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 are responsible for their own actions, making them more likely to resist authority. In contrast, those with an external locus attribute their behaviour to external factors, such as luck or fate, and are less likely to resist.

Another explanation is social support. When individuals see others disobeying authority, it reduces the pressure to conform or obey. Milgram demonstrated this in a variation where two disobedient confederates were introduced, and obedience rates dropped from 65% to 10%. This suggests that social support provides confidence and a model for defiance.

One strength of locus of control as an explanation 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. (Because) This demonstrates that a sense of personal responsibility is crucial in resisting authority. (Why) However, this explanation may not account for situations where individuals with an internal locus still conform. (Counterargument) In high-pressure environments or with highly legitimate authority figures, situational factors may override dispositional traits.

A limitation of locus of control is that it focuses too heavily on individual differences and neglects situational factors. (Point) For example, research by Milgram showed that situational variables, such as proximity and authority, had a significant impact on obedience. (Because) This suggests that while locus of control is relevant, it cannot fully explain why people defy authority in all contexts. (Why) However, locus of control remains valuable for explaining why some individuals resist more consistently than others. (Counterargument)

A strength of social support is its real-world applicability. (Point) For example, workplaces can use social support strategies to empower employees to resist unethical demands from managers. (Because) This demonstrates how understanding social support can help individuals act independently in group settings. (Why) However, cultural differences may limit the universality of this explanation. (Counterargument) In collectivist cultures, group harmony is prioritised, which may reduce the likelihood of individuals using social support to resist authority.

A weakness of social support is that it may not fully explain resistance in the absence of disobedient models. (Point) Some individuals resist authority even without seeing others disobey, suggesting additional factors, such as moral reasoning, may play a role. (Because) This limits the explanation’s comprehensiveness in accounting for all instances of defiance. (Why) However, social support remains a crucial situational factor that significantly reduces obedience in many contexts. (Counterargument)

By examining locus of control and social support, we gain valuable insights into the dispositional and situational factors that contribute to defiance of authority. While both have strengths, they also highlight the complexity of resistance and the interplay between individual and environmental influences.