MCAT - Psych/Social Foundations:: Social Psychology

Attribution theory, an important general framework in social psychology concerned with how people explain the causes of behavior (their own behavior, and that of others), distinguishes between dispositional (internal) attributions and situational (external) attributions; a dispositional attribution specifically explains a given behavior as resulting from:

- **A)** Something about the ACTOR themselves - their own particular personal traits, characteristic disposition, ability, or internal motivation/intention - rather than from any external factor or circumstance
- **B)** Some external factor or circumstance in the surrounding environment/situation, a description that instead corresponds to a situational attribution, rather than accurately describing the genuinely distinct dispositional-attribution concept itself
- **C)** A concept that has no meaningful, describable relationship whatsoever to any specific cause or explanation of any observed behavior
- **D)** Only ever apply to explaining another different person's own behavior, with no meaningful, describable applicability whatsoever to explaining one's own personal behavior

The fundamental attribution error, an important and well-documented general bias in social judgment/attribution, describes people's general tendency to:

- **A)** Consistently overestimate the influence of SITUATIONAL factors and consistently underestimate the influence of DISPOSITIONAL factors when explaining OTHER people's behavior, the general opposite of the fundamental attribution error's own actual, well-documented core defining tendency
- **B)** Apply this same particular attributional bias equally and identically to both explaining other people's behavior AND explaining one's own personal behavior, with no meaningful, describable asymmetry or difference whatsoever between the two, directly contradicting the well-documented actor-observer asymmetry discussed further below
- **C)** Consistently OVERESTIMATE the influence of DISPOSITIONAL (personality/trait-based) factors and consistently UNDERESTIMATE the influence of SITUATIONAL (external/circumstantial) factors when explaining OTHER people's behavior in particular - for example, observing someone else trip and fall, and quickly assuming that person must simply be generally clumsy/careless (a dispositional attribution), rather than considering that a specific situational factor (such as an unusually slippery or uneven walking surface) might actually have been the true primary cause of that same observed behavior
- **D)** A bias that has no meaningful, describable relationship whatsoever to how people actually explain other people's observed behavior of any kind

The actor-observer asymmetry (bias), a related and important refinement/qualification to the fundamental attribution error discussed above, describes how people tend to show a notably different attributional pattern when explaining their OWN behavior compared to when explaining another person's (an 'observer's') behavior; specifically, people tend to:

- **A)** Apply exactly, precisely identical dispositional attributions to both their own personal behavior and another different person's behavior, with no meaningful, describable asymmetry or difference whatsoever, directly contradicting the actor-observer asymmetry's own actual, well-documented core defining premise, which specifically requires a meaningful asymmetry/difference between these two
- **B)** Consistently attribute their own personal behavior primarily to their own general dispositional traits, while instead attributing another different person's behavior primarily to situational factors, the general reverse of the actor-observer asymmetry's own actual, well-documented pattern
- **C)** A phenomenon that has no meaningful, describable relationship whatsoever to explaining either their own personal behavior or another different person's behavior
- **D)** Attribute their OWN personal behavior somewhat MORE to situational factors (e.g., 'I was late because traffic was terrible today'), while instead attributing ANOTHER different person's behavior somewhat MORE to dispositional factors (e.g., 'they were late because they're generally irresponsible/inconsiderate') - this asymmetric attributional pattern is thought to reflect, at least in part, that a person generally has much greater direct, first-hand awareness of their own particular immediate situational circumstances/constraints (making situational factors more cognitively salient/available to them when explaining their own behavior) than they typically have regarding another different person's own particular situational circumstances/constraints (making that other person's more stable, presumed general dispositional traits comparatively more cognitively salient/available instead)

The self-serving bias, another important and well-documented general attributional bias related to (but conceptually distinct from) the fundamental attribution error and actor-observer asymmetry discussed above, describes people's general tendency to:

- **A)** Consistently attribute their own personal SUCCESSES to external situational factors (such as luck), while instead attributing their own personal FAILURES to internal dispositional factors (such as their own personal lack of ability), the general reverse of the self-serving bias's own actual, well-documented core defining pattern
- **B)** Attribute their own personal SUCCESSES to internal, dispositional factors (such as their own personal skill, effort, or ability), while instead attributing their own personal FAILURES to external, situational factors (such as bad luck, an unfair/rigged situation, or some other external circumstance genuinely beyond their own personal control) - this particular attributional pattern is thought to serve an important underlying self-protective/self-esteem-maintaining psychological function, helping a person maintain a generally favorable, positive overall self-image/self-concept even in the face of an occasional genuine personal failure or setback
- **C)** A bias that has no meaningful, describable relationship whatsoever to explaining a person's own personal successes or failures of any kind
- **D)** Apply this particular attributional bias only and exclusively to explaining another different person's successes and failures, with absolutely no meaningful, describable applicability whatsoever to explaining a person's own personal successes and failures, directly contradicting the self-serving bias's own actual, well-established core defining focus on self-related (rather than other-related) attributions

Attitudes, an important general concept in social psychology, are generally understood to comprise three interrelated components, often summarized via the 'ABC' model of attitudes; these three components are:

- **A)** Only a single, solitary unified overall attitude component, with no further meaningful sub-division into any additional distinct components whatsoever, directly contradicting the ABC model's own actual, well-established three-component structure/premise
- **B)** Action, behavior, and cognition specifically, with no meaningful, describable relationship whatsoever to emotion or feeling of any kind, an inaccurate characterization of the ABC model's actual specific component structure
- **C)** Affect (the emotional/feeling component of an attitude - how a person FEELS about a given attitude object), Behavior (the actual, observable behavioral tendency/intention associated with that same attitude - how a person tends to actually ACT toward that given attitude object), and Cognition (the specific beliefs/thoughts a person holds about that same attitude object) - these three components are generally understood to interact with and mutually influence one another, though they are not always perfectly, precisely consistent with one another in every single case (e.g., a person might hold a generally positive cognitive belief about a given behavior, like regular exercise, while nonetheless still not actually consistently engaging in that same behavior themselves)
- **D)** A model that has no meaningful, describable relationship whatsoever to affect, behavior, or cognition of any kind

Conformity, an important social psychological phenomenon describing the tendency to adjust one's own behavior or beliefs to match those of a broader surrounding group, was classically and famously demonstrated by Solomon Asch's influential line-judgment experiments, which found that:

- **A)** A substantial proportion of participants conformed to an obviously, objectively INCORRECT group consensus answer (given by several confederates who were secretly working with/instructed by the experimenter) on a simple, unambiguous visual perception task (judging the relative length of several presented lines) at least some of the time, even though the objectively correct answer was, in fact, quite clear and unambiguous when that same participant was instead tested completely alone, without any group influence present at all - this classic, historically foundational demonstration illustrated the surprisingly powerful general influence that group social pressure can exert on individual judgment, even for objectively simple, unambiguous, and easily verifiable tasks/questions
- **B)** Essentially no participants at all ever conformed to an incorrect group consensus answer under any circumstances whatsoever, directly and completely contradicting Asch's own actual, well-documented, and highly influential core experimental findings
- **C)** Conformity effects were found to occur only for genuinely complex, ambiguous, and difficult-to-judge tasks specifically, with no meaningful conformity effect whatsoever observed for simple, unambiguous, and easily verifiable tasks, directly contradicting Asch's own specific experimental task design and findings, which specifically used a simple, unambiguous line-judgment task
- **D)** Conformity effects were found to have no meaningful, describable relationship whatsoever to the presence of any surrounding group or any group social pressure of any kind

Milgram's classic (and today considered ethically quite controversial) obedience experiments, in which participants were instructed by an authority figure (the experimenter) to administer what they believed were increasingly painful, and potentially even dangerous/lethal, electric shocks to another person (actually a confederate, who was not genuinely being shocked at all), found that:

- **A)** Essentially no participants at all were willing to continue administering shocks once those shocks reached even a modest, relatively mild intensity level, directly and completely contradicting Milgram's own actual, well-documented, and highly influential core experimental findings
- **B)** A surprisingly, and quite disturbingly, substantial proportion of participants continued administering shocks all the way up to the maximum available shock intensity level, specifically when directly instructed/encouraged to do so by the experimenter (an authority figure), despite the shock-receiving confederate's own increasingly desperate vocal protests and pleas to stop - this striking, historically foundational, and enormously influential finding demonstrated the surprisingly powerful general influence that a legitimate authority figure's direct instructions can exert on individual behavior, even when that same instructed behavior appears to directly conflict with a person's own deeply-held personal moral conscience/values
- **C)** Obedience rates were found to be entirely and completely unaffected by the specific presence or absence of any authority figure whatsoever, directly contradicting the entire basic underlying core premise and design of Milgram's own actual obedience-to-authority experimental paradigm
- **D)** A phenomenon that has no meaningful, describable relationship whatsoever to obedience, authority, or any instructed behavior of any kind

Groupthink, an important and well-documented phenomenon in the study of group decision-making, refers to a mode of thinking that can occur within highly cohesive decision-making groups when:

- **A)** Group members actively, deliberately, and quite vigorously seek out and thoroughly consider a wide diversity of alternative perspectives and dissenting viewpoints before reaching a final group decision, the general opposite of groupthink's own actual, well-documented core defining tendency/premise
- **B)** A group is deliberately and specifically composed of individuals holding quite widely differing, genuinely diverse initial viewpoints and perspectives, rather than being a highly cohesive group already sharing considerable initial similarity/agreement, a characterization that runs counter to the typical group composition/context in which groupthink is generally observed to occur
- **C)** A phenomenon that has no meaningful, describable relationship whatsoever to group cohesiveness, group decision-making, or any dissenting viewpoint of any kind
- **D)** The desire for group harmony/cohesiveness and consensus becomes so strong that it overrides a realistic, genuinely thorough, and objectively critical appraisal of alternative viewpoints/courses of action - groupthink can lead to poor-quality, ultimately flawed group decision-making, since dissenting viewpoints tend to be actively (if often only implicitly/informally) suppressed or self-censored by individual group members specifically in order to help maintain that same valued group harmony/cohesiveness, rather than those same potentially valuable dissenting viewpoints instead being openly voiced, thoroughly considered, and genuinely critically evaluated by the full group before a final decision is actually reached