- Joined
- Apr 25, 2011
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 9
So I'm a little confused about a question from this passage:
"...When we look a little closer, we see an inconsistency in the way our society seems to feel about conformity (team playing) and nonconformity (deviance). For example, one of the best sellers of the 1950s was a book by John F. Kennedy called Profiles in Courage, wherein the author praised several politicians for their courage in resisting great pressure and refusing to conform. To put it another way, Kennedy was praising people who refused to be good team players, people who refused to vote or act as their parties or constituents expected them to. Although their actions earned Kennedy's praise long after the deeds were done, the immediate reactions of their colleagues were generally far from positive. Nonconformists may be praised by historians or idolized in films or literature long after the fact of their nonconformity, but they are usually not held in high esteem, at the time, by those people to whose demands they refuse to conform.
This observation receives strong support from a number of experiments in social psychology, most notably from one by Stanley Schachter, in which several groups of students participated. Each group met to read and discuss the case history of a juvenile delinquent named Johnny Rocco. After reading the case, each group was asked to discuss it and to suggest a treatment for Johnny on a scale that ranged from "very lenient treatment" on one end to "very hard treatment" on the other. A typical group consisted of approximately nine participants, six of whom were real subjects and three of whom were paid confederates of the experimenter. The confederates took turns playing one of three roles that they had carefully rehearsed in advance: the modal person, who took a position that conformed to the average position of the real subjects; the deviate, who took a position diametrically opposed to the general orientation of the group; and the slider, whose initial position was similar to the deviate's but who, in the course of the discussion, gradually "slid" into a modal, conforming position. The results clearly showed that the person who was liked most was the modal person who conformed to the group norm; the deviate was liked least."
Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the validity of the author's conclusions based on Schachter's study?
A. The study participants' evaluations of their fellow group members were conducted individually, out of sight and hearing of the rest of the group.
B. When asked why they disliked the deviate, students often responded that it was due to the forcefulness with which their opinions were expressed, not because of the nature of the opinions themselves.
C. Some students stated that they liked the slider better than the modal person because they felt that the person's change in opinion indicated respect for the opinions of the other group members.
D. Some political nonconformists have been well liked and respected in their own time.
So I thought the answer would be A because if the group members did not see or hear the rest of the groups evaluating, there would be no results for this experiement regarding who is more or least liked amongst each other in the first place! The answer choice says it's B: "This statement weakens the author's conclusions by suggesting that it was how the "deviates" expressed themselves, rather than the fact that they were not conforming, that might have led the participants to dislike them."
I understand that B might undermine the author's argument. A lot of times with these complex weaken problems, the wrong choice is either the most radical answer that is completely unreflected by the author, or it is the choice that has an "alternative explanation" for the author's reasoning behind a specific point. This answer choice would fall under the latter explanation. BUT why doesn't A undermine even MORE in this case?
Thanks!
"...When we look a little closer, we see an inconsistency in the way our society seems to feel about conformity (team playing) and nonconformity (deviance). For example, one of the best sellers of the 1950s was a book by John F. Kennedy called Profiles in Courage, wherein the author praised several politicians for their courage in resisting great pressure and refusing to conform. To put it another way, Kennedy was praising people who refused to be good team players, people who refused to vote or act as their parties or constituents expected them to. Although their actions earned Kennedy's praise long after the deeds were done, the immediate reactions of their colleagues were generally far from positive. Nonconformists may be praised by historians or idolized in films or literature long after the fact of their nonconformity, but they are usually not held in high esteem, at the time, by those people to whose demands they refuse to conform.
This observation receives strong support from a number of experiments in social psychology, most notably from one by Stanley Schachter, in which several groups of students participated. Each group met to read and discuss the case history of a juvenile delinquent named Johnny Rocco. After reading the case, each group was asked to discuss it and to suggest a treatment for Johnny on a scale that ranged from "very lenient treatment" on one end to "very hard treatment" on the other. A typical group consisted of approximately nine participants, six of whom were real subjects and three of whom were paid confederates of the experimenter. The confederates took turns playing one of three roles that they had carefully rehearsed in advance: the modal person, who took a position that conformed to the average position of the real subjects; the deviate, who took a position diametrically opposed to the general orientation of the group; and the slider, whose initial position was similar to the deviate's but who, in the course of the discussion, gradually "slid" into a modal, conforming position. The results clearly showed that the person who was liked most was the modal person who conformed to the group norm; the deviate was liked least."
Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the validity of the author's conclusions based on Schachter's study?
A. The study participants' evaluations of their fellow group members were conducted individually, out of sight and hearing of the rest of the group.
B. When asked why they disliked the deviate, students often responded that it was due to the forcefulness with which their opinions were expressed, not because of the nature of the opinions themselves.
C. Some students stated that they liked the slider better than the modal person because they felt that the person's change in opinion indicated respect for the opinions of the other group members.
D. Some political nonconformists have been well liked and respected in their own time.
So I thought the answer would be A because if the group members did not see or hear the rest of the groups evaluating, there would be no results for this experiement regarding who is more or least liked amongst each other in the first place! The answer choice says it's B: "This statement weakens the author's conclusions by suggesting that it was how the "deviates" expressed themselves, rather than the fact that they were not conforming, that might have led the participants to dislike them."
I understand that B might undermine the author's argument. A lot of times with these complex weaken problems, the wrong choice is either the most radical answer that is completely unreflected by the author, or it is the choice that has an "alternative explanation" for the author's reasoning behind a specific point. This answer choice would fall under the latter explanation. BUT why doesn't A undermine even MORE in this case?
Thanks!
Last edited:
