Social psychology accounts for about 9–10% of the CLEP Psychology exam — one of the heaviest topics — split here across two lessons. This lesson covers how we explain other people's behavior and how other people quietly rewrite ours.
Attribution theory describes how we infer the causes of behavior. The central fork: a dispositional (internal) attribution credits the behavior to something inside the person — personality, traits, ability ("he failed because he is lazy"). A situational (external) attribution credits circumstances — the environment, pressure, luck ("he failed because he was sick and the test was unfair").
We are systematically biased. The fundamental attribution error (FAE) is the tendency, when explaining other people's behavior, to overestimate disposition and underestimate the situation — we see the jerk who cut us off, not the driver rushing to a hospital. The actor-observer bias adds the flip side: we attribute our own behavior to the situation (we are the actor, staring at the circumstances) but others' behavior to their disposition (we are the observer, staring at the person). You were late because of traffic; your coworker is late because she is disorganized.
An attitude is an evaluation — a feeling and belief that predisposes a response. Attitudes guide behavior, but the exam-favorite direction is the reverse: behavior shapes attitudes.
Persuasion works through two routes. The central route persuades with the content of the argument — logic and evidence — and works on motivated, attentive audiences. The peripheral route persuades with surface cues — an attractive spokesperson, repetition, a catchy jingle — and works when people are not thinking hard.
The foot-in-the-door phenomenon: people who agree to a small request become more likely to comply with a larger one later, because the small "yes" shifts their self-image ("I am the kind of person who supports this").
Cognitive dissonance theory (Leon Festinger, 1957) is the engine underneath. Dissonance is the uncomfortable tension felt when behavior conflicts with attitudes; the easiest resolution is to change the attitude to match the behavior already performed. In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic study, participants paid $1 to tell a waiting participant that a boring task was fun later rated the task as genuinely more enjoyable than participants paid $20. The $20 group had ample external justification ("I lied for the money") — no dissonance. The $1 group had no good excuse, so the tension resolved internally: "I suppose the task really was interesting." Insufficient justification → attitude follows behavior.
Conformity is adjusting behavior or thinking to match a group standard. Solomon Asch (1951) had participants judge which of three comparison lines matched a standard — a trivially easy task — while surrounded by confederates who unanimously gave the same wrong answer on critical trials. Participants conformed to the obviously wrong group answer on about one-third of critical trials, and roughly 75% conformed at least once.
Two distinct pressures produce conformity:
| Influence type | Why you conform | Signature situation |
|---|---|---|
| Normative | To fit in, be liked, avoid rejection — even while privately disagreeing | Obvious answer, but you cave socially (Asch) |
| Informational | You believe the group may actually be right | Ambiguous situation; others are your evidence |
Mnemonic: Normative = Need to be liked; Informational = Information to be right.
Conformity is matching peers; obedience is following the direct commands of an authority figure. Stanley Milgram (1963) recruited adults for a "learning" study in which a "teacher" administered what he believed were escalating electric shocks — up to 450 volts — to a protesting "learner" (a confederate; no real shocks), while an experimenter calmly prodded, "The experiment requires that you continue." About 65% of participants obeyed fully to 450 volts, nearly all showing visible distress while doing so.
Milgram's variations mapped the conditions. Obedience fell when the experimenter gave orders by telephone (remote authority, 21% full obedience), when the setting lost prestige, when the victim was closer — and fell most (to about 10%) when a fellow "teacher" refused to continue, modeling defiance. The conclusion is situational: ordinary people, under the pressure of legitimate authority, will do extraordinary harm — and changing the situation changes the obedience.
Q1 — B (the fundamental attribution error). - Correct: The driver over-attributes another person's behavior to disposition ("selfish person") while ignoring a plausible situational cause — the definition of the FAE. - A) Dissonance is tension between one's own attitude and behavior; no such conflict here. C) Informational influence is conforming because others may be right. D) Foot-in-the-door involves escalating requests. E) No authority figure issues any command. - Fix rule: Over-blaming another person's character while ignoring their situation = FAE.
Q2 — B (locates the cause in stable personal traits). - Correct: A dispositional attribution places the cause inside the person — traits, character, ability — and "disorganized" is a trait claim. - A) and D) describe situational attributions (external circumstances, task demands). C) Luck is also an external, situational cause. E) Social pressure is an external cause, the opposite of dispositional. - Fix rule: Cause inside the person = dispositional; cause in the circumstances = situational.
Q3 — A (one-third). - Correct: Asch's participants conformed to the obviously wrong group answer on about 33% of critical trials. - B) and C) inflate the rate — most trials produced independent answers. D) Nine-tenths confuses conformity with near-total compliance. E) "Virtually none" understates it — about 75% conformed at least once. - Fix rule: Asch ≈ 33% of critical trials; Milgram ≈ 65% full obedience — keep the two numbers separate.
Q4 — C (the foot-in-the-door phenomenon). - Correct: Agreeing to a small request (petition) raised compliance with a later larger request (yard sign) — the signature foot-in-the-door pattern. - A) Dissonance is the underlying tension mechanism, but the compliance pattern itself is named foot-in-the-door. B) Actor-observer bias concerns attributions, not requests. D) No ambiguity or informational need is involved. E) No authority commands the residents. - Fix rule: Small yes first → bigger yes later = foot-in-the-door.
Q5 — D (insufficient justification; attitude changed to match behavior). - Correct: With only $1, participants had no adequate external excuse for lying, so they reduced the dissonance internally by deciding the task really was enjoyable. - A) Reinforcement logic predicts the opposite result ($20 > $1), which is exactly why the study is famous. B) No peripheral persuasion cues were involved. C) Reversed — the $20 group had justification and thus less dissonance. E) The FAE is about explaining others' behavior, irrelevant here. - Fix rule: Small incentive → no external excuse → attitude shifts to fit the behavior (dissonance).
Q6 — B (obedience to authority). - Correct: Following the direct commands of an authority figure — the lab-coated experimenter — defines obedience, Milgram's paradigm. - A) Conformity is matching peers, and no peer pressure operates here. C) Informational influence involves using others to define an ambiguous reality. D) Dissonance may follow, but the behavior itself is commanded compliance. E) No attribution about actors and observers is being made. - Fix rule: A command from an authority figure = obedience; matching peers = conformity.
Q7 — A (normative social influence). - Correct: Priya privately disagrees but publicly matches the group to avoid standing out — conformity for social acceptance, the definition of normative influence. - B) Informational influence would require her to believe the friends are actually right about the restaurant; she does not. C) No authority commands her. D) Dissonance is internal attitude-behavior tension, not the motive named here. E) No attribution about another's behavior occurs. - Fix rule: Conforming to belong while privately disagreeing = normative influence.
Q8 — C (informational social influence). - Correct: In a genuinely ambiguous situation, she uses others' behavior as information about what is correct — informational influence. Asch's task, by contrast, was obvious, making that conformity normative. - A) Fear of rejection is not the driver; ignorance of the customs is. B) The guests give no orders. D) No attitude-behavior conflict exists. E) No escalating-request sequence occurs. - Fix rule: Ambiguous situation + copying others as evidence = informational; obvious answer + social pressure = normative.
Q9 — E (the actor-observer bias). - Correct: Situation for her own behavior (traffic), disposition for the colleague's (careless) — the actor-observer asymmetry. - A) No attitude-behavior tension exists. B) No group pressure operates. C) No request sequence occurs. D) No ambiguity resolution through others is involved. - Fix rule: My behavior = the situation; your behavior = your disposition = actor-observer bias.
Q10 — D (flawed; situational pressure, not cruel character, drove obedience). - Correct: Milgram's participants were ordinary adults who obeyed while sweating, trembling, and protesting — evidence that legitimate authority and the situation, not sadism, produced the behavior. - A) False premise — distress was nearly universal. B) Participants were ordinary paid volunteers, not a sadistic sample. C) False — about 65% went to the maximum. E) False — participants believed the shocks were real, which is what made the study ethically fraught. - Fix rule: Milgram's lesson = situations and authority, not evil personalities, drive obedience.
Q11 — C (behavior can shape attitudes, just as attitudes shape behavior). - Correct: Both phenomena show actions leading attitude change — a small compliance shifts self-image (foot-in-the-door), and performed behavior pulls attitudes into line (dissonance). - A) Both literatures document adult attitude change. B) States exactly the direction these studies overturn. D) Neither phenomenon requires authority. E) Dissonance-driven change bypasses logical argument entirely. - Fix rule: Attitudes and behavior form a two-way street; dissonance and foot-in-the-door are the behavior-to-attitude lane.
Q12 — E (obedience declines with less immediate authority and modeled defiance). - Correct: Telephoned orders (21%) show reduced authority immediacy lowers obedience; the defiant peer (10%) shows modeled disobedience lowers it further — both directly supported by the data. - A) The large swings across conditions contradict a character explanation. B) Reverses the direction — telephone orders decreased obedience. C) The peer condition produced the largest drop, a clear effect. D) Setting prestige is not even represented in these two variations. - Fix rule: Weaken the authority's presence or show one rebel → obedience drops; situations move the number.
Q1 — B (the fundamental attribution error). - Correct: The driver over-attributes another person's behavior to disposition ("selfish person") while ignoring a plausible situational cause — the definition of the FAE. - A) Dissonance is tension between one's own attitude and behavior; no such conflict here. C) Informational influence is conforming because others may be right. D) Foot-in-the-door involves escalating requests. E) No authority figure issues any command. - Fix rule: Over-blaming another person's character while ignoring their situation = FAE.
Q2 — B (locates the cause in stable personal traits). - Correct: A dispositional attribution places the cause inside the person — traits, character, ability — and "disorganized" is a trait claim. - A) and D) describe situational attributions (external circumstances, task demands). C) Luck is also an external, situational cause. E) Social pressure is an external cause, the opposite of dispositional. - Fix rule: Cause inside the person = dispositional; cause in the circumstances = situational.
Q3 — A (one-third). - Correct: Asch's participants conformed to the obviously wrong group answer on about 33% of critical trials. - B) and C) inflate the rate — most trials produced independent answers. D) Nine-tenths confuses conformity with near-total compliance. E) "Virtually none" understates it — about 75% conformed at least once. - Fix rule: Asch ≈ 33% of critical trials; Milgram ≈ 65% full obedience — keep the two numbers separate.
Q4 — C (the foot-in-the-door phenomenon). - Correct: Agreeing to a small request (petition) raised compliance with a later larger request (yard sign) — the signature foot-in-the-door pattern. - A) Dissonance is the underlying tension mechanism, but the compliance pattern itself is named foot-in-the-door. B) Actor-observer bias concerns attributions, not requests. D) No ambiguity or informational need is involved. E) No authority commands the residents. - Fix rule: Small yes first → bigger yes later = foot-in-the-door.
Q5 — D (insufficient justification; attitude changed to match behavior). - Correct: With only $1, participants had no adequate external excuse for lying, so they reduced the dissonance internally by deciding the task really was enjoyable. - A) Reinforcement logic predicts the opposite result ($20 > $1), which is exactly why the study is famous. B) No peripheral persuasion cues were involved. C) Reversed — the $20 group had justification and thus less dissonance. E) The FAE is about explaining others' behavior, irrelevant here. - Fix rule: Small incentive → no external excuse → attitude shifts to fit the behavior (dissonance).
Q6 — B (obedience to authority). - Correct: Following the direct commands of an authority figure — the lab-coated experimenter — defines obedience, Milgram's paradigm. - A) Conformity is matching peers, and no peer pressure operates here. C) Informational influence involves using others to define an ambiguous reality. D) Dissonance may follow, but the behavior itself is commanded compliance. E) No attribution about actors and observers is being made. - Fix rule: A command from an authority figure = obedience; matching peers = conformity.
Q7 — A (normative social influence). - Correct: Priya privately disagrees but publicly matches the group to avoid standing out — conformity for social acceptance, the definition of normative influence. - B) Informational influence would require her to believe the friends are actually right about the restaurant; she does not. C) No authority commands her. D) Dissonance is internal attitude-behavior tension, not the motive named here. E) No attribution about another's behavior occurs. - Fix rule: Conforming to belong while privately disagreeing = normative influence.
Q8 — C (informational social influence). - Correct: In a genuinely ambiguous situation, she uses others' behavior as information about what is correct — informational influence. Asch's task, by contrast, was obvious, making that conformity normative. - A) Fear of rejection is not the driver; ignorance of the customs is. B) The guests give no orders. D) No attitude-behavior conflict exists. E) No escalating-request sequence occurs. - Fix rule: Ambiguous situation + copying others as evidence = informational; obvious answer + social pressure = normative.
Q9 — E (the actor-observer bias). - Correct: Situation for her own behavior (traffic), disposition for the colleague's (careless) — the actor-observer asymmetry. - A) No attitude-behavior tension exists. B) No group pressure operates. C) No request sequence occurs. D) No ambiguity resolution through others is involved. - Fix rule: My behavior = the situation; your behavior = your disposition = actor-observer bias.
Q10 — D (flawed; situational pressure, not cruel character, drove obedience). - Correct: Milgram's participants were ordinary adults who obeyed while sweating, trembling, and protesting — evidence that legitimate authority and the situation, not sadism, produced the behavior. - A) False premise — distress was nearly universal. B) Participants were ordinary paid volunteers, not a sadistic sample. C) False — about 65% went to the maximum. E) False — participants believed the shocks were real, which is what made the study ethically fraught. - Fix rule: Milgram's lesson = situations and authority, not evil personalities, drive obedience.
Q11 — C (behavior can shape attitudes, just as attitudes shape behavior). - Correct: Both phenomena show actions leading attitude change — a small compliance shifts self-image (foot-in-the-door), and performed behavior pulls attitudes into line (dissonance). - A) Both literatures document adult attitude change. B) States exactly the direction these studies overturn. D) Neither phenomenon requires authority. E) Dissonance-driven change bypasses logical argument entirely. - Fix rule: Attitudes and behavior form a two-way street; dissonance and foot-in-the-door are the behavior-to-attitude lane.
Q12 — E (obedience declines with less immediate authority and modeled defiance). - Correct: Telephoned orders (21%) show reduced authority immediacy lowers obedience; the defiant peer (10%) shows modeled disobedience lowers it further — both directly supported by the data. - A) The large swings across conditions contradict a character explanation. B) Reverses the direction — telephone orders decreased obedience. C) The peer condition produced the largest drop, a clear effect. D) Setting prestige is not even represented in these two variations. - Fix rule: Weaken the authority's presence or show one rebel → obedience drops; situations move the number.