Psych Assignment #1 - Grade: B PDF

Preview

Summary

First psych assignment on behavioral and cognitive conformity. ...

Description

Hunter Heflin – Question 1 Social Psychology Assignment #1 9/19/15 Half an hour before kickoff, the team locker room is filled with a quiet intensity. I survey the room, nodding my head as bass-heavy rap music blasts in my headphones. Players sit fidgeting near their lockers, mentally preparing themselves for the upcoming game. Occasional jokes are met with nervous laughter, but are quickly replaced by a tense silence as players read the room and realize that it is neither the time nor place for comedy. The pregame locker room aptly demonstrates the concept of behavioral and cognitive conformity, the process of changing one’s behavior or beliefs in response to explicit or implicit pressure from other people. In this instance, the joker observes that the players around him are silent as they try to attain a mental state conducive to success on the field. Based on how his humor is received, he senses that he should be preparing for the impending match. He then adjusts his mental state to match that of the group, reviewing his assignments and envisioning himself playing to the best of his abilities. What follows is a corresponding change in his behavior—he sits still, and his comic mannerisms cease as he focuses intently on his responsibilities. In this fashion, the joker’s cognitive conformity leads him to adjust his behavior as well. In this case, the conformity is largely normative. The joker is fully aware of the situation, and no new information is presented in this scenario. He adjusts his behavior because none of the other players are willing to engage in his playful antics, and continuing would mean standing out in the group. His desire to belong and get along with the other players outweighs his tendency to provide comic relief.

Hunter Heflin – Question 2 Miller and MacFarland’s study demonstrates the phenomenon of pluralistic ignorance, which occurs when individuals infer that the identical actions of the self and others reflect different internal states. In this case, when subjects were permitted to ask questions about the essay, individuals inferred that all the other participants understood the content because no one asked for clarification. Although the essay was incomprehensible, the three main facets of pluralistic ignorance inhibited the subjects, preventing them from speaking up. First, people censor their own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors for fear of embarrassment or rejection. Subjects in the study assumed that the other participants had a better understanding of the essay than they themselves had, and didn’t want to be judged for appearing unintelligent in front of the group. Second, people incorrectly conclude that others are expressing their true feelings and thoughts, even though the other subjects are also self-censoring. As a result, the individual concluded that his or her own thoughts and feelings were not shared by the group, and opted not to ask questions. This study illustrates both informational and normative social influence. Though no one understood the essay, individuals interpreted the silence of other participants as a sign of their comprehension. In this sense, the social influence is informational, because any given subject took the actions of the others as a source of information about what was correct or proper. In a similar vein, normative social influence was also revealed via the silence of the group. Everyone in the experiment remained silent for fear of warranting the group’s disapproval.

Hunter Heflin – Question 3 In Stanley Milgram’s experiment, subjects did not assume responsibility for administering powerful electric shocks to other participants, because they viewed themselves as agents of the experimenter. However, the most clear evidence that challenges the “agentic state” explanation is the fact that the participants were physically delivering and changing the level of the shocks received, an action which renders them inherently responsible for the outcome of the experiment. Another plausible explanation for the results of Milgram’s experiment exists in the step-by-step procedure of dispensing the shocks. By increasing the voltage in small increments, Milgram was able to capitalize on the subject’s need for behavioral consistency. Once the process had begun, participants felt obligated to fulfill the task, partially because they agreed to partake in the study, but mostly due to their need to maintain a positive self-image. Disobedience at any point during the experiment would portray the subject as fickle, would be taken as an indicator of disrespect towards the experimenter. Lastly, due to the novelty of the situation, no strong norms existed for human conduct. Subjects were placed in an unfamiliar environment, and were unable to base their actions off of prior experiences. Confused, they looked to the experimenter as an authority figure with enough credibility to dictate their actions and guide them through their predicament.

Hunter Heflin – Question 4 One major distinction in the set up of Asch and Sherif’s studies is the nature of the exposure to other participants. In Asch’s study, subjects are seated in a row in a well-lit room, and record their responses in order down the line. In Sherif’s study, the participants do not see each other, and therefore their interaction is less direct. Sherif’s study also leaves more room for interpretation, because subjects find it difficult to judge exactly how far the light moves. In contrast, the correct answers to the questions in Asch’s study are far more evident and concrete. Asch’s study is a more powerful demonstration of the conformity process because participants knowingly select an incorrect answer in order to fit in with the group, whereas the correct answer in Sherif’s are more ambiguous....