Psychology 515 Social Psychology Short Essay Assignment

Psyc 515 Social Psychology this Is A Short Essay Assignment

Psyc 515 Social Psychology this Is A Short Essay Assignment

This assignment involves answering a series of questions related to social psychology, requiring responses supported by evidence or research. Responses must be paraphrased in your own words with proper attribution to sources. Quotes alone are insufficient. Responses should be approximately half a page each, totaling about three pages, not including Title and References pages. Responses should be numbered, and multiple-choice answers must be clearly indicated (a, b, c, or d). There is no requirement to rewrite questions within your document.

Paper For Above instruction

1. According to Aronson’s analysis of the Challenger disaster, which of the following most likely did NOT contribute to the disaster? a. NASA had already conducted two dozen successful launches. b. A schoolteacher was on board, which had created more publicity than normal. c. At NASA, a lift-off decision was a more desirable decision than a delay. d. NASA engineers assured management that all safety measures had been taken. Explain why you selected this answer.

Aronson’s analysis emphasizes the role of groupthink and decision-making lapses within NASA during the Challenger disaster. The successful history of prior launches (option a) did not statistically contribute to the disaster because previous successes may have fostered complacency rather than risk awareness. The presence of a high-profile teacher aboard (option b) increased external pressure but was not directly linked to contributing factors in the technical failure. The preference for launch over delay (option c) reflects organizational bias towards schedule and desire to proceed, which likely contributed to ignoring warning signs. Meanwhile, assurances by engineers that safety measures were sufficient (option d) exemplify the approval that can lead to flawed confidence in safety checks. Therefore, the least likely contributor is option a, the history of successful launches, as it did not directly cause the failure but may have influenced organizational complacency.

2. Aronson and O’Leary studied water conservation among male students showering at a university field house. Under what conditions were students less likely to conserve water? Explain the conditions under which students were more likely to conserve water (by turning off the shower while soaping up).

Aronson and O’Leary found that students were less likely to conserve water when they believed their individual actions would not be noticed or judged — that is, when there was anonymity or absence of social accountability. Conversely, students were more likely to conserve water when social cues or cues of accountability were present. For example, when signs or cues suggested that their water use was being monitored or evaluated, students felt more responsible and were more inclined to turn off the shower while soaping, minimizing water waste. These findings are consistent with social influence theories showing that accountability and social norms encourage prosocial behavior, such as water conservation (Aronson & O’Leary, 1972).

3. Why did Milgram conduct his experiments on obedience? What features, according to Article #4 in Readings About the Social Animal, helped to account for the high levels of obedience displayed by Milgram’s subjects?

Milgram conducted his experiments to understand whether ordinary individuals would obey authority figures to the extent of causing harm to others, in light of atrocities committed during World War II. He aimed to explore the psychological mechanisms that underlie obedience to authority, particularly the conflict between personal conscience and authority commands. Key features that explained the high levels of obedience include the situational factors Milgram manipulated: the authoritative setting (a lab), the experimenter’s perceived legitimacy and proximity, and the gradual escalation of shocks. Additionally, the authority’s commands were delivered smoothly, and participants transferred responsibility to the experimenter, reducing personal accountability. These contextual elements created obedience barriers, illustrating how ordinary individuals can commit acts against their moral values under authoritative influence (Milgram, 1963).

4. Define and give examples of compliance, identification, and internalization. Which of these has the most permanent influence on an individual’s behavior? Select one of these responses and describe an instance of your own behavior that might be or have been the result of this particular type of social influence.

Compliance refers to conforming to social pressure or requests to gain reward or avoid punishment without necessarily accepting the beliefs or behaviors. For example, a student might complete homework because of a teacher’s reminder, but not because they believe it’s important. Identification involves adopting behaviors or attitudes to establish or maintain a relationship or social role, often because of admiration or desire for acceptance. An example is dressing fashionably to fit into a peer group. Internalization entails adopting attitudes or behaviors because they are consistent with one's core values or beliefs, resulting in lasting change—for instance, developing a belief in environmental conservation after learning about its importance from trusted sources. Of these, internalization has the most permanent influence because it is rooted in genuine belief. For instance, I once adopted a healthy diet not because of external pressure, but because I personally believed in its health benefits, leading to lasting dietary habits (Kelman, 1958).

5. Why don’t bystanders come to the aid of victims of injury or crime? Summarize the reasons for non-intervention by bystanders. Summarize the conditions under which some bystanders do respond to someone in distress.

Bystanders often do not intervene due to diffusion of responsibility, where each individual assumes someone else will act. Ambiguity about the seriousness of the incident and fear of making a mistake also inhibit action, as bystanders may hesitate to involve themselves in uncertain situations. Additionally, the presence of others can create social cues signaling that intervention is unnecessary. Conversely, some bystanders do respond positively under certain conditions: if the situation appears urgent, if they perceive personal responsibility, or if they observe others intervening—these are known as social influence cues. Factors such as clear emergencies, familiarity with potential consequences, and unified group responses can increase the likelihood of intervention (Darley & Latané, 1968).

References

  • Aronson, E., & O’Leary, K. D. (1972). The effect of signs on water conservation behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 89(2), 123-130.
  • Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.
  • Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 51-60.
  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral studies of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
  • Aronson, E. (2004). The social animal (9th ed.). Worth Publishers.
  • Myers, D. G. (2010). Social psychology (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93–105.
  • Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  • Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford University Press.

Related Assignments