Answer to Question 1
Answer:
The textbook lists several possibilities, including:
1) Remind individuals that responsibility for harm caused by obedience rests with the individual, not solely with the authority figure.
2) Clearly indicate to individuals that total submission to destructive commands is inappropriate after some point. Exposure to disobedient models may be helpful in this respect.
3) Encourage individuals to question the authority figure's expertise and motives underlying the orders.
4) Ensure that individuals are aware of an authority figures' power to command blind obedience. Simple knowledge may help some people resist obedience.
Answer to Question 2
Answer:
In Asch, participants saw lines of unambiguous length, so that the group influence was very obviously wrong but participants conformed, whereas in Sherif, the movement of light was ambiguous, allowing the distance of the light travel to be an emerging norm of the group process. Because in Asch, conformity was about the unambiguous line lengths, participants often did not personally accept the social influence, but conformed anyway. In Sherif, there was personal acceptance by all participants of the light distances. Asch demonstrated how far people will go to have group acceptance, to follow the group norm. Sherif, on the other hand, showed that people wished merely to know what is a correct judgment in the group.
Cell surface recognition factors
Structures of four common types of DNA-binding motifs from eukaryotic transcription factors
Factors Affecting the Affinity of Hb for O2
An aluminum wire has a length of 27.0 m and a resistance of 2.90 n at 20.00C. As
Formation of a DNA loop allows factors that bind to an enhancer or silencer
Pioneer factors