# Social Psychology

Psychology I · History of Psychology · https://tryals.app/learn/psychology-i/social-psychology

## Foundations & Landmark Studies

**Social Psychology** explores how people are influenced by others, rooted in **Kurt Lewin**'s formula that behavior is a function of the person and their environment ($B = f(P, E)$). Emerging post-WWII to explain mass compliance, three landmark studies defined the field:

| Study | Researcher & Year | Key Finding |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Conformity** | Asch (1951) | ~37% conformed to obviously wrong group answers |
| **Obedience** | Milgram (1961-63) | ~65% delivered max shocks under authority |
| **Prison Roles** | Zimbardo (1971) | Stopped at 6 of 14 days due to severe stress |

These classic experiments drove the creation of modern **research ethics**, establishing mandatory informed consent, the right to withdraw, and independent ethical review boards.

## Interpreting the Power of Situations

$$\text{Obedience rate} \approx 0.65 \text{ (baseline)}$$

This formula summarizes Milgram's baseline finding where $0.65$ represents the fraction of participants obeying commands up to the maximum danger level.

> **Common pitfall:** concluding that "anyone would do anything under pressure." The precise lesson is that SITUATIONAL factors—such as legitimate authority and gradual escalation—reliably sway behavior far more than we predict, not that individual conscience entirely disappears.

## Practice questions

6 of this lesson's 10 practice questions, with answers. The full set is in the app.

### 1. Milgram's participants obeyed at high rates, and Zimbardo's guards became abusive within days. The popular lesson is that anyone would do the same in the right situation. Why is that reading too strong, and what remains?

A. Because a third refused, and obedience collapsed when varied.
B. Because the studies were unethical, which means their findings cannot be used at all.
C. Because personality turned out to be the dominant factor after all, with situational effects being small.
D. Because both studies failed to replicate, so their results should be treated as artefacts.

**Answer:** A. Because a third refused, and obedience collapsed when varied.

**Why:** The famous figure is 65%, and the sentence usually stops there, 35% refused under the same pressure, and obedience fell sharply in every variation Milgram ran. A situation you can dial up and down is exerting influence, not control. The real discovery is the gap: psychiatrists had predicted a fraction of one per cent.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/psychology-i/social-psychology/milgrams-participants-obeyed-at-high-rates-and-zimbardos-guards

### 2. Asch, Milgram and Zimbardo are usually taught together though they studied different things. What do the three findings share?

A. Each studied conformity to a unanimous majority
B. Each demonstrates that people are fundamentally obedient by nature
C. Each shows the situation outweighing character
D. Each was later shown to be fraudulent

**Answer:** C. Each shows the situation outweighing character

**Why:** Situationism is the common thread, and the standing challenge to explaining behaviour by disposition. It is also why all three are now discussed alongside their ethical and methodological problems.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/psychology-i/social-psychology/asch-milgram-and-zimbardo-are-usually-taught-together-though-they

### 3. In Asch's line studies conformity ran around 37%, and adding a **single** confederate who gave the correct answer cut it dramatically. Why does one ally matter so much?

A. Because what the participant faces is unanimity, not size
B. Because the participant recognises the ally as a fellow genuine participant
C. Because two people are statistically more likely to be right than one
D. Because the ally reduces the group below the threshold at which conformity operates

**Answer:** A. Because what the participant faces is unanimity, not size

**Why:** Unanimity is doing the work, not headcount. Asch found conformity barely rose past a majority of three or four, and collapsed when one person broke ranks. The practical reading is uncomfortable and useful: being the first to object is far harder than being the second.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/psychology-i/social-psychology/in-aschs-line-studies-conformity-ran-around-37-and-adding-a-single

### 4. Select every statement that is TRUE about the classic social psychology studies.

A. The studies drove reforms in research ethics.
B. Zimbardo's study ran its full planned two weeks.
C. Situational factors influence behavior more than people predict in advance.
D. About 65% obeyed to the maximum in Milgram's baseline study.
E. Asch found near-total conformity on almost every critical trial.

**Answer:** A. The studies drove reforms in research ethics.; C. Situational factors influence behavior more than people predict in advance.; D. About 65% obeyed to the maximum in Milgram's baseline study.

**Why:** Milgram's 65%, the ethics reforms, and the power of situational factors are all true. Asch found about 37% conformity (not near-total), and Zimbardo's study was halted after 6 of 14 planned days - so those two are false.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/psychology-i/social-psychology/select-every-statement-that-is-true-about-the-classic-social

### 5. The more precise lesson of Milgram and Zimbardo is that situational factors influence behavior far more than most people predict in advance, not that resistance is impossible.

**Answer:** True

**Why:** True. The careful conclusion is that people systematically underestimate how much situations (authority, roles, escalation) shape behavior - not that individual resistance is impossible. This is the corrected reading of these famous studies.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/psychology-i/social-psychology/the-more-precise-lesson-of-milgram-and-zimbardo-is-that-situational

### 6. Match each concrete detail to the study or its consequence.

**Answer:**

- Unanimous confederates gave a wrong line judgment → Asch's conformity study
- An experimenter urged delivering ever stronger shocks → Milgram's obedience study
- Randomly assigned guards turned authoritarian → Zimbardo's prison study
- Distress to participants spurred informed-consent rules → Research ethics reform

**Why:** Wrong line judgments are Asch, escalating shocks are Milgram, authoritarian guards are Zimbardo, and the ethics reforms followed from the distress these studies caused. Each detail maps to one study or its downstream consequence.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/psychology-i/social-psychology/match-each-concrete-detail-to-the-study-or-its-consequence