Changing Minds, Changing Behaviors ✓ Solved

Changing Minds, Changing Behaviors

In this scenario, you have a teenage cousin who complains to you about their classmates, saying, “They all think and act the same way. No one has any originality. They are all sheep!” As you are learning, there are various social, cultural, and ideological factors that lead us to conform to the attitudes and behaviors of our in-group. First, title your post “Changing Minds, Changing Behaviors.” For your initial post, review the videos The Stanford Prison Experiment; The Milgram Experiment; The Heist; and The Bystander Effect. Then respond to the following:

• Do the videos suggest that we are aware of our tendency to conform?
• Do you think that our choices are based on free will, or do expectations about our implied roles guide our choices?
• Social influence can be so subtle that we often conform to group norms without realizing it. Describe a scenario that demonstrates how a person can conform to norms or obey authority without being aware.
• Despite our desire to be ourselves, our behaviors do not always reflect our authentic attitudes. Describe an instance in your life in which you experienced cognitive dissonance.
• Given the varying influences of social and cultural norms on attitude and behavior, in what ways might our tendency to conform to norms differ across cultures?
• How do the concepts of dispositional and situational attribution, fundamental attribution error, conformity, cognitive dissonance, obedience, and central and peripheral persuasion routes apply to any of the following programmatic course themes: self-care, social justice, emotional intelligence, career connections, ethics?

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The exploration of human behavior through social psychology experiments provides profound insights into the mechanisms of conformity, obedience, and social influence. The videos The Stanford Prison Experiment, The Milgram Experiment, The Heist, and The Bystander Effect collectively reveal the extent to which individuals may act against their personal morals due to external pressures or circumstances, often without full awareness of their conformity or obedience. These studies suggest that humans are often unaware of their susceptibility to social influence, operating under implicit expectations that guide their choices rather than explicit awareness.

Awareness of Tendencies to Conform

The experiments demonstrate that many participants are initially unaware of the degree to which they conform or obey authority. For instance, in Milgram’s experiment, individuals continued administering shocks despite their discomfort, often without recognizing the extent of their obedience until reflecting afterward. Similarly, in the Stanford Prison Experiment, emotionally healthy volunteers quickly adopted aggressive roles, often unaware of the rapid psychological changes they experienced. These findings suggest that people are often unconscious of the powerful influence social roles and authority figures have on their actions.

Free Will versus Role Expectations

The question of whether choices are based on free will or role expectations is central to understanding social influence. While individuals may believe they are exercising personal judgment, the aforementioned experiments evidence that expectations about roles—such as guard versus prisoner, or authority versus subordinate—substantially dictate behavior. This implies that many of our choices are contextually constrained by social roles and norms, often overriding our conscious intentions.

Situations of Unconscious Conformity

A common scenario illustrating unconscious conformity involves peer pressure during group decision-making. For example, a teenager might agree to participate in risky behaviors, such as vandalism, because they feel social pressure to conform without consciously considering the morality of the act. Similarly, employees might obey orders from a supervisor to work overtime, conforming to organizational norms, without consciously evaluating whether they agree with the demands or recognize coercion.

Cognitive Dissonance in Personal Experience

Personally, I experienced cognitive dissonance when I prioritized academic success over personal values. I believed strongly in honesty but once, I considered plagiarism to meet a deadline. The discomfort arose from the clash between my moral stance and the temptation to adopt an unethical shortcut. Ultimately, I resolved the dissonance by reaffirming my commitment to integrity and refusing to plagiarize, which reaffirmed my authentic attitudes.

Cultural Differences in Conformity

Cultural norms heavily influence conformity tendencies. Collectivist societies, such as those in East Asia, emphasize social harmony and interdependence, fostering higher conformity levels to maintain group cohesion. Conversely, individualistic cultures prioritize personal independence, leading to lower conformity rates. These cultural differences affect how individuals respond to social influence, shaping behaviors according to societal expectations.

Application of Social Concepts to Course Themes

The concepts of dispositional and situational attribution clarify whether behavior is attributed to personality or context. Fundamental attribution error often causes observers to blame individuals' dispositions rather than situational factors, affecting perceptions of self-care, social justice, or ethics. For example, obedience studies reveal how individuals may adhere to authority even against personal or societal principles, impacting ethical decisions. Cognitive dissonance influences emotional intelligence by highlighting internal conflicts and growth opportunities. Conformity and persuasion routes significantly impact career connections and social justice movements, shaping how messages are delivered and received within societal structures.

Conclusion

Understanding these social psychological processes is critical for fostering authentic self-awareness and ethical behavior across diverse cultural contexts. Recognizing the subtle influences on our decisions enables us to critically evaluate our actions, promoting genuine self-care, social justice, and ethical standards in both personal and professional realms.

References

• Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men. Carnegie Press.
• Blass, T. (2004). The Milgram Paradigm After 40 Years: Some Things We Now Know About Obedience to Authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(7), 1521–1554.
• Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House.
• Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Appleton-Century Crofts.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications.
• Trueman, C. (2012). Obedience to Authority. Psychology Today.
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 1–62).
• Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2014). Social Psychology (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.