What resistance means

This lesson explains why people sometimes withstand social pressure. In AQA Social Influence, the pressure may be pressure to conform to a majority or pressure to obey an authority figure. Resistance does not mean someone is fearless, stubborn or automatically correct. It means they keep some independence when the situation is pushing them to yield.

There are two explanations in this specification point.

• Social support is a situational explanation: another person in the situation makes resistance easier.
• Locus of control is a dispositional explanation: a person's general belief about control over life events makes resistance more or less likely.

For exam answers, keep the distinction sharp. Social support answers should focus on the immediate situation: an ally, dissenting peer or disobedient role model. Locus of control answers should focus on individual differences: internal and external beliefs about control.

AO1 use: define both explanations accurately.

AO2 use: spot whether a scenario gives the person an ally or describes their belief about personal control.

AO3 use: evaluate using research evidence and limits. Strong answers avoid saying "this proves resistance" because most evidence shows probability, not certainty.

Social support and conformity

In conformity situations, social support often works by breaking unanimity. A unanimous majority can create a strong sense that "everyone else thinks this, so I must be wrong" or "everyone else expects this, so I should fit in". When one person dissents, the pressure changes. The individual can see that disagreement is possible.

Asch's (1955) line-judgement research is the classic AO3 example. In the reported procedure, 123 student participants from three higher-education institutions judged line lengths aloud after several confederates. There were 18 trials, including 12 critical trials where the majority deliberately gave the same wrong answer. Asch reported substantial conformity under a unanimous majority. When the participant had a truthful partner who also resisted the majority, majority pressure was reduced to about one-quarter of its previous strength. The conclusion is that the partner did not need to give a speech or persuade the participant: their mere disagreement showed that the majority was not united.

This can reduce both types of conformity pressure.

• Normative pressure: the person is less afraid of ridicule because they are not the only dissenter.
• Informational pressure: the person has independent confirmation that their perception may be right.

Allen and Levine's (1968/1969) social support research adds a useful evaluation point. In a Crutchfield-style simulated group procedure with introductory psychology students, they compared a unanimous condition with conditions where a supporter dissented from the group. Social support reduced conformity, but support was stronger when the ally seemed competent at the task. An ally who appeared to have poor vision still helped, but less than a clearly valid ally. Their conclusion was that social support works partly because it gives independent confirmation of reality, not simply because another person is present. This means social support is not magic. It depends partly on whether the supporter seems able to give useful independent confirmation.

AO1 use: explain social support as an ally breaking unanimity.

AO2 use: in a scenario, look for one dissenting classmate, colleague, juror or group member.

AO3 use: Asch supports the idea that a dissenting ally increases independent behaviour; Allen and Levine refine the explanation by showing that the ally's credibility can matter.

Social support and obedience

Social support can also explain resistance to obedience. Here the supporter may not share the participant's exact private belief, but they model disobedience. This matters because obedience often feels like a one-to-one confrontation with an authority figure. A disobedient peer changes the social field: the authority looks less absolute, and the participant sees a practical route for refusing.

Milgram's (1965) obedience variations are the classic example. In his baseline procedure, male adult participants were ordered to give increasingly intense electric shocks to a learner in a supposed memory study; 26 out of 40 were fully obedient. In the disobedient-peer variation, 40 fresh participants sat with two confederate "teachers" who eventually refused to continue. Full obedience fell to 4 out of 40. The conclusion is that disobedient peers created social support by showing that defiance was possible and that refusal did not lead to serious immediate consequences.

There are several mechanisms behind this.

• A disobedient peer provides a model of resistance.
• The authority figure's legitimacy is weakened because others are openly rejecting the order.
• The person can feel shared responsibility with other dissenters rather than feeling isolated.

The evaluation is balanced. Milgram's variation gives strong experimental support because the presence of disobedient peers was deliberately manipulated. However, the setting was artificial, ethically problematic and based on a particular historical and cultural sample. That does not make the finding useless, but it means exam answers should say social support increases the likelihood of resistance rather than guarantees it.

AO1 use: explain how disobedient role models reduce obedience.

AO2 use: apply to someone refusing an unethical instruction after seeing a peer refuse first.

AO3 use: Milgram supports social support in obedience, but ecological validity and ethics limit simple generalisation.

Locus of control

Rotter described locus of control as a continuum, not a simple personality type. People can be more internal or more external, and the same person may feel more in control in one situation than another.

The link to resistance is straightforward but should be worded carefully. People with a more internal locus of control are usually described as more likely to resist social influence because they believe their own actions matter. They may be more willing to take personal responsibility, trust their own judgement and act independently. People with a more external locus of control may be more likely to yield because they see powerful others or the situation as controlling what happens.

That does not mean internals always resist or externals always obey. A highly internal person may still conform if the group provides strong evidence, and a more external person may resist if they have strong social support. The best AQA answer treats locus of control as one factor interacting with the situation.

AO1 use: define the internal-external continuum accurately.

AO2 use: apply to wording such as "I decide what happens next" versus "there is no point resisting people in charge".

AO3 use: evaluate whether locus of control predicts actual resistance or only relates to it.

Evaluating locus of control

The main strength of locus of control is that it gives a plausible dispositional explanation for why people in the same situation behave differently. If two students face the same majority pressure, one may conform while the other resists. Locus of control helps explain that variation.

There is research support. Spector (1983) used Rotter's locus of control scale with 157 undergraduate students, alongside a measure of normative and informational predispositions. He found that locus of control was related to normative social influence tendencies, but not informational tendencies. This fits the theory: externals may be more vulnerable when the key pressure is social approval, but not necessarily when the issue is genuine uncertainty about what is correct.

Avtgis (1998) also reviewed studies on locus of control, persuasion, social influence and conformity. This meta-analysis found an average correlation of .37 between locus of control scores and persuasion, social influence and conformity measures, with externals generally more susceptible. This supports the broad idea that internality is linked to resistance, while still showing a relationship rather than a simple cause.

The limitations matter just as much.

• Much of the evidence is correlational. It shows an association between locus of control and social influence, but it does not prove that locus of control causes resistance.
• Locus of control is broad. Specific features of the situation, such as task difficulty, group size, unanimity, proximity and authority, can be more powerful than personality.
• The explanation can become culturally biased if "internal" is treated as automatically better. In more collectivist contexts, attending to others may reflect social responsibility rather than weak independence.
• Historical evidence on locus of control shows that beliefs about control can change across cohorts and social contexts, so it should not be treated as a fixed trait outside society.

The strongest conclusion is interactionist: resistance is most likely when a person has both situational support and a belief that their own action can make a difference.

AO1 use: describe internal and external control beliefs.

AO2 use: link the belief to the exact behaviour in the scenario.

AO3 use: use Spector or Avtgis as support, then add a limitation about correlation, situation strength or cultural context.

Building AQA answers

AQA can assess this topic as a short explanation, an application question or part of a longer essay. The safest answer route is to separate the two explanations first, then compare them.

Avoid these common errors.

• Do not describe social support as general friendship after the event. It must help the person during the pressure to conform or obey.
• Do not say locus of control is the same as confidence. It is a belief about control over reinforcement and outcomes.
• Do not write that internals always resist. AQA rewards probabilistic wording: "more likely", "may", "can".
• Do not drift into the neighbouring topic of minority influence. A supporter in this lesson helps an individual resist; a minority in the next lesson tries to convert the majority.

For a longer answer, a strong structure is:

1. Define resistance to social influence.
2. Explain social support in conformity and obedience.
3. Explain internal and external locus of control.
4. Apply each explanation to the scenario if one is given.
5. Evaluate with at least one research support point and one limitation.