(+) Research support
-Holland repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants had internal or external LOCs.
-37% of internals didn’t continue to the highest shock level (they showed some resistance) whereas only 23% of externals didn’t continue.
-resistance is related to LOC, increasing the validity of LOC as an explanation of disobedience
Counterpoint: Rotter pointed out that this is not necessarily the most important factor in determining whether or not someone will resist social influence. It depends on the situation. It can only be a partial explanation, relevant to some situations but not others.
(-) Conflicting evidence:
-Twenge et al analysed data from American locus of control studies conducted over a 40 year period.
-the data showed that over time, people become more resistant to social influence but also more external
-however, if LOC was related to resistance to social influence, we’d expect people to become more internal.
-locus of control isn’t a valid explanation of how people resist social influence.