- A manager gives a direct order, and an employee complies mainly because the manager controls evaluations and promotions. This is what?
Answer: Obedience: compliance with a direct command from a perceived authority, influenced by the authority's power and legitimacy.
This scenario illustrates obedience to authority, where the employee complies with a direct command from someone who holds legitimate power over them. The manager's control over evaluations and promotions creates a power differential that makes their orders difficult to refuse, even if the employee personally disagrees. Obedience differs from conformity in that it involves explicit commands from a recognized authority figure rather than implicit pressure to match group behavior. The employee's compliance is motivated by the consequences of disobedience (poor evaluations, lack of promotions) rather than by a desire to fit in with peers or because they believe the manager has superior information. This type of authority-based compliance is common in hierarchical organizations where power structures create conditions similar to those studied in Milgram's obedience experiments.
- A student wears a lab coat in an experiment and is more likely to follow instructions because the setting seems official. This reflects what?
Answer: Legitimacy of authority: cues like uniforms and formal settings increase perceived authority, making obedience and compliance more likely.
This scenario demonstrates how the legitimacy of authority is enhanced by symbolic cues like uniforms and formal settings, which increase compliance and obedience. The lab coat serves as a symbol of scientific authority and expertise, making the wearer's instructions seem more legitimate and worthy of following. These external markers of authority help establish social roles and expectations that guide behavior, even when the person wearing the uniform may not actually have relevant expertise. Research shows that people are more likely to obey individuals who display symbols of authority, such as uniforms, titles, or official settings, because these cues trigger automatic compliance responses. This reflects how we use social shortcuts to quickly identify legitimate authority figures in complex social environments, though these cues can sometimes be misleading or manipulated.
- A masked fan in a stadium throws objects during a riot because no one can identify them. Which phenomenon is this?
Answer: Deindividuation: anonymity and arousal reduce self-awareness and restraint, increasing impulsive, norm-violating behavior in crowds.
This behavior demonstrates deindividuation, a psychological state where anonymity and group arousal reduce individual self-awareness and normal restraints against impulsive or antisocial behavior. The mask provides anonymity, making the fan feel less identifiable and therefore less accountable for their actions. In crowd situations, this reduced self-awareness, combined with heightened emotional arousal, often leads to behaviors that individuals would never engage in when alone or identifiable. This differs from groupthink, which involves decision-making processes, and from social facilitation, which affects performance rather than behavioral restraint. Deindividuation explains why people in crowds, particularly when masked or costumed, often engage in more extreme behaviors than they would individually, as normal social inhibitions are weakened by the anonymous group context.
- A student refuses to report cheating because "everyone in my friend group does it," and they fear social backlash. What is this?
Answer: Normative social influence: fear of rejection motivates compliance with group norms, even when privately believing the behavior is wrong.
This scenario demonstrates normative social influence, where the fear of social rejection and desire for group acceptance override personal moral judgments about right and wrong behavior. The student knows cheating is wrong but refuses to report it because doing so would violate group norms and result in social backlash from friends. This illustrates how powerful the need for belonging can be, sometimes leading people to act against their personal values to maintain group membership. Normative influence is particularly strong when group identity is important to the individual and when the potential consequences of nonconformity include social rejection or exclusion. The student's behavior shows how group pressure can create moral disengagement, where people temporarily set aside their ethical standards to maintain social relationships and avoid becoming outcasts.
- In Milgram variations, two authorities give conflicting instructions about continuing. What is the most likely result?
Answer: Obedience typically decreases because authority legitimacy is undermined, creating uncertainty about whom to follow.
When two authorities give conflicting instructions, obedience typically decreases because the legitimacy and clarity of authority is undermined. Participants become uncertain about whom to obey, which creates ambiguity about the proper course of action and reduces compliance with either authority. In Milgram's variations with conflicting authorities, obedience rates dropped significantly because participants could no longer rely on clear, consistent direction from a unified authority source. The conflict between authorities legitimizes disobedience by suggesting that even experts disagree about the appropriate action. This situation allows participants to choose the authority whose instructions align with their personal comfort level, often resulting in refusing to continue with harmful actions. Authority derives much of its power from appearing legitimate and unified; when authorities conflict, this power is significantly weakened.
- A person speeds up CPR efforts when alone but hesitates when many are present, fearing embarrassment if mistaken. What inhibits helping?
Answer: Evaluation apprehension: fear of negative judgment can reduce helping, especially when others are watching and the situation is ambiguous.
This demonstrates evaluation apprehension, where fear of negative judgment from others can inhibit helping behavior, particularly in ambiguous situations where the helper might make mistakes. When alone, the person feels free to attempt CPR without worrying about looking foolish or incompetent, but the presence of observers creates anxiety about being judged if their technique is incorrect or if they misread the situation. This differs from the bystander effect's diffusion of responsibility; here, the person wants to help but is inhibited by social anxiety rather than assuming others will act. Evaluation apprehension can paradoxically reduce helping in situations where expertise is uncertain, as people may prefer not to act rather than risk embarrassment. This highlights how social factors can interfere with prosocial behavior even when people have good intentions.
- A skilled pianist performs better during a recital than alone in practice. Which concept best explains this improvement?
Answer: Social facilitation: the presence of others increases arousal, enhancing performance on well-learned or simple tasks.
This scenario demonstrates social facilitation, the phenomenon where the presence of others enhances performance on well-learned or simple tasks due to increased arousal. The skilled pianist performs better during the recital because their piano skills are well-practiced, and the heightened arousal from the audience's presence facilitates their dominant response - skilled playing. Social facilitation theory explains that arousal improves performance on easy or familiar tasks while impairing performance on difficult or novel tasks. Since the pianist is skilled and the task is well-learned, the audience's presence creates beneficial arousal that enhances their performance. This differs from social loafing, which involves reduced effort in group settings, and from groupthink, which pertains to group decision-making processes rather than individual performance enhancement.
- A student is more likely to obey a teacher's instruction when the teacher is physically present rather than emailing. Which factor is this?
Answer: Proximity of authority: closer, more immediate authority presence increases obedience compared with distant or impersonal commands.
This illustrates how proximity of authority affects obedience, with closer, more immediate authority presence increasing compliance compared to distant or impersonal commands. When the teacher is physically present, their authority feels more real and immediate, making their instructions harder to ignore or rationalize away. Physical presence increases the salience of the authority relationship and makes disobedience feel more confrontational and risky. In contrast, email instructions can feel more impersonal and easier to delay, ignore, or reinterpret. Milgram found that obedience rates decreased when the experimenter gave instructions by telephone rather than in person, demonstrating how physical proximity enhances authority's power. The immediate presence of authority creates social pressure and makes the consequences of disobedience seem more immediate and certain.
- A crowd watches a street performer; as more people stop, even more join because they assume the act is worth seeing. What is this?
Answer: Social proof (informational influence): people use others' behavior as evidence of what is correct or worthwhile in ambiguity.
This illustrates social proof, a form of informational social influence where people use others' behavior as evidence of what is correct, valuable, or worthwhile, especially in ambiguous situations. The growing crowd serves as a signal to passersby that the performance must be worth watching, creating a cascade effect where more people join simply because others are already there. This phenomenon demonstrates how we rely on social cues to help us make decisions when we lack complete information. The assumption is that if many people are stopping to watch, the performance must have merit. Social proof is particularly powerful in uncertain situations where we need to make quick judgments about how to spend our time or what deserves our attention. This differs from normative influence because people genuinely believe the crowd's behavior provides valid information about the performance's quality.
- A teen laughs at a cruel joke online because friends are watching, though they privately think it's wrong. What is this?
Answer: Normative social influence: the teen conforms publicly to gain approval or avoid rejection despite private disagreement.
This scenario illustrates normative social influence, where the teenager conforms publicly to gain approval and avoid rejection from friends, despite privately disagreeing with the behavior. The key indicator is that the teen finds the joke cruel but laughs anyway because friends are watching - showing a disconnect between private beliefs and public behavior. Normative influence is motivated by the desire to be liked and accepted rather than by genuine belief change or superior information from others. This type of conformity is often temporary and situation-dependent, disappearing when the social pressure is removed. The online context with friends watching creates social pressure that overrides the teen's private moral judgment, demonstrating how normative influence can lead people to act against their personal values to maintain group acceptance.
- A team makes better decisions when a designated member is tasked with challenging assumptions and raising objections. This reduces what?
Answer: Groupthink: assigning a devil's advocate encourages critical evaluation and reduces pressure for unanimity and self-censorship.
Assigning a devil's advocate role helps reduce groupthink by encouraging critical evaluation, promoting dissent, and preventing the illusion of unanimity that characterizes flawed group decision-making. Groupthink occurs when groups prioritize harmony and consensus over careful analysis of alternatives and risks, leading to premature closure and poor decisions. By formally designating someone to challenge assumptions and raise objections, teams institutionalize critical thinking and ensure that alternative viewpoints are heard. This breaks the tendency toward self-censorship and pressure for uniformity that are hallmarks of groupthink. The devil's advocate role legitimizes dissent and creates space for thorough evaluation of options, helping groups avoid the overconfidence and closed-mindedness that lead to disastrous decisions. This technique has been successfully used in many organizational and policy-making contexts.
- A student posts a harsh comment online they would never say face-to-face, partly due to anonymity and reduced self-awareness. What is this?
Answer: Deindividuation: anonymity reduces self-awareness and self-restraint, increasing disinhibited behavior such as online aggression.
This demonstrates deindividuation, where anonymity in online environments reduces self-awareness and normal social restraints, leading to disinhibited behavior that people would avoid in face-to-face interactions. The lack of immediate social cues and physical presence creates psychological distance that weakens normal behavioral controls and empathy responses. Online anonymity can reduce people's sense of accountability and make the consequences of harsh behavior feel less real or immediate. This phenomenon explains much aggressive online behavior, including cyberbullying, trolling, and hostile comments that people would never make in person. The reduced self-awareness associated with deindividuation can make people more likely to act on impulses and emotions without considering the impact on others or their own moral standards. Digital communication often lacks the humanizing cues present in face-to-face interaction.
- A person matches a group's clothing style because they want acceptance, not because they think it's objectively better. What is this?
Answer: Normative social influence: the person conforms to be liked and avoid social exclusion, regardless of private preference.
This scenario exemplifies normative social influence, where the person conforms to group clothing style primarily to gain acceptance and avoid social exclusion, rather than because they genuinely believe the group's fashion choices are objectively superior. The key distinction is that the person's motivation is social approval and belonging rather than accuracy or correctness. Normative influence often produces compliance without genuine attitude change - the person may adopt the group's style publicly while privately preferring their original choices. This type of conformity is particularly common in areas like fashion, behavior, and social customs where there may not be objectively correct answers, but where group membership and social acceptance are highly valued. The influence is maintained by the ongoing presence and approval of the reference group.
- A person publicly agrees with a group decision but privately disagrees and later returns to their original view. This is what?
Answer: Compliance: public conformity without private acceptance, often driven by normative pressure and likely to fade when pressure is removed.
This scenario illustrates compliance, which involves public conformity without private acceptance of the group's position. The person agrees publicly with the group decision to avoid negative social consequences, but privately maintains their original viewpoint and returns to it when group pressure is removed. Compliance is typically motivated by normative social influence - the desire to gain approval or avoid rejection - rather than by genuine belief change. This type of conformity is temporary and situation-dependent, lasting only as long as the social pressure continues. It differs from internalization, where people genuinely adopt new beliefs, and from identification, where people conform because they want to be like admired group members. Compliance demonstrates how powerful social pressure can be in shaping public behavior, even when it fails to change private attitudes.
- In Milgram's experiment, the learner is placed in another room, increasing psychological distance. This typically does what to obedience?
Answer: Increases obedience: greater distance from the victim reduces empathy and immediate distress, making compliance with authority easier.
Increasing psychological distance from the victim typically increases obedience in Milgram's experiments because it reduces the emotional impact and empathy that would normally inhibit harmful behavior. When the learner is in another room, participants cannot see their distress directly, making it easier to continue following the experimenter's orders. This psychological distance reduces the immediate feedback about the victim's suffering, allowing participants to maintain focus on the authority's commands rather than the consequences of their actions. Milgram found that obedience rates were higher when victims were more distant and lower when they were in the same room or when participants had to physically guide the victim's hand to the shock plate. Distance allows people to engage in moral disengagement and reduces the salience of the harm being caused.
- A supervisor assigns one employee to press a button that triggers layoffs, and the employee feels "just following orders." This reflects what?
Answer: Agentic state: the employee views themselves as an agent executing authority's wishes, reducing personal responsibility for harmful outcomes.
This scenario illustrates the agentic state concept from Milgram's research, where individuals shift from autonomous functioning to viewing themselves as agents executing an authority's commands, thereby reducing their sense of personal responsibility for the consequences. The employee sees themselves as "just following orders" rather than as personally responsible for the layoffs, which allows them to comply with harmful instructions while maintaining their moral self-image. This psychological state enables people to participate in actions they might otherwise find morally objectionable by transferring moral responsibility to the authority figure who gave the orders. The agentic state helps explain how ordinary people can participate in harmful organizational or institutional actions when they perceive themselves as instruments of legitimate authority rather than as autonomous moral agents making independent choices.
- A teenager adopts risky driving behaviors because friends praise it, and their private attitude shifts to value risk more. What occurred?
Answer: Internalization: the teen privately accepts the group's values, producing a lasting attitude change beyond public behavior.
This scenario illustrates internalization, where the teenager not only adopts risky driving behaviors publicly but also experiences genuine private attitude change, coming to personally value risk-taking more than before. Unlike mere compliance, where behavior changes without attitude change, internalization involves true belief modification that persists beyond the immediate social situation. The teen's attitude shift toward valuing risk represents a deeper level of social influence that goes beyond just seeking approval from friends. This type of influence is most likely when the person is motivated to be accurate about social norms or when the group is perceived as providing valuable information about what is desirable or appropriate. The attitude change makes future risky behaviors more likely, even when friends are not present, because the person now genuinely believes risk-taking has value.
- A student's performance decreases on a difficult new math problem when classmates watch, but improves on simple arithmetic. Why?
Answer: Social facilitation: arousal boosts dominant responses, helping with simple tasks but impairing complex or unfamiliar tasks.
This demonstrates social facilitation's dual effects: arousal from others' presence enhances performance on simple, well-learned tasks (like basic arithmetic the student has mastered) while impairing performance on complex or unfamiliar tasks (like difficult new math problems). The presence of classmates increases the student's arousal level, which facilitates dominant responses - for familiar material, the dominant response is correct answers, but for new, complex material, the dominant response might be confusion or mistakes. This explains why students often perform better on easy tests when others are present but worse on challenging new material. The theory suggests that moderate arousal optimizes performance on simple tasks by increasing attention and energy, while the same arousal level can overwhelm cognitive resources needed for complex problem-solving, leading to decreased performance on difficult tasks.
- A juror changes their vote after hearing other jurors' evidence-based arguments and now truly believes they were wrong. This is what?
Answer: Informational social influence: the juror accepts others' information as evidence, leading to genuine private attitude change.
This demonstrates informational social influence, where the juror genuinely changes their private opinion based on evidence and arguments presented by others, believing the group has superior information. Unlike normative influence, which involves public compliance without private acceptance, informational influence produces genuine attitude change and internalization. The juror now truly believes they were wrong after hearing evidence-based arguments, indicating that they used others' information as a source of knowledge about reality. This type of influence typically results in lasting change that persists even when the group is not present, because the person has actually been persuaded by superior evidence or reasoning. Informational influence is most likely in ambiguous situations where people are uncertain and look to others as credible sources of information.
- A committee ignores warning signs and pressures dissenters to support a risky plan to "stay united." What is this called?
Answer: Groupthink: desire for consensus overrides realistic appraisal, leading to self-censorship, pressure on dissenters, and flawed decisions.
This scenario exemplifies groupthink, a phenomenon where the desire for group harmony and consensus overrides realistic evaluation of alternatives and critical thinking. Key indicators include ignoring warning signs, pressuring dissenters to conform, and prioritizing group unity ("stay united") over careful analysis of risks and evidence. Groupthink typically occurs in cohesive groups under pressure to make decisions, leading to self-censorship, an illusion of unanimity, and poor decision-making outcomes. This differs from group polarization, which involves attitude shifts toward extremes, and from social loafing, which involves reduced individual effort. The committee's behavior shows the classic symptoms of groupthink: suppression of dissent, overestimation of group capabilities, and closed-mindedness toward alternative viewpoints.
