Social psychology
| English | Chinese | Pinyin |
|---|---|---|
| conformity | 从众 | cóng zhòng |
| obedience | 服从 | fú cóng |
| attribution | 归因 | guī yīn |
| disposition | 内在特质 | nèi zài tè zhì |
| situation | 情境 | qíng jìng |
| group behaviour | 群体行为 | qún tǐ xíng wéi |
People are far more movable than they predict
- Ask anyone whether they would follow an instruction they believed was wrong, and almost everyone says no.
- The classic studies found otherwise, repeatedly, and that gap between prediction and behaviour is the finding.
- Conformity 从众 is changing behaviour to match a group; obedience 服从 is following an instruction from authority.
Match each term to its definition.
A group exerts pressure without instructing; an authority instructs.
Attribution
- Attribution 归因 is how we explain behaviour: by disposition 内在特质 (the person) or by situation 情境.
- People systematically over-use disposition for others and situation for themselves.
- A stranger who is short with you is rude; you were short with someone because you were having a hard day.
- Naming that asymmetry, rather than just describing the behaviour, is what a Level III answer does.
A stranger is short with you and you decide they are rude. What is this?
You explained it by the person. For your own behaviour you would probably have reached for the situation.
Groups
- Group behaviour 群体行为 differs from individual behaviour: groups polarise, moving further in the direction they already leaned.
- A cohesive group can suppress dissent, so agreement is reached without the disagreement ever being heard.
- The remedy is structural — assign someone to argue the other side — not moral.
Suggest one structural way to stop a cohesive group suppressing dissent.
Example: "Assign one member each meeting to argue the strongest case against the group's preferred option."
Why the classic studies could not run today.
Participants were deceived, distressed, and in some cases not told they could stop.
They produced findings that changed the field, and they would not receive ethical approval now — because informed consent and the right to withdraw are not optional.
Both things are true, and holding them together is the answer: the finding stands, and the method would not be permitted. Saying only one half is what loses marks.
How should you write about a classic study that could not be run today?
Both are true, and holding them together is the marked answer. Saying only one half loses marks.
Situations do more work than people expect. That is the unifying finding of social psychology, and it is why "he is just a bad person" is rarely the strongest available explanation.
The participants in the obedience studies were unusual people.
They were ordinary, which is the entire point. A reading that makes them unusual misses the result.
Do not treat these studies as anecdotes about strange people. The participants were ordinary, which is the entire point — a reading that makes them unusual has misunderstood the result.