1. What is dispositionism and situationism?
2. What is the actor observer bias?
3. What is self -serving bias?
4. What is cognitive dissonance? How do you correct this?
5. What is conformity? Define an experiment that illustrates conformity.
6. What is the fundamental attribution error?
7. What is the just world hypothesis?
8. What is the bystander effect?
9. Describe an experiment that illustrates obedience to authority.
10. What is group think?
11. What is social loafing?
12. What is the foot in the door effect?
13. Compare and contrast situational influences and dispositional influences and give an example of each. Explain how situational influences and dispositional influences might explain inappropriate behavior.
14. Give an example (one not used in class or your text) of cognitive dissonance and how an individual might resolve this.
15. Describe how seeking outside opinions can prevent groupthink.
16. Provide a personal example of an experience in which your behavior was influenced by the power of the situation.
17. Conduct a conformity study the next time you are in an elevator. After you enter the elevator, stand with your back toward the door. See if others conform to your behavior. Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDAbdMv14Is for a candid camera demonstration of this phenomenon. Did your results turn out as expected?
18. Most students adamantly state that they would never have turned up the voltage in the Milligram experiment. Do you think you would have refused to shock the learner? Looking at your own past behavior, what evidence suggests that you would go along with the order to increase the voltage?
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Dispositionism and situationism are contrasting theories in social psychology. Dispositionism suggests that people’s behavior is primarily determined by their internal dispositions, such as personality traits or innate characteristics. It emphasizes the role of individual differences in explaining behavior. On the other hand, situationism posits that external situational factors have a stronger influence on behavior than internal dispositions. It argues that context and environmental factors play a significant role in shaping behavior.
The actor-observer bias refers to the tendency for individuals to attribute their own behavior to situational factors, while attributing others’ behavior to dispositional factors. Essentially, people tend to explain their own actions based on external circumstances, but attribute the actions of others to personal characteristics or traits. For example, if someone fails an exam, they may attribute it to the difficulty of the test (situational), but if another person fails, they may attribute it to their lack of intelligence (dispositional).
The self-serving bias is a cognitive bias where individuals attribute their successes to internal factors (dispositional), while attributing their failures to external factors (situational). It is a way of protecting one’s self-esteem and maintaining a positive self-image. For example, if someone receives a promotion at work, they may attribute it to their hard work and skills (internal), but if they fail to get the promotion, they may attribute it to unfair competition or biased decision-making (external).
Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological discomfort experienced when there is a conflict between one’s beliefs or attitudes and their behaviors. When individuals experience cognitive dissonance, they are motivated to reduce this discomfort by either changing their beliefs or justifying their behavior. One way to correct cognitive dissonance is through attitude change or behavior modification. For example, if someone believes smoking is harmful to health but continues to smoke, they may either change their belief about the harms of smoking or quit smoking to align their behavior with their belief.
Conformity refers to the tendency of individuals to adjust their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to match those of a majority group or social norms. An experiment that illustrates conformity is Asch’s line judgment study. Participants are shown a line and are asked to match it with the correct line out of a set of comparison lines. However, unbeknownst to the participant, all other participants in the study are confederates who purposely give incorrect answers. The study found that participants often conformed to the incorrect answers provided by the confederates, even when it was clear that they were wrong.
The fundamental attribution error is the tendency for observers to attribute others’ behavior to dispositional factors rather than considering situational factors. It involves overemphasizing personal characteristics and underemphasizing external influences when explaining the behavior of others. For example, if someone sees a person being rude to a waiter, they may conclude that the person is inherently rude rather than considering that they may be having a bad day or facing other situational stressors.
The just world hypothesis is the belief that individuals get what they deserve and deserve what they get. It suggests that people have a natural inclination to believe that the world is fair and that good actions are rewarded while bad actions are punished. This belief can lead individuals to make attributions that justify inequalities or hardships faced by others, such as blaming victims for their misfortunes.
The bystander effect refers to the phenomenon where individuals are less likely to offer help or intervene in an emergency situation when there are other people present compared to when they are alone. This diffusion of responsibility occurs because each individual assumes that someone else will take action, leading to a collective inaction or delayed response.
An experiment that illustrates obedience to authority is Stanley Milgram’s obedience study. Participants were instructed by an authority figure (the experimenter) to administer electric shocks to another person (a confederate) whenever they answered questions incorrectly. The shocks were not real, but the participant was unaware of this fact. The study found that a significant percentage of participants continued to administer shocks even when they believed it was causing harm to the confederate, demonstrating obedience to authority.
Groupthink refers to a phenomenon in which a group’s desire for harmony and conformity results in irrational decision-making or the suppression of dissenting opinions. In groupthink, group members prioritize agreement and cohesion over critical thinking and consideration of alternative perspectives, which can lead to flawed decisions.
Social loafing occurs when individuals exert less effort or contribution in a group task compared to when they work individually. This phenomenon arises due to diffusion of responsibility within the group, as individuals believe that their efforts will be less noticeable or necessary when working alongside others.
The foot-in-the-door effect is a persuasion technique where compliance with a small request increases the likelihood of compliance with a larger request later on. By getting individuals to agree to a small initial request, it creates a sense of commitment and makes it more difficult for them to refuse subsequent larger requests.
Situational influences refer to external factors such as social norms, environmental conditions, or situational pressures that impact an individual’s behavior. Dispositional influences, on the other hand, refer to internal factors such as personality traits or innate characteristics that influence behavior. For example, if someone engages in inappropriate behavior at a party, situational influences could include peer pressure or alcohol consumption, while dispositional influences could include impulsivity or low self-control.
An example of cognitive dissonance could be someone who strongly believes in environmental conservation but regularly uses single-use plastic bags due to convenience. To resolve this dissonance, the individual may start using reusable bags instead or convince themselves that their overall efforts in other areas of conservation compensate for their use of plastic bags.
Seeking outside opinions can prevent groupthink by introducing diverse perspectives and challenging group consensus. By actively seeking input from external sources or consulting experts outside of the immediate group, it broadens the range of information and perspectives available for decision-making, reducing the risk of groupthink.
A personal example of being influenced by the power of the situation might be attending a lively sports event where everyone around me is passionately cheering for our team. In this situation, I may find myself joining in with the excitement and cheering even if I am not typically a fan of sports or invested in the outcome of the game.
Conducting a conformity study in an elevator could involve standing facing away from the elevator doors and observing whether others conform and also face away from the doors. After entering the elevator, if others start facing away as well, it would indicate conformity to my behavior. However, it is important to note that this experiment should be conducted with ethical considerations and respect for personal space.
Whether one would refuse to shock the learner in the Milgram experiment depends on various factors such as individual moral values, personal beliefs about obedience and authority, empathy levels, and situational influences at the time of the experiment. Looking at past behavior may provide evidence of conformity or obedience tendencies in similar situations where authority figures were involved. However, it is crucial to remember that each individual’s response can vary based on personal experiences and contextual factors present at the time of decision-making.
