Answer to Question 1
Answer: The experimenter wore the mantle of scientific authority in the original study. It is likely that normative influence operated when participants feared that they would anger, hurt, or disappoint the experimenter when they refused. In a variation of the original study, when two confederates refused to continue (at 150 volts and 210 volts, respectively) despite the experimenter's stern instructions, participants also decided to resist. Informational influence was also operating. Odds are that the experimental situation was novel and confusing to participants, so they relied on the experimenter's behavior to help them define the situation. Because he did not seem concerned about the learner, participants became convinced that they were not doing anything too harmful, so they obeyed. In a variation of the original study, the experimenter did not insist on escalating shocks, and left the room. When a confederate (allegedly a fellow participant) suggested the original procedures, participants refused to administer severe shocks. This suggests that participants were less likely to use a nonexpert to help them define the situation.
Answer to Question 2
Answer: Students' answers should include definition of injunctive norms: people's perceptions of what behaviors are approved or disapproved of by others. A possible example is going to each and every class. Definition of descriptive norms: people's perceptions of how people actually behave in given situations, regardless of whether the behavior is approved or disapproved of by others. A possible example is that many students don't go to early morning classes or classes on Fridays.
Stanley Miller 1953 Experiment
Social grooming in a pair
Inverse Relation Between IQ and Disease. Could this explain the Flynn effect?
Hong Kong is a strange situation. A British colony since 1842, it was handed back to China in 1997 a
Economic and Social Development
Mechanisms to Explain the Effects of Massage