b.) Brainstorming is useful but is not much effective. In a face to face groups vs. individuals who work alone, people in the co-working group usually create more cliché, since they have a bias towards not to stick out by keeping conformity. Also, when one person is talking, others do not have a chance to speak out their opinions. This kind of response blocking will slow the process. c.) In the word-association experiment as a simple task, Allport found that with the presence of others, participants performed better by writing more words as a response to the stimulus word than those who worked alone.
d.) Allport explained this difference by social facilitation theory that the presence of others enhanced people’s arousal and make them tend
…show more content…
Subjects were asked to put a small sign that had “Be a Safe Driver” in their front yard and most of the subjects agreed. Two weeks later when the subjects who agreed before were asked with the same request to put a larger sign again, 76% of them agreed.
b.) No. The inconsistency is between self-perception and behavior but not between attitude and behavior. Self-perception theory can explain this foot in the door technique.
This technique works by altering subject’s self-perception, that in getting them to agree a small request, they begin to have a self-perception of the belief “I’m the sort of person who….” Then, they become much more likely to say yes to the second request to keep their behaviors consistent with their self-perception.
c.) During the experiment, participants had a stressful time choosing between to stop and to continue shocking, and they were experiencing a great cognitive dissonance as they tried to reconcile their conflicting values. Once they began to choose to continue shocking, they began to change their attitude to be consistent with their behavior; thus they tended to went it all the
…show more content…
They persuade others by making personal connections to create a love bond. In addition, the social movement theory suggests for the joiners of the group, they were seeking for a “fit” between their special need and the special answer of the group has, similar to the relationship between lock and key. Cognitively they are seekers by joining the group if they get the idea what they are looking for. In this pace, the love bond based on personal connections then put people in the door. According to Galanter’s research on a survey of 104 people who went to the workshop who stayed for two days, the leavers felt much closer to others outside the workshop than joiners, who felt less connected to the outside people. This indicates a persuasion principle called unfreezing: in a situation of personal connection is weakened or lost, people develop and refreeze their new connections if they go in to another city with now people and ideas. They become reconnected with others, and even when others go away, they still keep the idea and look for people who share the same view with them. This principle can be explained by biographical availability, that people who do not have close connections are looking for new connections by joining the group as a contrary to leavers who feel a stronger connection outside the
Schacter, D. L., Gilbert, D. T., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Psychology. (2nd ed., p. 600). New York: Worth Pub.
To further inform the reader using the logical appeal, Meyer gives the estimated results by both the experimenter and fourteen Yale psychology majors. These hypotheses predicted a typical "bell curve" in which a few subjects would cease in the beginning, most would break off somewhere in the middle, and very few would go to the max voltage of shock.
The teachers would initiate a “shock” to the student every time they got an answer wrong, but the teachers were unaware that the shock was fake. As the experiment continued, the shocks became more severe, and the students would plead for the teacher to stop since they were in pain. Despite the fact, that the participants continuously asked the authoritative experimenter if they could stop, “...relatively few people [had] the resources needed to resist authority” (Cherry 5). The participants feared questioning the effectiveness of the experiment, or restraining from continuing in fear of losing their job, going to jail, or getting reprimanded by Yale. A majority of the participants were intimidated by the experimenter, hence why they continued to shock the students, even though they knew morally, it was incorrect what they were doing. This experiment concluded, “...situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience...” (5). One's decisions are based on the situation they are facing. If someone is under pressure, they will resort to illogical decision making. There thoughts could potentially be altered due to fear, or hostility. In conclusion, the rash, incohesive state of mind, provoked by fear will eventually lead to the rise of
The research our experiment was founded on was that carried out by Taylor and Faust (1952). They carried out an experiment on 105 student’s, which was designed in the method of the game ‘twenty questions’. The students were split into teams of one member, two members and four members. They were then told that the experimenter would keep an object in mind whether it is animal vegetable or mineral was also stated, and they were then allowed 20 questions and guesses to reveal the identity of the object. In there experiment they found that the group of two members performed better than the group of four members in terms of how many guesses and questions it took them and how long it took them to deduce the identity of the object. However Taylor and Faust found that the efficiency did not differ in any significant way.
Describe and analyze at least 2 novel examples of stimulus control in your own behavior. Be specific. Is the stimulus control present in your examples helpful or harmful? Explain.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301.
As the experiment went on you could see there was significant anxiety for the subject when administering the shocks. A subject asked how far you could go on this and was told as far as is necessary. It was noted that obedience is a necessary ingredient for society to function. 60-65% of the subjects went all the way to the last volt of 450. None of the subjects were forced to do this, but they had the right combination of diffusion of responsibility and the fact that the authority told them to do it.
Although equipment was specific, 63% of the subjects followed through with the experiment and delivered the shocks at the highest intensity. I was just following orders,'' was the excuse of many of the subjects. Jack Washington implied that he would have behaved in whatever manner the experimenter required.... ... middle of paper ... ...
The control group was the group given a list of 20 random words and the experiment group was the group given a list of 20 related words. Random group allocation of participants to both of the two conditions was used to counter-balance the individual differences of the participants.
The first chapter of “Working in Groups” focuses on group communication, the first aspect being the key elements of group communication (Engleberg and
One such instance involved the act of moving into a new apartment and attempting to persuade friends to help with the work. In this example, the author offered dinner and drinks for helpers, and reminded some of his past assistance with their own similar tasks. This was a demonstration of reciprocity. The author made sure to begin these attempts at persuasion well in advance of the move in hopes of accounting for scarcity in his friend’s availability of time. The author also presented a clear plan as to how the process would be achieved and in what timeframe. This was an employment of the principle of authority, demonstrating knowledge about how well-developed the task’s proposed resolution already was. Over the days as the move date approached, reminders were mentioned in hopes of making sure a commitment would be maintained. Changes to the plan were not made and this demonstrated consistency. The consensus principle was used at any point a new friend was asked to help, showing the burden wasn’t only being placed on them because others already saw fit to join. Lastly, the principle of liking was relevant to the fact that friends were asked rather than strangers, and that their own inconveniences had been considered and would be alleviated or compensated for as best as
Macrae, C.N., Stangor, C., & Milne, A.B. (1994). Activating Stereotpes: A Functional Analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 370-389.
The foot-in-the-door technique, also called the gradation technique, refers to the assumption that a person who has already complied with a small request is more likely to agree to a larger one later. This technique contrasts significantly with others that aim to influence behavior in that it seeks to do so without the use of “external pressure.”
Psychology is a social science study that covers diverse subject topics and carries out different forms of research in order to understand the development and function of human beings. A scientific study focuses on people's mind and its functions especially those affecting behavior in a particular context. Psychology is divided into different branches, and each branch addresses its own form of content in relation to mental processes and behavior. Social psychology is one of the psychology branches. This subdiscipline focuses on individuals and their thoughts. Experts in this field of study focus on why an individual acts as well as reacts the way he/she does. It studies the interaction between people, but the focus is on one human being rather than many individuals. Scientists as well as psychologists study it in order to understand how individuals influence and communicate with each other. This research paper seeks to address this branch of psychology in detail by explaining its meaning, the relationship between it and other fields of psychology and the differences as well as the similarities it has with these other fields. Further, the paper will also discuss the diverse research methods that are applicable with social psychology to determine how a person affects groups of people and how these groups affect an individual.
Weiner, I. Healy, A. Freedheim, D. Proctor,R.W., Schinka,J.A. (2003) Handbook of Psychology: Experimental psychology,18, pp 500