Resistance to Social Influence

There have been many studies carried out by Asch, Zimbardo, Hofling and Milgram to show that people conform or obey when they are put under pressure but, in many of these studies, some individuals resisted the pressure and remained independant.

For example:

• In Asch's research 25% of particiapnats did not conform at any point.
• In Milgram's research, 35% of participants disobeyed the experimenter and refused to give the 450volt shock.
• In Hofling's field experiment, one nurse out of 22 refused to administer the drug to a patient.
• In Zimbardo's prison study, around two-thirds of the guards resited the pressure to behave sadistically towards the prisoners.

Obedience and disobedience are opposing behaviours influenced by both external (situational) and internal (personality) factors.

There are two important factors:

• Social Support (an external factor) and,
• Locus of Control (an internal factor)

Social Support in Conformity:

Social support can help people to resist conformity.

Having social support is where the pressure to conform is reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming.
This was evident in Asch's study as the confederate not conforming to the majority allowed the participant to be free to follow their own conscience.

Social Support in Obedience:

Social support can help people to resist obedience.

The pressure to obey is reduced if there is another person present who is disobeys or they are seen to be disobeying.
This was shown in a variation of Milgram's study where a disobedient confederate was introduced to the sitation. The presence of this confederate cause obedience levels to drop from 65% to just 10%.

Rotter (1966) arguede that we can measure an individual's sense of personal control over events in their life using a scale.

At one end of the scale are those who largely believe that they can influece events in their life and who feel that their actions are their own choice and responsibility. This end is knwon as an internal locus of control.

At the other end however, there are those who believe that outside factors such as luck or fate influence their daily lifes and decisions and they therefore have no control over them. This end is known as the external locus of control.

Many people score in the middle of the scael with very few individuals having strong scores at either end.

It is said that people who have a high internal locus of control are more likely and able to resist the pressures to conform or obey.

If a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences (good or baad) then they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than the beliefs of others and thus resist pressures from others.

Another explantion is that people with a high internal locus of control are seen to be more self-confident, more achievement-orientated, have a higher intellegence and have less need for social approval.

These personality traits lead to greater resistance to social influence.

STRENGTH

Research evidence supports the role of dissenting (disobedient) peers in resisting conformity.

Allen and Levine (1971) found independence increased with one dissenter in an Asch-type study. 

This occurred even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had problems with vision.

Therefore, resistance is not motivated by following what someone else has said but it enables someone to be free of pressure from the group.

STRENGTH

Research evidence supports the role of dissenting (disobedient) peers in resisting obedience.

Gamson et al. (1982) found higher levels of rebellion (independence) than Milgram did.

Gamson's participants were in groups (to produce evidence that an oil company would use to run a smear campaign).

In Gamson's study 29 out of 33 groups of participants (88%) rebelled which shows that peer support is linked to greater resistance.

STRENGTH

Research evidence supports the link between LOC and resistence to obedience.

Holland (1967) repeated the Milgram study and measured whether participants were internals or externals.

37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level.

Only 23% of externals did not continue to the hoghest shock level.

This shows that the internals showed greater resistance and this support increases the validity of the LOC explanation and out confidence that it can explain resistance.

LIMITATION

Not all research supports the link between LOC and resistance.

Twenge et al. (2004) analysed daat from American locus of control studies over 40 years (1960-2002), showing that people have become more independent but also more external.

If resistance was linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have becom more internal.

This challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance but, results may be due to changing society where many things are increasingly outside of our personal control.

LIMITATION

A limitation is the role of LOC in resisting social influence may be exaggerated.

Rotter (1982) found that LOC is only important in new situations.

It has little influence in familiar situations where previous experiences are always more important.

This is often overlooked, it means that people who have confromed or obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again even if they have a high internal LOC.

This is a limitation because it means that LOC is only helpful in explaining a narrow range of new situations.