Conformity, Influence, & Persuasion - AP Psychology

As stated by the bystander effect, individuals do not feel as responsible for helping others when other individuals are present. According to social psychological research, bystanders are most likely to intervene only when the following conditions are met: they share some similarities with the victim of the crime, are happy overall, feel guilty, and are not focused on their own affairs.

Darla first presents a small request and then presents a larger request. This is an example of a "foot-in-the-door" technique. Darla would be practicing "door-in-the-face" if she first presented a large request, then followed it with a smaller request. "Minority persuasion" involves a minority in a group persuading the majority members, and does not fit with this example. "Obedience" occurs when a subordinate complies with an authority figure's request, and is associated with the researcher Milgram.

The door in the face effect refers to a tendency in which people who refuse a large initial request will be more likely to agree to a later smaller request. By dropping the price from $100,000 to $40,000, the customer might believe he/she is getting a good deal even if the car should be priced lower. The non-profit call answer was an example of the foot in the door effect. The other two examples were sales techniques, but not examples of the door in the face effect because there is not a sequence of a large request followed by a smaller one.

The foot in the door effect refers to a tendency in which after agreeing to an initial small request, people will be more likely to agree to subsequent larger requests. By asking for a small initial donation of $10, the donor would be more likely to give $20 the following month than if the donor had been asked for $20 to begin with. The price drop on the car answer was an example of the door in the face effect. The other two examples were sales techniques, but not examples of the door in the face effect because there is not a sequence of a large request followed by a smaller one.

Stanley Milgram's Obedience Experiment involved an experimenter instructing participants to administer shocks to an confederate subject in an adjacent room when the subject answered "incorrectly". (No shocks were actually administered). The majority of participants continued to "administer shocks" at high levels when instructed to do so by the experimenter. Asch's classic conformity study involved subject's comparing lengths of lines and Sherif's classic conformity study examined the autokinetic effect. Clark and Clark performed a study on doll preference, but this was not a conformity/obedience study.

Soloman Asch's Conformity Study had a very similar set up to the given scenario. In his experiment, a subject was asked to compare lengths of lines that had obvious differences. The subject was in a group of other "subjects" (confederates) and often conformed to the answer that all of the other group members provided rather than sticking to the obviously correct answer. Clark and Clark's doll preference study involved a task for White and Black children to select the doll that they liked most. Milgram's obedience study involved subjects obeying direct instructions from an experimenter to administer shocks to another participant (confederate). Zimbardo's prison experiment involved members of assigned groups assuming roles (i.e. prison guards, prisoners).

This scenario most resembles Milgram's Obedience Study involved subjects obeying direct instructions from an experimenter to administer shocks to another participant (confederate) even though there appeared to be strong negative consequences. For the teacher in this scenario, she was instructed by an authority figure to leave school and buy a pizza even though she would miss her class if she did. Soloman Asch's Conformity Study involved subjects conforming to an obviously wrong answer that all other group members had agreed upon. Clark and Clark's doll preference study involved a task for White and Black children to select the doll that they liked most. Zimbardo's prison experiment involved members of assigned groups assuming roles (i.e. prison guards, prisoners).

Inoculation theory suggests that an original belief can be protected against persuasion (i.e. inoculated against a persuasive attack) by anticipating the argument before it occurs and coming up with counter arguments or discrediting the points of the argument. Other answers did include anticipating the argument, but not the second part of inoculation theory (i.e. discrediting the points of the argument). Providing arguments to support the initial belief prior to the attack could be helpful, but does not necessarily protect against a strong counter attack.

As stated by the bystander effect, individuals do not feel as responsible for helping others when other individuals are present. According to social psychological research, bystanders are most likely to intervene only when the following conditions are met: they share some similarities with the victim of the crime, are happy overall, feel guilty, and are not focused on their own affairs.

Darla first presents a small request and then presents a larger request. This is an example of a "foot-in-the-door" technique. Darla would be practicing "door-in-the-face" if she first presented a large request, then followed it with a smaller request. "Minority persuasion" involves a minority in a group persuading the majority members, and does not fit with this example. "Obedience" occurs when a subordinate complies with an authority figure's request, and is associated with the researcher Milgram.

The door in the face effect refers to a tendency in which people who refuse a large initial request will be more likely to agree to a later smaller request. By dropping the price from $100,000 to $40,000, the customer might believe he/she is getting a good deal even if the car should be priced lower. The non-profit call answer was an example of the foot in the door effect. The other two examples were sales techniques, but not examples of the door in the face effect because there is not a sequence of a large request followed by a smaller one.

The foot in the door effect refers to a tendency in which after agreeing to an initial small request, people will be more likely to agree to subsequent larger requests. By asking for a small initial donation of $10, the donor would be more likely to give $20 the following month than if the donor had been asked for $20 to begin with. The price drop on the car answer was an example of the door in the face effect. The other two examples were sales techniques, but not examples of the door in the face effect because there is not a sequence of a large request followed by a smaller one.

Stanley Milgram's Obedience Experiment involved an experimenter instructing participants to administer shocks to an confederate subject in an adjacent room when the subject answered "incorrectly". (No shocks were actually administered). The majority of participants continued to "administer shocks" at high levels when instructed to do so by the experimenter. Asch's classic conformity study involved subject's comparing lengths of lines and Sherif's classic conformity study examined the autokinetic effect. Clark and Clark performed a study on doll preference, but this was not a conformity/obedience study.

Soloman Asch's Conformity Study had a very similar set up to the given scenario. In his experiment, a subject was asked to compare lengths of lines that had obvious differences. The subject was in a group of other "subjects" (confederates) and often conformed to the answer that all of the other group members provided rather than sticking to the obviously correct answer. Clark and Clark's doll preference study involved a task for White and Black children to select the doll that they liked most. Milgram's obedience study involved subjects obeying direct instructions from an experimenter to administer shocks to another participant (confederate). Zimbardo's prison experiment involved members of assigned groups assuming roles (i.e. prison guards, prisoners).

This scenario most resembles Milgram's Obedience Study involved subjects obeying direct instructions from an experimenter to administer shocks to another participant (confederate) even though there appeared to be strong negative consequences. For the teacher in this scenario, she was instructed by an authority figure to leave school and buy a pizza even though she would miss her class if she did. Soloman Asch's Conformity Study involved subjects conforming to an obviously wrong answer that all other group members had agreed upon. Clark and Clark's doll preference study involved a task for White and Black children to select the doll that they liked most. Zimbardo's prison experiment involved members of assigned groups assuming roles (i.e. prison guards, prisoners).

Inoculation theory suggests that an original belief can be protected against persuasion (i.e. inoculated against a persuasive attack) by anticipating the argument before it occurs and coming up with counter arguments or discrediting the points of the argument. Other answers did include anticipating the argument, but not the second part of inoculation theory (i.e. discrediting the points of the argument). Providing arguments to support the initial belief prior to the attack could be helpful, but does not necessarily protect against a strong counter attack.

As stated by the bystander effect, individuals do not feel as responsible for helping others when other individuals are present. According to social psychological research, bystanders are most likely to intervene only when the following conditions are met: they share some similarities with the victim of the crime, are happy overall, feel guilty, and are not focused on their own affairs.

Darla first presents a small request and then presents a larger request. This is an example of a "foot-in-the-door" technique. Darla would be practicing "door-in-the-face" if she first presented a large request, then followed it with a smaller request. "Minority persuasion" involves a minority in a group persuading the majority members, and does not fit with this example. "Obedience" occurs when a subordinate complies with an authority figure's request, and is associated with the researcher Milgram.

The door in the face effect refers to a tendency in which people who refuse a large initial request will be more likely to agree to a later smaller request. By dropping the price from $100,000 to $40,000, the customer might believe he/she is getting a good deal even if the car should be priced lower. The non-profit call answer was an example of the foot in the door effect. The other two examples were sales techniques, but not examples of the door in the face effect because there is not a sequence of a large request followed by a smaller one.

The foot in the door effect refers to a tendency in which after agreeing to an initial small request, people will be more likely to agree to subsequent larger requests. By asking for a small initial donation of $10, the donor would be more likely to give $20 the following month than if the donor had been asked for $20 to begin with. The price drop on the car answer was an example of the door in the face effect. The other two examples were sales techniques, but not examples of the door in the face effect because there is not a sequence of a large request followed by a smaller one.