Explanations for Resistance to Social Influence

Independent behaviour is a term that psychologists use to describe behaviour that seems not to be influenced by other people. This happens when a person resists the pressures to conform or obey.

Social Support

In one of Asch's variations, he showed that the presence of a dissident (a confederate who did not conform) led to a decrease in the conformity levels in the true participants - this is thought to be because the presence of a dissident gave the true participant confidence in their own decision and more confident in rejecting the majority position.Social support also decreases obedience to authority. In a variation of Milgram's study, two other participants (confederates) were also teachers but refused to obey. Confederate 1 stopped at 150 volts, and confederate 2 stopped at 210 volts. The presence of others who are seen to disobey the authority figure reduced the level of obedience to 10%.

Locus of Control

The term 'Locus of control' refers to how much control a person feels they have in their own behaviour. A person can either have an internal locus of control, or an external locus of control.People with a high internal locus of control perceive themselves as having a great deal of personal control over their behaviour and are therefore more likely to take responsibility for the way they behave - for example, saying "I did well in my exam because I revised a lot".In contrast, a person with a high external locus of control perceive their behaviours as being a result of external influences or luck - for example, saying "I did well in my exam because it was easy".Research has shown that people with an internal locus of control tend to be less conforming and less obedient (i.e. more independent). Rotter proposes that people with internal locus of control are better at resisting social pressure to conform or obey, perhaps because they feel responsible for their actions.

Minority Influence

Minority influence occurs when a small group (a minority) influences the opinion of a much larger group (majority). This can happen when the minority behaves in the following ways.

ConsistencyMoscovici stated that being consistent and unchanging in a view is more likely to influence the majority than if a minority is inconsistent and chops and changes their mind.A distinction can be made between two forms of consistency: Diachronic Consistency (i.e. consistency over time) - the minority sticks to its vies and does not change them. Synchronic Consistency (i.e. consistency between its members) - all members agree and back each other up. Consistency may be important because: Confronted with a consistent opposition, members of the majority will sit up, take notice, and rethink their position (i.e. the minority focuses attention on itself). A consistent minority disrupts established norms and creates uncertainty, doubt and conflict. This can lead to the majority taking the minority view seriously. The majority will , therefore, be more likely to question their own views. Moscovici conducted an experiment, in which female participants were shown 36 blue slides of different intensity and were asked to report the colours. There were two confederates (the minority) and four participants (the majority).In the first part of the experiment, the two confederates answered green for each of the 36 slides. They were totally consistent in their responses. In the second part of the experiment, they answered green 24 times and blue 12 times. In this case, they were inconsistent in their answers. A control group was also used consisting of participants only - no confederates.When the conferderates were consistent in their answers, about 8% of participants said the slides were green. When the confederates answered inconsistently, about 1% of participants said the sides were green.

CommitmentWhen the majority is confronted with someone with self-confidence and dedication to take a popular stand and refuses to back down, they may assume that he or she has a point.

FlexibilityA number of researchers have questioned whether consistency alone is sufficient for a minority to influence a majority. They argue that the key is how the majority interprets consistency. If the consistent minority are seen as inflexible, rigid, uncompromising and dogmatic, they will be unlikely to change the views of the majority. However, if they appear flexible and compromising, they are likely to be seen as less extreme, as more moderate, cooperative and reasonable. As a result, they will have a better chance of changing the majority views.Some researchers have gone further and suggested that it is not just the appearance of flexibility and compromise which is important but actual flexibility and compromise. This possibility was investigated by Nemeth. Their experiment was based on a mock jury in which groups of three participants and one confederate had to decide on the amount of compensation to be given to the victim of a ski-lift accident. When the consistent minority (the confederate) argued for a very low amount an refused to change his position, he had no effect on the majority. However, when he compromised and moved some way towards the majority position, the majority also compromised and changed their view.This experiment questions the importance of consistency. The minority position changed, it was not consisten, and it was this change that apparently resulted in minority influence.