Social Support & Locus of Control (AQA A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Social Support & Locus of Control
Introduction to resistance
Resistance to social influence refers to the various ways individuals attempt to withstand perceived attempts to threaten their freedom of choice. While social influence often serves important social functions, there are times when conformity and obedience can lead to negative consequences. Understanding how people resist social pressure is crucial for explaining individual differences in susceptibility to influence.
Understanding resistance to social influence is essential for explaining why some individuals maintain independence while others conform, and has important implications for areas such as education, healthcare, and organisational behaviour.
Resistance involves two main types of behaviour:
- Independence - maintaining consistent behaviour regardless of social expectations
- Anti-conformity - deliberately moving away from social expectations, often adopting minority group norms
Social support
Social support describes the perception of assistance and solidarity available from others. Research demonstrates that when individuals observe others resisting social influence attempts, they become significantly more likely to resist such pressures themselves.
How social support works
The presence of others who defy attempts at conformity and obedience provides a powerful source of resistance. These allies serve multiple functions:
How Social Support Functions:
- They break the unanimity of the majority group, reducing its psychological impact
- They provide moral support, demonstrating that resistance is possible
- They offer a model of how to behave independently
- They create a group norm that supports non-conformity
Research evidence on conformity
Research Example: Allen & Levine (1971) - Visual judgement task
Participants: Adults making visual judgements about line lengths
Aim: To test whether even incompetent allies could reduce conformity
Procedure: Participants made judgements whilst a confederate 'dissenter' wore thick glasses and claimed to have sight problems
Findings: Conformity was reduced even when the dissenting ally was clearly incompetent at the task
Evaluation - Strengths: Demonstrates that any form of social support can be effective
Evaluation - Weaknesses: Laboratory setting may lack ecological validity
Asch's variations showed that when a single confederate disagreed with the majority's incorrect answer, conformity dropped dramatically from 32% to 5.5%. However, if the confederate only began dissenting later in the study, conformity only dropped to 8.5%. This suggests that early social support is more effective than support received later.
Critical Finding: The timing of social support matters significantly - early support is much more effective than late support in helping people resist conformity pressure.
Research evidence on obedience
Milgram's variations demonstrated that disobedient models provide powerful social support against destructive obedience. When confederate 'teachers' refused to continue administering shocks, real participants found it much easier to disobey the experimenter's orders.
Research Example: Milgram (1974) - Disobedient confederates
Participants: Adult males believing they were administering electric shocks
Aim: To examine the effect of disobedient models on obedience rates
Procedure: Two confederate teachers left the study early, declaring they would not continue
Findings: Only 10% of participants gave maximum shocks (compared to 65% in the baseline condition)
Evaluation - Strengths: Shows powerful effect of disobedient models in reducing harmful obedience
Evaluation - Weaknesses: Ethical concerns about deception and psychological harm
Mullen et al. (1990) found that when disobedient models broke the law by jay-walking, participants were more likely to jay-walk themselves. This supports the idea that disobedient models increase resistance to social influence across different situations.
Locus of control
Locus of control (LoC) was identified by Rotter (1966) as a personality dimension concerning the extent to which people perceive themselves as being in control of their own lives. This concept helps explain individual differences in resistance to social influence.
Internal vs external locus of control
The distinction between internal and external locus of control is fundamental to understanding individual differences in resistance:
- Internal LoC: Individuals believe they can influence the outcomes of situations through their own choices and actions. They see themselves as having control over what happens to them.
- External LoC: Individuals believe that events are largely controlled by luck, fate, or other uncontrollable external forces. They feel they have little influence over outcomes.
Rotter's Theory: People with internal LoC would be more resistant to social pressure because they perceive themselves as having greater choice and control over their behaviour.
Research evidence on conformity resistance
Research Example: Spector (1983) - LoC and conformity
Participants: 157 university students
Aim: To test whether LoC affects conformity in different social situations
Procedure: Participants completed Rotter's LoC scale and were exposed to normative or informational social influence
Findings: High external LoC individuals conformed more than low external LoC individuals, but only in normative pressure situations
Evaluation - Strengths: Distinguishes between different types of social influence
Evaluation - Weaknesses: Student sample may limit generalisability
Shute (1975) exposed undergraduates to peers expressing either conservative or liberal attitudes towards drug use. Students with internal LoC conformed less to these expressed attitudes, supporting the link between internal control beliefs and resistance to conformity.
Avtgis (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of studies examining LoC and conformity. The analysis confirmed that individuals with internal locus of control were consistently less easily persuaded and less likely to conform across multiple studies.
Research evidence on obedience resistance
Research Example: Holland (1967) and Blass (1991) - LoC and obedience
Participants: Adults in obedience studies (Blass re-analysed Holland's data)
Aim: To examine whether LoC affects obedience levels
Procedure: Participants completed LoC measures and took part in obedience studies
Findings: Participants with internal LoC were more able to resist obedience, especially when they believed the researcher was trying to manipulate them
Evaluation - Strengths: Shows LoC effects in high-pressure obedience situations
Evaluation - Weaknesses: Obedience studies raise ethical concerns
Schurz (1985) found no relationship between LoC and obedience among Austrian participants who administered what they believed were painful ultrasound bursts. However, those with internal LoC took more responsibility for their actions, suggesting that feelings of personal control may relate to resistance even when behaviour doesn't differ.
Key Research Application: Jones & Kavanagh (1996) investigated moral disengagement and LoC. They found that people with high external LoC were more likely to obey unethical authority figures, potentially explaining corporate fraud and institutional abuses where junior staff fail to resist immoral directives from senior managers.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Social support makes resistance easier by breaking majority unanimity and providing models of independent behaviour
-
Early social support is more effective than support received later in influencing situations
-
Internal locus of control individuals show greater resistance to both conformity and obedience because they believe they control their own outcomes
-
Disobedient models can dramatically reduce harmful obedience by demonstrating that resistance is possible
-
Both explanations highlight that individual differences play a crucial role in determining who will resist social influence