Download Click here for document about independent behaviour

Explanations of independent behaviour, including locus of control, how people
resist pressures to conform and resist pressures to obey authority
Independent behaviour:
Locus of Control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect
them. Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result primarily from their own
behaviour and actions. Those with a high external locus of control believe that powerful others, fate, or chance
primarily determine events. Those with a high internal locus of control have better control of their behaviour
and tend to exhibit more political behaviours than externals and are more likely to attempt to influence other
people; they are more likely to assume that their efforts will be successful. They are more active in seeking
information and knowledge concerning their situation than do externals. The propensity to engage in political
behaviour is stronger for individuals who have a high internal locus of control than for those who have a high
external locus of control.
Study 1
Elms and Milgram (1974) investigated the background of some of the disobedient participants from Milgram’s
first four obedience experiments. They found that disobedient participants had a high internal locus of control and
scored higher on a scale that measured their sense of social responsibility
Study 2
Atgis (1998) looked at other studies (so carried out a meta analysis) that considered locus of control and
conformity. He found that there was a +0.37 correlation between having an external locus of control and
conformity. While this correlation may seem small, it is statistically significant. Atgis’s work suggests that having an
internal locus of control links to independent behaviour
Study 3
Williams and Warchal (1981) studied 30 university students who were given a range of conformity tasks based
on Asch’s study. Each student was also assessed using Rotter’s locus of control scale. They found that those who
conformed did not score differently on the locus of control scale but they were less assertive, so assertiveness may
have more to do with conformity than locus of control.
Evaluation
Applications
It may be possible to encourage more independent behaviour when conformity and
obedience is destructive. This is possible only if people can change from external to
internal locus of control, so this could be a consideration during education of children.
Reliability
Research is far from consistent about the role of locus of control and independent
behaviour. For example, a study by Schurz (1985) using Austrian participants who were
asked to give increasingly painful bursts of ultrasound to a learner, and who were told
that the highest level could cause skin damage, revealed no link between locus of control
and obedience among the 80% of participants that went all the way to the maxim
ultrasound level. Therefore scientists are yet to be convinced about the role of LOC and
independent behaviour
Evaluation
Social Desirability Bias: Locus of Control is measured by questionnaire or interview,
of method in and this would lead to the possibility of social desirability bias. Participants may not want
terms of
to be honest with the researcher so that they are seen in a better light. Correlational
validity
research, such as that by Atgis (1998) lacks the control and manipulation of experiments
to establish cause and effect. It is feasible that other variables, such as assertiveness, or
type A behaviour, may confound both LOC and independent behaviour.

Resisting the pressures to conform: Factors that make conformity to a majority influence less
likely:
Desire to retain a sense of individuality. Sometimes we may want to be different to other people
around us, to be individuals rather than members of a group. This is particularly true in Western cultures
where it seems that people may feel uncomfortable if they are the same as others around them all the
time. Snyder & Fromkin (1980) compared two groups of American students to see which was most likely
to conform. One group were told they had attitudes that were the same as 10,000 other students, and the
other group was told their attitude was very different to 10,000 other students. The group who were told
their attitude was the same were more likely to resist conforming than the group who were told they had
individual attitudes. This showed that students who were led to believe they already had a conforming
attitude made extra effort to assert themselves as individuals.
Internal Locus of Control. Most people like to feel they have control over the things that happen to them
in their lives, and if pressured to conform they may feel their control has been threatened. Burger (1992)
used a rating scale to classify people as either high or low in their desire to be in control. Those who were
low in their desire to be in control were more happy to receive help with a difficult puzzle than those who
scored highly. High control scorers reacted with irritation at the offer of help as they felt their ability to
remain individual was being threatened.
Support from an ally. Unanimity is vital for conformity, so that when an ally is present, people within the
minority are much more likely to take a stand against the majority, the pressures of normative
informational influence are removed. In Asch’s original study, the conformity rate decreased to 5% is thre
participant was supported by another confederate.

Resisting the pressures to obey: Factors that make obedience less likely
Feeling responsible and empathetic. Some of Milgram’s participants refused to continue delivering
electric shocks when they thought the victim was distressed or in pain. When participants were able to see
or even touch the victim, obedience dropped to 40% and 30% respectively. Only 16% of female students in
an Australian study (see Kilham and Mann, 1974) gave the full shock level of 450 volts. The low obedience
rate was attributed to the learner being another female student, just like the ‘teacher’. This lead to more
empathy for the victim and less obedience to the experimenter.
Disobedient role models. Watching other people be disobedient may encourage resistance to blind
obedience. In 1955 Rosa Parks refused to obey the orders of a bus driver when he told her to allow a
white person to sit down, and in so doing became a disobedient role model for other black people to
resist white control. In Milgram’s experiment, participants found it easier to refuse to obey the order to
give electric shocks when they could see another participant also disobey. Two fellow ‘teachers’
(confederates of the experimenter) were in the room - one reading the list of word pairs, the other
informing ‘Mr Wallace’ whether he was right or wrong and the naive participant administering the shocks.
When one ‘upset’ confederate quitting at 150v and the other at 210v, only 10% gave the full shock level,
with 50% refusing to carry on past 150v.
Questioning motives and status of authority. When people are able to question the legitimacy of an
authority figure, they find it easier to remain independent. When Milgram moved his experiment to an
office building, obedience rates dropped to 48% because the status of the building conveyed the idea to
participants that the authority figure was less legitimate.