Discuss two explanations of resistance to social influence .
There are two ways how social influence can be resisted, Firstly social support. This is
where the presence of people who resist pressure to conform or obey can help others do
the same. This is evident in Aschs study, where a confederate gave a different (wrong)
answer from the rest of the group, breaking the unanimity of the group which saw
conformity reduce. Obedience is reduced when there is presence of different opinions.
Milgram found that obedience dropped 65% to 10% when participants were joined by a
disobedient confederate. Also, independent behaviour increased from 35% to 90% in the
disobedient peer condition, suggesting we are more likely to resist obedience if an Allie is
willing to join us.
The other explanation is the locus of control. This is the extent to which we feel in control of
the event that influence our life. someone with The internal LOC is believes they are
responsible for what happens so are more likely to resist social influence as they are less in
need of social approval.
Someone with an external LOC believes they are not in control of their life events and that it
is instead decided by external forces of outside of their control e.g luck and fate
There is a continuum, with a high internal LOC And External LOC, low internal and external
lying closer between.
(A03)
There is research supporting the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity. Allen and
Levine (1971) found conformity decreased when there was a dissenter in an asch type
study, even if thick glasses meant they had trouble will vision (in no position to judge length
of lines). This supports that resistance is not only motivated by following other people but it
generally enables someone to be free from group pressure and think independently.
There is research supporting role of dissenting peers in obedience. Gamson carried out an
obedience study where participants were in groups. Obedience was higher than Milgrams
study with 29/33 groups rebelling, this shows how peer support is linked to greater
resistance.
Research support shows links between internal LOC and resistance to obedience. Holland
repeated Milgrams first study and measured whether participants had an internal or
external LOC. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the 450v shock whereas
only 23% of external did not. Suggesting internal LOC shower grated resistance to obeying
authority. Research like this increases the validity of the LOC explanation and confidence
that can explain resistance.
There is contradicting research disagreeing with a link between LOC and resistance. Twenge
(2004) analysed results from obedience studies over 40 years, data showed that over the
period, people have become more resistant to obedience but also more external!. So far
thinking that resistance is linked with having an internal LOC, challenging it’s link. It is a
possibility that a constantly changing society is what caused these results, which are out of
personal control.
, Outline and evaluate research into minority influence.
Minority influence refers to when a small group of peoples beliefs can influence the beliefs
and behaviours of others, achievable through consistency, commitment and
flexibility. Consistency refers to repeating your belief constantly within members of the
minority to find an agreement (synchronic) or consistently promoting beliefs over time
(diachronic). Commitment is when members of the minority show dedication to their
beliefs, even to the extent of life sacrifices (the augmentation principle), showing that they
aren't in the minority solely for self-interest. E.g. suffragettes that chained themselves to the
railings of the white house. Flexibility is necessary for when the consistency seems
unreasonable, so minorities demonstrate flexibility by listening to others and adapt views
based on counterarguments.
Minorities can turn into the majority by the snowball effect, where beliefs are internalised
and continuously shared others who also change their minds, creating a longitudinal
awareness. Once the minority view has been considered the norm for some
time, social crypto amnesia may occur, where people aren't aware of or do not credit the
crucial role that the minority had on change.
Miscovici (1969) study asked 6 participants to view 36 coloured slides and asked to state if
they were blue or green, each group had two confederates who said the slides were green.
Participants gave this same wrong answer on 8.4%of trials with 32% giving the same answer
as the minority on at least one trial. A second group were exposed to an inconsistent
minority and agreement fell 1.25%. Finally in a control group with no confederates there
were only 0.25% of wrong answers. This study supports that consistency is an important
factor for minority influence.
(A03) In a variation of Moscovici's slide colour study, participants were allowed to write
their answers down rather than out loud, this gave participants privacy to give more valid
answers. Findings show that agreement with the minority was much greater in these
circumstances, suggesting that the minority view had influenced them but they were
hesitant to admit this publicly. He concluded this was because being associated with a
minority view would fear them of being considered 'radical' and 'awkward'.
There is research support suggesting depth of thought during changing to a minority
position. Martin (2003) gave two groups a message supporting a particular view, one group
heard about a minority view and the other a majority view. This found that once exposed to
the view of the minority, this group were less likely to change opinions, suggesting it was
more deeply processed than the majority view and had an enduring effect on the
participants.
A limitation to research into minority influence is the tasks involved, such as identifying the
colour of a slide. This is not an accurate representation of how minority influence occurs in
real life, in cases such as political campaigns and jury decision making, the outcomes can
result in the extent of life or death, this means their methods lack mundane realism as well
external validity and are limited in their explanations of real life social situations.
