Dispositional Explanations of Social Influence

Why people respond differently to social pressure

People in the same group do not always behave in the same way. Some follow the majority, some resist, and some obey an authority figure even when others refuse. Dispositional explanations explain these differences through internal characteristics, such as personality, confidence and beliefs about right and wrong.

This differs from a situational explanation, which focuses on external circumstances, such as group pressure or the authority figure giving an order. A disposition can make a response more likely without making it inevitable.

Self-esteem and the confidence to resist conformity

Self-esteem means how much someone values themselves. Carl Rogers distinguished between a person’s self-concept, what they think they are like, and their ideal self, what they would like to be like. In his explanation, a large gap between the two is associated with low self-esteem; a small gap is associated with higher self-esteem.

Someone with low self-esteem may lack confidence in their own judgement. When a majority disagrees with them, they may find it difficult to stand by their beliefs. This can lead to conformity in two different ways:

• Compliance: they go along with the group to fit in and be liked, although they privately disagree.
• Internalisation: they assume the majority must be right and genuinely accept its view.

For example, a student might copy their friends’ clothing choices because they want approval, or because they come to believe that their friends’ choices really are better. The outward behaviour may look similar, but the private belief differs.

People with higher self-esteem are generally less easily influenced because they have greater confidence in their own views. This explanation therefore connects a person’s self-evaluation with their response to social pressure, rather than treating everyone in a group as equally susceptible.

Locus of control and following a crowd

Locus of control concerns where someone believes control over events and outcomes lies. A person with a mainly internal locus of control believes their own efforts and decisions matter. A person with a mainly external locus of control believes outcomes depend on forces such as luck, fate or other people. These are positions on a continuum, rather than two completely separate types of person.

Consider failing an examination. Someone with an internal locus of control might explain the result through insufficient revision. Someone with an external locus of control might attribute it to an unfair paper or incorrect marking. The distinction concerns their explanation of the outcome, not whether that explanation is accurate.

In a crowd, people with an external locus of control are expected to be more easily influenced. Their greater reliance on external influences can make them more likely to follow what others are doing. Those with an internal locus of control are more likely to see their behaviour as their own responsibility and resist pressure to follow the crowd.

Locus of control helps explain susceptibility to collective behaviour; it does not mean that following a crowd must involve harmful behaviour.

Morality and choosing whether to help or harm

Morality concerns understanding and judging what is right and wrong. Pro-social behaviour helps or benefits others, whereas anti-social behaviour harms others or violates accepted social rules.

Stronger moral reasoning can encourage people to consider the effects of their actions on others. It is therefore expected to increase pro-social behaviour and reduce anti-social behaviour. Moral beliefs can also give someone a reason to resist a group or an authority figure.

Hornsey et al. (2003) found that people were less likely to conform to a majority when the task involved cheating. This supports the idea that moral objections can outweigh pressure to fit in. Kohlberg (1969) found that participants in Milgram’s obedience research with higher levels of moral reasoning were better able to resist the experimenter’s orders and administered lower levels of supposed electric shock.

These findings show why social influence is not simply a matter of how much pressure a group applies: the individual’s judgement of the requested action also matters.

Authoritarian personality and obedience

Obedience means following an authority figure’s order. Adorno et al. (1950) described an authoritarian personality characterised by strong respect for authority, fixed beliefs and intolerance towards others.

People with these characteristics are expected to obey those who hold power over them more readily. Their respect for authority makes the authority figure’s position particularly important when deciding whether to follow an order.

Milgram (1974) reported that highly authoritarian participants were more likely to obey and delivered higher levels of supposed shock than less authoritarian participants. This supports a dispositional explanation of differences in obedience, although it does not show that only authoritarian people obey harmful orders.

Brain structure, self-esteem and moral decisions

Dispositional explanations also connect social behaviour with biology. Research links differences in brain structure and activity with characteristics such as self-esteem and moral judgement.

Pruessner et al. (2005) found significant correlations between hippocampal volume, the size of the hippocampus, and both self-esteem and internal locus of control. This links a biological characteristic with dispositions that may affect resistance to social pressure. However, correlation alone cannot establish whether brain volume causes these dispositions, whether other influences affect both, or whether the relationship works in another way.

The prefrontal cortex is a region towards the front of the brain involved in decision-making. Young and Dungan (2012) reported that its ventromedial region is active when people evaluate the emotional aspects of moral decisions.

Damage to this region is associated with reduced empathy, anti-social behaviour and difficulty making suitable moral decisions. Importantly, someone may still know and understand society’s rules. Knowing that an action breaks a rule is not the same as evaluating its emotional impact on another person.

How far can dispositional explanations be generalised?

Dispositional explanations are useful because they account for differences between people facing similar social pressure. Evidence about moral resistance, authoritarian traits and brain differences supports the view that the individual matters. NatCen (2011) also linked involvement in anti-social behaviour during the Tottenham riots to individuals’ beliefs about right and wrong and their assessment of the costs and benefits of participating.

However, a trait’s influence cannot automatically be generalised to every situation. Someone with low self-esteem may conform in one group but resist another if the requested behaviour conflicts with a strong moral belief. Equally, the pressure exerted by a crowd or authority figure may change how a disposition is expressed.

Reducing behaviour entirely to personality or brain characteristics would overlook these circumstances. A stronger conclusion is that dispositions affect the likelihood of conformity, obedience and crowd behaviour, but interact with situational influences. They explain tendencies, not fixed responses that occur everywhere.

Dispositions and behaviour

Dispositional explanations focus on internal characteristics; situational explanations focus on external circumstances.

• Self-esteem → conformity: low self-esteem means less confidence in personal judgement, increasing compliance or internalisation. Higher self-esteem generally reduces conformity. Rogers: a larger – gap means lower self-esteem.