- In a classic Asch conformity experiment, the presence of a single confederate who gives the correct answer (a 'dissenter') dramatically reduces the participant's conformity. Which of the following outcomes would most likely be observed if, instead, the dissenter provided a different incorrect answer from the one given by the rest of the majority?
Answer: The participant's conformity to the majority would significantly decrease, though perhaps not as much as when the dissenter was correct.
The correct answer is C. The power of the majority in Asch's study comes largely from its unanimity. When unanimity is broken, even by someone who is also incorrect, it shatters the illusion of a single, correct social reality. This frees the participant to give their own answer. Therefore, conformity drops significantly. It might not drop quite as much as when the dissenter gives the correct answer (which provides social validation), but the primary effect is the breaking of unanimity.
- In a conceptual replication of Milgram's obedience study, the experimenter gives the initial instructions in person but then leaves the room and delivers all subsequent commands to the 'teacher' (the participant) via a telephone. How would this change most likely affect the level of obedience compared to Milgram's baseline study where the experimenter was physically present?
Answer: Obedience would significantly decrease, as the authority figure's influence and perceived power is less potent when they are not physically proximate.
When you encounter questions about variations in Milgram's obedience experiments, focus on how different situational factors influence the strength of authority and social pressure on participants.
Physical proximity is a crucial factor in authority's effectiveness. In Milgram's original studies, the experimenter's physical presence created immediate social pressure through direct eye contact, body language, and the psychological weight of face-to-face interaction. When the authority figure moves to a remote location (like giving commands by phone), their ability to monitor compliance decreases, and participants feel less immediate pressure to obey. The physical distance reduces the authority's perceived power and makes disobedience feel more psychologically feasible.
Answer D correctly identifies that obedience would significantly decrease due to the reduced potency of authority when not physically present. Milgram's own variations confirmed this pattern - proximity of authority directly correlates with compliance rates.
Answer A incorrectly suggests obedience would increase due to less scrutiny. While participants might feel less anxious, the reduction in authority's immediate presence has a much stronger opposing effect. Answer B wrongly claims the experimenter's location doesn't matter as long as institutional legitimacy remains. However, proximity affects authority independent of institutional factors. Answer C predicts erratic, bimodal results, but research shows proximity effects are more systematic than random - most participants respond similarly to reduced authority presence rather than splitting into extreme groups.
Remember: In social psychology experiments, physical proximity typically strengthens social influence, whether it's authority, conformity, or other interpersonal pressures. Distance generally weakens these effects.
- A juror is the sole person on a 12-person jury who believes the defendant is not guilty. The jury is sequestered, and the judge has instructed them they must reach a unanimous verdict. Which combination of factors would make it most likely that this lone juror will conform and change their vote to 'guilty'?
Answer: The foreperson of the jury is a highly respected judge, and the juror must publicly state their vote to the group repeatedly.
The correct answer is B. This option combines two powerful factors that increase conformity. First, the presence of a high-status group member (the judge) increases both normative and informational pressure. Second, the requirement of a public response, rather than a private one, significantly increases normative pressure to conform. High self-confidence (A) would decrease conformity. The presence of an initial ally (C), even one who flips, can reduce conformity by showing dissent is possible. Anonymity (D) is a well-known factor that decreases conformity.
- A student in a highly cohesive study group for a difficult physics class is publicly asked for their answer to a complex problem. The student is confident in their own calculated answer, but the other four members of the group unanimously state a different answer. Which of the following factors would be most likely to decrease the student's conformity to the group's incorrect answer?
Answer: The student was required to write down and submit their own answer privately to the professor before the group discussion began.
The correct answer is C. Research by Asch and others has shown that making a prior public (or even private) commitment to a judgment or opinion significantly decreases the likelihood of later conforming to a contradictory group opinion. Options A (emphasizing consensus) and D (increasing group size) would likely increase conformity. Option B (ambiguity of the task) would also tend to increase conformity, as the student would be less certain of their own answer and more likely to rely on the group for information.
- A critical distinction between the social pressure exerted in Asch's conformity studies and Milgram's obedience studies lies in the source and nature of the influence. Which statement accurately captures this difference?
Answer: Asch's studies involved pressure from a group of peers with equal status to the participant, while Milgram's involved pressure from a single, perceived legitimate authority figure.
The correct answer is A. This is the fundamental difference between the two lines of research. Asch studied conformity, which is yielding to implicit or explicit pressure from peers or a group. Milgram studied obedience, which is submitting to the direct commands of someone with perceived authority. The other options mischaracterize the studies: both types of influence could be present in both (B); Asch's task was unambiguous while Milgram's presented a moral dilemma (C); and the roles of commands and encouragement are reversed (D).
- During Milgram's obedience experiments, when a participant expressed a desire to stop, the experimenter used a series of standardized 'prods'. Which of the following principles best explains the effectiveness of the prod, 'The experiment requires that you continue'?
Answer: It appeals to the participant's pre-existing commitment to the scientific endeavor, framing obedience as a contractual obligation.
The correct answer is A. This specific prod reframes the participant's action not as a personal choice to inflict harm, but as a necessary component of a legitimate scientific study to which they have already committed. It shifts the responsibility from the participant to the impersonal 'requirements' of the experiment, making it easier for them to continue. It is not a threat (C) and doesn't explicitly mention payment (B) or other participants (D).
- In Stanley Milgram's baseline obedience study—the one most famously cited where the learner was in an adjacent room—what percentage of participants administered the final, maximum-intensity shock of 450 volts?
Answer: Approximately 65%
The correct answer is C. In the most well-known version of Milgram's experiment (the 'remote feedback' condition), a surprising 65% of participants obeyed the experimenter's commands all the way to the final 450-volt shock. The other figures represent either common misconceptions or results from different variations of the study (e.g., obedience rates dropped when the learner was in the same room or when the experimenter was remote).
- If Solomon Asch's line judgment study were replicated today in a typically collectivistic culture and a typically individualistic culture, what would be the most likely general finding regarding conformity rates?
Answer: The collectivistic culture would likely show higher conformity rates, as social harmony and adherence to in-group norms are more highly valued.
The correct answer is C. Cross-cultural replications of Asch's study have generally found that conformity rates are higher in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures. This is attributed to the cultural emphasis on group cohesion, interdependence, and maintaining social harmony in collectivistic societies, which makes going against the group a more significant social transgression.
- After a lengthy team meeting, a manager named Sarah publicly agrees with her team's decision to launch a new product, even though she has serious private reservations. Later that day, when asked for her anonymous feedback in a confidential survey, she lists her strong objections to the launch. Sarah's behavior in the meeting is a clear example of:
Answer: public compliance resulting from normative influence.
The correct answer is B. Sarah's actions demonstrate public compliance: she goes along with the group on the outside but does not change her internal beliefs. This is typically driven by normative social influence—the desire to maintain social harmony and avoid the discomfort of disagreeing with the group. It is not private acceptance (A), because she does not actually change her mind. While the team might be experiencing groupthink (D), her individual action is best described as public compliance. The agentic state (C) relates to obedience to authority, not peer conformity.
- One variation of Milgram's obedience experiment moved the setting from the prestigious Yale University to a modest, rented office in a rundown commercial building, under the guise of a private research firm. What was the primary effect of this change on participant obedience?
Answer: Obedience rates dropped significantly, as the perceived legitimacy and authority of the experimenter were diminished by the less prestigious setting.
The correct answer is B. In Milgram's actual variation, obedience to the 450-volt maximum dropped from 65% to 47.5%. The prestige of the setting (Yale University) was a key factor that lent legitimacy to the authority figure. Removing this trapping of authority reduced the experimenter's power and led to a significant, but not total, decrease in obedience. The drop was not to zero (D), and rates did not increase (A) or stay the same (C).
- A project manager wants to encourage her team to conform to a unified project plan and discourage dissent. Based on the findings of conformity research by Asch and others, which of the following strategies would be the least effective at increasing conformity?
Answer: Encouraging team members to submit their initial thoughts and critiques anonymously before the main discussion.
The correct answer is D. Anonymity and making a prior commitment (even a private one) are two factors that decrease conformity. By asking for anonymous critiques beforehand, the manager allows people to form and commit to their own opinions without normative pressure, making them less likely to conform later. The other options are all strategies that are known to increase conformity: highlighting the status of the group (A), making responses public (B), and increasing group cohesion (C).
- In a variation of Asch's line judgment task, participants are told that their individual scores for accuracy will determine their eligibility for a significant cash prize. The confederates in the group still unanimously give the same incorrect answer on several critical trials. How would this modification likely affect the level of conformity compared to the original study?
Answer: Conformity would decrease, as the personal incentive for accuracy would strengthen the participant's motivation to trust their own judgment.
The correct answer is B. Introducing a strong incentive for individual accuracy changes the participant's cost-benefit analysis. In the original study, the cost of disagreeing is social awkwardness. In this variation, the cost of agreeing with a wrong answer is losing a cash prize. This would motivate participants to rely on their own perception rather than conform to a clearly incorrect group, thus decreasing conformity.
- A political debate moderator asks all candidates to write down their final vote on a controversial bill before the debate begins. She announces that these written votes are binding and will be read aloud at the end. According to research on conformity, what is the most likely effect of this procedure on the candidates' behavior during the debate?
Answer: It will decrease conformity to any group consensus that emerges during the debate, as candidates will be anchored to their initial commitment.
This question tests your understanding of commitment and consistency principles in social psychology, particularly how prior commitments affect susceptibility to conformity pressure.
When people make public commitments, they become psychologically invested in maintaining consistency with those positions. The moderator's procedure creates a powerful anchor effect—by requiring candidates to write down binding votes before the debate, she's essentially inoculating them against changing their minds based on group pressure during the discussion.
Answer D is correct because research consistently shows that prior commitments reduce conformity to emerging group consensus. The written votes serve as psychological anchors that candidates will feel compelled to justify and maintain, even if the group discussion moves in a different direction. This commitment-consistency dynamic overrides typical conformity pressures.
Answer A misunderstands the direction of influence—candidates won't feel pressure to align arguments with votes; rather, their pre-existing votes will resist alignment with group arguments. Answer B underestimates the power of written commitments, which research shows are actually stronger than verbal influences in many contexts. The physical act of writing creates stronger psychological investment than hearing others speak. Answer C confuses commitment effects with group polarization, which occurs when group discussion amplifies initial tendencies—but here, the written commitments would prevent such movement from initial positions.
Remember: whenever you see questions about social influence, consider whether people have made prior commitments. Commitment and consistency principles often trump conformity pressures, making people more resistant to changing their minds once they've taken a public stance.
- A psychologist conducts a variation of the Asch experiment to test the effects of group size and unanimity on conformity. The results are summarized in the table below. Based on the data in the table, which conclusion is best supported?
Answer: Adding a single dissenter to a large group reduces conformity to a level comparable to when the participant faces only one other person.
The correct answer is B. This requires careful comparison of the data. In Condition D, the presence of one dissenter in a group of 8 confederates dropped the conformity rate to 8%. This rate is very close to the 5% conformity rate in Condition A, where the participant faced only a single confederate. This demonstrates the powerful effect of a dissenter in breaking the unanimity of the group, making its influence almost as weak as a group of one. Option A is incorrect because conformity plateaus. Option C is incorrect because the jump from 1 to 4 confederates is much larger (30 points) than from 4 to 8 (2 points). Option D is incorrect because the rate does not decline; it plateaus.
- The significant psychological distress observed in participants of Milgram's obedience studies became a cornerstone for revising ethical guidelines in psychological research. Which of the following represents the most critical ethical standard that Milgram's research was seen as violating, leading to the establishment of modern Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)?
Answer: Failure to protect participants from psychological harm and ensure their right to withdraw from the study without pressure.
The correct answer is A. The primary ethical controversies surrounding Milgram's study were the extreme psychological distress (anxiety, guilt, sweating, trembling) inflicted on participants and the use of experimenter prods that actively discouraged them from exercising their right to withdraw. While deception was also an issue, the failure to protect from harm and the coercion to continue are considered the most severe violations that directly led to stricter oversight by IRBs. Compensation (B) and methodological issues (D) are secondary concerns, and the harm was primarily psychological, not physical (C).
- Many participants in Milgram's experiments who administered the full range of shocks later explained their actions by saying, 'I was just doing what I was told,' and placed responsibility on the experimenter. This psychological phenomenon, where an individual sees themself as an instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, is known as:
Answer: the agentic state.
When you encounter questions about Milgram's obedience experiments, focus on the specific psychological mechanisms that explain why people comply with authority figures, even when asked to perform harmful acts.
The phrase "I was just doing what I was told" perfectly captures the agentic state (D) - a psychological condition where individuals see themselves as agents carrying out someone else's orders rather than acting autonomously. In this state, people shift from autonomous moral agents to instruments of authority, feeling reduced personal responsibility for their actions. Milgram coined this term specifically to explain why his participants could administer seemingly lethal shocks while maintaining their sense of being moral people.
The fundamental attribution error (A) refers to our tendency to overemphasize personality-based explanations for others' behavior while underestimating situational factors - this doesn't match participants explaining their own behavior through external authority. Cognitive dissonance reduction (B) involves resolving mental conflict between contradictory beliefs or values, but the participants aren't resolving conflicting beliefs - they're genuinely shifting responsibility. Diffusion of responsibility (C) occurs when individual accountability decreases in group settings because responsibility spreads among multiple people, but Milgram's participants were acting individually under direct authority.
Study tip: Remember that the agentic state specifically involves hierarchical authority relationships where someone voluntarily surrenders autonomous decision-making to a perceived legitimate authority figure. If you see questions about following orders or "just doing what I was told," think agentic state first.
- The firefighter's first action is an example of ______, while her second action is an example of ______.
Answer: obedience; conformity
The correct answer is B. The first action, following a direct order from a person in a position of authority (the captain), is a classic example of obedience. The second action, following the behavior of a group of peers (the other firefighters) due to their perceived expertise and the desire to act correctly in an ambiguous situation, is an example of conformity (specifically, informational social influence).
- A new and confusing fashion trend begins to circulate on a popular social media app. Many users are unsure whether the trend is satirical or serious. As more and more high-profile influencers adopt the trend seriously, other users begin to adopt it as well, believing the influencers must understand it better than they do. This pattern of conformity is best explained by:
Answer: informational social influence, because the ambiguity of the situation leads users to look to others for cues on how to behave correctly.
The correct answer is B. The key elements in the scenario are ambiguity ('confusing fashion trend,' 'unsure whether...satirical or serious') and looking to others perceived as experts ('high-profile influencers') for information on how to interpret the situation and behave. This is the definition of informational social influence, where people conform because they believe others have more accurate information. While a desire to fit in (normative influence) may also be present, the primary driver described is the need for information in an unclear situation.
- Which statement best explains the primary reason Alex is likely to conform to the team's decision?
Answer: Normative social influence, because the desire to be liked and accepted by his new team is a powerful motivator in this social context.
The correct answer is A. The scenario heavily emphasizes the social context: a new employee, a culture valuing team players, and a boss who values consensus. These factors create strong pressure to be liked and to fit in, which is the basis of normative social influence. While informational influence (B) might play a role due to the ambiguous data, the social pressures are described more strongly. It is not obedience (C) because there is no direct command from the boss, but rather pressure from the group. Group polarization (D) describes how a group's attitude becomes more extreme, but it doesn't explain Alex's individual decision to conform.
- The design of Milgram's obedience experiment, where participants were asked to deliver shocks in small, 15-volt increments, is a powerful real-world demonstration of which social influence technique?
Answer: The foot-in-the-door technique, where compliance with a small initial request increases the likelihood of compliance with a larger subsequent request.
The correct answer is C. The foot-in-the-door technique works by getting a person to agree to a small request, making them more likely to agree to a larger one later. Milgram's procedure mirrored this: once a participant delivered a 15-volt shock, it became psychologically easier to deliver a 30-volt shock, and so on. The gradual escalation made it difficult for participants to find a logical point to stop, as each step was only marginally worse than the last one they had already complied with.
