In Asch's (1951) conformity experiments, participants were asked to match line lengths. What was the key finding?

A: Participants almost never conformed, demonstrating the primacy of independent judgment

B: Approximately 75% of participants conformed to the incorrect group answer on at least one trial

C: Conformity only occurred when participants were personally acquainted with the group members

D: Participants conformed more when the task was ambiguous than when it was clear

Correct: Approximately 75% of participants conformed to the incorrect group answer on at least one trial

Asch placed participants in a group of confederates who unanimously gave clearly wrong answers to an unambiguous perceptual task (matching line lengths). Despite the obvious correct answer, ~75% of participants conformed on at least one trial, and overall conformity occurred on ~37% of critical trials. Asch showed that conformity was primarily normative — driven by fear of social disapproval — not informational, since the task was unambiguous.

Milgram's obedience experiments found that the majority of participants:

A: Refused to administer any shocks once they heard the learner protest

B: Administered shocks up to 450V (the maximum), following the experimenter's instructions

C: Were sadistic and enjoyed administering the shocks

D: Conformed only when the experimenter was physically present in the room

Correct: Administered shocks up to 450V (the maximum), following the experimenter's instructions

In Milgram's baseline study (1963), 65% of participants administered the maximum 450V shock, even after hearing the "learner" scream and fall silent. Participants showed clear distress — sweating, trembling, protesting — but continued under the experimenter's insistence. Milgram concluded that obedience to authority is a powerful, situationally driven behaviour, not a personality trait. The agentic state — feeling that one is acting as an instrument of authority rather than autonomously — explains the mechanism.

Match each type of social influence to its definition.

Moscovici's research showed that consistent minority groups can shift majority opinion, especially through internalisation rather than mere compliance.

Answer: True

Serge Moscovici demonstrated that minorities can produce genuine attitude change (conversion) if they are consistent — repeating their position without wavering across time and different group members. Unlike majority influence (which produces compliance through normative pressure), minority influence tends to produce internalisation — deeper, private belief change that may only appear later. This is the mechanism behind social reform movements: a consistent minority that challenges consensus.

Which factor did Milgram find most reduced obedience in variants of his experiment?

A: When the learner was a woman rather than a man

B: When the experimenter gave instructions by telephone rather than in person

C: When the shock labels changed to different words

D: When the experiment was conducted in a different room

Correct: When the experimenter gave instructions by telephone rather than in person

Milgram systematically varied conditions across 18 experiments. Obedience dropped from 65% to 20.5% when the experimenter gave instructions by telephone (reduced physical presence of authority). Other reductions occurred when the learner was in the same room (37.5%), when the participant physically administered the shock by holding the learner's hand to a plate (30%), and when two confederate teachers refused (10%). This demonstrates obedience is highly sensitive to situational factors.

What is the foot-in-the-door technique, and what psychological mechanism explains its effectiveness?

A: Asking for a large favour first, then a smaller one — works through contrast effects

B: Starting with a small request, then making a larger related request — works through self-perception and consistency motivation

C: Presenting emotional arguments before logical ones — works through elaboration likelihood

D: Agreeing with someone before disagreeing — works through reciprocity norms

Correct: Starting with a small request, then making a larger related request — works through self-perception and consistency motivation

Freedman & Fraser (1966) showed that homeowners who agreed to a small request (sign a small petition) were significantly more likely to later comply with a large request (place an ugly billboard in their garden) than those who received only the large request. The mechanism is self-perception: having complied with the small request, the person updates their self-image as "someone who helps with this kind of thing" and behaves consistently with that identity.

The fundamental attribution error leads observers to over-attribute another person's behaviour to their disposition and under-attribute it to the situation.

Answer: True

The fundamental attribution error (FAE; Ross, 1977) is the tendency to explain others' behaviour primarily in terms of their character, personality, and attitudes while underweighting situational factors. For example, if someone trips, we might think "they're clumsy" rather than "the floor was slippery." Milgram's obedience research powerfully illustrates the FAE's real-world cost: most people predict that others would refuse to obey, attributing expected refusal to good character rather than recognising the power of the situation.