Expert answer:Can u answer my psychology exam w / 2 ESSAY respon

Solved by verified expert:QUESTION 1In the spring of 2003 in a North Shore (upscale) suburb of Chicago, five high school girls were hospitalized (one having a broken ankle and one requiring 10 stitches in her scalp) after an annual hazing event that turned significantly more violent than in years past. The event is ordinarily a touch football game between juniors and seniors. Typically, the juniors expect the game, including their being squirted with catsup and mustard, to be an initiation into their senior year. This time, however, the juniors were forced to eat animal intestines and pelted with feces, among other things. They were slapped, punched, and also hit with empty buckets. Many students watched the event without intervening, even as the juniors cried out for help.As a social psychologist, discuss why the juniors endured the escalating violence and humiliation, focusing on Social Influence? Cite research discussed in class and in your books that relates to the psychological constructs related to your discussion. Use APA style to formulate your answer in a full essay. To get full credit your essay must at least a) discuss at least 2 research articles read in detail and how they relate to this situation b) discuss Conformity and how it relates to the situation c) discuss Obedience and how it relates to the situation d) discuss one aspect of group influence (chp 8) and how it relates to the situation e) use good writting skills including apa style citation and format please! Book is “Social Psychology” Author ” David G. Myers and Jean M.Twenge!! QUESTION 2Create a Meme style (picture with words) advertising campaign (can be more then one) to persuade Appalacian Kentuckians to oppose the Border Wall with Mexico. The advertisement should be designed for a dual audience consisting of both an average intellectual group who will be considering facts & thinking systematically and a lower intelligence, who will make decisions based on emotion and social facilitation. You will need to attach the file of the memes (put the memes in powerpoint so it can go as a collection in one file) to this question and then write about your advertisement in the next question.For those who plan to refuse to answer this question as instructed as it is against your personal politics, As an professional you will be asked in your professions to do things you don’t believe in personally. Advertisers make advertisements for whomever hires them. They don’t get to play favorites. Furthermore, I care not about politics as it has nothing to do with this course. I do care that you know about propoganda and how to successfully implement it. I had to pick something for you to use propoganda on and there was no option that would be an effective exercise and not be against someones personal opinions. QUESTION 3Your advertisement should have been designed for a dual audience consisting of both an average intellectual group who will be considering facts & thinking systematically and those of lower intelligence, who will make decisions based on emotion and social facilitation. Write and essay about how your meme uses good persuasive principles based on social psychology. To get full credit your response needs to include the following :a)central vs peripheral route to persuasion b) aspects of the communicator (I recognise this is hard with a meme but not impossible to discuss)c) six persuasion principles d) one sided vs two sided appeal e) how your persuasion could be used to resist opposition) use good writing and APA style citations if necessary an format ! im uploading 5 filed 1 is ch7-persuasion and the other 4 files are articles u need to pick 2 articles so any 2 is fine but i uoloaded 4 for u to choose from ok !!! Make sure you do not plagiarize. Word for word cutting from the text will receive a zero even if correct.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ch_7___persuasion__1_.pptx

social_pressure___asch___1955.pdf

jonestown___osherow___1988.pdf

obedience___milgram___1963.pdf

deindividuation___rogers___1981.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Mass communication
• “global village”
• Persuasion attempt
– Those who produce TV news influence our opinions by
choosing what is given exposure and how much
• Emotional contagion – rapid transmission of emotion or
beh through a crowd
– copycat suicides & medical attention sought unnecessarily
when drug tampering is reported in the news
• Prima facie (first impression) evidence suggests media
appeals are very effective
– more familiar an item : more attractive
– Children ask 4 toys & food they see ad on TV
– TV ads are the most effective predictor of voting beh
Persuasion
Two routes to persuasion
• Central – People elaborate on a persuasive communication
– weigh arguments, consider facts, think systematically
• Peripheral – little elaboration; instead peripheral cues are
used for persuasion
– simple, often irrelevant cues, like the desirability of the
communicator
• Few appeals use one
route or the other
exclusively
• Different routes
for different purposes
Two routes to persuasion
Key factors in effectiveness of communication
– Source of communication (who says it)
– Nature of communication (how it’s said)
– Characteristics of the audience (to whom it is said)
– The message content (what is said)
Source of communication
• credibility of the communicator – expert &
trustworthy  likely to have impact on beliefs
– Attractiveness or likeability is also crucial
• Credibility 
– argues against their own self-interest
– Audience believes not trying to influence them
• Attractiveness
– associate attractiveness with the desirability of
message
– want to please an attractive communicator by agreeing
– change our opinion readily when communicator is
attractive, but only on trivial matters
Nature of the communication
• Reason vs. emotion
– Some evidence emotional appeal is more effective
• Bush vs dukakis & Willie Horton
– Opinion change varies with diff levels of emotion
• fear inspires behavior change
– Too much lead to denial; high esteem change imediately
– Specific instructions about beh change  beh change
• Statistics vs. personal examples
• One-sided vs. two-sided arguments
• Order of presentation of arguments
– Recency effect – Last argument heard will be eff
– Primacy effect – 1st argument heard will be eff
Audience characteristics
• How old are they?
• What are they thinking?
• In general, > discrepancy between communication &
audience’s original opinion, > opinion change results,
especially if the communicator is credible
– People  self-esteem more easily influenced than are people
with  self-esteem
• > receptive when happy and relaxed
• < receptive if forewarned about attempt to persuade – Reactance can result from overly aggressive attempts to persuade • Inoculation effect - brief comm audience can refute “immunizes” them to subsequent, stronger comm’s – The first communication both motivates us and gives us practice in defending our beliefs The Message Content – Reason versus emotion – Good feelings – Fear Six Persuasion Principles The Elements of Persuasion Do these principles work? • To change someone’s attitudes, we must understand the complexities of human thinking • Human thinking can be, but is not always, logical • Humans are capable of distorting, and being quite sloppy in, our thinking • “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” –Hermann Goering Supplemental Slides Information Campaigns Information Campaigns SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN VOL. 193, NO. 5 NOVEMBER, 1955 Opinions and Social Pressure Exactly what is the effect of the opinions of others on our own? In other words, how strong is the urge toward social conformity? The question is approached by means of some unusual experiments by Solomon E. Aseh T hat social influences shape every has also brought into existence the de­ person's practices, judgments and liberate manipulation of opinion and the will readily assent. A child masters his many good reasons why, as citizens and beliefs is a truism to which anyone "native" dialect down to the finest nuances; a member of a tribe of canni­ bals accepts cannibalism as altogether "engineering of consent." There are as scientists, we should be concerned with studying the ways in which human beings form their opinions and the role fitting and proper. All the social sciences that social conditions play. tion of the profound effects that groups the interest in hypnosis aroused by the take their departure from the observa­ Studies of these questions began with exert on their members. For psycholo­ French physician Jean Martin Charcot individuals raises a host of questions the end of the 19th century. Charcot gists, group pressure upon the minds of they would like to investigate in detail. (a teacher of Sigmund Freud) toward believed that only hysterical patients nosis was but an extreme form of a normal psychological process which be­ came known as "suggestibility." It was shown that monotonous reiteration of in­ structions could induce in normal per­ sons in the waking state involuntary bodily changes such as swaying or rigid­ ity of the arms, and sensations such as warmth and odor. It was not long before social thinkers seized upon these discoveries as a basis for explaining numerous social phe­ nomena, from the spread of opinion to the formation of crowds and the follow­ How, and to what extent, do social could be fully hypnotized, but this view ing of leaders. The sociologist Gabriel attitudes? This question is especially cians, Hyppolyte Bernheim and A. A. "Social man is a somnambulist." forces constrain people's opinions and pertinent in our day. The same epoch that has witnessed the unprecedented technical extension of communication was soon challenged by two other physi­ Li6bault, who demonstrated that they could put most people under the hyp­ notic spell. Bernheim proposed that hyp- Tarde summed it all up in the aphorism: When the new discipline of social psy­ chology was born at the beginning of this century, its first experiments were EXPERIMENT IS REPEATED in the Laboratory of Social Rela· on the next page). Six of the subjects have been coached before­ tions at Harvard University. Seven student subjects are asked by the hand to give unanimously wrong answers. The seventh (sixth from experimenter (right) to compare the length of lines (see diagram the left) has merely been told that it is an experiment in perception. 31 © 1955 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC essentially adaptations of the suggestion pIe submit uncritically and painlessly to followed a simple plan. The subjects, prestige, and that any given idea or value demonstration. The technique generally usually college students, were asked to give their opinions or preferences con­ cerning various matters; some time later Then a second set of cards is exposed; external manipulation by suggestion or again the group is unanimous. The mem­ can be "sold" or "unsold" without refer­ other boring experiment. On the third ence to its merits. We should be skepti­ cal, however, of the supposition that the bers appear ready to endure politely an­ trial there is an unexpected disturbance. One person near the end of the group they were again asked to state their power of social pressure necessarily im­ disagrees with all the others in his selec­ formed of the opinions held by authori­ pendence and the capacity to rise above prised, indeed incredulous, about the choices, but now they were also in­ ties or large groups of their peers on the plies uncritical submission to it: inde­ tion of the matching line. He looks sur­ group passion are also open to human disagreement. On the following trial he Most of these psychological grounds whether it is pos­ unanimous in their choice. The dissenter confronted with opinions contrary to ment of a situation or an object without shifted their judgments in the direction tions about it. same matters. sensus (Often the alleged con­ was fictitious.) studies had substantially the same result: their own, many subjects apparently of the views of the majorities or the ex­ perts. The late psychologist Edward L. Thorndike reported that he had suc­ ceeded in modifying the esthetic prefer­ beings. Further, one may question on sible as a rule to change a person's judg­ first changing his knowledge or assump­ I n what follows I shall describe some experiments in an investigation of the effects of group pressure which was car­ ences of adults by this procedure. Other ried out recently with the help of a num­ evaluations of the merit of a literary demonstrate the operations disagrees again, while the others remain becomes more and more worried and hesitant as the disagreement continues in succeeding trials; he may pause before announcing his answer and speak in a low voice, or he may smile in an em­ barrassed way. Vhat the dissenter does not know is that all the other members of the group were instructed by the experimenter ber of my associates. The tests not only beforehand to give incorrect answers in pressure upon individuals but also illus­ individual who is not a party to this pre­ thors. Apparently the sheer weight of lem and some of the more subtle ques­ experiment. He is placed in a position in opinions, even when no arguments for A group of seven to nine young men, correct answers, he finds himself unex­ classroom for a "psychological experi­ by a unanimous and arbitrary majority psychologists reported that people's passage could be raised or lowered by ascribing the passage to different au­ numbers or authority sufficed to change of group trate a new kind of attack on the prob­ tions that it raises. unanimity at certain points. The single arrangement is the focal subject of our which, while he is actually giving the the opinions themselves were provided. all college students, are assembled in a experiments arouses suspicion. Did the ment" in visual judgment. The experi­ or were the experimental victories scored comparing the lengths of lines. He shows opposed forces: whether vertical black line-the standard whose group of his peers. Also, he must declare studies indicate. There is some reason to card are three vertical lines of various lengths. The subjects are to choose the ity which has also stated its position publicly. theory, were suggestible, and whether on the other card. One of the three reports correctly in order to reduce the providing answers which they thought two are substantially different, the differ­ pect collusion against him. (In only a Now the very ease of success in these subjects actually change their opinions, only on paper? On grounds of common sense, one must question opinions are generally as watery as these wonder whether it was not the investiga­ tors who, in their enthusiasm for a the ostensibly gullible subjects were not good subjects were expected to give. The investigations were guided by cer­ menter informs them that they will be two large white cards. On one is a single length is to be matched. On the other one that is of the same length as the line actually is of the same length; the other ence ranging from three quarters of an inch to an inch and three quarters. pectedly in a minority of one, opposed with respect to a clear and simple fact. Upon him we have brought to bear two the evidence of his senses and the unanimous opinion of a his judgments in public, before a major­ The instructed majority occaSionally possibility that the naive subject will sus­ few cases did the subject actually show suspicion; when this happened, the ex­ The experiment opens uneventfully. periment was stopped and the results for much that is thought and said about the order in which they have been seated in each series, and on 12 of these the opinion. The assumptions are that peo- person chooses the same matching line. tain underlying assumptions, which to­ day are common currency and account the operations of propaganda and public The subjects announce their answers in in the room, and on the first round every were not counted.) There are 18 trials majority responds erroneously. How do people respond to group pres­ sure in this situation? I shall report first the statistical results of a series in which a total of 123 subjects from three institu­ tions of higher learning (folOt including my own, Swarthmore College) were placed in the minority situation de­ scribed above. Two alternatives were open to the subject: he could act independently, re­ pudiating the majority, or he could go along with the majority, repudiating the evidence of his senses. Of the 123 put to 2 SUBJECTS WERE SHOWN two cards. One bore a standard line. The other bore three lines, one of which was the same length as the standard. The subjects were asked to choose this line. 32 © 1955 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC the test, a considerable percentage yielded to the majority. Whereas in ordi­ nary circumstances individuals matching the lines will make mistakes less than 1 per cent of the time, under group pres­ sure the minority subjects swung to ac­ ceptance of the misleading majority's wrong judgments in 36.8 per cent of the selections. Of course individuals differed in re­ sponse. At one extreme, about one quar­ ter of the subjects were completely in­ dependent and never agreed with the erroneous judgments of the majority. At the other extreme, some individuals went with the majority nearly all the time. The performances of individuals in this ex­ periment tend to be highly consistent. Those who strike out on the path of in­ dependence do not, as a rule, succumb to the majority even over an extended series of trials, while those who choose the path of compliance are unable to free themselves as the ordeal is prolonged. The reasons for the startling individu­ al differences have not yet been investi­ gated in detail. At this point we can only report some tentative generaliza­ tions from talks with the subjects, each of whom was interviewed at the end of the experiment. Among the independent individuals were many who held fast be­ cause of staunch confidence in their own judgment. The most significant fact about them was not absence of re­ sponsiveness to the majority but a ca­ pacity to recover from doubt and to re­ establish their equilibrium. Others who acted independently came to believe that the majority was correct in its an­ swers, but they continued their dissent on the simple ground that it was their obligation to call the play as they saw it. Among the extremely yielding persons we found a group who quickly reached the conclusion: "I am wrong, they are right." Others yielded in order "not to spoil your results." Many of the in­ dividuals who went along suspected that the majority were "sheep" following the first responder, or that the majority were victims of an optical illusion; neverthe­ less, these suspicions failed to free them at the moment of decision. More dis­ quieting were the reactions of subjects who construed their difference from the majority as a sign of some general deficiency in themselves, which at all costs they must hide. On this basis they desperately tried to merge with the ma­ jority, not realizing the longer-range consequences yielding to subjects themselves. All underestimated the the frequency with which they conformed. hiCh aspect of the influence of a W majority is more important-the size of the majority or its unanimity? The experiment was modified to examine this EXPERIMENT PROCEEDS as follows. In the top picture the snbject (center) hears rules of experiment for the first time. In the second picture he makes his first judgment of a pair of cards, disagreeing with the unanimous judgment of the others. In the third he leans forward to look at another pair of cards. In the fourth he shows the strain of repeatedly disagreeing with the majority. In the fifth, after 12 pairs of cards have been shown, he explains that "he 12 trials. has to call them as he sees them." This suhject disagreed with the majority on all Seventy.five per cent of experimental subjects agree with the majority in varying degrees. 33 © 1955 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC question. In one series the size of the op­ are moderate, rathei than flagrant. In was almost invariably independent, but sons. The results showed a clear trend. choice of errors. To this extent the sub­ tendency to conform to the majority rose position was varied from one to 15 per­ short, the dissenter largely controls the as soon as he found himself alone, the abruptly. When a subject was confronted with jects broke away from the majority even dicted his answers, he was swayed little: On the other hand, when the dissenter resistance to group pressure in these ex­ grantly different from the standard, the gree on how wrong the majority is. We only a single individual who contra­ while bending to it. he continued to answer independently always chose the line that was more fla­ the opposition was increased to two, the results were of quite a different kind. and correctly in nearly all trials. When pressure became substantial: minority subjects now accepted the wrong an­ swer 13.6 per cent of the time. Under the pressure of a majority of three, the subjects' errors jumped to 31.8 per cent. But further increases in the size of the majority apparently did not increase the weight of the pressure substantially. Clearly the size of the opposition is im­ portant only up to a point. Disturbance of the majority's unanim­ ity had a striking effect. In this experi­ ment the subject was given the support The extremist dissenter produced a re­ markable freeing of the subjects; their errors dropped to only 9 per cent. Furthermore, all the errors were of the moderate variety. We were able to con­ clude that dissent per se increased in­ dependence and moderated the errors that occurred, and that the direction of dissent exerted consistent effects. I n all the foregoing experiments each subject was observed only in a single setting. We now turned to studying the of a truthful partner-either another in­ effects upon a given individual of a arranged agreement among the rest of exposed. The first experiment examined ed to give correct answers throughout. partner. The instructed partner began by dividual who did not know of the pre­ the group, or a person who was instruct­ change in the situation to which he was the consequences of losing or gaining a As might be expected, an individual's periments depends to a considerable de­ varied the discrepancy between the standard line and the other lines system­ aticalJy, with the hope of reaching a point where the error of the majority would be so glaring that every subject would repudiate it and choose inde­ pendently. In this we regretfully did not succeed. Even when the difference be­ tween the lines was seven inches, there were still some who yielded to the error of the majority. The study provides clear answers to a few relatively simple questions, and it raises many others that await investiga­ tion. We would like to know the degree of consistency of persons in situations which differ in content and structure. If consistency of independence or conform­ ity in behavior is show ... Purchase answer to see full attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades