Social Psychology 9Th Edition Aronson Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Social Psychology 9th Edition Aronson
Solutions Manual
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/social-psychology-9th-edition-aronson-solutions-manual/
8
Conformity:
Influencing Behavior
CONTENTS
Learning Objectives
Chapter Outline
Key Terms
Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions
Autograded Writing Activities in MyPsychLab and REVEL
In-Class Exercises and Quick Assessments
Integrating “Try It” Active Learning Exercises
Student Projects and Research Assignments
Websites to Explore
Film and Video Listings
Online Videos to Explore
Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

310
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
8.1 What is conformity, and why does it occur?

8.2 How does informational social influence motivate people to conform?
8.3 How does normative social influence motivate people to conform?
8.4. How can people use their knowledge of social influence to influence others?
8.5 What have studies demonstrated about people’s willingness to obey authority figures?
Return to Table of Contents

311
CHAPTER OUTLINE
I. Chapter Prologue
• Describes the case of David R. Stewart who is accused of calling fast food restaurants,
posing as a police officer, and instructing the manager on duty to conduct a strip search of
an employee.
II. Conformity: When and Why

What is conformity, and why does it occur?
• American culture values non-conformity. This is reflected in the Marlboro man ads and
Apple ads telling us to “think different.”
• However, conformity, especially to strong situations, is common in the U.S. It has led to
non-violent protests of racism, the massacre of innocent civilians in Vietnam, and the
abuse of prisoners.
• Conformity is a change in behavior due to the real or imagined influence of others.
• American culture celebrates the rugged individualist, but even in our own culture extremes
of conformity, such as Jonestown, Heaven’s Gate, the My Lai massacre, and prisoner
abuses at Abu Ghraib occur. Social psychologists suggest that these events occurred not
because the people involved were crazy but because they were subjected to very strong
situational influences.
NOTES: _____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
III. Informational Social Influence: The Need to Know What’s “Right”

How does informational social influence motivate people to conform?
• In many situations, we are uncertain how to think or to act. We use the behavior of others
to help us figure out what is going on in the situation and what to do about it.
Informational social influence occurs when we conform because we see other people as a
source of information. We conform because we believe that others’ interpretation of an
ambiguous situation is more correct than ours and will help us choose an appropriate
course of action.
• Sherif (1936) conducted an experiment that made use of the autokinetic effect, the illusion
that a still point of light in an otherwise dark visual field moves. People vary in how much
motion they perceive. Thus the autokinetic effect provides an ambiguous situation. When
people were put in groups to make their estimates, over several trials the differing
estimates of the people converged (Figure 8.1). This conformity was apparently due to
informational social influence because it resulted in private acceptance of the group norm
out of genuine belief in their correctness (rather than public compliance, or a change in
behavior without a change in belief): participants in variations of the study maintained
their adherence to the group norm in private and up to a year later.

312
• Conformity has been used to get people to conserve electricity and to get hotel guests to
forgo having their towels washed.
A. The Importance of Being Accurate

• Recent research has extended Sherif’s work by employing judgment tasks that are
more like real life and demonstrating that the importance to the individual of being
accurate at the task affects informational social influence.
• Baron, Vandello, & Brunsman (1996) gave participants an eyewitness task, showing
them a picture of a perpetrator and then having them pick that person out of a lineup.
The task was made ambiguous by having the perpetrator dressed differently in the
lineup than in the original photo and by flashing the lineup for only half a second. The
importance of the task was manipulated by telling some groups that this was a new test
to identify accurate eyewitnesses that the local police department was adopting, that
they were helping develop norms for the task, and that they would receive $20; and by
telling other groups that the task was a test under development. Participants completed
the task in groups with three confederates who gave the wrong answer on seven critical
trials. Baron et al. found that participants were more influenced (in this case by
informational social influence) by the confederate’s answers when the task was more
important—an important extension of Sherif s work.
B. When Informational Conformity Backfires

• Informational influence is often involved in crisis situations. For example, the 1938
Orson Welles War of the Worlds radio broadcast (a teleplay, presented in broadcast
news format, about an alien invasion) led to widespread panic because many people
missed the beginning of the broadcast (which identified it as a play) and turned to each
other to see how they should behave. Additionally, people interpreted other events in
their environment (e.g., no cars driving down the street) as due to the invasion,
intensifying their fears and leading to a contagion situation (one where emotions or
behaviors spread rapidly through a crowd).
C. When Will People Conform to Informational Social Influence?

1. When the Situation Is Ambiguous
• Ambiguity is the most crucial variable in determining whether people use each
other as a source of information.
2. When the Situation Is a Crisis
• Crisis situations leave us limited time to act, which may make us scared and
panicky. If we turn to others who are also panicked for information, our own panic
and irrationality may be intensified.
3. When Other People Are Experts
• The more expertise or knowledge someone has, the more people will turn to them
as a guide in an ambiguous situation. Unfortunately, experts are not always reliable
sources of information.

313
NOTES: _____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
IV. Normative Social Influence: The Need to Be Accepted

How does normative social influence motivate people to conform?
• Examples are presented of teenagers engaging in life-threatening behavior. This behavior
occurs not because the teens are unaware of the risk but because they want to be accepted
and liked by their peers. To do so, they conform to the group’s social norms: the implicit
or explicit rules a group has for the acceptable behaviors, values, and beliefs of its
members.
• The ice bucket challenge, for ALS, is an example of normative conformity that had a
positive outcome.
• Group members who do not conform are ridiculed, punished, or rejected by other group
members. In Japan, a dozen teenage victims of bullying killed themselves in one year
(Jordan, 1996).
• Humans are a social species and thus have a fundamental need for social companionship
that forms the basis for normative social influence: conformity in order to be liked and
accepted by others. Normative conformity often results in public compliance without
private acceptance.
A. Conformity and Social Approval: The Asch Line Judgment Studies

• Asch (1951, 1956) conducted a series of classic experiments on normative social
influence. In contrast to Sherif’s work, Asch used a situation that was clearly defined
rather than ambiguous. Specifically, he used a line judgment task where participants
were presented with a series of three lines of differing lengths and were asked to match
a target line to one of the three; the correct answer was obvious (Figure 8.2).
Unbeknownst to the true participant, the other seven participants were confederates.
The real participant always answered last. In 2/3 of the trials, the confederates
unanimously agreed on an incorrect answer. A surprising amount of conformity
occurred: 76% conformed at least once, and on average, people conformed on about a
third of the trials where the confederates gave the wrong answer (Figure 8.3).
Interviews with participants indicated that they did not want to feel different or foolish.
The Asch experiment is especially surprising since people were concerned about
looking foolish in front of complete strangers and there were no tangible risks or
punishments for failing to conform.
• In a variation of the study, subjects wrote their answers on paper rather than saying
them aloud; in this variation, conformity dropped dramatically. This demonstrates the
power of social disapproval in the original study in shaping a person’s behavior.
• Recent research by Berns et al. (2005) used fMRI to examine brain activity of
participants as they either conformed to a group or maintained their independence and
disagreed with the group. The participants showed levels of conformity similar to those
in the Asch studies. When participants gave the correct answer (and disagreed with the
group) rather than showing activation in the visual/perceptional areas of the brain, the

314
amygdala and right caudate nucleus, areas devoted to negative emotions and
modulating social behavior, were activated. This research thus supports the idea that
normative social influence occurs because people feel negative emotions when they go
against the group.
B. The Importance of Being Accurate, Revisited

• The Baron et al. (1996) study described earlier included experimental conditions
designed to trigger normative social influence. In these conditions, the eyewitness
identification task was made extremely easy by showing participants the lineup for five
seconds and by letting them view each pair of slides twice. Control subjects got 97%
correct on these conditions, demonstrating that this task was indeed unambiguous and
analogous to the Asch line judgment situation. Importance of being accurate was
manipulated as before. In this case, participants in the low-importance condition
conformed 33% of the time, a result similar to Asch’s findings. Participants in the
high-importance condition conformed 16% of the time—indeed, a lesser amount of
conformity, but still some. Even when the group is wrong, the right answer is obvious,
and when there are strong incentives to be accurate, people will find it difficult to risk
social disapproval.
• We tend to underestimate the extent to which we conform. However, we all conform,
at least in small ways, all of the time. Trends in fashion are one example of normative
conformity.
C. The Consequences of Resisting Normative Social Influence

• What happens when people manage to resist normative group influence? Other group
members start paying attention to the deviant and trying to convince him or her to
conform; if s/he doesn’t, eventually the deviant will be rejected.
• Schacter (1951) demonstrated how groups respond to an individual who ignores the
group’s normative influence. Groups read a case history of “Johnny Rocco,” a juvenile
delinquent. The case typically led to middle-of-the-road positions about the case. An
accomplice in the group was instructed to disagree with the group’s recommendations.
The deviant received most of the communication from other group members until near
the end (when it was apparent that communication wouldn’t work); at this point, other
group members began to ignore the deviant, and on a subsequent task, they
recommended that the deviant be eliminated from further group discussions if group
size were reduced.
D. When Will People Conform to Normative Social Influence?

• Latane’s social impact theory suggests that conforming to normative pressures
depends on the strength (personal importance), immediacy (physical proximity), and
number of other people in a group. According to the theory, conformity will increase
directly with the amount of strength and immediacy; but that increases in numbers will
show diminishing returns (i.e., going from 3 to 4 makes more of a difference than
going from 53 to 54). The theory has done a good job of predicting the actual amount
of conformity that occurs.
1. When the Group Grows Larger
• Asch’s research (and subsequent investigations) show that conformity does not

315
increase much after group size reaches 4 or 5 other people (Figure 8.4).
2. When the Group Is Important
• Normative pressures are much stronger when they come from people whose
friendship, love, or respect we cherish. A consequence is that it can be dangerous
to have important policy decisions made by highly cohesive groups who may care
more about pleasing each other than about making the best decision. However,
people who often conform build up idiosyncracy credits, and are allowed to
deviate from the group occasionally.
3. When One Has No Allies in the Group
• A variation of Asch’s experiment demonstrated the importance of group unanimity:
when only one other person gave the right answer, the level of conforming to the
group dropped to only 6% (from 32%).
• This pattern is also present in the Supreme Court. The most common pattern of
decisions in the group over many decades was unanymity and the least common
pattern was having on dissenter (Granberg & Bartels, 2005).
4. When the Group’s Culture Is Collectivistic
• Differences in cultures’ individualist vs. collectivist orientation have implications
for conformity. The Asch experiment has been replicated in several cultures. Some
(e.g., Norway and the Bantus of Zimbabwe) find much higher levels of conformity
than the U.S. In Japan, conformity was lower than in the U.S. because conformity
is directed at groups to which one belongs and not groups of strangers. A meta-
analysis found higher levels of conformity in collectivistic cultures than in
individualistic cultures (Bond & Smith, 1996). Berry (1967) suggested and
provided some data in support of the idea that hunting cultures will favor
independence while agricultural cultures will favor cooperation and conformity.
Replications of the Asch experiment in the U.S. and Britain in the 1980s showed
decreasing amounts of conformity within the culture.
E. Minority Influence: When the Few Influence the Many

• Moscovici argues that the individual or the minority can affect change in the majority
(minority influence). The key to this is consistency over time and between members
of the minority.
• A meta-analysis by Wendy Wood et al. (1994) leads to the conclusion that majorities
often cause public compliance because of normative social influence, whereas
minorities often cause private acceptance because of informational social influence.
NOTES: _____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
V. Strategies for Using Social Influence

How can people use their knowledge of social influence to influence others?
• People who saw that their Facebook friends had voted were more likely to vote themselves
(Bond et al., 2012).

316
A. The Role of Injunctive and Descriptive Norms
• Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren have developed a model of normative conduct where
social norms (the rules society has for acceptable beliefs, values, and behaviors) can be
used to subtly induce people to conform to correct, socially approved behavior.
• Injunctive norms are people’s perception of what behaviors are approved or
disapproved of by others; descriptive norms are people’s perceptions of how people
actually behave in given situations, regardless of whether the behavior is approved of
or disapproved of by others.
• In one study (Reno et al., 1993), participants were exposed either to a confederate
walking by (the control group), a confederate walking by and dropping an empty fast-
food bag (descriptive norm condition), or a confederate picking up a littered fast-food
bag (injunctive norm condition). This occurred in either a heavily littered or a clean
and unlittered parking lot. When participants came to their cars, they found a large
handbill slipped onto the windshield. Results indicated that 37 to 38% of the control
group littered, regardless of how clean the parking lot was. In the descriptive norm
condition, littering was reduced in the clean lot condition, where the confederate’s
behavior served to remind people of the prevailing norm for cleanliness displayed by
the clean lot, but it was not reduced in the littered lot condition, where the
confederate’s behavior reinforced the idea displayed by the dirty lot that it was okay to
litter. Finally, participants in the injunctive norm condition littered least of all,
regardless of the condition of the parking lot (see Figure 8.5).
• The researchers concluded that injunctive norms are more powerful than descriptive
norms in producing desired behavior. They also noted that norms are always present
but not always salient; some aspect of the situation (in this case, the confederate’s
behavior) needs to draw people’s attention to the norm so that they think about it.
Thus, information that communicates injunctive social norms—what society approves
and disapproves of—needs to be present to create positive behavior change.
B. Using Norms to Change Behavior: Beware the “Boomerang Effect”

• Researchers have attempted to use descriptive norms to get people to change
undesirable behaviors such as excessive drinking and using too much electricity
(Perkins, Haines, & Rice, 2005; Schultz et al., 2007, Wechsler et al., 2003). However,
presenting participants with descrptive norms backfired for participants that were
drinking less than their peers and those who were already conserving electricity. These
participants increased their drinking and electricity use. To avoid this “boomerang
effect,” research can include injunctive norms, giving positive feedback to those who
are already engaging in positive behavior. This prevents the boomerang effect that
results from relying on descriptive norms.
C. Other Tactics of Social Influence
• When asked to put up a big ugly lawn sign promoting safe driving, only 17% of people
said yes (Freedman & Fraser, 1966). However, when asked after agreeing to put a
small sign in their window, 76% said yes. This demonstrates the foot-in-the-door
technique, people are more likely to agree to a large request when is is preceded by a
smaller one. This is because they have already been helpful so to change their behavior
would cause dissonance.

317
• Making a large request and then a small request, door-in-the-face, is also an effective
technique. Participants asked to make a long-term volunteer commitment before being
asked to take children to the zoo were much more likely to say yes (50%) than those
who were just asked to take children to the zoo (17%; Cialdini et al., 1975). Door-in-
the-face begins with a large request. After people say no, they are presented with a
smaller request. The second request seems relatively small and the asker has lowered
their demands so the person being asked feels compelled to say yes.
• An extreme tactic of social influence is propaganda, a deliberate, systematic attempt
to advance a cause by manipulating mass attitudes and behaviors, often through
misleading or emotionally charged information. For example, Hitler created an
elaborate system of propaganda based on hatred of the Jews, a need for German racial
purity, and the desire for more space.
NOTES: _____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
VI. Obedience to Authority

• Philosopher Hannah Arendt (1965) argued that the atrocities of the Holocaust occurred not
because the participants were psychopaths but because they were ordinary people bowing
to extraordinary social pressures.
• Milgram (1964, 1974, 1976) examined the power of obedience to authority in social
psychology’s most famous laboratory experiment. Participants believed they were in a
study on the effects of punishment on learning; they were assigned the role of the teacher
and their partner (actually a confederate of the experiment) was assigned the role of the
learner. The teacher was assigned to punish the learner for every mistake in a paired
associates task by delivering an electric shock. Each mistake is to receive a progressively
higher level of shock. The learner protests, but the experimenter insists that the experiment
must continue (Figure 8.6). Milgram found that 62.5% of the participants gave the full 450
volt “Danger XXX” shock and that 80% continued past the learner’s announcement that he
had a heart condition and refused further participation.
• College students, middle-class adults, and professional scientists asked to estimate
beforehand the degree of obedience estimated that only 1% of the participants would go all
the way.
A. The Role of Normative Social Influence

• A variation on the Milgram experiment demonstrates the role of normative influence
(Figure 8.7). Significantly less compliance was demonstrated if two other “teachers”
refused to continue.
B. The Role of Informational Social Influence

• Other variations on the experiment (Figure 8.9) demonstrate the role of informational
influence due to how confusing the situation was. Significantly less compliance was

318
demonstrated if (a) the orders to continue came from another “teacher” rather than
from the experimenter; or (b) two experimenters disagreed about whether the
experiment should be continued.
C. Other Reasons Why We Obey

1. Conforming to the Wrong Norm
• Another factor influencing obedience in situations such as the Milgram experiment
and the My Lai massacre are mindlessness and the foot-in-the-door phenomenon:
mindlessness leads to initial compliance, and initial compliance begets subsequent
compliance. In the Milgram experiment, this was abetted by the quick pace of the
experiment and the fact that the shock increased in very small doses.
2. Self-Justification
• Additionally, dissonance reduction played a factor: each increase in shock led to
dissonance, and each rationalization of this dissonance provided the basis for
escalating the shock a bit further.
3. The Loss of Personal Responsibility
• Participants believed that the experimenter was the authority figure and that he was
responsible for the end results while they were “just following orders.”
• Research by Osofsky, Bandura, and Zimbardo (2005) found that guards who
carried out capital punishments showed much more “moral disengagement” from
their jobs than did guards who did not carry out executions.
D. The Obedience Studies, Then and Now

• Milgram’s studies have been replicated. They have also been highly criticized on ethical
grounds. Researchers did not get informed consent from the participants, they deceived
them, they caused them psychological harm, and it was not made clear to participants that
they could end their participation in the study if they wished to. Finally, participants may
have been forced to learn disturbing things about their own behaviors and may not have
been properly debriefed.
• New ethical guidelines meant that decades passed without further replication of Milgram’s
studies. In 2006, Burger modified Milgram’s procedure to make it more ethical by
lowering the maximum possible shock, making it clear to participants that they could end
the study at any time, and only including participants who were at low risk of
psychological harm. Burger (2009) found levels of obedience comparable to those found
in Milgram’s studies.
1. It’s Not About Aggression
• Is a universal aggressive urge a factor in obedience to cruel authority? A variation of
the Milgram experiment gave subjects permission to choose their own level of shock;
they were told that information about all levels was informative to make them feel free
to choose whichever level they desired. Most participants gave very mild shocks; only
2.5% gave the highest level (Figure 8.7).
• In sum, social pressures can combine in insidious ways to make humane people act
inhumanely. And evil is often bureaucratic and impersonal rather than direct and
intentional.

319
NOTES: _____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

320
KEY TERMS
• Conformity: (pg. 230) A change in one’s behavior due to the real or imagined influence of
other people
• Informational Social Influence: (pg. 231) The influence of other people that leads us to
conform because we see them as a source of information to guide our behavior; we conform
because we believe that others’ interpretation of an ambiguous situation is more correct than
ours and will help us choose an appropriate course of action
• Private Acceptance: (pg. 232) Conforming to other people’s behavior out of a genuine belief
that what they are doing or saying is right
• Public Compliance: (pg. 232) Conforming to other people’s behavior publicly without
necessarily believing in what we are doing or saying
• Social Norms: (pg. 237) The implicit or explicit rules a group has for the acceptable
behaviors, values, and beliefs of its members
• Normative Social Influence: (pg. 238) Going along with what other people do in order to be
liked and accepted by them; we publicly conform with the group’s beliefs and behaviors but
do not always privately accept them
• Social Impact Theory: (pg. 244) The idea that conforming to social influence depends on the
strength of the group’s importance, its immediacy, and the number of people in the group
• Idiosyncrasy Credits: (pg. 245) The tolerance a person earns, over time, by conforming to
group norms; if enough idiosyncrasy credits are earned, the person can, on occasion, behave
deviantly without retribution from the group
• Minority Influence: (pg. 248) The case where a minority of group members influences the
behavior or beliefs of the majority
• Injunctive Norms: (pg. 250) People’s perceptions of what behaviors are approved or
disapproved of by others
• Descriptive Norms: (pg. 250) People’s perceptions of how people actually behave in given
situations, regardless of whether the behavior is approved or disapproved of by others
• Foot-in-the-Door Technique: (pg. 254) Social influence strategy in which getting people to
agree first to a small request makes them more likely to agree later to a second, larger request
• Door-in-the-Face Technique: (pg. 254) Social influence strategy in which first asking people
for a large request that they will probably refuse makes them more likely to agree later to a
second, smaller request
• Propaganda: (pg. 254) A deliberate, systematic attempt to advance a cause by manipulating
mass attitudes and behaviors, often through misleading or emotionally charged information

321
CRITICAL THINKING AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
• Describe an incident in which you conformed to group norms due to normative influence and
one in which you conformed to group norms due to informational influence. Are there any
generalizations that can be made about the kinds of examples provided by the class? For
example, is informational influence more likely to occur with respect to facts and normative
with respect to issues of preferences? Relate students’ examples to the text’s summaries on
when people conform to informational vs. normative influence.
• What kinds of norms for appearance (e.g., dress and hairstyle) dominated in your high school?
What was the reaction toward people who violated these norms?
• Provide some examples of situations in which conformity could prove to be either beneficial
or harmful.
• Lead a discussion on sexual pressures on college students. Also incorporate pressures to use
drugs and alcohol. Use the materials at the end of the chapter to explain the best strategies to
“Just Say No.” Explain the tremendous power of social pressure. As an example, ask the
students to think of the most trouble they have ever gotten into. Then ask how many were
alone at the time. Most will have been in a group. Use this discussion as a lead-in for a lecture
on resisting compliance. What factors influence whether you will use someone else’s behavior
as your own guide in an ambiguous situation? For example, you are at a chicken dinner and
need to figure out whether it is OK to eat with your hands. You walk into a parking lot and
find your car’s windshield plastered with flyers; no trash can is available, and you are trying to
decide whether to toss the flyers on the ground or not. An alarm rings and you are trying to
decide whether or not it signals a real emergency. Can you design an experiment to test
whether or not your hypothesized factor is indeed influential?
• Compare and contrast conformity and obedience.
• Provide a personal example of an event in which you were influenced by a minority opinion or
action.
• Compare and contrast the processes by which majorities and minorities influence others to do
their bidding.
• Provide a personal example of a situation where you have been able to act deviantly from the
group without consequence because of “idiosyncrasy credits” you’d earned.
• What do you think you would have done if you had been a subject (a “teacher”) in Milgram’s
original shock/obedience study?
• What do you think about the ethics of the Milgram obedience study: was the knowledge
gained worth the stress on participants or was the stress more than should be induced in a
laboratory for the understanding of social processes? You might use the following quotes to

322
illustrate both sides of the debate:
 “. . . the discomfort caused the victim is momentary, while the scientific gains resulting
from the experiment are enduring.” (Milgram, as cited in Baumrind, p. 422).
 “It is important that, as research psychologists, we protect our ethical responsibilities
rather than adapt our personal standards to include as appropriate the kind of indignities to
which Milgram’s subjects were exposed.” (Baumrind, p. 423)
• Ask your students to consider how they have conformed since arriving to the campus on the
first day. Have them consider music tastes/favorite artists, dress, hairstyle, verbal expressions,
cafeteria behavior, etc.

323
AUTOGRADED WRITING ACTIVITIES IN MYPSYCHLAB AND REVEL
Conformity
MyLabs MyPsychLab, MyDevelopmentLab

Group
Prompt Code ARONSONch08_01
Provide a
unique
identifier
Prompt Type Expository Descriptive Narrative Persuasive
Check x
appropriate
type
Assessment Student Understanding, Critical Thinking, Writing Quality
Goals
Briefly
summarize and
describe the
assessment
goals for this
prompt (e.g.,
Student
Understanding,
Critical
Thinking,
Integrating
Concepts,
Writing
Quality, Other)
Instructor n/a
Requirements
Prompt In your own life, in what ways are you a conformist? What about a non-conformist?
What circumstances have rendered you personally to be more versus less likely to
conform with others in the past? Are your answers to these questions different
depending on whether we’re talking about informational versus normative social
influence?
Length of Minimum Maximum Expected (Avg.) Comments
Response
(in words)

324
Planned Scoring
Trait 1 Trait 2 Trait 3 Trait 4 Trait 5
Trait Holistic Focus &
Name Ideas Organization Conventions Voice Coherence
Score Weighted
Points Average 40% 10% 10% 20% 20%
Trait 1 Rubric: Ideas

Specific Trait
Score Point Description of Student Response
• Response features well-developed thesis with robust supporting evidence of
conformity.
4
• Strong consideration and argumentation of conformity.
• Excellent, perceptive analysis of conformity.
• Response features thesis with some supporting details describing conformity.
3 • Sufficient, thoughtful consideration and argumentation of conformity.
• Fairly comprehensive analysis of conformity.
• Response features broad, loosely defined interaction or event with limited
supporting details describing conformity.
2
• Minimal consideration and argumentation of conformity.
• Weak concluding analysis of conformity.
• Response features poorly defined interaction or event with no supporting
details describing conformity.
1
• No consideration and argumentation of conformity.
• Lack of concluding analysis of conformity.
Trait 2 Rubric: Organization

• Organization is effective and demonstrates a logical flow of ideas within the
response.
4 • Transitions effectively connect concepts.
• May contain an effective introduction and/or conclusion.
• Organization is clear and appropriate.
3 • Transitions appropriately connect concepts.
• May contain an appropriate introduction and/or conclusion.
• Organization is skeletal or otherwise limited, which may impede the reader’s
ability to follow the response.
2 • Some simple or basic transitions are used but may be inappropriate or
ineffective.
• May contain a minimal introduction and/or conclusion.

325
• Response lacks a clear plan.
1 • Transitions are lacking or do not link ideas.
• Both the introduction and conclusion are minimal and/or absent.
Trait 3 Rubric: Conventions

• Demonstrates sophistication and skill with a wide variety of conventions.
• May contain minor editing errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or
4
sentence construction.
• Errors do not interfere with the reader’s understanding.
• Demonstrates adequate control over a variety of conventions.
• Response may contain some errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and/or
3
• Most errors do not interfere with the reader’s understanding.
• Although basic conventions may be mostly controlled, overall the response
demonstrates inconsistent control over conventions.
• May not use a variety of conventions, OR may only use basic conventions.
2
• May contain a substantial number of errors in grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and/or sentence construction.
• Some errors interfere with the reader’s understanding.
• Demonstrates a lack of control over basic conventions.
• May contain a large number of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation,
1 and/or sentence structure OR the errors are severe.
• Errors interfere with the reader’s understanding OR the response is minimal
and has a density of errors.
Trait 4 Rubric: Voice

• Voice is appropriately authoritative, indicating a high level of comfort with
the material.
4
• Words are precise and well-chosen.
• Sentences are varied and have a natural fluidity.
• Voice is appropriate and clear.
3 • Words are appropriate to the subject matter.
• Sentences are appropriate and varied, making the response easy to read.
• Voice may be artificial or uneven.
• Word choice, overall, may be appropriate for the subject matter, but original
2 writing may indicate a limited vocabulary range.
• Sentences may be choppy, rambling, or repetitive in a way that limits
fluency.
• Voice may be lacking or inappropriate.
• Original writing may be simplistic, vague, inappropriate, or incorrect.
1 • Sentences may be limited in variety or may comprise awkward fragments or
run-ons that produce a halting voice.

326
Trait 5 Rubric: Focus & Coherence
Specific Trait
• Response persuasively justifies its conclusions through logic and examples.
4 • References to people, events, places, relationships, etc. effectively
demonstrate a strong command of the relevant concepts in communication.
• Response justifies its conclusions through some combination of logic and
examples.
3
• References to people, events, places, relationships, etc. effectively
demonstrate a good command of the relevant concepts in psychology.
• Response provides some justification for its conclusions. Some combination
of logic and examples are present but are inconsistent or somewhat
2 ineffective.
• References to people, events, places, relationships, etc. demonstrate only a
partial understanding of the relevant concepts in psychology.
• Response provides no significant justification for its conclusions. Logic and
examples are absent, inconsistent, and/or ineffective.
1
• References to people, events, places, relationships, etc. demonstrate no more
than a weak grasp of the relevant concepts in psychology.
Cognitive Dissonance and Conformity
MyLabs MyPsychLab, MyDevelopmentLab

Group
Prompt Code ARONSONch08_02
Provide a
unique
identifier
Prompt Type Expository Descriptive Narrative Persuasive
Check x
appropriate
type
Assessment Student Understanding, Critical Thinking, Writing Quality
Goals
Briefly
summarize and
describe the
assessment
goals for this
prompt (e.g.,
Student
Understanding,
Critical
Thinking,

327
Integrating
Concepts,
Writing
Quality, Other)
Instructor n/a
Requirements
Prompt In Chapter 6, we discussed the need to justify our actions, with a particular focus on
cognitive dissonance theory. How does cognitive dissonance relate to the topics covered
in this chapter? How is dissonance (and the more general need to justify our own
actions) relevant to basic conformity? To specific strategies of social influence like foot-
in-the-door or propaganda? To obedience to authority and the Milgram studies?
Length of Minimum Maximum Expected (Avg.) Comments
Response
(in words)
Planned Scoring
Trait 1 Trait 2 Trait 3 Trait 4 Trait 5
Trait Holistic Focus &
Name Ideas Organization Conventions Voice Coherence
Score Weighted
Points Average 40% 10% 10% 20% 20%
Trait 1 Rubric: Ideas

Specific Trait
• Response features well-developed thesis with robust supporting evidence of
cognitive dissonance and its relationship with conformity.
• Strong consideration and argumentation of cognitive dissonance and its
4
relationship with conformity.
• Excellent, perceptive analysis of cognitive dissonance and its relationship
with conformity.
• Response features thesis with some supporting details describing cognitive
dissonance and its relationship with conformity.
• Sufficient, thoughtful consideration and argumentation of cognitive
3
dissonance and its relationship with conformity.
• Fairly comprehensive analysis of cognitive dissonance and its relationship
with conformity.
• Response features broad, loosely defined interaction or event with limited
supporting details describing cognitive dissonance and its relationship with
conformity.
2 • Minimal consideration and argumentation of cognitive dissonance and its
• Weak concluding analysis of cognitive dissonance and its relationship with
conformity.

328
• Response features poorly defined interaction or event with no supporting
details describing cognitive dissonance and its relationship with conformity.
• No consideration and argumentation of cognitive dissonance and its
1
• Lack of concluding analysis of cognitive dissonance and its relationship with
conformity.
Trait 2 Rubric: Organization

• Organization is effective and demonstrates a logical flow of ideas within the
response.
4
• Transitions effectively connect concepts.
• May contain an effective introduction and/or conclusion.
• Organization is clear and appropriate.
3 • Transitions appropriately connect concepts.
• May contain an appropriate introduction and/or conclusion.
• Organization is skeletal or otherwise limited, which may impede the reader’s
ability to follow the response.
2 • Some simple or basic transitions are used but may be inappropriate or
ineffective.
• May contain a minimal introduction and/or conclusion.
• Response lacks a clear plan.
1 • Transitions are lacking or do not link ideas.
• Both the introduction and conclusion are minimal and/or absent.
Trait 3 Rubric: Conventions

• Demonstrates sophistication and skill with a wide variety of conventions.
• May contain minor editing errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or
4
• Errors do not interfere with the reader’s understanding.
• Demonstrates adequate control over a variety of conventions.
• Response may contain some errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and/or
3
• Most errors do not interfere with the reader’s understanding.
• Although basic conventions may be mostly controlled, overall the response
demonstrates inconsistent control over conventions.
• May not use a variety of conventions, OR may only use basic conventions.
2
• May contain a substantial number of errors in grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and/or sentence construction.
• Some errors interfere with the reader’s understanding.
• Demonstrates a lack of control over basic conventions.
1
• May contain a large number of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation,

329
and/or sentence structure OR the errors are severe.
• Errors interfere with the reader’s understanding OR the response is minimal
and has a density of errors.
Trait 4 Rubric: Voice

• Voice is appropriately authoritative, indicating a high level of comfort with
the material.
4
• Words are precise and well-chosen.
• Sentences are varied and have a natural fluidity.
• Voice is appropriate and clear.
3 • Words are appropriate to the subject matter.
• Sentences are appropriate and varied, making the response easy to read.
• Voice may be artificial or uneven.
• Word choice, overall, may be appropriate for the subject matter, but original
2 writing may indicate a limited vocabulary range.
• Sentences may be choppy, rambling, or repetitive in a way that limits
fluency.
• Voice may be lacking or inappropriate.
• Original writing may be simplistic, vague, inappropriate, or incorrect.
1
• Sentences may be limited in variety or may comprise awkward fragments or
run-ons that produce a halting voice.
Trait 5 Rubric: Focus & Coherence

Specific Trait
• Response persuasively justifies its conclusions through logic and examples.
4 • References to people, events, places, relationships, etc. effectively
demonstrate a strong command of the relevant concepts in communication.
• Response justifies its conclusions through some combination of logic and
examples.
3
• References to people, events, places, relationships, etc. effectively
demonstrate a good command of the relevant concepts in psychology.
• Response provides some justification for its conclusions. Some combination
of logic and examples are present but are inconsistent or somewhat
2 ineffective.
• References to people, events, places, relationships, etc. demonstrate only a
partial understanding of the relevant concepts in psychology.
• Response provides no significant justification for its conclusions. Logic and
examples are absent, inconsistent, and/or ineffective.
1
• References to people, events, places, relationships, etc. demonstrate no more
than a weak grasp of the relevant concepts in psychology.

330
IN-CLASS EXERCISES AND QUICK ASSESSMENTS
Exercise 8–1
Personal Examples of Conforming
Ask students at the beginning of class to take out a piece of paper and, without putting their name
on the paper, describe a time that they changed their behavior because of the real or imagined
pressure from others. Collect these and read several to the class. Many students write about when
they were adolescents and began drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes because of peer pressure.
Others write about conformity pressures in the clothes they wear or the music they buy. Some of
the vignettes have been quite amusing, such as when one student wrote: “I had no real desire to
write a paragraph; but because a lot of people seemed to be writing, I felt the need to write
something too. This is my example of conformity.” Some are frightening, such as students who
describe drug abuse and sexual behavior that, they claim, was due to peer pressure. These
vignettes are always an excellent springboard for a discussion of the difference between the
informational and normative function of conformity. Most of the examples students describe are
examples of normative conformity in which they publicly complied but did not privately accept
what they were doing. Sometimes people describe behaviors that started out as conformity for
normative reasons, but which, after repeated action, became internalized. For example, one
student wrote, “When I first came to college, I didn’t like beer at all and I never drank it. I went to
a party the first night I was here, and, of course, everybody was drinking. I didn’t really want to
drink, but I did because everybody was. Now, I love beer, so I guess conformity can be a good
thing!” Invariably, this activity generates an interesting discussion of conformity pressures in the
lives of students. (Suggested by Tim Wilson.)
Exercise 8–2
Group Cohesiveness and Conformity
Time to Complete: 20–25 minutes; In-class
Ahead of Time: A class or two in advance, distribute Handout 8.2: Group Questionnaire and ask
students to complete it (10 minutes). If possible, use optical scanning sheets for students to record
their answers. This process greatly facilitates data entry. Collect the questionnaires and perform
the data analyses. The first six items comprise a cohesiveness measure derived from Cartwright
(1968); they should be summed or averaged to yield a cohesiveness score. Items 7 and 8 assess
informational and normative influence. Items 9 and 10 assess conformity from both compliance
and acceptance perspectives. Compute correlations between group cohesiveness and items 7
through 10.
In Class: Present the results of the data analysis to the class (10 minutes).
Lead a class discussion on the positive and negative implications of group cohesiveness and
conformity (10–15 minutes).

331
Discussion: This exercise ties together several themes running through Chapter 8 and gives
students an opportunity to consider how they are influenced by groups in their own lives. The
emphasis on groups also makes a good lead-in to Chapter 9. A key concept for the students is the
differentiation between normative social influence (to gain acceptance and approval from others)
and informational social influence (changing one’s behavior to be more accurate or correct).
Cohesive groups tend to reject people who deviate from the group’s normative standards; thus
normative social influence should be especially important in cohesive groups. Rejection or
ridicule (even mild forms thereof) can be especially potent in cohesive groups. Cohesive groups
are more likely to agree upon a common goal (Schachter et al., 1951). Uniformity is important in
cohesive groups; thus cohesive groups typically exert more conformity pressure (both for behavior
and opinion) than less cohesive groups (e.g., Lott & Lott, 1961). Finally, groupthink, which is a
particularly insidious tendency to seek concurrence, is more common in cohesive groups.

332
Name: _____________________________________ Date: ____________________
Social Psychology Course Number and Section: _____________________
HANDOUT 8.2: GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE

Directions: Select a group to which you currently (such as a fraternity/sorority, campus
organization, church group, etc.) or recently belonged:
Write its name here: ___________________
Please answer the following questions about this group:
1. To what extent do you want to remain a member of your group?

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very much
2. If several members of your group decided to quit, so that it seemed that this group might
discontinue, would you like a chance to persuade others to stay?
3. To what extent do you feel your group is better than others at sticking together?
4. How often do you participate in activities or meetings of your group?
Never Occasionally Frequently Always
1 2 3 4
5. How strong of a sense of belonging do you feel you have to the people in your group?
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very strong
6. On the whole, how much do you like your group?
7. How much information does the group provide to you?
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 A great deal
8. How much do other members of the group accept you or approve of you?
9. How much influence does this group have upon your behavior?
10. How much influence does this group have upon the way you think?

333
Exercise 8–2
Transparency Master
AVERAGE COHESIVENESS SCORE (sum or M of items 1–6):

__________
FREQUENCIES:
1. How much information does the group provide to you?
2. How much do other members of the group accept you or approve of

you?
3. How much influence does this group have upon your behavior?
4. How much influence does this group have upon the way you think?

334
Exercise 8–3
Conformity Demonstration
Without giving any hint as to your intentions, ask for four volunteers from the class. (If people
ask, you can tell them that the volunteers will not be hurt or offended in any way, but that’s all
you can say.) If nobody volunteers, you can select them or, if class participation is a factor in your
grading, remind them of that fact. Ask the four people to leave the room for a minute and make
sure they are out of earshot. Tell everybody that you are testing the way people react when they
enter different situations and that you will need their cooperation. Will they conform to these
situations or deviate from them?
Ask everyone to remain seated and tell the first person to enter the room and go to his or her
seat. He or she will probably sit down because everybody else is sitting down. Tell students to
make a note of this person’s reactions and actions. Then ask everybody to stand up, and tell the
second person to enter the room and go to his or her seat. (He or she may sit down but will
probably remain standing.) Again, tell students to make a note of this person’s response. Next, ask
students to sit on the floor in front of their seats (or on the table, depending on the classroom set-
up). Ask the third person to enter the room and go to his or her seat. (This person may or may not
conform to the rest of the group’s behavior.) Again, tell students to make note of the person’s
response. Finally ask students to lie down on the floor (or to sit on the floor under the table). Tell
the fourth person to enter the room and go to his or her seat. Chances are, this person will NOT
get down on the floor with everyone else. The class, once again, should note this behavior.
One by one, ask the student volunteers to tell the class why they behaved the way they did
when they entered the room. (Make sure the second, third, and fourth volunteers understand what
happened before they entered.) Most likely those who conformed did so because they viewed the
behavior as relatively “normal” and didn’t want to stand out. Those who deviated probably did so
because they felt uncomfortable following the “deviant” conduct of the class.
Briefly discuss the reasons why people may choose to deviate from or conform to norms. If
conversation seems forced, ask them what they would do if they visited a foreign country and
attended a feast where people ate rats. The idea of eating rats disgusts them, but would they insult
their hosts by turning down this delicacy? (25 minutes)
This exercise was developed by Joan Spade (Sociology/Anthropology Department, Lehigh
University).
Another alternative, suggested by Paul van Cleef, is to get to class early when only a few
students are present and ask if they would like to participate in a little experiment. Tell them to
take their seats and turn them around so they would be facing the direction opposite that of all the
remaining chairs. Tell them that as their classmates come in, they are to say nothing, except when
asked, “What’s going on?” to reply that they were told to do this by their psychology professor.
Students generally will turn their chairs around to conform with the rest of their classmates
until the entire class will be filled with students facing the back wall waiting for class to begin.

335
Exercise 8–4
Informational Influences
Time to Complete: 5–10 minutes; In-class
Ahead of Time: You will need to prepare some ambiguous stimuli. This demonstration works
better if you use different stimuli for each condition of the experiment. One ambiguous stimulus is
a time interval, so you will need a watch with a second hand. Another ambiguous stimulus could
be a jar filled with beans, candies, or coins, or a slide with lots of dots on it.
In Class: Tell students you are going to have them make some estimations. For the first task, have
students write down their estimates on a piece of paper. Tell them you are going to have them
estimate how long a time interval is. Tell them to estimate the amount of time from when you say
“go” to when you say “stop.” Use an interval of between 40 seconds and a minute or so. Then for
the second task, ask students to estimate the number of beans or dots, but this time, making their
estimates aloud. Record their answers—you can write them or plot them on the board or an
overhead. Then go back and ask them to read aloud their estimates for the first task and record
these. There is likely to be considerably more variability in estimates for the first estimates than
the second, thus providing a conceptual replication of the Sherif study. (You may use time
estimations for both the first and second tasks. Ask students to record their estimates for the first
task on paper and submit them to you. Have them report the second estimate aloud. See also the
section on Classroom Response System Rationale for another technique for this demonstration.)
Discussion: You can use this demonstration as a lead-in to a lecture on the Sherif study and
informational influence. Be sure to emphasize that it is important in normative influence that the
stimulus is ambiguous. Of course, normative influence may play a role here as well. If any
students made estimates that were outliers, particularly during the public task, you can ask them
what was going on in their minds when they made the estimate…did they feel uncomfortable?
Were they intentionally trying not to conform?
Source: Suggested by the work of Montgomery and Enzie (1971, “Social influence and the
estimation of time,” Psychonomic Science, 22, 77–78).
QUICK ASSESSMENT: To assess students’ understanding of this demonstration and normative

and informational social influence, have them complete Handout 8.4.

336
Name: _____________________________________ Date: ____________________
HANDOUT 8.4: QUICK ASSESSMENT—NORMATIVE AND

INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Directions: In this assessment, you will demonstrate your knowledge of normative and
informational social influence and analyze the results of our in-class demonstration. Please answer
the following questions and explain your answers in detail.
1. Describe and explain normative social influence in your own words.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
2. Describe and explain informational social influence in your own words.

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
3. Describe the results of our in-class demonstration. Are they an example of informational or
normative social influence? Explain your answer in full.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

337
Exercise 8–5
The Milgram Experiment
This is an activity to do before students have had a chance to read about the Milgram experiment.
Either show students a clip from the Obedience film or describe the experiment, making sure that
the overall results are not presented. Distribute copies of the handout to the class and ask them to
make estimates of how they would behave and how they think the real subjects behaved. You can
either collect the handouts and make a tally or let students report their answers by show of hands
to display on the transparency master. You will find that virtually everyone will underestimate the
percentage of subjects who complied, and your students will display the self-serving bias by
estimating that they would be less likely than the average college student to obey. Since the
Milgram experiment is featured in most introductory psychology texts, you might find it useful to
ask students to indicate whether they have heard about the experiment before, since those who
have heard about the experiment previously will make higher estimates.

338
Name: _____________________________________ Date: ____________________
HANDOUT 8.5: MILGRAM STUDY PREDICTIONS

Part One Directions: Using the scale that follows, rate the extent to which you agree or disagree
with each statement by circling the appropriate number.
VOLTAGE INTENSITY
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 420 435 450
Slight Moderate Strong Very Strong Intense Extreme Danger: XXX
Shock Shock Shock Shock Shock Intensity Shock Severe Shock
The above depicts all of the levels of shocks that were presented to “Teachers” on a panel in the
Milgram experiment, which your instructor has described or shown to you.
(1) At what shock level would you disobey? __________________
(2) At what shock level would the average participant disobey? __________________
(3) What percentage of subjects in the Milgram experiment (who were businessmen in the 1960s
and early 1970s) do you think continued all the way to the 450-volt level? ________________
(4) Have you seen or heard about the Milgram experiment previously? Yes No

339
Exercise 8–5
The Milgram Experiment Transparency Master
# who said they would stop at: # in Milgram’s experiment
less than 75 volts __________ 0

75–134 volts __________ 0
135–194 volts __________ 0
195–244 volts __________ 0
245–314 volts __________ 5 (12.5%)
315–374 volts __________ 8 (20.0%)
375–424 volts __________ 1 (2.5%)
425–450 volts __________ 26 (65.0%)
# who rated self as more likely than average to go all the way ____________
# who rated self just as likely as average to go all the way ____________
# who rated self less likely than average to go all the way ____________

340
Exercise 8–6
Obedience to Authority
Time to Complete: 20 minutes; In-class
Ahead of Time: Accompanying this exercise are two pages filled with semi-random letters. Make
enough copies for each student. Also make about five copies of the “Debriefing” handout.
In Class: Distribute the “letters” pages. With a stern and professorial manner, you should tell the
class, “I want you to circle every consonant on the first page. Be as accurate as possible. Begin as
soon as you are ready. Put your pen or pencil down quietly when you have finished.” Be sure to
give NO reason why they should obey. You may want to glance at your watch from time to time
as they complete the page (3–5 minutes).
Now tell students to crumple the page they just finished into a ball. Tell them to throw the
crumpled paper onto the floor (an antisocial act!) (1 minute).
For the second page, tell students to circle every vowel. Follow exactly the same procedure,
having them crumple and throw the paper on the floor (5 minutes).
At some point, a student will ask why he or she should obey or why the class is performing
these meaningless acts. Ask this student to step outside the room and into the hall with you. Give
him/her a copy of the “Debriefing Handout.” Return to the classroom alone. Continue the exercise
until about five students have questioned authority or until all the pages are completed (5–10
minutes).
Ask any dissenting students to return from the hall. Debrief the class about the purpose of the
exercise and ask the dissenter(s) to report how they felt about obeying, questioning authority, and
being removed from the classroom.
Lead a short discussion about the powerful effects of authority. You may want to ask students
what they were thinking about during the exercise. The exercise provides an excellent introduction
into a lecture about Milgram’s work on obedience (10 minutes).
To complete the exercise, ask for one more act of obedience: picking up and disposing of the
papers on the floor!
Discussion: This exercise is a modification of a procedure used by Orne (1962) to illustrate the
almost incredible degree to which subjects were willing to obey an experimenter. He gave his
subjects almost 2000 pages of random numbers and instructed them to add each two adjacent
numbers. Almost no one was willing to stop this task even after five hours (the experimenter gave
up!). Even when subjects were told to tear their completed pages into “a minimum of 32 pieces,”
throw them into a waste basket and begin again, few were willing to discontinue. Although Orne’s
study is not usually discussed as an example of obedience, it clearly illustrates the tremendous
degree of behavior control an authority figure can exert.
Of course, the most famous studies of obedience were those of Milgram. Many students are
already familiar with the basic description of Milgram’s work, but it still makes compelling
lecture and/or discussion material. You may also want to discuss how this exercise illustrates
legitimate power which is derived from a role or position. Those who have legitimate power do
not have to justify their actions. French and Raven (1959) saw legitimate power as being very
complex. They perceived it as being granted to the influencer by the person being influenced (P).
That is, legitimate power is P’s perception that the influencer has the right to tell him or her what

341
to do. French and Raven saw legitimate power as being a function of P’s internalization of the
norms and laws of society.

342
Name: _____________________________________ Date: ____________________
HANDOUT 8.6a: PART ONE OF TWO

Directions: Please wait for my instructions.
dgkabcdekabceabuqwxvsqegcs
bdqwsaxbytwnmkqsacxzvbnom
hrtgfhjklopytrewqasahwvqjta
bcdekabcekqlpudcsfszxbyiuef
btqpiodjvwfmdcvbgtujkqascxz
vfnaeubgswqvghwlexbebsdcvb
gfdcvbgfsqncsqxkklabdwsjhty
qklcxzaqwertyuiohfdjksxcvbn
zvbnmhrtgfhjklopytrewjvwfm
dcaxcvfrqrtgfhjklopytrewqag
hesxzcvngrfhjuirwegrtefdcvb
gfsqncsqxkjtabcdekarbrefqsax
cfgnyqeaijklwcmeaddmwrsstu
qwxvsqegtqastrtyuiohfdjksxrg
fewqacvbrwqfdcwsdetuisnhby
uipedwxcvqwsdvfrebrhueasxz
saafbextybahseimprtxgfkimtf
ewvmlpsactrhankgtvw

343
Name: _____________________________________ Date: ____________________
HANDOUT 8.6b: PART TWO OF TWO

Directions: Please wait for my instructions.
rtyuiohfdjksxrgfewqacvbrwqf
dcwsdetuirabdwsjhtyqklcxzaq
wertyuiohfdjksxcvbnlkahwvqj
tabcdekabcekqlpudcsfszxbyiu
efdtabcdekabceabuqwxvsqegc
sbdqwsaxbjeygytwnmkqsacxzv
bnmhrtgfhjklopytrewqasrbtqp
iodjvwfmdcvbgtujkqascxzvfna
eubgntwqvghwlexbebsdcvbgfd
cvbgfsqncsqxkklnrtgfhjklopyt
rewqaghesxzcvngrfhjuirweqgf
dcvbgfsqncsqxkjtabcdekarbre
fqsaxcfgbwzvbnmhrtgfhjklopy
trewjvwfmdcaxcvfrqyqeaijklw
cmeaddmwrsstuqwxvsqegtqasg
fdwnhbyuipedwxcvqwsdvfrebr
hueasxzsaafbnbtvywkjspqtvxi
sopabfestmtpsm

344
Exercise 8–7
Debriefing
This exercise deals with the powerful ability of an authority (in this case, your professor) to affect
your behavior.
The professor told you and the rest of the class to perform meaningless actions and gave no
reason why you should do so. You were one of the first to question authority.
Please remain where you are until the professor asks you to return to the classroom. The
professor may ask you to give a short report to the class about how you felt about obeying,
questioning authority, and being removed from the classroom.
Exercise 8–8
Creating Conformity
On the day prior to your first discussion of obedience, ask students to bring an empty soda can to
class. If you plan ahead, you can even include such instructions on your syllabus. After presenting
the Milgram study, ask students who brought a can to class to place the can in their left hand.
Then ask students to raise their right hand if they are absolutely certain that under the same
conditions as the Milgram study, they would not shock the learner at the highest 450-volt level.
Then ask students to hold up their left hand. After a pause, ask students who have cans in their
hands why they are holding empty soda cans. When one student says something like, “You told us
to bring them,” pause again to let students make the connection between the Milgram study and
their own behavior. Students may protest that there is no similarity between bringing a can and
shocking another person, but you can use this as a way to launch discussion.
Source: Snyder, C. R. (2003). “‘Me conform? No way’: Classroom demonstrations for sensitizing
students to their conformity,” Teaching of Psychology, 30, 59–61.

345
INTEGRATING “TRY IT” ACTIVE LEARNING EXERCISES
Exercise 8–9
Unveiling Normative Social Influence by Breaking the Rules
Students are asked on page 244 to break a social norm about personal space by either standing too
close or too far away from someone while they are having a conversation. You could either have
students complete this exercise outside of class and systematically observe the reactions of the
person that they talk to. Or you could have students pair off in class and have a brief discussion,
giving half of the students secret instructions to get really close to their partner. Then you could
observe the students’ reactions and have everyone discuss how they felt and how this
demonstrates the subtletly of social norms as well as their importance in making us feel
comfortable during social interactions. An additional activity involving breaking norms is listed in
Exercise 8–11.

346
STUDENT PROJECTS AND RESEARCH ASSIGNMENTS
Exercise 8–11
Norm Violation
One way to study the power of social norms in governing our behavior is to violate a norm. Have
students do this project in pairs or possibly trios. Each group should decide on a norm to break;
examples might be: singing in a restaurant, applauding a professor’s lecture or at a movie, wearing
pajamas to class, walking around with a grocery sack mask over one’s head, playing an iPod
loudly next to people who are studying. Each group should have its members (singly or in pairs,
for some kinds of violations) take turns violating the norm; the other person in this case should be
an observer. Each group should perform six norm violations and should record information about
the demographics of the participants and their verbal and nonverbal reactions. If appropriate (for
example, when playing the iPod in the library), apologies should be issued to people who are
disturbed. Students should report this information, as well as recording their own subjective
responses to violating the norms, in an oral report or short paper. More complex versions of the
project could add control conditions and manipulate variables such as the apparent status of the
norm violator.
An alternative project that some groups may try instead is based on a paradigm devised by
Knowles, E. S. (1973, “Boundaries around group interaction: The effect of group size and member
status on boundary permeability,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 327–331)
and suggested as appropriate for student field research projects by McKenna, R. J. (1995, The
undergraduate researchers handbook: Creative experimentation in social psychology, Boston:
Allyn & Bacon). The paradigm involves a pair of students standing in a corridor or building entry,
or on an outside path that is about 10 feet wide. The pair stands about 6 feet away and talks to
each other. Approaching people must decide whether to go around one of the duo or whether to
break the norm of violating personal space by walking between them. Students should observe
people’s reactions to having to decide whether or not to violate the norm and should record how
many students do. (A third member of the group may be appointed to watch from a distance and
do the recording.) Factors such as gender, apparent status, race, height, or apparent handicaps
could be manipulated if you want students to do a complex version of the project. For even a
minimal version, at least 20 and preferably 40 participants should be subjected to the procedure.

347
Exercise 8–12
A Field Experiment on the Influence of Authority on Compliance
Louis Snellgrove (1981, “Public opinion polls and cooperation with authority.” In L. Benjamin, &
K. D. Lowman (Eds.), Activities for the Teaching of Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 151–152) suggests
having students conduct their own project where they observe the effects of authority. Students
are to devise a short (five-question) survey on any topic, beginning all questions with the phrase
“Do you agree or disagree,” and they are to type the survey up so that it looks official. Making
sure to approach subjects in a safe area, and selecting them randomly, students will survey several
people, varying the instructions they use to preface the survey. In one condition, students present
themselves as conducting a survey for their psychology class, in another as writing an article for
the local paper, and in a third, as helping a professor (use a fictitious name) collect data for an
article to be published in a scientific journal. Students should make sure to thank all people
approached for their time, whether or not they answer the questions. Students are to keep track of
the number of people approached and the number of people who answer, and are to calculate the
percentage of people who answer the questions in each of the three conditions. As authority
increases, does compliance? What other factors (e.g., sex of the researcher or of the respondent)
make a difference?
Exercise 8–13
Foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face
This is a fairly involved activity but students enjoy it and it helps them remember the persuasion
techniques.
Assign students to work in small groups. As a class, agree on a request that students could make
of other students on campus that will be moderately difficult to get them to agree to. Or, you can
decide on the request ahead of time (e.g., “Will you walk me to building XXX?”). In their groups,
students will come up with three scripts, one that uses foot-in-the-door, one that uses door-in-the-
face, and one that involves just asking. You should review the scripts to make sure they are
correct and ethical. After their scripts are approved, students should go and try out their
persuasion attempts on strangers on campus, keeping track of whether people say yes or no to
their requests in the different conditions. Each group member should try each of the three
techniques at least once. After the person says yes or no, the student may explain what they were
doing and why. In their groups, students can make graphs (in Excel) that summarize their results.
You may wish to have students present their results to the class.

348
Name: _____________________________________ Date: ____________________
HANDOUT 8.13 PERSUASION TECHNIQUES
1. What is the request you will be making? Write it word for word in the space below.
2. What will you say to people in the foot-in-the-door condition? Write it word for word in the
space below.
3. What will you say to people in the door-in-the-face condition? Write it word for word in the
space below.
4. In the table below, keep track of the success of your requests. Be sure to ask one person using
each technique.
Technique Response
Just asking Yes No
Foot-in-the-door Yes No
Door-in-the-face Yes No

349
WEBSITES TO EXPLORE
http://www.influenceatwork.com This site is based on Cialdini’s principles of influence.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/primer.htm Steve’s Primer of Practical Persuasion and
Influence. Excellent informative site on several social psychology topics relevant to
persuasion and influence developed by Steve Booth-Butterfield of WVU.
http://www.stanleymilgram.com/ This site, developed by Thomas Blass, focuses on the work of
social psychologist Stanley Milgram.
http://www.outofservice.com/freak/ A need for uniqueness scale on the Web. How strong is your
need not to conform?
http://www.stophazing.org/ “Educating to Eliminate Hazing.” Site covering many aspects of
hazing including fraternity, sorority, athletic, high school, and military hazing. Includes news
on hazing, discussion of what can be done to prevent or decrease it, and some pro-hazing
views as well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3635396/Bridgend-suicides-It-just-seems-normal-
fashionable-almost...-.html An article about a small town in which an increasing number of
teenagers have committed suicide via hanging, a phenomenon that may be in part based on the
social norm that this creates.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23182523 This is a 2013 article about Hikikomori entitled
“Hikikomori: Why are so many Japanese men refusing to leave their rooms?”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fight-to-save-japans-young-shut-ins-1422292138 A 2015 Wall
Street Journal article about the fight to save Hikikomori.
http://www.learner.org/resources/series138.html Episode 19 (“The Power of the Situation”)
explores the Sherif Autokinetic Effect Study, Asch’s Line Judgment Study, and Milgram’s
Obedience Study.

350
FILM AND VIDEO LISTINGS
The Age of Innocence (1993). Two star-crossed lovers caught up in the constricting and
unforgiving social norms of upper-class New York in the 1870s. Based on Edith Wharton’s
novel.
Behavior Control (60 minutes, 1980, USU). A PBS special examining the persuasive power of
cults, advertising, and the media.
Captive Minds: Hypnosis and Beyond (56 minutes, 1983, PSU, 16 mm.). Explores hypnosis,
psychotherapy, cult indoctrination, induction into a monastery, and Marine Corps training as
examples of social influence.
Candid Camera Classics (1993, MCG). Humorous depictions of conformity from the classic
television show in a tape produced for social psychology classes.
Communication: Negotiation and Persuasion (30 minutes, 1989, PSU). Examines techniques of
changing people’s attitudes and behavior.
Conformity (30 min, 1989, PSU, IU). Examines the pros and cons of conformity, the reasons that
people conform, and variables that influence conformity.
Conformity and Independence (23 minutes, 1975, PSU). Presents social psychology’s main
findings and principles in the areas of conformity and independence, using both field and
laboratory settings. Included are experiments on norm formation, Asch’s work on group
pressure and Crutchfield’s variation, Milgram’s experiment on action conformity, Kelman’s
three processes of compliance, and Moscovici’s recent theoretical views.
The Crucible (124 minutes, 1996, retail outlets). Film adaptation of Arthur Miller’s play on the
Salem witch trials. Illustrates the power of conformity.
Cults, Charisma, and Mind Control (35 minutes, 1980, HRM). A presentation of the attraction of
cults, conversion, and the coercion which is sometimes associated with cult membership.
Cults: Choice or Coercion (14 minutes, 1979, IU, ISU). Produced by CBS News, this program
explores the legal, moral, and emotional issues associated with contemporary religious cults.
Dead Poet’s Society (1989). Fairly early in the film, the teacher (Robin Williams) instructs a
student to read a passage and then has all of the students tear the pages from the book. You
can use this to introduce obedience to authority.
Dealing with Peer Pressure: I Made My Choice (30 minutes, FHS). The friendships formed
during adolescence provide teenagers with some of their fondest memories. Those same
friends, however, can also influence individuals to do things they wouldn’t ordinarily do. This
program uses student testimonials to examine the topic of adolescent peer pressure.
The Effective Uses of Power and Authority (30 minutes, 1979, CRM). An exploration of types of
social power.
The Heaven’s Gate Cult: The Thin Line Between Faith and Reason (1998, 20 minutes, FHS). A
segment from ABC’s Nightline program uses the 1997 mass suicide of the members of the
Heaven’s Gate cult as starting point for a discussion among prominent scholars and cult
watchers.
Joseph Shultz (1973, PSU). Reenactment of a true story of wartime disobedience.
The Lottery (18 minutes, 1968, UWA). Based on Shirley Jackson’s short story. A modern (1950s)
American community annually selects a sacrificial victim who is stoned. A vivid fictional
depiction of conformity.
Obedience (45 minutes, 1969, PSU). Documents Stanley Milgram’s classic research on obedience
to authority, based on candid footage shot at Yale University.
351
Obeying Orders: GI Resistance to the Vietnam War (29 minutes, 1990, FIL). This documentary
focuses on the GI and veteran antiwar movement. Oral history interviews with Vietnam
veterans are interwoven with archival photos, film footage, and popular music of the 1960s.
Several of the GIs took very courageous stands. The experience of these veterans highlights
the politics of the war, the intersection of the civil rights and antiwar movements, and the
ethical question of whether to follow orders that one feels are immoral.
The People of People’s Temple (24 minutes, 1979, PSU). Documents an extreme case of group
cohesiveness—the religious cult that developed around Jim Jones and ended in the mass
suicide of almost one thousand people.
Power of the Situation (27 minutes, 1991 WGBH/Boston and PBS, Discovering Psychology
Series). Includes segments on the Asch conformity, Milgram obedience, and Zimbardo prison
experiments.
Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994, retail outlets). Three male transvestite entertainers take their
show on the road in the Australian outback. Needless to say, the townspeople have never seen
such nonconformity. Remade in the United States as To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything.
The Psychology of Mass Persuasion (45 minutes, 1981, Insight Media). This still-image video
explores persuasion tactics used by the media, showing how the media engenders attitudes and
manipulates psychological needs. It differentiates among core, peripheral, and highly variable
attitudes, and examines which types can be changed by persuasive techniques. It also
investigates propaganda and shows how Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones used power.
Remember My Lai (1989, PBS). Documentary about the incident during the Vietnam War in
which American soldiers followed orders to destroy a village and murder its residents of all
ages.
Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Study (55 minutes, 1991, UWA). Zimbardo’s classic Stanford
Prison study released on video that shows more footage than any previously available
depiction. Study demonstrates the power of situations to control behavior.
Schindler’s List (1994, retail outlets). True story of how one man protected and saved a thousand
Polish Jews from certain death in Hitler’s concentration camps. Won Academy Award for
Best Picture.
Social Animal (30 minutes, 1963, PSU). Schachter on the effect of group pressure to conform.
Twelve Angry Men (1957, PSU, retail outlets). Hollywood film, starring Henry Fonda, focusing on
jury deliberations/conformity and nonconformity to group influence.
The Wave (46 minutes, 1981, PSU). The mental environment of the Nazi Third Reich is recreated
by a teacher. Students are instilled with ideas of discipline, power, and superiority, and
become willing participants.
Witches of Salem: The Horror and the Hope (35 minutes, 1972, PSU). A dramatization of the
Salem witch trials of 1692.

352
ONLINE VIDEOS TO EXPLORE
Flash Mobs. Examples of conformity. “Finger” gun fight at the Tate Museum and MC Hammer
dance in a clothing store.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7aI6zhbVtM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwzN4633mpI
Obeying Signs. Signs on two doors say “Men only” and “Women only”—people obey as they
walk through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a71h6LZKXTc&feature=related
McDonald’s Strip Search Video. A 24-minute look at McDonald’s surveillance video clips where
Louise Ogburn was forced to strip, be spanked, and perform sex acts on coworkers.
http://hitsusa.com/blog/163/mcdonalds-strip-search-video/
Zimbardo TED Talk (23 minutes). Dr. Phil Zimbardo talks about the power of the situation and
how people can choose to engage in good, rather than evil, acts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg&feature=related
Marine Bloodwings Initiation Ceremony. This is an example of obedience and conformity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMawm8W1ihI
Hikikomori (6 and a half minutes). A BBC World news report on Hikikomori in Japan.
Upselling - Foot In The Door (FITD) Sales Tip (2 minutes, 17 seconds). Foot-in-the-door is
applied to sales.
LINK MISSING

353
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
,
645
in epilepsy,
500
in thermic fever,
397
Digiti mortui,
1252
1254
Diplopia in disseminated sclerosis,
875
876
in nervous diseases,
40
in tabes dorsalis,
829
in tumors of the brain,
1042
Dipsomania,
147
636
637
Disease of one lateral half of the spinal cord,

1165
Thomsen's,
461
Diseases, mental,
99
of nervous system, general semeiology of,
19
of peripheral nerves,
1176
of the membranes of the brain and spinal cord,
703
Dislocation in infantile paralysis,

1130
Disorders of sleep,
364
of speech,
568
Dizziness in general paralysis of the insane,
187
195
Double consciousness in nervous diseases,
28
vision in nervous diseases,

40
Doubting insanity,
170
Douche, cold, in catalepsy,
338
in ecstasy,
338
in spinal sclerosis,
903
Dreams (see
Sleep, and its Disorders
).
Dropsy of the head (see
Hydrocephalus, Chronic
),
740
sleeping,
383
Dura mater, cerebral congestion,
704
cerebral hæmatoma of (hemorrhagic pachymeningitis),
707
Definition, etiology, and symptoms,
707
Diagnosis,
709
Duration and pathology,
708
Prognosis,
709
Treatment,
710
cerebral inflammation of (pachymeningitis),
703
external pachymeningitis,
704
Diagnosis and prognosis,
706
Etiology and symptoms,
704
Pathological anatomy,
705
Treatment,
706
internal pachymeningitis,
706
Treatment,
707
spinal, acute inflammation of,
747
Duration of acute mania,
162
of acute myelitis,
821
of acute spinal meningitis,
718
of amyotrophic spinal sclerosis,
868
of catalepsy,
334
of chorea,
449
of chronic hydrocephalus,
743
of delirium tremens,
629
of ecstasy,
343
of family form of tabes dorsalis,
871
of hæmatoma of the dura mater,
708
of hysteria,
258
of hystero-epilepsy,
307
of progressive unilateral facial atrophy,

699
of spina bifida,
759
of symmetrical gangrene,
1261
of tabes dorsalis,
839
840
of tubercular meningitis,
729
of tumors of the brain,
1045
of the spinal cord,

1106
of vertigo,
418
of writers' cramp,
521
Dyskinesis, definition, in nervous diseases,
47
Dyslalia,
569
572
Dyspepsia, headache from,

405
Dyspeptic symptoms of chronic alcoholism,
601
607
Dysphagia, hysterical,
239
245
E.
Ear affections, hysterical,
249
influence on causation of acute pachymeningitis,
716
of external pachymeningitis,
704
disorders of, as a cause of abscess of the brain,
474
of epilepsy,
474
of vertigo,
421
in progressive unilateral facial atrophy,
698
middle, disease of, as a cause of thrombosis of cerebral veins and

sinuses,
985
Eclampsia,
464
Definition, etiology, and symptoms,
464
CSTASY
339
Definition,
339
Course, diagnosis, and duration,
343
Etiology,
341
History and synonyms,
339
Prognosis,
343
Symptoms,
342
Treatment,
344
Eczema as a cause of chorea,
444
Education, improper, as a cause of hysteria,
218
220
of speech in aphasia of hemiplegia,
979
relation of, to hysteria,
274
Electrical reactions in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,
868
in Bell's palsy,
1205
1206
in diffuse sclerosis,
890
in infantile paralysis,
1125
in spastic spinal paralysis,
864
of injured and divided nerves,
1184
1188
Electricity, use of, in Bell's palsy,
1207
in catalepsy,
338
in chronic lead-poisoning,
691
in hysteria,
281
286
in hystero-epilepsy,
311-313
in infantile spinal paralysis,
1156
in labio-glosso-laryngeal paralysis,
1175
in migraine,
415
1232
in multiple neuritis,
1198
in myelitis, acute,
824
in myxœdema,
1273
in nerve injuries,
1189
in neuralgia,
1225

Social Psychology 9Th Edition Aronson Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Psychology 9Th Edition Aronson Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Psychology 9th Edition Aronson

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

8.1 What is conformity, and why does it occur?

Return to Table of Contents

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

II. Conformity: When and Why

III. Informational Social Influence: The Need to Know What’s “Right”

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

A. The Importance of Being Accurate

B. When Informational Conformity Backfires

C. When Will People Conform to Informational Social Influence?

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

IV. Normative Social Influence: The Need to Be Accepted

A. Conformity and Social Approval: The Asch Line Judgment Studies

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

B. The Importance of Being Accurate, Revisited

C. The Consequences of Resisting Normative Social Influence

D. When Will People Conform to Normative Social Influence?

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

E. Minority Influence: When the Few Influence the Many

V. Strategies for Using Social Influence

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

B. Using Norms to Change Behavior: Beware the “Boomerang Effect”

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

VI. Obedience to Authority

A. The Role of Normative Social Influence

B. The Role of Informational Social Influence

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

C. Other Reasons Why We Obey

D. The Obedience Studies, Then and Now

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Return to Table of Contents

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Return to Table of Contents

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

• Compare and contrast conformity and obedience.

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Return to Table of Contents

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

MyLabs MyPsychLab, MyDevelopmentLab

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Trait 1 Rubric: Ideas

Trait 2 Rubric: Organization

Score Point Description of Student Response

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Trait 3 Rubric: Conventions

Trait 4 Rubric: Voice

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cognitive Dissonance and Conformity

MyLabs MyPsychLab, MyDevelopmentLab

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Trait 1 Rubric: Ideas

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Trait 2 Rubric: Organization

Trait 3 Rubric: Conventions

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Trait 4 Rubric: Voice

Trait 5 Rubric: Focus & Coherence

Return to Table of Contents

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Time to Complete: 20–25 minutes; In-class

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.