Social Psychology 9Th Edition Kassin Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Social Psychology 9th Edition Kassin
Solutions Manual
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/social-psychology-9th-edition-kassin-solutions-manual/
CHAPTER 7
Conformity
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: GUIDELINES FOR STUDY

You should be able to do each of the following by the conclusion of Chapter 7.
1. Explain the process and purposes of mimicry. Discuss the implications of mimicry for questions
concerning the automaticity of social influence. (pp. 255-256)
2. Define, compare, and contrast conformity, compliance, and obedience. (pp. 257-258)
3. Compare normative and informational influence. Explain each in the context of Sherif’s and
Asch’s studies, and in relation to public and private conformity. (pp. 258-263)
4. Discuss the relationship between research on ostracism and the concept of conformity. (pp. 260-
261)
5. Identify and explain each of the factors that have been shown to predict levels of conformity,
including group size, awareness of norms, having an ally, age, and gender. Explain the
relationship between culture and conformity. (pp. 263-271)
6. Differentiate between majority and minority influence. Explain how to account for the effects of
minority influence, and how majorities and minorities exert pressure to affect people’s behavior.
(pp. 263-271)
7. Describe the ways in which the discourse of making requests affects compliance with reference to
mindlessness. Explain the role of the norm of reciprocity in such efforts to elicit compliance. (pp.
271-273)
8. Define and explain the sequential request strategies known as the foot-in-the-door technique, low-
balling, the door-in-the-face technique, and the that’s-not-all technique. Explain why each works.
Address strategies for resisting these strategies. (pp. 273-278)
9. Describe the procedures used in Milgram’s research on obedience to authority. Compare the
predictions made about how participants would behave to what actually happened. Summarize
how each of the following predicted levels of obedience in the study: participant characteristics
(e.g., gender, personality), authority figure characteristics (e.g., prestige, presence), and proximity
of victim. (pp. 278-284)
10. Consider the applicability of the Milgram findings to real-world events such as the Holocaust. (p.
279)
11. Compare the findings of Milgram to more recent studies of obedience by Meeus and Raaijmakers
(1995) and Gamson et al. (1982). Explain the similarities and differences in the procedures and
findings of these studies compared to those of the Milgram study. (pp. 284-288)
12. Summarize social impact theory. Identify the factors that influence a source’s strength,
immediacy, and number, and the aspects of the target that facilitate resistance. Explain the
relevance of this theory to conformity, compliance, and obedience. (pp. 289-291)
© 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as
permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password -protected website for classroom use.
230 CHAPTER 7
CHAPTER OUTLINE
I. Social Influence as “Automatic”
II. Conformity
A. The Early Classics
B. Why Do People Conform?
1. A need to be right
2. A fear of ostracism
3. Distinguishing types of conformity
C. Majority Influence
1. Group size: the power in numbers
2. A focus on norms
3. An ally in dissent: getting by with a little help
4. Gender differences
D. Minority Influence
1. Moscovici’s theory
2. Processes and outcomes of minority influence
E. Culture and Conformity
III. Compliance
A. Mindlessness and Compliance
B. The Norm of Reciprocity
C. Setting Traps: Sequential Request Strategies
1. The foot in the door
2. Low-balling
3. The door in the face
4. That’s not all, folks!
D. Assertiveness: When People Say No
IV. Obedience
A. Milgram’s Research: Forces of Destructive Obedience
1. The obedient participant
2. The authority
3. The victim
4. The procedure
B. Milgram in the 21st Century
C. Defiance: When People Rebel
III. The Continuum of Social Influence
A. Social Impact Theory
B. Perspectives on Human Nature
DETAILED OVERVIEW
• Conformity, compliance, and obedience are three kinds of social influence, varying in the
degree of pressure brought to bear on an individual.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE AS “AUTOMATIC”

• Studies show that people mimic each other’s behaviors and moods, perhaps as a way of
smoothing social interactions.
• Sometimes we are influenced by other people without our awareness.
CONFORMITY 231
CONFORMITY
• Conformity is the tendency for people to change their behavior to be consistent with group norms.
The Early Classics

• Two classic experiments illustrate contrasting types of conformity.
• Sherif presented groups of participants with an ambiguous task and found that their judgments
gradually converged.
• Using a simpler line-judgment task, Asch had confederates make incorrect responses and found
that participants went along about a third of the time.
Why Do People Conform?

• Sherif found that people exhibit private conformity, using others for information in an
ambiguous situation.
• Asch’s studies indicated that people conform in their public behavior to avoid appearing
deviant.
Majority Influence
• As the size of an incorrect unanimous majority increases, so does conformity—up to a point.
• People conform to perceived social norms when these norms are brought to mind.
• The presence of one dissenter reduces conformity, even when he or she disagrees with the
participant and lacks competence at the task.
• Women conform more than men on “masculine” tasks and in face-to-face settings but not on
“feminine” or gender-neutral tasks or in private settings.
Minority Influence
• Sometimes minorities resist pressures to conform and are able to influence majorities.
• In general, minority influence is greater when the source is an ingroup member.
• According to Moscovici, minorities can exert influence by taking a consistent and unwavering
position.
• Hollander claims that to exert influence, a person should first conform, then dissent.
• Majority influence is greater on direct and public measures of conformity, but minorities show
their impact in indirect or private measures of conformity.
• By forcing other group members to think more openly about a problem, minorities enhance the
quality of a group’s decision making.
• People gain courage to resist conformity pressures after watching others do the same.
Culture and Conformity

• Just as cultures differ in their social norms, so too does the extent to which people are expected
to adhere to those norms.
232 CHAPTER 7
• Research shows that people from collectivist cultures conform more than people from
individualistic cultures.
COMPLIANCE
• A common form of social influence occurs when we respond to direct requests.
Mindlessness and Compliance

• People are more likely to comply when they are taken by surprise and when the request sounds
reasonable.
The Norm of Reciprocity

• We often comply when we feel indebted to a requester who has done us a favor.
• People differ in the extent to which they use reciprocity for personal gain and are wary of
falling prey to this strategy.
Setting Traps: Sequential Request Strategies

• Four compliance techniques are based on a two-step request: the first step sets a trap and the
second elicits compliance.
• Using the foot-in-the-door technique, a person sets the stage for the “real” request by first
getting someone to comply with a smaller request.
• In low-balling, one person gets another to agree to a request but then increases the size of the
request by revealing hidden costs. Despite the increase, people often follow through on their
agreement.
• With the door-in-the-face technique, the real request is preceded by a large one that is rejected.
People then comply with the second request because they see it as a concession to be
reciprocated.
• The that’s-not-all technique begins with a large request. Then the apparent size of the request is
reduced by the offer of a discount or bonus.
Assertiveness: When People Say No

• Many people find it hard to be assertive. Doing so requires that we be vigilant and recognize
the traps.
OBEDIENCE
• When the request is a command and the requester is a figure of authority, the resulting
influence is called obedience.
Milgram’s Research: Forces of Destructive Obedience

• In a series of experiments, participants were ordered by an experimenter to administer
increasingly painful shocks to a confederate.
• Sixty-five percent obeyed completely but felt tormented by the experience.
CONFORMITY 233
• Obedience levels are influenced by various situational factors, including a participant’s

physical proximity to both the authority figure and the victim.
• Two other aspects of Milgram’s procedure contributed to the high levels of obedience: (1)
participants did not feel personally responsible, and (2) the orders escalated gradually.
• In more recent studies, people exhibited high rates of obedience when told to inflict
psychological harm on another person.
Milgram in the 21st Century

• Milgram’s studies have remained relevant and controversial into the 21st century.
• Researchers note that a situational explanation for acts of destructive obedience does not
forgive them.
• A recent “partial replication” of Milgram’s shock study suggests that most people are still fully
obedient today.
Defiance: When People Rebel

• Just as processes of social influence breed obedience, they can also support acts of defiance
because groups are more difficult to control than individuals.
• Provision of a situational explanation for cruel behavior does not excuse that behavior
THE CONTINUUM OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE
Social Impact Theory

• Social impact theory predicts that social influence depends on the strength, immediacy, and
number of sources who exert pressure relative to targets who absorb that pressure.
Perspectives on Human Nature

• There is no single answer to the question of whether people are conformists or nonconformists.
• There are cross-cultural differences in social influence, and values change over time even
within specific cultures.
KEY TERMS
collectivism (p. 270)
compliance (p. 271)
conformity (p. 257)
door-in-the-face technique (p. 276)
foot-in-the-door technique (p. 273)
idiosyncrasy credits (p. 268)
individualism (p. 270)
234 CHAPTER 7
informational influence (p. 260)

low-balling (p. 275)
minority influence (p. 267)
normative influence (p. 260)
obedience (p. 279)
private conformity (p. 262)
public conformity (p. 262)
social impact theory (p. 289)
that’s-not-all technique (p. 276)
Terms
LECTURE AND DISCUSSION IDEAS
Idea 1. Nazi Germany

Some have argued that the one individual who has had the biggest historical impact on the field of
social psychology is Adolf Hitler. As Chapter 1 discussed, numerous landmark social psychological
investigations were inspired, at least in part, by the circumstances of World War II, including research
on persuasion and attitude change, stereotyping and prejudice, aggression, and conformity and
obedience.
One example of the research inspired by Nazi Germany is Stanley Milgram’s studies of obedience.
Milgram, like so many others, wondered how so much destructive obedience was possible. And this
raised subsequent questions: How vulnerable are people in general to the potentially destructive
commands of an authority? What factors make us more, or less, vulnerable?
Examine this background further by assigning or simply discussing readings or films concerning the
obedience observed in Nazi Germany. Particularly relevant to Milgram’s research is the case of Adolf
Eichmann. As is discussed in Chapter 7, Eichmann, one of the most notorious of the Nazi war
criminals, was described by his interrogator as “utterly ordinary” (Arendt, 1963; Lifton, 1986; Von
Lang & Sibyll, 1983). Assign excerpts from one or more of these cited sources. Discuss the
implications of cases like Eichmann’s for a social psychological understanding of obedience. Consider
showing excerpts from the award-winning 1993 film Schindler’s List as well.
Discuss how some of the same underlying processes can be observed in numerous dramatic as well as
mundane examples since the 1940s. Some of the dramatic examples are mentioned in the textbook or in
the Lecture and Discussion Ideas to follow. Another dramatic illustration can be found in the film The
Wave (see Multimedia Resources below), in which a high school teacher uses his authority to create a
fascistic group of students, demonstrating how vulnerable we all are to some of the underlying forces
that helped make possible the obedience found in Nazi Germany. Particularly relevant and powerful is
the scene toward the end of the film in which the teacher stuns the students by revealing the identity of
the person responsible for this movement to be Hitler. Consider asking the students to come up with
their own examples of instances in the news or in their own lives in which people obeyed almost
blindly the commands of an authority.
Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. New York: Viking.
Lifton, R. J. (1986). The Nazi doctors: Medical killing and the psychology of genocide. New York:
Basic Books.
CONFORMITY 235
Von Lang, J., & Sibyll, C. (Eds.). (1983). Eichmann interrogated (R. Manheim, trans.). New York:
Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Idea 2. Jonestown
Assign readings concerning the development and self-destruction of the community organized by Jim
Jones known as “Jonestown.” Jones was an extremely charismatic man who was able to use numerous
techniques of social influence to his advantage. He was a minister who built a small following into a
national organization of churches, called the Peoples Temple. Jones elicited a tremendous degree of
commitment from his followers, to the point where they gave all of their money and property to him.
When the government began questioning various financial aspects of the empire that Jones was
building, he brought his congregation to the isolated reaches of Guyana, South America, where he
established the community bearing his name. Eventually, a congressman from California flew to
Jonestown to investigate reports of U.S. citizens being held against their will in this community, and he
and several others were killed by Jones’s aides. Jones then explained to the members of the community
that they would soon be under attack by outside forces, and that the only honorable solution for them
would be to commit mass suicide. Most of the people there followed Jones’s orders and drank the
poison Jones offered them (indeed, there were many instances in which parents gave their children the
poison before taking it themselves), although some were killed by Jones’s assistants. More than 900
people died in this 1978 tragedy. When news of this tragedy spread, people around the world were
shocked at the level of obedience shown by the hundreds of people who followed Jones.
There are a number of important social psychological points that can be made concerning the
Jonestown tragedy:
• Discuss the various types of power that Jones was able to develop, and how he developed them.
• Discuss examples of strong informational influence and normative influence in Jonestown.
• Compare the isolation of Jonestown with the situation faced by participants in Sherif’s study
concerning the autokinetic effect.
• Examine how the processes underlying important compliance techniques, such as the foot-in-the-
door technique and the norm of reciprocity, were influential in Jonestown.
• Compare the authority of Jones with that of the experimenter in Milgram’s research.
• Discuss how social impact theory could be used to explain what happened in Jonestown.
Other relevant concepts from the textbook that can be integrated into this discussion include social
comparison theory (Ch. 3), attribution (Ch. 4), self-fulfilling prophecies (Ch. 4), persuasion (Ch. 6—
e.g., one-sided messages, the role of fear, persuasion via the peripheral route), cognitive dissonance
(Ch. 6), groupthink (Ch. 8), group polarization (Ch. 8), pluralistic ignorance (Ch. 10), the sunk cost
principle (Ch. 13), and leadership (Ch. 13).
There are several readings and films concerning Jonestown. We have found that assigning excerpts
from the book Awake in a Nightmare: Jonestown, the Only Eyewitness Account, by Feinsod (1981), is
particularly effective. It is based on the vivid account of a survivor of Jonestown. Unlike some of the
more explicitly psychological treatments of the story, this book simply relates the experiences and
observations of Odell Rhodes, who was initially swept up by the charisma and apparent expertise of Jim
Jones, went to Jonestown, and began to observe Jones and his followers spiral out of control. Students
can be challenged to think for themselves in applying relevant social psychological concepts and
principles to this reading. An alternative approach is to assign a reading that does much of this thinking
for the students, such as Osherow’s (1984) informative social psychological analysis of Jonestown. See
the Multimedia Resources section below for video ideas concerning Jonestown.
236 CHAPTER 7
Feinsod, E. (1981). Awake in a nightmare: Jonestown, the only eyewitness account. New York: Norton.
Osherow, N. (1984). Making sense of the nonsensical: An analysis of Jonestown. In E. Aronson (Ed.),
Readings about the social animal (Fourth Edition, pp. 68-86). New York: W. H. Freeman.
Idea 3. The My Lai Massacre

The event that has come to be known as the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War can serve as a
powerful case study of conformity and obedience, as well as of aggression (see Ch. 11). In this incident,
a platoon of U.S. soldiers brutally killed an entire village of innocent men, women, and children in the
village known to Americans as My Lai. These men had been given orders to destroy what they believed
to be an enemy stronghold, but it soon became clear that the U.S. soldiers had received the wrong
information and were killing defenseless civilians. Despite this realization, the killing and brutality
continued. You can assign and discuss excerpts from R. Hammer’s (1970) book, One Morning in the
War, to help students appreciate the scope and consequences of conformity and obedience (as well as
aggression) in this incident. Hammer’s book provides a detailed account of what led up to the massacre
and what happened during the massacre itself.
Discuss the roles of informational and normative influence in the tragedy. Point out examples of public
and private conformity. Discuss what factors made the soldiers so vulnerable to conformity and
obedience pressures. Discuss how some of the processes of self-perception and self-presentation that
underlie various compliance techniques (such as the foot-in-the-door technique) may also have played
an important role in Vietnam in general and My Lai in particular. Discuss the argument made by Lt.
Calley and others who participated in the killing that they were just following orders and should
therefore not be held responsible for their actions, and have students debate the issue of whether they
should have been punished for their actions. On the one hand, students should see how the explanation
of “just following orders” has been used to justify awful actions throughout history, as in Nazi
Germany. On the other hand, students should recognize the pressures of war and understand how the
military cannot be effective if orders are questioned. Consider showing excerpts from two relevant
videos, Remember My Lai and Disobeying Orders (see the Multimedia Resources section), to add some
provocative material to this discussion.
Integrate into the discussion of My Lai concepts from other chapters in the textbook, such as aggression
(Ch. 11—e.g., frustration-aggression, displacement of aggression and scapegoating, aggression cues,
heat, arousal, excitation transfer, reinforcement, and modeling), self-awareness (Ch. 3), expectations
(Ch. 4), attribution (Ch. 4), stereotypes and prejudice (Ch. 5), cognitive dissonance (Ch. 6), group
processes (Ch. 8), bystander intervention (Ch. 10), leadership (Ch. 13), and stress (Ch. 14). An excerpt
from the popular film directed by Oliver Stone, Platoon, can provide a vivid fictional depiction of this
kind of massacre. The film Saving Private Ryan shows some related kinds of behavior by American
troops in World War II.
Hammer, R. (1970). One morning in the war: The tragedy at Son My. New York: Coward-McCann.
Idea 4. Conformity Across Cultures

Discuss the differences between individualistic and collectivistic cultural orientations. Contrast the
connotations of “conformity” in the United States—with its history of valuing “rugged
individualism”—with those in collectivistic cultures, such as in many parts of Asia and Africa. In
Korea, for example, the word “conformity” is understood to mean maturity and inner strength. Ask the
students to explain how conformity can be construed to mean qualities such as maturity and inner
strength, sensitivity, flexibility, and a willingness to put aside selfish concerns for the good of the
group.
CONFORMITY 237
Assign or summarize readings that examine cross-cultural differences that are relevant to the issues of
group norms and conformity. Kim and Markus (1999) propose that East Asians conform because
conforming makes them feel connected to others in their culture, a desirable outcome. In contrast, they
say, Americans view conformity in terms of relinquishing control and being pushed around, a negative
outcome. In a series of studies they found that East Asians preferred nonunique abstract figures,
whereas Americans preferred unique ones; that East Asians, when shown four orange pens and one
green one, chose an orange one, whereas Americans chose the only green one; and that Korean
magazine ads were more likely to use a conformity appeal with statements like, “Seven out of ten
people use this…”, whereas American magazine ads were more likely to use a uniqueness appeal with
statements like, “Choose your own view…”
Markus and Kitayama (1991) contrast a maxim familiar to many Americans, “It’s the squeaky wheel
that gets the grease,” with a maxim more familiar to people in Asia (such as Japan and China), “The
nail that sticks up shall be hammered down.” Discuss the implications of these differences for the issues
raised in Chapter 7. In what ways should the social psychological principles underlying concepts such
as public versus private conformity be similar or different across cultures? Would the two-step
compliance techniques be more or less likely to work in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic
cultures?
In one recent study, Petrova, Cialdini, & Sills (2007) found that US participants were less likely than
Asians to comply with an initial, modest request. But that those (US participants) who chose to comply
were more likely than their Asian counterparts to show consistency by agreeing to a subsequent, larger
request. How would your students explain that finding?
And would they expect the obedience levels found in Milgram’s research in this country to have been
much higher in collectivistic settings? What if the participants were children? Shanab and Yahya (1977)
found a 73 percent rate of obedience in a study that duplicated Milgram’s procedure but used 6- to 16-
year-old Jordanian children.
Also, consider the implications of these cross-cultural differences for how people perceive those whose
behaviors are or are not consistent with group norms. Discuss how interactions between individuals
from different cultural backgrounds may be affected by different conceptions of and attitudes about
conforming to group norms.
Kim, H., & Markus, H.R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony, or conformity? A cultural
analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 77, 4, 785-800.
Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Cultural variation in the self-concept. In J. Strauss and G. R.
Goethals (Eds.), The self: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 18-48). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petrova, P.K., Cialdini, R.B., & Sills, S.J. (2007). Consistency-based compliance across cultures.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 1, 104-111.
Shanab, M.E. & Yahya, K.A. (1977). A behavioral study of obedience in children. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 530-536.
Idea 5. Informational and Normative Influence

In Chapter 7, informational influence is defined as “influence that produces conformity when a person
believes others are correct in their judgments.” Normative influence is defined as “influence that
produces conformity when a person fears the negative social consequences of appearing deviant.”
Distinguishing these two types of social influence is important for a better understanding of how and
why conformity should be strong or weak in various situations. Discuss these two types of influence
and ask students to provide examples from their own lives that illustrate these phenomena. Bring to
class your own examples. Ask the class to discuss when they feel particularly vulnerable to each type of
238 CHAPTER 7
influence. Discuss various research findings about conformity in the textbook and have the students
analyze the extent to which either or both of these types of influence played an important role. If you
discuss some of the historical examples mentioned in the previous lecture/discussion ideas, such as the
Jonestown mass suicide or the My Lai massacre, discuss the roles of informational and normative
influence. For example, Jim Jones was able to exert a tremendous amount of informational influence on
his followers through “miraculous” demonstrations of his knowledge and expertise (often through
trickery). Moreover, by cutting off his followers from the rest of the world and from dissenting
opinions, he was able to create a situation in which his followers were very vulnerable to informational
influence from each other. In addition, by creating a strong, pervasive sense of group identity, such as
by fostering “us against the world” thinking, Jones was able to create a situation in which his followers
would feel tremendous normative pressure to behave and think as everyone else in the group did.
Consider discussing the potential roles of informational and normative influence in relation to topics
from other chapters, such as social comparison theory (Ch. 3), stereotyping (Ch. 5), persuasion (Ch. 6),
group processes such as group polarization or groupthink (Ch. 8), helping in emergency situations (Ch.
10), jury decision making (Ch. 12), and economic decision making (Ch. 13). This would both
emphasize the importance and ubiquity of these types of influence but also help the students see and
think beyond chapter divisions, encouraging them to process the information in the textbook at a deeper
level. Also discuss some situations in which informational and normative types of influence may work
against each other, as is suggested by the dual-process perspective concerning minority influence.
Idea 6. Minority Influence

Discuss the ways in which minorities can use the knowledge derived from research on minority
influence to increase their influence in society. Examine Moscovici’s model of minority influence,
presented in the text, in terms of its applicability to various social movements, such as those concerning
civil rights, protests against wars, etc. Consider showing the classic film Twelve Angry Men, which
depicts a lone juror (played by Henry Fonda) struggling against the pressure put on him by the other
eleven jurors to change his vote so they could reach a unanimous verdict, but one by one, he convinces
them to reconsider their position (this movie is discussed briefly in Ch. 12); discuss the potential role of
minority influence in juries.
Contrast the single- and dual-process accounts of majority and minority influence. Why, according to
the dual-process approach, do minorities elicit conformity through informational influence whereas
majorities do so through normative influence? Why is “style” so important in minority influence,
according to Moscovici? Ask students to discuss their own experiences, either as the minority in a
group or as observers of a vocal minority in a group. In these experiences, what factors increased or
decreased the likelihood that the minority position would have an impact on the majority? Was much
normative pressure exerted to keep the minority from defecting to the majority position?
Idea 7. Pervasive Pressures to Conform: The Influences of

Peers and the Media
The fear of embarrassment caused by deviating from a (perceived) group norm can be very powerful
among college students. Discuss with the class some of the sources and consequences of conformity
pressures. Two pervasive and influential sources with which most college students are familiar are
peers and the media. Discuss each of these factors as they affect private as well as public conformity.
It is difficult to overestimate the extent to which peers exert conformity and compliance pressures on
each other. These pressures can be very specific and explicit, as when children pressure other children
to engage in particular acts of mischief, or they can be fairly subtle, as when an individual is pressured
to avoid achieving more than his or her friends. Styles of dress and appearance, ways of presenting
CONFORMITY 239
one’s personality to others, various attitudes and ways of speaking are just a few of the countless
dimensions on which peers exert social influence.
More subtle than peer pressure, but not necessarily less pervasive or powerful, are the influences of
media depictions of people in television shows, films, advertising, news programs, etc. We are exposed
to images from the media throughout our lives, in doses too staggering to comprehend. These images
both reflect and help shape various norms and standards. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes
unintentionally, the media present messages of what are taken to be the normative ways for people of
particular generations or categories to look, think, and behave.
To help create a meaningful discussion of these issues, consider assigning or summarizing the articles
by Jennings (Walstedt) and colleagues (1980) and Geis and colleagues (1984). These researchers have
conducted experiments concerning the effects of television commercials on women’s likelihood of
conforming, as well as on their self-confidence and career aspirations. Students tend to find these
articles thought provoking. If some students suggest alternative explanations for the results of these
studies, you should encourage this kind of critical thinking and challenge the students to think of
methods of testing these issues in ways that would be less subject to such alternative explanations.
More important, the articles raise important and interesting questions about the effects of advertising
and whether or not advertisers should be held responsible for these effects. The film Still Killing Us
Softly, which has been suggested for other chapters (e.g., Chapters 4 and 11), raises similar questions in
a very powerful way.
Crandall’s (1988) article, “Social Contagion of Binge Eating,” is also very thought provoking and
relevant to students’ lives and to the issues raised in Chapter 7. Crandall’s research examines the extent
to which binge eating in college sororities may result, in part, from social influence pressures that the
students exert on each other. Eating disorders are all too prevalent on college campuses, and students
should be particularly interested in this topic. Crandall’s article has the added benefit of offering a
review of some of the relevant literature on norms in groups, social impact theory, and related topics.
Crandall, C. S. (1988). Social contagion of binge eating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
55, 588-598.
Geis, F. L., Brown, V., Jennings (Walstedt), J., & Porter, N. (1984). TV commercials as achievement
scripts for women. Sex Roles, 10, 513-525.
Jennings (Walstedt), J., Geis, F. L., & Brown, V. (1980). Influence of television commercials on
women’s self-confidence and independent judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,
203-210.
Idea 8. The Norm of Reciprocity

The norm of reciprocity is the social rule that says that we should treat others as they have treated us.
The text describes several research studies that have shown how this norm can be used to trap people
into compliance (e.g., Regan, 1971, Greenberg and Westcott, 1983, Rind and Strohmetz, 2001).
In an amusing application of the norm, which is not mentioned in the text, Kunz and Woolcott (1976)
sent out Christmas cards to a large number of total strangers. Twenty percent of the recipients felt
obligated enough to send back cards to people they did not know. When the title Dr. was added in front
of the sender’s name, the percentage was even higher. In a more outrageous application of the norm, on
a whim, a young man sent a wedding invitation to the Sultan of Brunei (whom he’d never met), and the
Sultan sent his regrets and an extremely generous check.
There are many other times when the norm of reciprocity comes into play outside of the research lab.
For example, the Hare Krishnas give out flowers and charities send out address labels in the hope of
getting a contribution; stores give out calendars and food samples; health clubs offer free workouts; real
240 CHAPTER 7
estate firms offer free appraisals; and wineries give visitors free tastes of wine. All of these techniques
increase compliance by spurring interest in the product as well as by activating the norm of reciprocity.
Ask students if they can think of other examples of the norm of reciprocity. When have they been on
the receiving end? Did they feel obligated to reciprocate? Did they ever take advantage of the norm
themselves to get others to comply?
Greenberg, M. S., & Westcott, D. R. (1983). Indebtedness as a mediator of reactions to aid. In J. D.
Fisher, A. Nadler, & B. M. DePaulo (Eds.), New Directions in Helping: Vol. 1. Recipient Reactions to
Aid. New York: Academic Press.
Regan, D. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 7, 627-639.
Rind, B. & Strohmetz, D. (2001). Effect on restaurant tipping of presenting restaurant customers with
an interesting task and of reciprocity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1379-1385.
Idea 9. Six Factors in Compliance

According to Robert Cialdini (2004), the reciprocity norm is only one of six tendencies that incline
people to say “yes” to a request. Writing in Scientific American, Cialdini elaborates on five additional
psychological factors that lead to compliance. (Some of these factors are also covered in Chapter 6 of
the text, as characteristics of the source and message that increase persuasion.)
First, there is consistency. Most individuals do not wish to be seen as hypocrites; they are strongly
motivated to appear and to be consistent in their attitudes and behaviors. If they make a commitment,
they want to follow through on it. So, for example, to increase contributions to the handicapped, one
researcher elicited people’s signatures on a petition supporting the handicapped two weeks prior to
asking them for donations. In this case, consistency was established via the foot-in-the-door technique.
The second tendency is the need for social validation. The larger the number of people who are
involved in an action, the more that action becomes socially validated and therefore an example for
others to follow. If we hear that all our neighbors signed a petition for the building of a new school, we
are much more likely to sign on it, too. That’s partly why the term “best seller” has a powerful
influence on our buying habits: we think, “If everyone else is buying it, it must be good.”
The third factor is liking. We tend to say “yes” to those we like, and we especially like our friends.
That’s the logic used by Tupperware and several other companies whose sales are made exclusively at
“home parties,” where friends are gathered together to buy the products from the friend who hosts the
“party.”
Liking is not limited to those we know. We can also feel a liking for strangers. We are particularly
inclined to like attractive people. That’s why one study found that good looking political candidates
received more votes than less attractive candidates.
We also tend to like those who appear similar to us in some way. In one study, where donations were
solicited on a college campus, simply having the solicitor say the phrase, “I’m a student, too” resulted
in a doubling of the contributions.
Another way that strangers can worm their way into our hearts is by complimenting us. We like those
who seem to like us, whether their compliments are genuine or not. In the same vein, we like those who
appear to fight on our behalf. So, automobile sales managers frequently play the role of “villains,” so
that their salespeople can appear to be siding with the customer.
Authority is the fourth element in compliance. That’s why, when people watch a commercial, they are
more easily persuaded when the person touting the benefits of some product is a doctor, even if the
doctor is only an actor with a white coat.
CONFORMITY 241
The last factor is scarcity. Things become more valuable to us if we perceive that they are scarce.
That’s why the terms “one-of-a-kind” and “for a limited time only” are so often used by advertisers.
Students can probably provide many more examples where advertisers make use of these factors to
induce compliance. You might also ask them to think about how each of these tendencies to comply is
adaptive from an evolutionary point of view; how they have helped human beings to best survive within
a social milieu throughout their history.
Cialdini, R.B. (2004) The science of persuasion. Scientific American, 14, 1, 70-77.
Idea 10. Putting Compliance Techniques to a Good Use

Ask students to imagine that they are troubled that a good friend is a very heavy smoker. In small
groups, have them discuss how they could use compliance strategies, such as the foot-in-the-door
technique, low-balling, the door-in-the-face technique, the norm of reciprocity, and exploitations of
mindlessness to get their friend to quit smoking. Let each group share some of their ideas with the rest
of the class.
Discuss how several processes seem to underlie most of these strategies. For example, self-presentation
concerns can play important roles in all of the compliance techniques mentioned above. Another self-
related process—self-perception—plays a critical role in the success of the foot-in-the-door technique.
Assimilation and contrast effects are evident in several techniques, such as low-balling and the door-in-
the-face technique.
Discuss the ways in which commitment breeds further commitment. Examples can be seen in studies of
the foot-in-the-door technique and low-balling, but also in Milgram’s research on obedience (i.e., by
gradually escalating the voltage, the participants make a long series of commitments, none much
greater than the previous one); in events such as those in Jonestown and My Lai; in some cognitive
dissonance manifestations, such as effort justification (Ch. 6); and in the sunk cost trap (Ch. 13).
Finally, discuss the role of awareness and knowledge of these traps in people’s ability to resist them.
This is a nice point about the power of education: the more the students learn about these phenomena,
the less vulnerable they should be to them.
Idea 11. Two Additional Compliance Techniques

Students might be intrigued to learn about two additional compliance techniques that are not mentioned
in the text. The first is called the pique technique. According to the pique technique, a subject is more
likely to comply with a request that he or she would normally turn down automatically, if that mindless
refusal is interrupted and the subject’s curiosity is piqued by a strange or unusual request.
In the study that introduced the technique (Santos, Leve, & Pratkanis, 1994), it was found that subjects
were significantly more likely to comply with panhandlers’ quirky requests (for 17 or 37 cents) than
with the more ordinary ones (a quarter or any change).
Ask your students if they have ever been on the giving or receiving end of the pique technique. Possible
milieus for the technique include telemarketing, trick or treating, fund-raising, magazine advertising, or
any other circumstance where one person is mindlessly set to say “No” and another is trying to forestall
the refusal with an intriguing departure from the expected request.
Discuss what makes the technique work. What is it about having our curiosity piqued that makes us
more likely to comply? According to the authors, the technique works because it interrupts mindless
refusal and gets a person to think. Increased thought about an appeal then leads to increased liking for
the person making the appeal, which increases the likelihood of compliance.
242 CHAPTER 7
The second technique is called the “but you are free” technique. This is a compliance procedure
whereby the subject is asked to do something and is then immediately told, “But you are free to accept
or refuse.”
In one study (Guéguen & Pascual, 2005), subjects were more likely to agree to respond to a survey
when they were told that they were free to refuse than when they were just asked to respond to the
survey. In earlier studies, the technique was found to be effective in increasing the amount of charitable
donations and number of visits to a humanitarian website.
Ask students to discuss why such a request would increase compliance. The authors theorize that the
phrase “but you are free to accept or refuse” makes people feel more personally involved in the task at
hand. It also activates a feeling of freedom, and knowing that they have a choice makes people more
amenable to going along with a request.
Guéguen, N., & Pascual, A. (2005). Improving the response rate to a street survey: An evaluation of the
“But you are free to accept or refuse” technique. The Psychological Record, 55, 297-303.
Santos, M. D., Leve, C., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Hey buddy, can you spare seventeen cents? Mindful
persuasion and the pique technique. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 755-764.
Idea 12. Disobedience on a Personal Level

According to the text, disobedience that is not criminal but is morally, politically, or religiously
motivated is always a collective act. Do your students agree with the statement? Have there been times
when they or someone they know chose to individually disobey a law that they felt was morally,
politically, or religiously unjust?
Other than criminal, political, religious, or moral, what other motives might there be for disobeying
laws? Ask students if they ever personally disobeyed laws regarding minor transgressions, such as
speed limits or parking. To what do they attribute their disobedience of such laws? Are the reasons
external (e.g., thought they could get away with it)? Or internal (e.g., thought the law was
unreasonable)? One study (Sanderson & Darley, 2002) found that people were likely to obey such laws
for both external and internal reasons (i.e., fear of getting caught and respect for the law).
Recent efforts to decrease drug use by increasing penalties for the possession and sales of narcotics
have been largely unsuccessful, at least in part because people feel that such laws are illegitimate and
therefore disobey them. How do students feel about recent laws concerning seat-belt use, cell-phone
use, or smoking? When should the government criminalize such behaviors, and when should it leave
such decisions up to individuals? Do students ever disobey such laws and to what do they attribute such
disobedience? Are there other behaviors that they feel should not come under government regulation?
Sanderson, C. A., & Darley, J. M. (2002). “I am moral, but you are deterred”: Differential attributions
about why people obey the law. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 375-405.
Idea 13. Milgram’s Research on Obedience to Authority

We have five words of advice to all instructors of social psychology courses: show the Milgram film,
Obedience. Viewing this film (see Multimedia Resources below), which documents Milgram’s classic
studies of obedience in the early 1960s, is one of the most powerful, memorable experiences that
students will ever have in the classroom. After showing the film, have the students read the original
article Milgram published about this research; this article is included in Readings in Social Psychology:
The Art and Science of Research, the book of readings that is available with the textbook.
You may consider warning the students before you show the film that it may be stressful for some of
them to watch. During the film, take note of students’ reactions. Is there much laughter, particularly
CONFORMITY 243
early in the film? Do the students seem to sympathize with the participants? After the film, discuss their
reactions. If some students laughed, why did they laugh? Could it have been for similar reasons as
many of the participants in Milgram’s research?
Discuss what factors did and did not significantly affect the levels of obedience observed in this
research. Naive viewers always assume that personality differences must account for most of the
variance in determining who obeyed and who didn’t; emphasize to them that such differences had little
effect relative to situational factors. Discuss social impact theory and how it can explain the effects of
the various manipulations used.
Ask the class if the obedience observed in Milgram’s research was a function of the culture and time in
which the research took place. Point out how there might be greater obedience in cultures that are more
collectivistic in orientation, and note more recent studies and events that illustrate very high levels of
obedience. Discuss how the experimenter in Milgram’s studies had relatively little power compared to
people in many other situations, such as government officials, some teachers, parents, some peers,
doctors, judges, the police, etc. Discuss the five types of power that are identified in Lecture and
Discussion Idea 15, and ask the students which of these types of power was exerted by the
experimenter. If you discuss Jonestown, explain that the power of Milgram’s experimenter paled in
comparison to that of Jim Jones.
Ask students if they think that they might have shown full obedience if they had been participants in
this research. Very few students believe that they would have. Explain how this is likely to reflect the
fundamental attribution error (Ch. 4). From the perspective of a distant observer, it is impossible to
appreciate how powerful the situational pressure was on the participants, and therefore we tend to
attribute the participants’ behaviors to their dispositions rather than to the situation. Consider assigning
articles by Bierbrauer (1979) or Safer (1980) on this point. To help facilitate discussion, consider
conducting Activity 8.
Discuss the debriefing used by Milgram to try to alleviate the strain that participants were under and to
make them feel less awful about what they had learned about themselves (see the next Lecture and
Discussion Idea below).
Finally, discuss the irony of the fact that conformity can help individuals resist obedience. That is,
participants in Milgram’s research were much less likely to obey the experimenter’s commands if they
first witnessed others resist the experimenter. Explain how this is consistent with social impact theory.
Bierbrauer, G. (1979). Why did he do it? Attribution of obedience and the phenomenon of dispositional
bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 67-84.
Safer, M. A. (1980). Attributing evil to the subject, not the situation. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 6, 205-209.
Idea 14. Discussing the Ethics of Milgram’s Research on

Obedience to Authority
After reading and discussing Milgram’s studies on obedience, have the class consider the ethical
implications of the research. Discuss the criticism that Milgram received for conducting the research,
and have students debate the issue of the scientific value of the research versus experimenters’ ethical
responsibilities to participants. Consider assigning or summarizing Baumrind’s (1964) article critiquing
the ethics of Milgram’s research. Ask the students to imagine that they were on a review board that had
to decide whether Milgram’s research could be conducted. How would they make their decisions?
Explain to the students that the APA guidelines on the treatment of human participants were developed
after Milgram’s research and that, given these guidelines, Milgram’s research would probably not be
allowed to be conducted today.
244 CHAPTER 7
Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “Behavioral study
of obedience.” American Psychologist, 19, 421-423.
Idea 15. Five Types of Power

French and Raven (1959) identified five types of power. Distinguishing among these five types can be
very useful in understanding how and when obedience and compliance are likely to be produced.
Compare the bases from which the experimenter in Milgram’s research derived power with the bases
from which doctors, politicians, military officers, and leaders like Jim Jones do; such a comparison can
be used to illustrate why the results of Milgram’s research may underestimate, rather than overestimate,
people’s susceptibility to obedience in the face of a powerful authority.
(1) Coercive power concerns the potential to deliver threats and punishment. Majorities may have
coercive power. The military and police have coercive power. Parents have coercive power over their
children. Teachers have some coercive power over their students. Jim Jones began to rely heavily on his
coercive power toward the end of the Jonestown experience. The experimenter in Milgram’s research
had very little, if any, coercive power.
(2) Reward power concerns the potential to deliver positive reinforcement. Teachers, parents,
employers, and wealthy individuals are among those who derive power from the ability to give rewards.
As Jim Jones began to recruit individuals for his Peoples Temple and persuade them to join him in
going to South America, he used reward power extensively. The experimenter in Milgram’s research
had very little, if any, reward power. The participants received their payment whether or not they
obeyed the experimenter.
(3) Expert power is derived from a reputation for being very knowledgeable about a particular issue or
area of concern. Doctors have expert power in their areas of specialization. Teachers and researchers
may have expert power in their areas of study. Through his demonstrations and lectures, Jim Jones
established expert power early on, and he used this power throughout the history of Jonestown,
including at the ultimate moment when he convinced his followers that suicide was the only honorable
response to their situation. To the participants in Milgram’s research, the experimenter probably had
some degree of expert power, especially when the study was demonstrated at the prestigious Yale
University laboratories.
(4) Legitimate power is derived from a particular role or position that one has. This power is usually
limited to a particular domain in which one has a position of authority. Teachers have legitimate power
over their students in the classroom, but not outside of school. A judge derives a great deal of legitimate
power from the courtroom, but the power does not go with the judge when he or she leaves the court.
As the man responsible for the Peoples Church and for the community named after him, Jim Jones had
a great deal of legitimate power in Jonestown. The experimenter in Milgram’s research had legitimate
power in the context of the experiment.
(5) Referent power is derived from being admired and liked, even revered. A celebrity may have a
great deal of power over fans because they admire him or her so much. A role model may be able to
exert a considerable amount of social influence over those who look up to him or her. Jim Jones, who
was called “Dad” by his followers, had a tremendous degree of referent power among his followers.
The experimenter in Milgram’s research had no referent power.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies
in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
CONFORMITY 245
Idea 16. Social Influence in Psychotherapy and Criminal

Investigations
A very provocative and controversial issue that you might consider raising concerns how therapists,
counselors, police detectives, and others may—intentionally or not—use their power and social
influence to change the beliefs or behaviors of vulnerable individuals in subtle but very powerful ways,
possibly to the point where such individuals develop false memories or believe that they have particular
psychopathologies. This is a very controversial and sensitive issue that you should handle with great
care, but it raises some fascinating questions about social influence, power, compliance, conformity,
and social impact theory, as well as about memory and confessions (Ch. 12), self-perception (Ch. 3 &
Ch. 6), cognitive dissonance (Ch. 6), and the power of expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies (Ch. 4
& Ch. 5). Because some of these issues are raised in Chapter 12 concerning both criminal confessions
and witnesses’ memories, you might consider waiting until students read that chapter before you hold
this discussion, but these issues clearly are relevant to Chapter 7 as well.
To get this discussion started, assign or summarize some of the following readings: Loftus’s (1993)
article, “The Reality of Repressed Memories,” which argues that most (and perhaps all) “recovered”
memories (i.e., memories of events that allegedly were repressed from consciousness for many years
and are then recalled many years after the events in question, either through therapy or by exposure to
some triggering cue or event) are not real memories but rather are constructed at the time of “recall”
and often stem from the suggestions made by a therapist or other people.
Spanos’s (1994) article, “Multiple Identity Enactments and Multiple Personality Disorder: A
Sociocognitive Perspective,” which makes a similar point about multiple personality disorder—that is,
that the increased prevalence of this disorder may be a function of the suggestions of therapists, the
media, and others. Like the Loftus article, the Spanos article suggests that the dramatic symptoms
experienced by many individuals may be due to processes of social influence, such as conformity and
compliance.
Wright’s (1994) book, Remembering Satan, which details the infamous 1993 case involving Paul
Ingram and his family in Olympia, Washington. Paul was accused of and confessed to a series of
horrific crimes against his wife and children involving, among other things, Satanic ritual abuse.
Wright’s fascinating and disturbing book provides gripping details about the case and suggests that
much, and perhaps all, of what Paul remembered about these incidents was due to his desire to obey the
investigators and comply with the wishes of those around him.
Any of these sources can be used to make a point about the potential of conformity, compliance, and
obedience to alter people’s memories and self-concepts. Each of these readings, however, is open to
criticism and debate. It is important to discuss with the class the other side of these issues—that is, that
the prevalence of actual physical and sexual abuse is shockingly high, that students should be wary of
the tendency to “blame the victim,” and that a backlash may emerge against victims and survivors who
call attention to these experiences. The point you should make is not that social influence does or
doesn’t explain the majority of cases involving recovered memory or multiple personality disorder, but
rather that the power of conformity, compliance, and obedience can be so great that such consequences
are possible.
For an opposite take on the issue, refer to a study by Bernstein, Laney, Morris, and Loftus (2005) on
how false beliefs can be implanted to benefit individuals who are trying to lose weight. This study
details how participants were led to develop the false memory that strawberry ice cream made them ill
when they were children. Afterward, the participants manifested food avoidance to strawberry ice
cream.
246 CHAPTER 7
Bernstein, D.M, Laney, C., Morris, E.K., & Loftus, E.L. (2005). False beliefs about fattening foods can
have healthy consequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America; 9/27/2005, 102, 39, 13724-13731.
Loftus, E. (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist, 48(5), 518-537.
Spanos, N. (1994). Multiple identity enactments and multiple personality disorder: A sociocognitive
perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 116 , 143-165.
Wright, L. (1994). Remembering Satan. New York: Knopf.
Idea 17. The Stanford University Prison Simulation

One of the most controversial studies ever conducted in social psychology was that of Philip Zimbardo
and his colleagues (Haney et al., 1973; Zimbardo et al., 1973) in which a prison experience was
simulated. A mock prison was established in the basement of the psychology department building at
Stanford University, and a group of young men volunteered to participate in a two-week study of prison
life. The participants were divided randomly into groups of either “prisoners” or “guards.”
The study is described in Chapter 12 of the textbook. Although it can be discussed in the context of the
prison experience (Ch. 12) or group dynamics (Ch. 8), perhaps the most dramatic lesson of the research
concerns the shocking levels of conformity and obedience observed. A group of normal, healthy young
men conformed to the roles that were assigned them, and they in turn influenced each other to the point
where the guards became more and more hostile and sadistic and the prisoners became more and more
compliant and weak.
Discuss the factors that led to these results. Discuss the implications of the study in terms of conformity
to group norms, and to roles dictated by one’s job or status. You may find it particularly effective to
show the film of this study (see Multimedia Resources below), or excerpts from this film, after showing
and discussing the film of Milgram’s research on obedience. The transition from the early-1960s crew
cuts and displays of respect for authority seen in the Milgram film to the early 1970s long hair and
vulgarity is jarring, but the persistence of social influence seen across these studies seems all the more
powerful and dramatic as a result.
Any discussion of the Stanford Prison study should include a discussion of the ethics of the research.
Whereas the ethics of Milgram’s research are debatable, most social psychologists consider the
Stanford study to be unacceptable according to current ethical standards in research. The study should
have been terminated much sooner than it was, given the behaviors and emotions displayed by the
participants. Zimbardo makes an important point about how the researchers themselves got caught up in
their own roles and failed to appreciate that their “prison” was not a prison but part of a research study,
thereby letting the study go on longer than it should have.
Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison.
International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97.
Zimbardo, P. G., Banks, W. C., Haney, C., & Jaffe, D. (1973, April 8). The mind is a formidable jailer:
A Pirandellian prison. New York Times Magazine, pp. 38-60.
CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES
Activity 1. The Fate of the Deviant

To better understand why people are so likely to conform, one must appreciate what happens to
individuals who deviate from a group norm. The present activity is designed to examine this issue, as
CONFORMITY 247
well as to illustrate some of the dynamics of groups and communication. This activity can be conducted
in the context of both Chapter 8 (Group Processes) and Chapter 7.
Background. This activity is based on a study by Schachter (1951) in which groups of participants
discussed the case of a juvenile delinquent named Johnny Rocco. The group read about Johnny’s family
history and delinquent behaviors, and they discussed what would be the best way to encourage Johnny
to become an upstanding young adult. The groups consisted of naive participants and three
confederates. One of the confederates (the deviant) consistently disagreed with the group’s opinion
about how to handle Johnny. For example, if the majority of the group advocated a very supportive,
warm environment for Johnny, the deviant argued that such an environment would only make it easier
for Johnny to continue to misbehave and that what Johnny really needed was an environment in which
he would be quickly and sternly punished for any and all transgressions. Another confederate (the
slider) began by disagreeing with the group consensus but then gradually came around to the majority,
eventually fully supporting the majority opinion. A third confederate (the mode) voiced the majority
opinion throughout.
Schachter found that the groups tended to try to reach consensus right away, and that they devoted a lot
of their energy to trying to persuade the deviant to change his opinion. After a while, when it was clear
the deviant would not yield, the other group members tended to ignore and reject him, in essence re-
forming the group so as to exclude this deviant. When the groups were asked to assign group members
to various jobs, the deviant consistently was given the worst job. It is important to note that the groups
were not instructed to reach unanimity; rather, the groups seemed to spontaneously adopt this as a
necessary goal. It is also interesting to note that the groups tended to like the slider quite a bit. Rather
than perceiving him to be “wishy-washy” or “spineless,” the groups tended to see the slider as someone
who was smart and mature enough to recognize the superiority of the majority’s opinion.
Overall procedure. The goal of this activity is to have students participate in or observe groups
discussing an issue. Within these groups, one of the group members is actually a confederate who
consistently deviates from the majority opinion. Depending on time, class size, and logistics, there are
many different ways to conduct this activity. In addition, there are many different kinds of “dependent
measures” that can be used.
We suggest that the groups should consist of six students, one of whom is a confederate playing the role
of the deviant. You or an assistant should play the role of the moderator of the group. Ideally, the
students in the group should not know each other well. It is particularly important that the confederate
should not be known well by the other students in the group. The confederate should be shown all the
materials in advance of the class and given time to prepare to play the role of the deviant. You may
consider having a second confederate in these groups play the role of the slider, although this is not
necessary for the activity.
The individuals in the group should be seated in a semicircle. The deviant should always sit in a seat
that is one seat away from either end of the semicircle. The group should read the brief (fictitious) case
history of the juvenile delinquent (we have changed the name from Johnny Rocco to Bobby James and
we have changed several of the details to make them seem more contemporary). This case history can
be found in Handout 7.1a; distribute copies of this handout to the group members. After the group
members read the case, the moderator should go around the semicircle and ask each member of the
group to state his or her name and to indicate which of several “treatments” for Bobby he or she would
recommend from the kindness-punishment scale. This scale can be found in Handout 7.1b; distribute
copies of this handout to the group members. The moderator should call on students one at a time
around the semicircle so that the deviant is called next-to-last.
Most of the students who read this case chose a treatment for Bobby that is closer to the “kindness” end
of the scale than to the “punishment” end. The modal responses tend to be items #3 or #4 on Handout
7.1b. The deviant should take the opinion most deviant from the rest of the group. Typically, this means
248 CHAPTER 7
the most extreme “strong discipline” approach. (If the average response is midpoint position #4, the
deviant should take position #7.) See Handout 7.1c for some instructions you can give to the
confederate a few days before the activity to help him or her prepare for this role. Except at the very
beginning of the activity, the confederate should not initiate discussion but should instead respond when
he or she is brought into the discussion.
Let the discussion run for 7–10 minutes. The moderator should begin the discussion by asking the
group to discuss the case and the best way to handle Bobby, and then, unless it is absolutely necessary,
the moderator should not say a word until it is time to end the discussion. At the end of the discussion,
the group members should be given another copy of Handout 7.1b and be asked once again to indicate
which treatment for Bobby they would recommend. After they have completed this task, you may want
to distribute copies of Handout 7.1d to the group members. This handout asks the group members to
evaluate the discussion and each other on several dimensions.
Logistics. In addition to having groups discuss the case, you should have other students observe the
groups and take notes of communication patterns, changes of opinion, etc. This you can do by using
one-way mirrors or by videotaping the group discussion (you should make the discussants aware that
they are being, or will be, observed by the other students). You can also consider having the group
simply discuss the case in front of the room, but this can be a bit intimidating to the group members,
some of whom may try to “perform” for their live audience. Another decision to make is how many
group discussions you will conduct. You may have one group discuss the case and the rest of the
students in class observe, or you may have several groups discuss the case separately, along with
several groups of students observing these groups. This latter approach would probably require that the
activity be done outside of class time as a special “lab.” We have used this latter approach many times,
and it has worked quite well.
For purposes of clarity, we assume that you will take the simplest approach: have six students
(including one confederate) discuss the case while the rest of the class observes.
Observations. Even if the group will be discussing the case in front of the rest of the class, in the same
room as everyone else, have the group first read about the case in another room or in the hallway
outside of your classroom. While these students are outside the classroom, explain to the rest of the
class what this activity is all about. Describe the Bobby James case to them briefly, distribute copies of
the kindness-punishment scale (Handout 7.1b), and tell them about the confederate. Tell the students
who the confederate is and instruct them to watch the other group members’ reactions to this
confederate when the confederate first offers his or her opinion about how best to handle Bobby. Tell
them to watch the dynamics of the group. That is, do the other group members ignore and reject the
confederate? Do they spend a lot of time trying to change the confederate’s mind? How much
informational and normative influence do the group members try to use on the confederate? How
uncomfortable does the confederate seem? Do the individuals become locked into their original
opinions, or do they show some flexibility? Does anyone offer an opinion at the end of the discussion
that deviated from her or his initial opinion?
Assign each observer the task of observing one discussant; the observer should count the number of
times this individual speaks in the group. These observations should be split between the first half of
the discussion and the second half of the discussion. Unless you have a very small class, there will be
multiple observers for each discussant. There are likely to be discrepancies among the observers about
how many times a particular discussant spoke (e.g., does “Yeah” count as one?) so take the average
from among the observers in these cases (and you can make a point about the importance of using
multiple observers and trying to achieve interrater reliability—see Chapter 2). If the group discussion
takes place right in front of the observers, tell the observers not to laugh, make any noises, or in any
way distract the group members or tip them off as to what is going on—particularly concerning the
presence of a confederate. Finally, tell the observers that the entire class, including the discussion group
CONFORMITY 249
members, will talk about what happened in the discussion at the conclusion of the exercise. Instruct the
observers to discuss their observations honestly—except that they should not say anything indicating
that the deviant was a confederate until you reveal this.
Post-discussion discussion. When the group has finished its discussion and completed the
questionnaire (Handout 7.1d), have the discussants sit with the rest of the class and begin a general
discussion of the group dynamics observed. Ask the observers to note anything they thought was
interesting or noteworthy about the discussion or the group dynamics. Ask the discussants to indicate
how they felt the discussion went and whether or not they found anything interesting in the process or
content of the discussion. While this is going on, look at the responses given by the discussants on
Handout 7.1d, and calculate the proportion of the group members (excluding the confederate) who
picked the confederate as the least likeable group member. Also note which jobs they selected for the
confederate and which types of movies they thought the confederate would favor.
Chart the amount of time that the confederate talked during the first and second halves of the
discussion. One typical result is that the confederate speaks a lot during the first half of the discussion
because so much attention is directed toward the confederate, but then speaks much less during the
second half of the discussion when the others begin to ignore the confederate. This does not always
happen, however. We have seen many instances in which the other students never stop pressuring the
confederate during the discussion, and we have seen a few instances in which the group rejects the
confederate quite early in the discussion and ignores him or her throughout. Ask both the observers and
the discussants to comment on what happened in this particular instance.
Report the results of the questionnaire. Did the group members tend to dislike the confederate? Did they
tend to assign the confederate jobs that would require little interaction with other people? What types of
movies did they think the confederate would like? Are there any interesting patterns in these inferences
and evaluations? (Because of ethical considerations, don’t reveal the responses made about any of the
other discussants.)
To the extent that the group had “ganged up” on the confederate, ask them why they did this and how
they felt during it. Ask them why they tried to reach a consensus even though they had never been
instructed to do so. If the group members did not spend much time trying to persuade the confederate,
ask them why they did not. If not revealed yet, tell the group members about the confederate. Be sure to
emphasize that the confederate had been coached about what to say and how to say it, and that the rest
of the students should not commit the fundamental attribution error (Ch. 4) and infer that the
confederate believes anything he or she said while playing the role of the deviant. Explain Schachter’s
(1951) study and its results. Compare the results of Schachter’s study with the results of this activity.
We often find that when the discussants initially offer their opinions about how to handle Bobby, they
tend to be fairly unsure of themselves. After all, they have just finished reading the case and had
virtually no time to consider the various options. And yet, after ten minutes of discussion, few students
change their opinions (that is, as long as their initial opinions were close to the majority opinions). If
this happens in your class, ask the discussants and observers to speculate about why it happened.
Discuss psychological reactance and ask the class to consider whether it played a role. Similarly,
discuss the power of making a public commitment to a position, and how it plays a role in many
important phenomena, such as in cognitive dissonance (Ch. 6), continuing to invest resources in a
failing course of action (Ch. 8 and Ch. 13), and in two-step compliance techniques such as the foot-in-
the-door (this chapter [Ch. 7]). Also, we have observed that very few groups discuss ways of handling
Bobby other than those mentioned on the kindness-punishment scale. The discussants are not told that
they have to stick to this scale when discussing the case, and yet almost all do. This is another example
of a norm that develops quickly and has a great deal of influence on the discussants.
Discuss how the conformity pressures exerted on a deviant in a real group situation are often much
greater than those observed in this activity because real groups would be more motivated to achieve
250 CHAPTER 7
consensus (so that the groups could function more smoothly in general), they would be less inhibited
(because they would not be observed by a psychology class), the groups would probably have more
cohesiveness, and the decisions would have more importance to them. With this in mind, ask the
students to discuss how difficult it can be to deviate from a group norm. Ask them to discuss the
potential benefits of having a “devil’s advocate” in any group (see the discussion of groupthink in Ch.
8), and have them discuss why groups fail to take advantage of these potential benefits because of the
pressures they put on such individuals.
What if this bombs? This activity is fairly bombproof because of the many interesting points to
discuss, as indicated above. Even if the questionnaire results are not interesting, and even if the
group dynamics do not replicate Schachter’s findings, you can discuss any of a number of
fascinating points. For example, ask the confederate to discuss how it felt when he or she deviated
from the majority. What different techniques did the discussants use to try to persuade each other?
If the discussants were very polite to each other and did not try to exert any informational or
normative influence, ask them (and the observers) why this was so. Discuss whether particular
norms were established early in the discussion about how the discussion should proceed. We often
find this to be a particularly interesting phenomenon: some groups begin by attacking each other,
and the discussion remains heated throughout. Other groups begin by being very non-
confrontational, and the discussants remain polite throughout—sometimes running out of things to
discuss after only a few minutes. It seems that the one or two people who first speak in the
discussion can set the tone for the rest of the discussion. This could be an interesting point to
make. As we noted above, another norm that is established early on concerns whether or not the
group restricts itself to the kindness-punishment scale. In any case, caution the class against
inferring too much from a non-replication of Schachter’s findings because in this activity there
was only one group observed.
The most difficult type of “bomb” to defuse in this activity would be if there is no consensus to
begin with, so that there is no consensus against which the confederate can deviate. We
recommend that you simply let the discussion begin anyway (with the confederate advocating
position #7) and sit back and see what happens. Does the group try to form a norm during the
discussion or not? If so, then you can discuss this process and relate it easily to the issues raised in
Chapter 7. If not, ask the class to discuss why this was the case, and explain the factors that make
it more likely that conformity pressures would arise, such as if the group had higher status, if there
were greater cohesiveness, if the group members believed they would be meeting several times
rather than just once, if the consequences of their decisions were greater, and so on. In this way,
the activity can provide a valuable lesson about the factors that are relevant in determining the
extent to which conformity pressures are likely to emerge in groups.
Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 46, 190-207.
Activity 2. Compliance Experiment

This simple activity provides a test of the effectiveness of the foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face
techniques. The students will be the experimenters and use these compliance techniques on students
outside the class. This activity can be conducted before or after the students have read Chapter 7.
Depending on the size of the class and the size of the campus, you should have each student in class
approach (outside of class) either one or three same-sex students whom he or she does not know well. If
the class size is large and the number of students on campus is small, you should have each student
approach only one person; otherwise, have the students approach three other students.
CONFORMITY 251
Distribute copies of Handout 7.2a, Handout 7.2b, and Handout 7.2c to the students. If your students
will be collecting data from only one student each, then distribute the handouts randomly so that each
of your students receives only one handout. If your students will be collecting data from three other
students each, then each of your students should receive one copy of each handout. Explain that they
are to approach one (or three) student(s) from outside the class whom they do not know, and that they
are to follow carefully the instructions on the handout(s). Tell them to return the completed handouts at
the next class.
Handout 7.2a is for the control condition. The students in this condition are simply to ask another
student if he or she would be willing to volunteer for an experiment. Handout 7.2b concerns the foot-
in-the-door technique; before asking the student if he or she would be willing to volunteer for an
experiment, they are to ask the student to answer a couple of questions. Handout 7.2c is for the door-
in-the-face condition; before asking the student if he or she would be willing to volunteer for an
experiment, they are to ask the student if he or she would be willing to volunteer for an experiment that
would require a large amount of time. In this latter condition, the respondents are expected to reject the
first request, after which they are asked to respond to the “real” request.
Results and discussion. The prediction is that a higher proportion of students will comply with the
request to volunteer for the study in the foot-in-the-door and the door-in-the-face conditions than in the
control condition. In the years in which we have conducted this exercise, the door-in-the-face condition
has always elicited much more compliance than the control condition, and the foot-in-the-door
condition has often, although not always, elicited about as much compliance as the door-in-the-face
condition. Our experience was echoed by a recent study (Rodafinos, Vucevic, & Sideridis, 2005) that
compared the effectiveness of the two techniques, and found that the door-in-the-face technique
produced significantly more compliance than did either the foot-in-the-door technique or a control
condition.
Calculate the proportion of respondents in each condition who did and did not comply with the request
to volunteer for the experiment. Also calculate these proportions separately for men and women (we
have found that female respondents approached by female students tend to be more likely to comply
with the request than are male respondents approached by male students).
Discuss the results with the class. Did either or both of these two-step compliance techniques elicit
more compliance than the control condition? Why or why not? Discuss the psychological processes
underlying the effectiveness of these techniques. In this exercise, self-presentation concerns may be
greater than in some experiments that have investigated these techniques because the person who made
the initial request (either the first couple of questions in the foot-in-the-door condition or the large
request in the door-in-the-face condition) was the same person who made the second request. In some
experiments testing the foot-in-the-door technique, for example, the experimenters were different, and
time had passed between the first and second request; in these experiments, the foot-in-the-door
technique tends to be very effective, suggesting that self-perception processes may play a critical role in
the success of the technique. In the present activity, however, the role of self-perception processes may
have been relatively weak due to the kinds of questions initially asked. Discuss the roles of perceptual
contrast and reciprocal concessions in the door-in-the-face technique.
What if this bombs? Although there’s a very good chance that at least one of the two
compliance techniques will work, it is possible that neither technique will elicit more compliance
than the control condition. This could result if the compliance in the control condition was
particularly great. If this is the case, it is easy to explain the results. That is, explain that there was
a ceiling effect; in other words, there was too little room for the effectiveness of the compliance
techniques to be measured—either because the students they approached were too nice or because
the experimenters were too attractive or likeable for the respondents to reject (your students
should appreciate the latter interpretation); in this event, plan to alter the compliance request the
252 CHAPTER 7
next time you conduct the study on this campus. On the other hand, if the compliance rates across
conditions are very low, explain that the request may have been too high and that a more
reasonable request would have been better able to capture the differences between conditions.
In any case, if the results are not impressive, emphasize to students that there probably were
sampling biases, lack of random assignment to conditions, and other biases. Potential sources of
random error or systematic bias include the following: your students may have tended to approach
other students who seemed particularly nice; the differences among the experimenters’
interpersonal styles, attractiveness, choice of respondents, etc., may have been too great, thus
overwhelming the differences between the conditions; your students’ expectations about the
responders’ reactions may have affected their reactions.
After offering these explanations, discuss the results of studies that have illustrated the
effectiveness of each technique, and focus on a discussion of why these techniques often work.
Rodafinos, A., Vucevic, A., & Sideridis, G.D. (2005). The effectiveness of compliance techniques: Foot
in the door versus door in the face. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 2, 237-239.
Activity 3. Norm Formation in Judgments of an Ambiguous

Stimulus
This simple activity is designed to conceptually replicate the classic research by Sherif (1936)
concerning norm formation in groups. In this activity, present students with ambiguous stimuli, and
have them judge the stimuli privately, without anyone in the group discussing or revealing their
estimates, or publicly, with everyone in the group announcing their estimates to the others. The
prediction is that there should be much more variability in the students’ private judgments than in their
public judgments. Ideally, you should conduct the activity before the students read Chapter 7.
Background. In his classic research on norm formation in groups, Sherif exposed participants to a very
ambiguous stimulus and asked them to make judgments about the stimulus. As is discussed in the
textbook, the stimulus in Sherif’s research was a point of light that seemed to move in an otherwise
pitch-black room. From the perspective of the participants, the degree to which the light moved was
extremely ambiguous. Sherif found that when participants gave their estimates orally in small groups,
the groups formed a norm in these estimates to which most of the participants conformed. That is, there
was a great deal of variability when participants made their estimates privately, and much greater
consensus when they made them in the groups.
General procedure. This activity can be done in a few different ways. The most ambitious procedure
would be to divide the class into two groups, and separate the groups so that they cannot hear each
other (e.g., put one-half of the students in a different room). Have one group do the task in the private
condition and the other in the public condition (between-subjects procedure). If this is not practical,
however, have all the students participate in both conditions, one after the other (within-subjects
procedure). Each of these procedures is explained below.
Between-subjects procedure. Present the same stimulus to both groups (see below for a discussion of
the stimuli that can be used). One group of students should be told to take out a blank piece of paper
and write their judgments on the paper, without discussing their judgments with each other. In order to
increase the chances of collecting some interesting data, consider repeating the procedure with a
different stimulus. The other group of students should be asked to give their estimates out loud, one by
one, as you record them. Here, too, consider repeating the procedure with a different stimulus.
Within-subjects procedure. The activity may have the best chance of yielding significant results if the
private condition is conducted first and the public one next. Thus, give the students the instructions for
the private condition (i.e., tell the students to take out a blank piece of paper and write their judgment
CONFORMITY 253
on the paper, without discussing their judgments with each other), and present the stimulus to them.
Then, tell the students that for the next task they should not write down their judgments but will instead
be asked to state their judgments orally. Then, present the second stimulus. Ask several students, one at
a time, to indicate their judgments. After about a dozen or more students have indicated their
judgments, have the remaining students write down their judgments.
One potential problem with this within-subjects procedure is that students may begin to suspect when
you switch from a private judgment to a public one that you are interested in conformity. If you believe
that your students are likely to think this way, consider conducting these two judgment tasks in the
opposite order. If you do this, be sure that the two stimuli are very different from each other so that
there are no lingering effects from the first judgment task.
Stimuli to be judged. Any perceptual judgment that is very ambiguous without a proper frame of
reference (as in Sherif’s study) will do. For example, you could bring in a large jar of peanuts or
jellybeans, or show a figure consisting of hundreds of dots, and ask the students to estimate the number
of peanuts, jelly beans, or dots. Or you can videotape the side of the road as you drive past (obviously,
the same person should not be driving and shooting the camera, so you’ll need assistance with this one)
going at least 30 miles per hour, play the tape, and ask the students to estimate how many miles per
hour you were traveling. Montgomery and Enzie’s (1971) research suggests that judgments of time
intervals work well for this activity. That is, tell the students something like, “I’m going to try a little
exercise here. Everyone please close your eyes and leave them closed until I tell you otherwise.” Take
note of exactly when you give this request, and wait for everyone to close their eyes. Then continue,
“I’d like you to visualize the following things as clearly as you can, without opening your eyes.” Then
list a series of items—any will do. After some specific interval of time (e.g., 37 seconds), tell the
students to open their eyes. Then ask the students to estimate the amount of time that passed between
the point when you told them to close their eyes and the point when you told them to open them.
If you conduct this activity using a within-subjects procedure, there will be two stimuli to be judged.
Either you can use similar (even identical) stimuli for the two tasks (e.g., two dot-estimation tasks, with
a fairly similar number of dots in both tasks), or you can use very different tasks (e.g., a dot-estimation
task and a time interval estimation). Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. One
advantage of using similar stimuli is that the difficulty of the judgment should be fairly constant, and so
differences in the variability of the responses are more likely to be a function of the condition (private
vs. public) than of the different stimuli presented. A disadvantage of this approach is that the first
judgment may affect the second judgment. Thus, it is up to you.
We personally offer the following recommendations. First, if you conduct the private condition first and
the public one second, use similar stimuli for both. Second, if you use the time interval estimation for
both, do the procedure a bit differently than the way stated above. That is, tell the students that you are
going to ask them to judge an interval of time. Tell them when the interval begins and when it ends, and
be sure to tell them not to count to themselves (tell them also not to look at their watches or a clock). It
would be ideal to distract them with an activity (such as a memory task) during the time interval so that
they cannot count how much time has elapsed. Third, if you do the public condition first and the private
condition second, use two very different judgment tasks. This latter approach may be the overall best
choice, given its simplicity and low-risk.
Results and discussion. Compare the amount of variability in the students’ estimates in the private
condition and the public condition. If there is less variability in the public condition, then the results
conceptually replicate Sherif’s. Another interesting pattern of data to look for concerns the estimates
given by students in the public condition who were not called on to give their estimates orally. If you
had these students write down their estimates after they had heard the other students’ estimates,
examine whether their estimates tended to be consistent with the estimates given orally. If they were,
254 CHAPTER 7
this would illustrate the role of informational influence independent of normative influence in this
situation.
Discuss the general issue of how norms form in groups. Ask the students to speculate on how the
processes of norm formation might be different depending on the task in which the group is involved.
Discuss the roles of informational influence and normative influence. Ask the students to consider how
the activity would have been different if the stimulus were not so ambiguous—that is, if it were more
like the task faced by the participants in Asch’s (1951) classic research on conformity and
independence.
What if this bombs? If the results are not consistent with predictions, ask the students if any of
them experienced reactance and, therefore, purposely resisted being influenced by the estimates
given by others. Ask the students if any felt that they were influenced by the estimates given by
others. Discuss how both of these reactions are examples of social influence, albeit in opposite
ways. If you used the within-subjects procedure, point out the flaws in this procedure and explain
how a between-subjects procedure would be a better way to examine conformity in this kind of
study if you could get a large enough sample of participants. Ask the students what factors would
have made them more vulnerable to conformity in the public condition, such as a more difficult
judgment task, a greater motivation for accuracy or for fitting in with the others, if they had been
making these judgments in a setting other than a social psychology class, etc. In this way, the
activity can be used as a starting point for a good discussion of the variables that are important to
conformity and group norm formation, even if the results are not supportive.
Montgomery, R. L., & Enzie, R. F. (1971). Social influence and the estimation of time. Psychonomic
Science, 22, 77-78.
Activity 4. Observing Norms for a Day

This activity is designed to help students think about the prevalence of norms in their everyday lives,
and it can be used as a starting point for a discussion about the types of norms that groups form and the
various pressures to conform to these norms that the students face every day.
Have the students keep notes for a day about the norms of behavior that they observe around them. This
can be done in a fairly unstructured way: for instance, simply instructing the students to have a
notebook with them from morning until night for one day and to record in the notebook any and all
observations of group norms, pressures to conform, compliance requests, etc. Give the students
examples of some norms—perhaps from your own observations that morning or the previous day. Have
the students bring their notebooks to class, and either collect them and examine them for interesting
examples, patterns, contrasts, etc., or simply have the students discuss some of these norms and
observations in class.
In addition, or instead, consider having students use Handouts 7.3a-d. Each handout asks students to
note whether they observe particular kinds of norms at various points in their day. Distribute copies of
the handouts to the students. Consider having the handouts folded and stapled or taped and telling the
students not to open or read the handouts until first thing in the morning of the day in which they are to
make their observations. Tell them to follow the instructions and to explain their responses. That is, if
the handout asks whether they observed a particular norm of behavior in a particular setting, the
students should not simply respond, “Yes,” but should instead explain these observations. As with the
notebooks, you may want to collect the completed handouts and examine them or simply have the
students discuss some of these in class.
How much similarity is there among the various students’ observations? That is, did they detect the
same norms? Did some students perceive norms that seemed to contradict those perceived by others?
Have students describe some of these norms in more detail, and ask them to imagine what it would be
CONFORMITY 255
like to violate them. What would make them more or less likely to resist normative influence and
deviate from some widely accepted norms? Ask students to discuss their experiences with conforming
to some of these norms despite feeling that the norms were wrong or inappropriate. Also ask them to
discuss their experiences with resisting some norms.
What if this bombs? This activity cannot bomb. It should elicit some interesting observations
and facilitate the beginning of a discussion about norms and conformity. To increase the chances
that students will understand how to make their observations, give them some examples from your
own observations in your dealings with colleagues or from your memories of being a student. If
you are worried that your students will be shy or hesitant about mentioning their observations in
class, have them turn in their observations and choose an interesting mix to report to the class.
Activity 5. Violating Norms

This activity is designed to help students think about conformity by making them experience, firsthand,
what happens when they violate simple, taken-for-granted norms. This activity can be conducted before
or after the students have read Chapter 7.
The instructions to be given to the students for this exercise can be found in Handout 7.4. Either
distribute copies of this handout to the students or read the instructions to them. When the students
come to the next class after having violated their norms, either collect their notes and read some
anonymous highlights to the class (if you plan to read their notes, you should tell the students this in
advance, and give them the option of indicating on their notes that they don’t want you to read them
aloud), or ask the students to read their notes to the class. Discuss the kinds of norms that were violated.
How did students choose the norms that they violated? Why did they select those and not others? Did
the students deviate from particular norms in a moderate way, or did they go out on a limb and act fairly
wildly? Why? How did the students feel before, during, and after their norm violations? Did these
reactions vary as a function of the types of norms violated or as a function of the personalities of the
students? What reactions did others have? Did friends react differently from strangers? Do the students
now have a better sense of what it feels like to stand out from the crowd in violation of an accepted
norm?
What if this bombs? As long as the students follow the instructions (and you should caution
them again about not doing anything that will get them into trouble), this activity cannot bomb.
No matter what the students’ reactions or observations are, an interesting discussion should ensue.
If the students remark that violating these norms did not seem to be that big a deal, ask them why
this was so, and try to get a sense of whether their norm violations were particularly innocuous. If
they were, ask the students why they resisted choosing norm violations that would make them
stand out more.
Activity 6. Private or Public Conformity?

According to the text, private conformity involves true acceptance or conversion, whereas public
conformity refers to a superficial change of behavior. The difference between the two being that the
behavioral change noted in private conformity continues long after others are not there to observe it.
Handout 7.5 asks students to decide if an event constitutes private or public conformity, or a
combination of both. After students complete the handout individually, follow with a class discussion to
reach consensus.
What if this bombs? This activity is bombproof. Some of the examples are clear-cut in their display
of private or public conformity. Others are more complex and will likely stimulate a discussion.
256 CHAPTER 7
Activity 7. Sequential Request Strategies

Handout 7.6 asks students to identify the sequential request strategy that is being used in various
scenarios from among these four strategies that are discussed in the text:
Foot in the door ⎯ where a small request is followed by a much larger one (Items 3 and 6)
Low-balling ⎯ where a secured agreement is followed by an enlarged request by revealing
hidden costs (Items 1 and 7)
Door in the face ⎯ where a rejected very large request is followed by a more reasonable one
(Items 5 and 8)
That’s not all ⎯ where a somewhat inflated request is immediately followed by a decrease in the
size of the request through an offer of a discount or bonus (Items 2 and 4)
What if this bombs? This activity is bombproof and presents an opportunity to stress the
similarities and differences between foot in the door and low-balling, and door in the face and
that’s not all.
Activity 8. Predictions and Inferences about Milgram’s Obedience

Research
This activity is designed to get students thinking about Milgram’s research, to help them appreciate
how surprising the results were, and to help raise points for discussion concerning the power of the
situation and the fundamental attribution error. This activity must be done before students have read
Chapter 7 or learned about Milgram’s research. If many of the students have learned about Milgram’s
research already, such as in a previous course, we recommend that you do not conduct this activity.
Procedure. Show the beginning of the film Obedience, which illustrates Milgram’s classic research on
obedience to authority. Show the film up to the point where the procedure has been explained fully and
the first participant shown in the film has refused to continue with the experiment. At this point, stop
the film and distribute copies of Table 7.4 from the text. This table lists the learner’s protests in the
experiment as a function of the level of shock. Explain to the students how after 330 volts the learner
would fall completely silent and not respond. Then, distribute copies of Handout 7.7a to the students.
This handout asks the students to make predictions about the results of the study depicted up to that
point in the film. Ask the students to complete the handout. When they have completed it, show the rest
of the film. At the conclusion of the film, distribute copies of Handout 7.7b. This handout asks the
students to make inferences about the participants in the research, and to indicate their perspective
concerning its ethics.
Discussion. Discuss the students’ predictions. What were the average predictions? To what degree did
the students underestimate the level of obedience found in the research? Calculate the averages
separately for those who had heard of or read about this research and those who had not. How accurate
were the former students? How accurate were the latter? Examine the averages for the questions on
Handout 7.7b. Having learned that most of the participants obeyed the commands of the experimenter
to the point of thinking that they might be doing great physical harm to the “learner,” do the students
appreciate the power of the situation enough that they admit that they might have done the same thing?
Few students do. Discuss this phenomenon with them. Explain the role of the fundamental attribution
error in these judgments. (As stated in Lecture/Discussion Idea 13, the fundamental attribution error
helps explain how observers of this research fail to appreciate how powerful the situational pressures on
the participants were, so they tend to attribute the participants’ behaviors to their dispositions rather
than to the situation. Consider assigning or summarizing articles by Bierbrauer [1979] or Safer [1980]
on this point—see Lecture/Discussion Idea 13.) Did the students tend to think that their classmates were
CONFORMITY 257
more likely to obey than they themselves were? In this way, did the students all rate themselves as
better than average?
Distribute copies of Table 7.4 from the textbook. Begin a discussion of why there was so much
obedience in the study and what factors caused the levels of obedience to increase or decrease. Discuss
the issues raised in Lecture/Discussion Idea 13.
What if this bombs? As long as the students are not familiar with the Milgram research when
they do this exercise, this activity is virtually bombproof (you might want to ask for a show of
hands to see how many of your students are familiar with Milgram’s work before you do this
activity). It would be just short of miraculous if naive students predict accurately the levels of
obedience found in Milgram’s study. It is also quite implausible that a large proportion of the
students would indicate that they probably would have obeyed all the way in the study. If the
students are indeed accurate in their predictions and indicate that they would have obeyed the
experimenter’s commands, ask the students why they made these predictions and inferences.
Compliment your students on being better judges of human nature than the psychiatrists whom
Milgram had originally asked to make such predictions—their average prediction was that only
about one in a thousand participants would obey all the way—and for being better judges than the
thousands of individuals who have made similar inferences since that time. If your students were
being serious with their responses, then their responses reflect an uncanny appreciation of the
power of the situation and of people’s vulnerability to conformity and obedience. Take advantage
of this by having the students discuss the issue. The reason this would not be a “bomb” is that you
should have a terrific discussion about this issue, and you will not have to work to convince the
students of the validity of the points that Milgram’s research makes.
Activity 9. Conformity and Compliance in Advertising

To help students recognize the ubiquity of normative and informational influences, have the students
evaluate advertising—on television, in newspapers and magazines, or both—in terms of what kinds of
social influence are implicit or explicit. That is, are ads designed to make people feel deviant simply
because they are not consuming a particular product? Are slogans such as Nike’s “Just do it” designed
to make people feel guilty or embarrassed for not taking the challenge? When and how do ads use high-
status or attractive people to produce conformity pressures? When and how do ads use people who look
or seem similar to their audience to produce conformity pressures? When and how do ads try to use
reactance to their advantage? What ads use compliance techniques such as the “that’s-not-all”
technique? What ads exploit the norm of reciprocity, mindlessness, etc.?
Have the students bring to class at least one copy of a print ad or description of a TV ad concerning
conformity and at least one concerning compliance. Discuss what these ads illustrate about the issues
raised in Chapter 7. To what extent do the students think that the people who made the ads used
conformity or compliance pressures intentionally? How effective do the students think these techniques
would be, and why? How easy was it to find such ads (i.e., how prevalent are they)?
What if this bombs? This activity is bombproof. There is an inexhaustible supply of

appropriate ads, and students should find this activity interesting and somewhat eye-opening. To
get the discussion rolling, you might consider bringing in and discussing examples that you found.
Activity 10. Strategies to Elicit or Resist Conformity and

Compliance: Role-Playing
If you have students who like to perform, you might consider this activity, which can be conducted
before or after the students have read Chapter 7. Ask for volunteers to act out how they would behave
258 CHAPTER 7
in various situations involving conformity and compliance. Handout 7.8 lists a half-dozen different
scenarios. Select a scenario, and have each volunteer or group of volunteers (depending on the scenario)
come to the front of the class and play their role. Have the observers (i.e., the rest of the class) take
notes about the kinds of strategies used by the volunteers. If the class has read Chapter 7, ask the
students to examine whether the strategies involve normative influence, informational influence, the
norm of reciprocity, low-balling, etc. After the role playing has been completed, discuss the students’
observations, as well as the volunteers’ decisions about how to act, and ask the volunteers to describe
how they felt playing their roles. Discuss the probable effectiveness of these different strategies, and
explain what variables would make these strategies more or less likely to be effective.
What if this bombs? As long as you have the volunteers to do this activity, it is fairly
bombproof. The role-playing should be amusing as well as educational, and it should be very
effective in facilitating discussion. The only potential problem is if volunteers freeze and cannot
act out their parts. If you are concerned about this possibility, assign small groups of students for
each scenario, tell the group what the scenario is, and give them a few minutes to discuss their
strategies and to choose a confident person or persons from the group to act them out.
Activity 11. Demonstrations of Obedience in Class

Two ideas for activities designed to demonstrate how students are willing to obey seemingly irrational
commands by an instructor are detailed in the Activities Handbook for the Teaching of Psychology. The
first of these was proposed by Hunter (1981). In this exercise, the instructor (preferably a guest
instructor) should begin class by giving the students a series of instructions to change seats, stand up,
raise hands, etc. The goal of the activity is to demonstrate to students that they were willing to obey a
series of increasingly bizarre commands because of the authority they ascribed to the instructor. This
can be a good starting point for a discussion of research findings such as Milgram’s. Hunter details
points for discussion, including the ethics of this activity.
Lutsky (1987) presents another demonstration designed to illustrate the power of conformity and
obedience. The gist of this activity is that you should ask the students to write a paper about conformity
and obedience (Lutsky suggests that the paper be about Jonestown), and that during the class in which
the papers are due, you should tell the students to take out their papers and rip them up. Four
confederates should at this point rip up what appear to be their papers. If other students follow suit, you
should take note of this but then quickly tell the students to stop, and then distribute tape to allow the
students to repair their torn papers. Ask the students how many were about to rip up their papers, how
many were considering it, and how many were sure that they would not have ripped up their papers.
Lutsky reports that when he used this exercise in his class, a majority (64 percent) of the naive students
did or was just about to rip up their papers when he yelled “Stop!” to bring the activity to an end. Like
Hunter (1981), Lutsky details points for discussion—including ethics, among others.
We (the authors of this manual) are somewhat less comfortable doing either of these exercises in our
own classes, primarily out of concern about the potential ill-will caused by these kinds of manipulations
of students during class, but we know of others who have tried one or the other of these exercises quite
successfully.
What if this bombs? If the students resist the commands of the instructor, all is not lost because
this result would be an interesting point of departure for a discussion about factors that make
people more or less susceptible to obedience and conformity. What pressures were the students
feeling, and what gave them the courage to defy the commands? What kinds of changes to the
procedure might have made them obey? Would they have obeyed similar commands from a
different kind of instructor (e.g., older, colder, someone from a different course [who would not
be as much under suspicion that they might be running an “experiment” on them], etc.)?
CONFORMITY 259
Hunter, W. J. (1981). Obedience to authority. In L. T. Benjamin, Jr., & K. D. Lowman (Eds.), Activities
handbook for the teaching of psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 149-150). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Lutsky, N. (1987). Inducing academic suicide: A demonstration of social influence. In V. P. Makosky,
L. G. Whittemore, & A. M. Rogers (Eds.), Activities handbook for the teaching of psychology (Vol. 2,
pp. 123-126). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Activity 12. Studies in Obedience

Milgram completed his obedience studies in 1962. They are considered to be the “best-known and most
widely-discussed work in the social sciences” (Blass, 1999). However, even though they gave rise to
many replications and variations on the original paradigm, they did not inspire much in the way of
original research on the topic of obedience. You might ask your students to explain why they think that
was so. Was obedience a “hot” topic that was suitable at one point in history and became irrelevant over
time, or was the topic simply too difficult to address without violating the newly instituted ethical
standards?
One exception, a variant of which is mentioned in the text, was a study done by Meeus & Raaijmakers
(1986). The study involved participants who obeyed an order to make a job applicant nervous and
disturb him with negative remarks like, “Your answer to number 14 was totally wrong again,” or “This
job is much too difficult for you according to the test.” Most did this despite feeling uncomfortable with
the knowledge that they were causing him to fail the test and remain unemployed.
Another study (Hofling and others, 1966), which was inspired by Milgram’s work, involved hospital
nurses who proved to be overly obedient. When instructed by a voice on the phone, impersonating a
doctor, to administer an overdose of an unauthorized and unknown drug to patients without discussing
the matter with anyone else, most had to be stopped from complying at the door to the patient’s room.
Ask your students to discuss whether these two studies are more or less ethical than Milgram’s studies.
Divide the class into small groups of 4–6 and challenge each of them to come up with a possible
research design for an experiment on the topic of obedience. Have one representative from each group
present their research proposal. Let the rest of the class discuss the relevance and feasibility of each
study and any ethical concerns.
What if this bombs? There is a chance that this will bomb if students cannot come up with any
ideas. You might then encourage them to start by thinking of the kinds of relationships or
situations where one would expect to see obedience. If necessary, give them a few specific
examples (e.g., teachers and pupils, traffic cops and drivers, lifeguards and swimmers, librarians
and patrons, or reality television applicants or game show contestants and any person employed
on the show). It’s more likely that they will come up with inadequate designs than with none at
all. In that case, the activity will have been worthwhile as students will learn from discussing the
studies’ flaws.
Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to
authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 5, 955-959.
Hofling, C.K., Brotzman, E., Dairymple, S., Graves, N., & Pierce, C.M. (1966). An experimental study
in nurse-physician relationships. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 143, 171-180.
Meeus, W.H.J., & Raaijmakers, Q.A.W. (1986). Administrative obedience: Carrying out orders to use
psychological-administrative violence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 311-324.
260 CHAPTER 7
MULTIMEDIA RESOURCES
Video
Biography: Charles Manson: Journey into Evil. This video goes in depth on Charles Manson and,
among other things, how he used different methods to maintain control over the members of his
“family.” (50 min.) Available from Arts and Entertainment Biography. http://store.aetv.com/cgi-
bin/ae.storefront/
Conformity and Independence. This film includes analyses of classic research on conformity and
independence, including the ground-breaking research of Sherif, Asch, Crutchfield, Milgram, and
Moscovici. (1975, 26 min.) Available from Pennsylvania State University, Audio-Visual Services,
University Park, PA 16802 (800-826-0132).
Disobeying Orders. This video examines resistance among soldiers during the Vietnam War and thus
provides an excellent counterpoint to the video Remember My Lai, or to Lecture and Discussion Idea 3
of this chapter. It illustrates the extremely difficult situation faced by soldiers who were caught between
their duty as obedient soldiers and their own personal sense of right and wrong. (1990, 29 min.)
Available from Filmmakers Library, 124 East 40th Street, Suite 901, New York, NY 10016.
Face the Rear / Don’t Eat Light / Don’t Walk on the Black Squares. These segments from the
original Candid Camera show offer amusing and memorable examples of everyday people conforming
to group norms or obeying ridiculous commands. (1962, 1963, 1964; 5 min. total) Available from
McGraw-Hill Media Solutions (708-223-2506).
Group Pressures. This video describes Asch’s classic study of conformity, as well as other laboratory
and field research concerning conformity. (1975, 25 min.) Available from University Films of Canada,
7 Hayden Street, Suite 305, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4Y 2P2.
Guyana Tragedy: The Story of Jim Jones. This television miniseries dramatizes the story of Jim
Jones and his Peoples Temple. The whole miniseries is too long to show in class, but excerpts can work
well to illustrate the ways in which Jones elicited conformity and obedience that eventually led to the
deaths of more than 900 people. (1980, 190 min.) Available from Videocassette X, 13418 Wyondotte
St., N. Hollywood, CA 91605 (800-350-1931).
Obedience. This classic film describes Milgram’s studies of obedience to authority. Milgram narrates
the film, which provides a powerful depiction of the difficult situation faced by the subjects. In addition
to illustrating the research, Milgram emphasizes the real-world applicability of the findings. (1969, 50
min.) Available from Pennsylvania State University, Audio-Visual Services, University Park, PA 16802
(800-826-0132).
Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment. This video documents the controversial Stanford
Prison Simulation conducted by Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues. Zimbardo narrates the film, which
includes chilling footage of the study as well as fascinating follow-up interviews with some of the
subjects. (1992, 50 min.) Available from Philip Zimbardo, P.O. Box 2996, Stanford, CA 94309 (415-
725-2417).
Remember My Lai. This Frontline video would be excellent to use in conjunction with Lecture and
Discussion Idea 3. It describes the cold-blooded massacre of an entire village of Vietnamese perpetrated
by American soldiers, and it features interviews with some of these soldiers years later. This video can
be used to explore issues concerning conformity, obedience, aggression, lack of self-awareness,
prejudice, etc. (1989, 55 min.) Available from PBS Video (800-334-3337).
The Heaven’s Gate Cult: The Thin Line between Faith and Reason. This ABC Nightline program,
hosted by Ted Koppel, uses the 1997 mass suicide of the members of the Heaven’s Gate cult as a
CONFORMITY 261
starting point for a discussion among prominent scholars about cults. (1998, 20 min.) Available from
Films for the Humanities (800-257-5126).
The Lottery. A classic short film based on Shirley Jackson’s story about a bizarre and memorable
instance of conformity in a small town. (1969, 18 min.) Available from Encyclopedia Britannica,
Educational Corporation, 310 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60604.
The People of the Peoples Temple. This video examines Jim Jones and his Peoples Temple; it
includes some footage of Jones and his followers, plus commentary by Philip Zimbardo. This video
would be excellent to use in conjunction with Lecture and Discussion Idea 2 of this chapter. (1979, 24
min.) Available from Pennsylvania State University, Audio-Visual Services, University Park, PA 16802
(800-826-0132).
The Power of the Situation. This film uses some classic social psychological studies to introduce the
field, including studies by Lewin, Asch, and Milgram. These studies illustrate the central concept of
social psychology: situational factors can exert a powerful influence over human behavior. This
selection is part of the Discovering Psychology series (updated edition). (2001, 30 min.) Available from
Annenberg/CPB Collection (800-532-7637).
The Wave. Based on a true story, this television movie dramatizes the “experiment” conducted by a
high school teacher who uses his authority to create a fascistic group of students, demonstrating how
vulnerable we all are to some of the underlying forces that helped make possible the obedience found in
Nazi Germany. Particularly relevant and powerful is the scene toward the end of the film in which the
teacher stuns the students when he reveals the identity of the person responsible for this movement to
be Hitler. Unfortunately, the acting in this dramatic recreation is a bit “over-the-top,” but it did win an
Emmy Award. Available from Pennsylvania State University, Audio-Visual Services, University Park,
PA 16802 (800-826-0132).
The YouTube video named “Compliance” can be seen at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGZYHWk_EGQ.
The YouTube video named “Compliance” can be seen at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1nx4pc0dEA.
The YouTube video named “Foot-in-the-Door” can be seen at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf4eIXF7HXU.
The YouTube video named “Obedience” can be seen
athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdb20gcc_Ns.
Internet
Compliance. Annual Review article. Visit this site at
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015.
Conformity. Conformity is the tendency to align your attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with those
around you. Visit this site at http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/conformity.
Door-in-the-Face Technique. A technique used to get compliance from others (to get them to behave
in a way you want) involves making a large request knowing it will probably be refused so that the
person will agree to a much smaller request. Visit this site at
http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Door-in-the-Face%20Technique.
Foot-in-the-Door Technique. Demonstration of the foot-in-the-door technique. Visit this site at
http://www.psychologyandsociety.com/footinthedoor.html.
262 CHAPTER 7
Foot-in-the-Door Technique. Demonstration of the foot-in-the-door technique. Visit this site at

http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Foot-In-The-Door%20Phenomenon.
Idiosyncrasy Credits. Organizational researcher Edwin Hollander identified leadership concepts that
are analogous to the principles of banking and account management. Visit this site at
http://m.reporternews.com/news/2006/Nov/03/idiosyncrasy-credits-valuable-teaching-tool-on/.
Low-balling. You were the victim of a common scam called “low-balling.” The idea is that they give
you a price that is so low that no other dealer can beat it or even match it. Visit this site at
http://www.beatthecarsalesman.com/mailbag12.html.
Milgram’s Study of Obedience. This site, which is run by M. Partridge at the King Edward VII
technology college in England, has audio clips of actual Milgram obedience studies that allow you to
hear the screams of the “learners,” the protests of the “teachers,” and the admonitions of the
experimenters. Visit this site at
http://learningat.ke7.org.uk/SocialSciences/Psychology/PsyRes13/Milgram.htm.
The National Social Norms Resource Center. This is an independent organization set up to support
the application of the social norms approach to health promotion. Students can read about current
research involving finding ways to reduce alcohol consumption and drunk driving, increase seat-belt
use, reduce teen smoking, prevent sexual assaults, and increase compliance with tax laws. Visit this site
at http://www.socialnorms.org/casestudies.php.
The Philip Zimbardo Website. In addition to the above site, students can visit
http://www.zimbardo.com to watch the video of the Stanford University Prison Simulation, and to learn
about Philip Zimbardo’s research in general.
The Stanford Prison Experiment Website. This site offers a comprehensive look at Philip
Zimbardo’s prison experiment. Visit this site at http://www.prisonexp.org/.
The Stanley Milgram Website. This site focusing on the work of Stanley Milgram is hosted by
Thomas Blass. Visit this site at http://www.stanleymilgram.com/.
Computer Program
Compliance. This demonstration is modeled after the work of Asch concerning pressure to conform to
a group norm. The computer generates pressure for subjects to appear self-consistent. By requiring
estimates of the number of dots shown briefly under different conditions of feedback, the program
illustrates independence and compliance. Instruction booklet included. (Macintosh & DOS.) Available
from Life Science Associates, 1 Fenimore Road, Bayport, NY 11705-2115.
CONFORMITY 263
HANDOUT 7.1A CASE HISTORY: BOBBY JAMES

Bobby James was born in Bellevue Hospital in New York City. He was the sixth of eight children born
before Mr. James abandoned the family once and for all when Bobby was five years old. During the
next five years, Mrs. James and her eight children lived in a number of different apartments in the
Bronx. Sometimes they moved because they could no longer pay the rent, and sometimes they moved
because the older children got in trouble with school officials or the police. Sometimes they moved
simply because Mrs. James feared her children would be hurt or become involved with drugs or serious
crime if they stayed where they were any longer.
After these five years, Mrs. James’s health declined, and Tommy, the oldest, assumed the authority in
the family. Mrs. James relied heavily on Tommy to discipline the other children and to hold the family
together. When the younger children got out of hand at home or in trouble at school or with the police,
Tommy would slap them around, often brutally. Bobby and the younger children were terrified of their
oldest brother and were relieved when he left two years later to join the army. Two other older brothers,
Ray and Aaron, twins a year younger than Tommy, left the James family six months later when they
were convicted of selling narcotics to other high school students.
After Tommy left for the army, Bobby began to get in more and more trouble at school. Whereas his
elementary school teachers had described him as “scared,” “anxious,” “sullen,” “uncommunicative,”
and “quiet,” his eighth grade American History teacher called him “openly hostile, aggressive, and
disruptive.” His English teacher called him an “unruly animal.” Bobby never studied out of class and
was not promoted at the end of eighth grade.
Following each incident at school, Bobby was compelled to commit some new misbehavior. With each
new punishment and failure, his conviction grew that his teachers, like everyone else, were out to get
him.
At the same time, Bobby fell into more and more trouble with the police. The summer after he turned
13, Bobby and a friend were arrested for stealing a case of beer off a delivery truck. They were taken to
the neighborhood police station. As Bobby described the incident, “Larry and me was sitting there
waiting and these two cops come along and ask me if Aaron and Ray were my brothers so I said yes.
One grabs me by the arm, twists it real hard, and says, ‘Are you junkies too, you little bastard?’.... I hate
them ****ing cops.” The police stated that Bobby was quite unruly and verbally abusive to them and
that he had not been provoked.
After several more run-ins with the police during the rest of the summer, Bobby was assigned to a
juvenile court parole officer, Mr. Simmons. Mr. Simmons was friendly and at first spent a good deal of
time with Bobby. Bobby’s teachers found that he was making a tremendous effort to behave himself
and complete his schoolwork. Despite his progress, however, one teacher described him as “a lit time
bomb about to explode.”
As the year passed, Mr. Simmons spent less time with Bobby. Bobby managed to get through the
school year without much trouble and was promoted, but a possible summer job Mr. Simmons had
mentioned didn’t materialize. The summer had scarcely begun before Bobby was arrested for selling
marijuana to some other teenagers at the junior high school. Before he appeared in court, Mr. Simmons
visited him. “Bobby,” Mr. Simmons reported, “seemed unhappy but cool and detached, though once or
twice, as we talked, he looked like he might cry. Perhaps if I had been able to spend more time with
him, this wouldn’t have happened.”
264 CHAPTER 7
HANDOUT 7.1B KINDNESS-PUNISHMENT SCALE

1. Love, kindness, and friendship are all that are necessary to make Bobby a better kid. If he can be
placed in a less hostile environment—with a warm, friendly atmosphere—his troubles will clear
up.
2. Bobby should be sent into new surroundings where the most emphasis will be placed on providing
him with warmth and affection, but where he will be punished if he really gets out of hand.
3. Bobby should be sent into an environment where providing him with warmth and affection will be
emphasized slightly more than punishing him, but where he’ll have to shoulder some
responsibility, and discipline and punishment will be frequent if his behavior warrants it.
4. Bobby needs an equal measure of both love and discipline. Thus, he should be placed in an
atmosphere where he will be disciplined and punished if he does wrong, but rewarded and given
affection if he behaves himself.
5. Though not too strong or frequent, punishment and discipline should be emphasized more than
kindness and affection. Thus Bobby should be placed in an atmosphere of serious discipline but
one that allows opportunities for warmth and kindness to be shown him.
6. Bobby should be sent into new surroundings where the most emphasis will be placed on discipline
and punishment, but where praise and kindness will be presented when he behaves himself.
7. There’s very little you can do with a kid like this other than to put him in a very severe
disciplinary environment. Only by punishing Bobby strongly can you change his behavior.
CONFORMITY 265
HANDOUT 7.1C GUIDELINES FOR THE CONFEDERATE

You are to support the harshest treatment of Bobby James (“7” on the kindness-punishment scale). You
must maintain this position regardless of the strength of the opposition.
As the session begins, each participant will be asked to choose a treatment for Bobby. The moderator
will then let the discussion begin. No other instructions are given. Often, much of the communication is
directed toward the confederate, particularly in the beginning. Be ready for this. You should not initiate
the conversation but rather should wait to be spoken to. Sometimes, communication with the
confederate falls off, with the other participants haggling over the differences between their positions. If
this happens in your case, after several minutes of being ignored you should break back into the
conversation to see if you will continue to be rejected. However, in some groups the confederate is
never off the hook: the others in the group may continue to try to get you to change your mind. You
should be polite but rigid, never switching from “7.”
Come to class prepared with a set of arguments about why you believe in this position. Don’t reveal all
your arguments right away; save some for later points in the discussion.
The moderator will again poll the participants after the discussion has ended. You should not switch
from your support of treatment “7.”
266 CHAPTER 7
HANDOUT 7.1D POST-DISCUSSION RATINGS

Be assured that your answers will be kept confidential. Please answer each item.
How well do you think your discussion went?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
very poorly very well
How much did you enjoy the discussion?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
very poorly very well
Try to guess which of the following types of movies each of the people in your discussion group would
rate the most positively (in terms of enjoyment, not necessarily critical analysis): (a) light comedy, (b)
heavy drama, (c) romantic comedy, (d) very violent, cold movie, (e) very sexual movie, (f) nonviolent
suspense thriller, (g) science fiction, and (h) film biography or documentary. Write down the name of
each group member (excluding yourself) and the type of movie he or she would pick. Feel free to cite
the same type of movie more than once.
1. _________________________________
2. _________________________________
3. _________________________________
4. _________________________________
5. _________________________________
Imagine that your group was asked to run a newspaper for a day. Below are five tasks that need to be
done. You have to determine the best matches of person to task so that your paper will be run in the
way that you think is best. Excluding yourself, assign one person from your group to each task by
writing his or her name next to the task.
Writer. ________________________
Public relations. ________________________
Proofreader. ________________________
Political analyst. ________________________
Sales manager. ________________________
Please rank the other people in your group in terms of how likable you think they are (that is, in terms
of how much you think you would like them if you got to know them). Again, keep in mind that your
answers will be confidential. Because your responses are all relative, the “worst”-rated person may still
be seen as quite likable in an absolute sense.
MOST LIKABLE
1. ___________________________________
2. ___________________________________
3. ___________________________________
4. ___________________________________
5. ___________________________________
LEAST LIKABLE
CONFORMITY 267
HANDOUT 7.2A COMPLIANCE STUDY

A
Instructions for the Experimenter

Approach one same-sex student you do not know, carry with you a stack of papers in an envelope, and
say, “Hi, I’m trying to finish up a psychology experiment for my class. I have an attitude questionnaire
I need people to fill out. It takes about 30 minutes. Would you be willing to do it?” (If the student asks
“When?,” say that you will contact him or her with a list of available times for next week.) Record the
answer below.
If the student says “YES,” ask for his or her mailing address and say, “Unless it turns out that we
already have enough subjects, I’ll send you a note with a choice of times. Thanks.” Later, throw out the
mailing address.
Be sure to bring this completed form back to class.
___________________________________________________________________________
A
Your name: _______________________

Your sex: M F
In response to the request to complete a 30-minute questionnaire, the student said:
YES NO
268 CHAPTER 7
HANDOUT 7.2B COMPLIANCE STUDY

B

say, “Hi, I’m trying to finish up a psychology experiment for my class. Would you be willing to help
me out by answering a couple of questions right now?” If the student agrees, ask the following
questions, and record the answers:
• Do you think alcohol should be banned at sporting events to control violence?
YES, NO, UNDECIDED
• Do you think that restaurants should be required to have large no-smoking sections?
YES, NO, UNDECIDED
Then say: “I have a questionnaire for you to fill out. It takes about 30 minutes. Would you be willing to
do it?” (If the student asks “When?,” say that you will contact him or her with a list of available times
for next week.) Record the answer below.
If the student says “YES,” ask for his or her mailing address and say, “Unless it turns out that we
already have enough subjects, I’ll send you a note with a choice of times. Thanks.” Later, throw out the
mailing address.
___________________________________________________________________________
B
Your name: _______________________

Your sex: M F
YES NO
CONFORMITY 269
HANDOUT 7.2C COMPLIANCE STUDY

C

say, “Hi, I’m trying to finish a psychology experiment for my class. I need students to volunteer for two
2-hour evening sessions. Would you be willing to do it?”
Assuming the student turns you down, say, “Well, I also have a questionnaire to be filled out. It takes
about 30 minutes. Would you be willing to do that?” (If the student asks “When?,” say that you will
contact him or her with a list of available times for next week.) Record the answer below.
If the student says, “YES” to either question, ask for his or her mailing address and say, “Unless it turns
out that we already have enough subjects, I’ll send you a note with a choice of times. Thanks.” Later,
throw out their mailing address.
If the student says “YES” to the first question, go to a second student and start the experiment again. In
this case, record only the response of the second student.
___________________________________________________________________________
C
Your name: _______________________

Your sex: M F
YES NO
270 CHAPTER 7
HANDOUT 7.3A OBSERVING NORMS FOR A DAY

ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN THE MORNING, PREFERABLY JUST BEFORE YOU
LEAVE YOUR DORM, APARTMENT, OR HOUSE.
Is there a particular code of etiquette about how much time one can use the bathroom, shower, etc. in
the morning? Is this different at other times of the day?
Is there a norm about clothing worn in, or to and from, the bathroom (e.g., bathrobe, full set of clothes,
towel only, slippers)? Is this different at other times of the day?
If you share a room with others, is there a norm about being quiet in the morning, not turning lights on,
turning alarm clocks off, taking turns using particular appliances, taking turns using the bathroom, etc.?
Or is the situation pretty random?
When you decided what clothes to wear for the day, to what extent did considerations about norms play
a role? If you were back in high school, would you have selected different clothes? If your friends
started to wear clothes or hairstyles that are quite different from what they’ve been wearing, would you
dress differently or change your hairstyle?
Are there other morning-related norms you’ve observed that might be of interest?
CONFORMITY 271
HANDOUT 7.3B OBSERVING NORMS FOR A DAY

IF YOU EAT LUNCH IN A DINING HALL, COMMON ROOM, CAFETERIA, OR OTHER LOCATION
WITH SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS DURING LUNCH.
What norms can you observe concerning the behavior of those around you?
Are there particular seating arrangements that tend to be consistent? Do people who sit together tend to
be of the same race, from the same dorm, on the same team, at the same level of status or attractiveness,
etc.?
What are the norms about what and how much to eat during lunch? What are the norms about what and
how much to drink during lunch?
What are the norms about the order in which different foods or courses should be eaten? Are there
norms about going back for seconds or thirds?
Are there norms about how much time one takes during lunch, or about whether one can read during
lunch?
Does everyone throw out their trash and, if applicable, return their trays to the appropriate location?
272 CHAPTER 7
HANDOUT 7.3C OBSERVING NORMS FOR A DAY

ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS SOON AFTER THE LAST CLASS OF THE DAY.
What are the norms about where to sit in class? That is, do certain students tend to sit in the same
location most of the time? Do students avoid the front or the back rows? Are certain types or categories
of students (e.g., athletes, students who like to talk a lot, students from a particular dorm, popular
students, etc.) likely to sit in particular parts of the room? Do any of these norms vary across different
classes?
What norms are there about class participation in your classes? How do these norms vary from one
class to the next?
Is there a norm about whether and when students ask questions during class? Do you ever want to ask a
question but feel uncomfortable doing so? If so, why?
Do your instructors seem to follow a norm about their appearance (e.g., in terms of clothes or hair)?
What are the norms about when to show up for various classes (e.g., a few minutes early, right on time,
a few minutes late)? Are there norms about when to start packing up one’s books to get ready to leave?
What other norms of behavior did you observe in your classes?
CONFORMITY 273
HANDOUT 7.3D OBSERVING NORMS FOR A DAY

ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS IN THE EVENING.
During a typical day, do you feel any pressure to conform to a norm about physical activity or
extracurricular interests? Did you feel this pressure today?
During a typical day, do you feel any pressure to conform to a norm about studying or doing academic
work? Did you feel this pressure today?
During this past day, in what ways do you think you conformed to the attitudes, opinions, or behaviors
of others? What instances of others’ conformity did you observe?
During this past day, in what ways do you think you resisted the social influence pressures exerted by
others? What instances of others’ resistance did you observe?
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
LADY MAY.
You will know her, by her bonnet with the strings a-blowin’ out,
An’ a laylock she’s a wearin’ in her hair;
You will know her by the sunshine she’s a scatterin’ about,
An’ her whistle in the birches over there.
You will know her by her slippers, an’ the color of her eyes,
An’ the kisses on her pretty poutin’ lips;
You can tell her by her giggle, an’ her look o’ glad surprise,
An’ the dewdrops on her rosy finger-tips.
She’s a-comin’ up the medder, don’t you see her yaller gown?
She’s a-tip toe, an’ a-comin’ right this way,
With a trail o’ joy behind her, an’ a new moon for a crown,
An’ a—bless your heart! why, howdy, Lady May?
A FRAGMENT.
Love calls to me from near and far,
From every flower, from every star,
In every drop of rain I see
A jewelled finger beckon me.
AWAY FROM HOME.
Carry me back to the hills of New England,

Back to the land of the woods and the sea,
Back to the shores where the blue waters beckon,
Back where the sunshine is waiting for me.
Make me a bed in the lap of the meadow,

Near where his rain-flute the reed-piper blows,
Cover me up with the wild things and clover,
Leave me alone where there’s nobody knows.
Leave me alone with the drift and the gladness,

Drenched with the long, lazy, midsummer noon,
Soothed like a child on the breast of its mother,
Soothed by the chirp and the twitter and croon.
There let me dream till the dusk on its bosom

Bears me away to the kingdom of sleep,
Where to the hush of mellifluous music,
Slumbering, slumbering, quiet and deep,
I shall be watched by the Night in her beauty,

Fanned by the breath of the pine I shall lie,
Lost in the wiles of the whip-poor-will’s calling,
Calling the infinite silences nigh.
There I shall rest in the gold and the purple,

Under the clouds with the moon peeping through,
I shall not wake at the stir of the grasses,
I shall not wake at the fall of the dew.
I shall awake when the bell-throated veery

Calls from his castle to welcome the sun,
Or, it may be from the glance and the glitter,
Brewed in the marshes and over me spun.
I shall arise when the elm-branches rustle,

I shall look out on the blue tossing sea,
Daylight and dawning, God in the morning
Stirring the dauntless eternal in me.
I shall go forth to the rapture of living,

Lightness of spirit my staff and my girth,
Moulded anew in the greatness of being,
Purged in my soul by the sweetness of earth.
Carry me back to the hills of New England,

Back to the land of the woods and the sea,
Back to the shores where the blue waters beckon,
Back where the sunshine is waiting for me.
GRANDMA BROWN.
She wasn’t very handsome,

I hate to put that down,
For to paint her as I knew her
She was belle of all the town.
She was doubled up and crooked,

And her hands were all a-skew,
Her face an old baked apple,
But her eyes were always new.
And you never would have known it

From a murmur or a sigh,
That the stars of God had faded
And the blue had left the sky.
And you never would have guessed it,

That these lines were lines of care,
The broken chords of music
Which the world had written there.
So I’ll paint her as I knew her,

With her cane and faded gown,
And a smile they made in heaven,
Just for dear old Grandma Brown.
’Twould have done you good to ’ve seen her

Settin’ out there in the sun,
Jest to keep the hens from scratchin’
When the plantin’ was begun.
An’ she allus took her knittin’,

Jest to pass the time away,
Or some darnin’ for the neighbors,
An’ she didn’t work for pay.
But she didn’t work for nothin’,

For we all loved Grandma Brown,
An’ I really think the bluebirds
Had a fondness for her gown.
She was “kind-o’ thick o’ hearin’,”

But she used to say to me,
“I can hear the things a-growin’
Jest as plain as plain can be.”
Then she’d take me up an’ kiss me,

An’ she’d trot me up an’ down,
Then she’d feel ’round in the pocket
Of that old blue gingham gown
Till she found a broken cookie,

Or a peppermint or two,
Then she’d pat my cheek and hug me
Like she loved me thro’ and thro’.
But the day came when I missed her

From her rickety old chair,
It was in the early springtime
When the lilacs drugged the air,
An’ the world was bright and merry,

An’ the little birds, a-wing,
Were as happy as the sunshine,
But it didn’t seem like spring.
Then I thought how once she told me

She was “goin’ abroad some day,”
An’ she said, “I’m good for nothin’,
An’ I’m sort of in the way.”
Well, she wasn’t very handsome,
But if God e’er made a crown
For the good folks up in heaven,
There was one for Grandma Brown.
SLUMBER SONG.
Gae to sleep, my bonnie baby,

Gae to sleep, my bairn, an’ dream;
Shadows thro’ the pines are creeping,
Lilies on the wimplin’ stream
Noo are rockin’, rockin’, rockin’;
A’ their snawy besoms gleam
Wi’ the gold o’ starlight folded
In their hearts to light their dream.
Sae may luve my kisses gi’e you

On your dainty lips to-night,
Wi’ the tenderness o’ roses;
Bless your dreams; guid-night, guid-night!
Gae to sleep, then, bonnie babie,
Gae to sleep, my bairn, and dream,
While the lily-buds are rockin’,
Rockin’, rockin’ on the stream.
THE ENIGMA.
With Hope a guest at my right hand,
And Death upon my left,
Life entertains me royally,
While Time with warp and weft
Of doubt and pain and smiles and tears
And irridescent dream,
In arabesque to me unknown
Pursues its endless theme.
THE PASSING OF THE OLD ELM.
The orioles are weeping by the roadside down the way,

And the robins, heavy-hearted, still their laughter for a day,
For the old elm tree is passing, in the middle of the town,
And the axes will not tarry till the old elm tree is down.
You may share no more its message in the springtime of the year,
With the joyful lilting concord when the song-birds first appear;
You will miss the calm enchantment of its leafy choirs in June,
And its heavenly benediction on an August afternoon.
You will miss the sunset glory where it yellowed in the fall,
And the swarm of stars that gathered in the branches at the call
Of the sparrow at his vespers; you will miss the joy and glow
Of the melting moonlight blended with its legion flowers of snow.
You will miss its stately lyric as it broke the mystic flight
Of the wild wind-shattered tempest thro’ the solitudes of night;
For the old elm tree is passing from the middle of the town,
And the axes will not tarry till the old elm tree is down.
’Tis a century, they tell us, since it sprung up by the wall,

Full of love for all God’s creatures, yet the old elm tree must fall;
But its strong sap mounting skyward with its tidings of good will,
With its sturdy flow of courage for a soul that’s standing still,
Will forever thread my dreamings with the wonder unimpaired,

And the spirit of devotion for its blessings I have shared.
Yes, the robins, heavy-hearted, still their laughter for a day,
And the orioles are weeping by the roadside down the way.
AFTERWARD.
Great God of storm and battle,

We feel Thy clasping hand;
Thy voice along the wilderness
We hear and understand.
The constellations hymn Thy praise;
Thy glory crowns the day;
Thine awful wrath, in swinging seas,
Commands and we obey.
The vanquished with the victors rest;

They sleep on hill and plain;
The heaven’s azure noon descends,
And wraps as one the twain.
In fondest brotherhood they share
One common lot of land;
We feel Thy clasping hand!
How undiscerned Thy sovran laws,

Thy wisdom how sublime;
Thy torch of progress ever leads
The flying march of Time;
And though athwart the fiery track
Contending armies fall,
How soon the chastening blossoms come
And smile above them all.

We feel Thy clasping hand,
The lightning is Thy chariot,
We see and understand.
The conquered and the conqueror,
Each wears the hero’s star,
Amidst his blood-stained wreath of thorns
The iron wheels of war
Are rusting in the mountain-side,

By thick roots intertwined,
Unmindful of the broken hearts
Their madness left behind;
While Peace, Thy benediction,
With outspread wings hath spanned
Our country; God of battles,
We feel Thy clasping hand.
“THE PILGRIM SPIRIT.”
Its argent unassailed,
Its purposes undimmed,
Its soul a crystal-hearted star
The conqueror hath rimmed
With broken swords, a restless shape,
Where birth and love are one,
Where death lies dead and worlds divide,
Still shoulders toward the sun.
IN MEMORIAM.
If from the crimson dust of war
A new Republic rise,
Still shall the martyr bleed
Who made the sacrifice.
The threnody from his dead lips
Shall never, never die,
Forever will his thorn-crowned head
Be lifted to the sky.
L’ ENVOI.
No flag so spanned by Freedom’s stars,

No hearthstone more a shrine,
No latch-string graces wider doors,
No warmer hearts than thine.
Plymouth, 1921
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:
Obvious typographical errors have been corrected.
Inconsistencies in hyphenation have been
standardized.
Archaic or variant spelling has been retained.
The poem, The Lindens, listed in the Index as being on
page 58, does not appear in this edition.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RHYMES OF
OLD PLIMOUTH ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project

Social Psychology 9Th Edition Kassin Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Psychology 9Th Edition Kassin Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Psychology 9Th Edition Kassin Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Psychology 9th Edition Kassin

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: GUIDELINES FOR STUDY

SOCIAL INFLUENCE AS “AUTOMATIC”

The Early Classics

Why Do People Conform?

Culture and Conformity

Mindlessness and Compliance

The Norm of Reciprocity

Setting Traps: Sequential Request Strategies

Assertiveness: When People Say No

Milgram’s Research: Forces of Destructive Obedience

• Obedience levels are influenced by various situational factors, including a participant’s

Milgram in the 21st Century

Defiance: When People Rebel

THE CONTINUUM OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Social Impact Theory

Perspectives on Human Nature

informational influence (p. 260)

Idea 1. Nazi Germany

Idea 3. The My Lai Massacre

Idea 4. Conformity Across Cultures

Idea 5. Informational and Normative Influence

Idea 6. Minority Influence

Idea 7. Pervasive Pressures to Conform: The Influences of

Idea 8. The Norm of Reciprocity

Idea 9. Six Factors in Compliance

Idea 10. Putting Compliance Techniques to a Good Use

Idea 11. Two Additional Compliance Techniques

Idea 12. Disobedience on a Personal Level

Idea 13. Milgram’s Research on Obedience to Authority

Idea 14. Discussing the Ethics of Milgram’s Research on

Idea 15. Five Types of Power

Idea 16. Social Influence in Psychotherapy and Criminal

Idea 17. The Stanford University Prison Simulation

Activity 1. The Fate of the Deviant

Activity 2. Compliance Experiment

Activity 3. Norm Formation in Judgments of an Ambiguous

Activity 4. Observing Norms for a Day

Activity 5. Violating Norms

Activity 6. Private or Public Conformity?

Activity 7. Sequential Request Strategies

Activity 8. Predictions and Inferences about Milgram’s Obedience

Activity 9. Conformity and Compliance in Advertising

What if this bombs? This activity is bombproof. There is an inexhaustible supply of

Activity 10. Strategies to Elicit or Resist Conformity and

Activity 11. Demonstrations of Obedience in Class

Activity 12. Studies in Obedience

Foot-in-the-Door Technique. Demonstration of the foot-in-the-door technique. Visit this site at

HANDOUT 7.1A CASE HISTORY: BOBBY JAMES

HANDOUT 7.1B KINDNESS-PUNISHMENT SCALE

HANDOUT 7.1C GUIDELINES FOR THE CONFEDERATE

HANDOUT 7.1D POST-DISCUSSION RATINGS

HANDOUT 7.2A COMPLIANCE STUDY

Instructions for the Experimenter

Your name: _______________________

HANDOUT 7.2B COMPLIANCE STUDY

Instructions for the Experimenter

Your name: _______________________