Discuss at least two explanations for defiance of authority. Refer to evidence in your answer. (Total 16 marks)

Model Answer:

One explanation for defiance of authority is locus of control. Individuals with an internal locus of control believe they have personal responsibility for their actions and are more likely to resist authority. In contrast, those with an external locus of control attribute their behaviour to external factors, making them more likely to obey. Research by Rotter supports this, showing that individuals with an internal locus are less influenced by social pressures.

Another explanation is social support, which involves the presence of others who resist authority, reducing the pressure to conform. In Milgram’s variation, when participants were joined by two disobedient confederates, obedience dropped from 65% to 10%. Social support provides confidence and demonstrates that resistance is possible, making individuals more likely to defy authority.

One strength of locus of control as an explanation for resistance is its empirical support. (Point) Research by Oliner and Oliner found that individuals who helped Jews during the Holocaust were more likely to have an internal locus of control compared to those who did not. (Because) This supports the idea that internal locus increases personal responsibility, enabling individuals to resist obedience even in extreme situations. (Why) However, a limitation is that locus of control may not fully explain resistance in all contexts. (Counterargument) Situational factors, such as the authority figure’s proximity or legitimacy, may play a more significant role in determining obedience than dispositional traits.

A weakness of the locus of control explanation is its focus on individual differences. (Point) It assumes that personality alone determines resistance, neglecting situational factors like social support or group dynamics. (Because) This is problematic because resistance often depends on external influences, such as peer behaviour, which the explanation does not fully address. (Why) However, understanding locus of control is still valuable for identifying why some individuals are more predisposed to resist authority than others. (Counterargument)

A strength of social support as an explanation is its real-world applicability. (Point) For example, in workplace settings, employees are more likely to resist unethical orders when they see colleagues voicing dissent. (Because) This highlights how social support empowers individuals to defy authority, providing practical insights into how resistance can be encouraged in group contexts. (Why) However, the explanation may not fully account for instances where individuals resist authority even without social support. (Counterargument) This suggests that additional factors, such as moral reasoning or personal experience, may also play a role in defiance.

A limitation of social support is its potential cultural bias. (Point) In collectivist cultures, individuals may prioritise group harmony over defiance, even when social support is present. (Because) This means that the effectiveness of social support in reducing obedience may vary across different cultural contexts. (Why) However, the explanation remains useful in individualistic cultures, where personal independence is more highly valued. (Counterargument)

By examining locus of control and social support, research provides valuable insights into the factors that contribute to resistance. Both dispositional and situational influences play crucial roles, highlighting the complex nature of defiance against authority.