Social thought and Social Behaviour

The experimenter was an actor playing authority figure; 65% obeyed till 450 volts

Step 1: In Milgram's experiment, three roles existed – the Teacher (real participant), the Learner (confederate strapped to electric chair), and the Experimenter (an actor representing authority). Step 2: The experimenter gave four escalating orders when the teacher (participant) was reluctant – from 'Please continue' to 'You have no other choice but to continue.' Step 3: The key result: 65% of participants (teachers) continued to the maximum level of 450 volts. ALL participants administered shocks up to 300 volts. Step 4: Option A has wrong percentage (75% is Asch's result). Option C confuses

Storming stage

Step 1: Group formation goes through five stages: Forming → Storming → Norming → Performing → Adjourning. Step 2: Forming stage = initial meeting, excitement, and apprehensions about how the group will work. Step 3: Storming stage = conflicts arise about leadership, resource control, and the path to achieve goals. Dissidents leave and only like-minded members remain. Step 4: Norming stage = group develops accepted norms of behaviour. Step 5: Performing stage = group actively works toward its goals. The question asks about conflict over leadership and authority, which clearly matches the Stormi

A person who was once bitten by a dog fears all dogs and only notices threatening behaviour in dogs, ignoring their playful actions

Step 1: Automatic vigilance bias is the tendency to automatically and disproportionately attend to NEGATIVE components of a stimulus, ignoring positive or neutral aspects. Step 2: In Option B, the person had a threatening experience (dog bite) and now only notices the negative aspects (threatening behaviour) of dogs, completely ignoring positive ones (playful actions). This is a perfect example of automatic vigilance bias. Step 3: Option A describes false consensus bias (overestimating agreement). Step 4: Option C describes upward counterfactual thinking (imagining better alternative outcomes)

Compliance = appearing to agree publicly but privately disagreeing; Identification = being influenced by someone liked and respected

Step 1: Herbert Kelman (1958) identified three varieties of social influence. Step 2: COMPLIANCE = People appear to publicly agree with others but secretly maintain their own dissenting private opinion. They go along to avoid conflict, not out of genuine agreement. Step 3: IDENTIFICATION = People are influenced by someone who is liked, admired, or respected – like a celebrity endorsing a product. Step 4: INTERNALIZATION = People genuinely accept beliefs both privately AND publicly. They truly agree and internalise the belief. Step 5: Options A, C, and D mix up or reverse these definitions. Onl