found office workers conformed and used software product of other employees liked it but less likely to conform if colleagues were ordered to use it by office manager.  They attributed colleagues behaviour as being determined by boss' order. 
• When thought colleagues were endorsing the software, more likely to conform, when perceived colleagues were folllowing office manager like sheep, less likely to conform.

STATUS:

• People of low status within a group, such as newcomers, are motivated to attain higher status by exhibiting conformist behaviour.
• Conformity can be resisted if individuals percieve themselves as of a higher status within a group.  Richardson (2009) supports this idea.

SYSTEMATIC PROCESSING:

• Individuals less likely to obey orders that have negative outcomes if they are given time to consider the consequences of what they've been ordered to do, as in Martin et al. (2007) study.
• Expectation in many institutions, such as the army, is that they should be complied with, without thought; much army training is concerne with achieving such a mindset as conflict situations generally require immediate obedience.
• Taylor et al (1997) reported disobedience rates increasedwhen people encouraged to question motives of the authority figure issuing an order.  Suggests that systematic processing helps resist obedience by lessening the legitimacy of authority figures.

MORALITY:

• Research shows that individuals who make decisions on whether to obey or not based on moral considerations are more resistant to obedience than those who do not.
• Milgram (1974) reported that one participant who did not fully obey, stated in a post-study iv that he was a vicar and his disobedience had been based on his "obeying a higher authority". His religious morality had helped him resist the authority figure's command to deliver electric shocks.
• Kohlberg (1969) gave moral dilemmas to participants from the Milgram study, finding that those who based decisions on moral principles were less obedient, supporting the idea that morality can be used to resist social influence.

PERSONALITY:

• Little evidence to support the idea of there being personality characteristics which help resist social influence.
• Research does suggest that those who can empathise with others' feelings are more able to resist orders with destructive consequences.
• Oliner & Oliner (1988) compared a smaple of 406 people who had sheltered Jews in Nazi Europe to a sample of 126 people who had alos lived through the war, but hadn't sheltered Jews.  Found that those who rescued Jews reported an upbringing that stressed social norms of helping others and emphasised their empathy with the suffering of Jewish people. As sheltering Jews was against the law in Nazi-occupied territories, it illustrates the importance of empathy as a personality characteristic that helps resist destructive obedience.