Discuss two explanations of resistance to social influence. As part of your discussion, refer to the views expressed by Jack and Sarah in the conversation above. [16 marks]

One explanation of resistance to social influence is social support, which occurs when an individual has an ally who supports their point of view. This can increase confidence, reduce the fear of ridicule and make it easier to maintain an independent position. Sarah supports this explanation because she believes that resistance to social influence depends on ‘the presence of others’. Research supports her view that social support can help individuals resist conformity.

For example, in one of Asch’s (1951) variations, a confederate gave the correct answer throughout the task. In this condition, the conformity rate fell to just 5%. This suggests that having another person who supports an individual’s view reduces the pressure to conform to the majority. Social support appears to weaken the influence of the group and makes it easier for individuals to respond independently. Therefore, Asch’s findings strongly support Sarah’s view that resistance to social influence depends on ‘the presence of others’.

Personality may also influence a person’s ability to resist conformity or obedience. Rotter (1966) proposed the concept of locus of control, which refers to the degree of control individuals believe they have over their lives. Locus of control exists on a continuum ranging from high internal to high external. People with a high internal locus of control believe that their actions and decisions determine their life outcomes. Consequently, they are more likely to accept personal responsibility for their behaviour, act independently and resist social influence. Jack supports this explanation because he believes that resistance results from having a confident personality. A person with a high internal locus of control may be more confident because they believe that their own actions determine what happens to them. Research provides some support for Jack’s view.

For example, Spector (1983) used Rotter’s locus of control scale to investigate the relationship between locus of control and conformity in a sample of 157 students. He found that participants with a high internal locus of control were less likely to conform than those with a high external locus of control when conformity was caused by normative social influence. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups when conformity involved informational social influence. This suggests that people with an internal locus of control are better able to resist conformity when the pressure results from a desire for social approval, rather than a desire to be correct. Therefore, Spector’s findings partially support Jack’s view that personality is important in resistance to social influence. However, this support applies only to situations involving normative social influence and not informational social influence.

Overall, research supports both Sarah’s and Jack’s views. Their explanations can also be considered in relation to the nature-nurture debate. Social support emphasises environmental influences, such as the presence of allies, and therefore represents a nurture explanation. In contrast, locus of control focuses on dispositional characteristics and may be viewed as a nature explanation. However, these explanations should not necessarily be considered separately. Situational and dispositional factors may interact to increase or decrease a person’s ability to resist social influence. It is therefore likely that both Jack and Sarah are correct, as both personality and the presence of others can affect resistance to social influence.