Week 13 — The Power of the Situation: Reading Two Classic Experiments

Assignment 12 of the term — read two classic social-psychology experiments with careful arithmetic, explain what each result does and does not show, and help a friend planning a crowded event think about who will call for help.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based brief. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. In Week 2 you learned what an experiment is and why research ethics rules exist; this week you use both to read two of psychology's most famous studies. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Analysis Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together and explain them.

The task

Two classic experiments this week show how strongly a situation can shape what ordinary people do. In Darley and Latané's 1968 intercom study, participants heard what sounded like another participant having a seizure; helping was operationally defined as reporting the emergency before the recording ended, and 85% reported it when they believed they were the only listener, 62% with one other listener, and 31% with four other listeners. In Milgram's 1963 baseline study, obedience was operationally defined as continuing to the 450-volt switch, and 26 of 40 participants did. No real shocks were given, but participants believed they were real.

Work these two problems, showing your arithmetic:

1. In Darley and Latané's 1968 intercom study, 85% of participants reported the emergency when they believed they were the only listener, and 31% did when they believed four other listeners were present. How many percentage points lower was reporting with four other listeners?
2. In Milgram's 1963 baseline study, 26 of 40 participants continued to the 450-volt switch. What percentage of the 40 participants stopped before the end?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation and one limit. For problem 1, explain the drop with diffusion of responsibility, name the independent variable and the dependent variable, and say why the design supports a causal claim about the number of listeners. For problem 2, explain what the obedience result says about the power of the situation rather than about cruel people, describe in words how obedience changed when the situation changed (for example, when two fellow participants refused first), and name one research-ethics protection that studies like this one helped bring about.

Explain it to a non-expert

A friend who has never studied psychology is planning a crowded outdoor festival and says, "With hundreds of people around, someone will always call for help if a person collapses." Write a 3–5 sentence message that explains, in everyday words, why a crowd can make each person less likely to act, one practical change that could help, and one limit of what the classic study can tell your friend. Explain any technical term in everyday words.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a roommate who says a classmate failed a quiz because "he's lazy." Model answer: "When we explain someone else's slip, we tend to blame their character and forget their situation. Psychologists call that the fundamental attribution error. He may have worked a late shift or had the quiz moved without notice, so it's worth asking what was going on before deciding what kind of person he is. I can't tell you why he really did poorly, though; only he can fill in the situation."

Use that pattern for your friend, with your own explanation and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both answers, the two brief interpretations, and your message to the friend before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show calculations when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one calculation or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the brief for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about social psychology: the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility, obedience and the power of the situation, reading an experiment's independent and dependent variables, and the research-ethics rules that followed Milgram's work. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show. Never describe the participants in these studies as cruel or stupid.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The facts: in Darley and Latane's 1968 intercom study, helping meant reporting an apparent seizure before the recording ended; 85 percent reported it as the only listener, 62 percent with one other listener, and 31 percent with four other listeners. In Milgram's 1963 baseline study, obedience meant continuing to the 450-volt switch, and 26 of 40 participants did; no real shocks were given, but participants believed they were real. In later versions obedience was much lower, for example when two fellow participants refused first.
PROBLEM P1: In Darley and Latané's 1968 intercom study, 85% of participants reported the emergency when they believed they were the only listener, and 31% did when they believed four other listeners were present. How many percentage points lower was reporting with four other listeners?
PROBLEM P2: In Milgram's 1963 baseline study, 26 of 40 participants continued to the 450-volt switch. What percentage of the 40 participants stopped before the end?
After the two answers, I must briefly interpret each one: for P1, explain the drop with diffusion of responsibility, name the independent and dependent variables, and say why the design supports a causal claim; for P2, explain the situational lesson rather than blaming cruel people, describe in words how obedience changed with the situation, and name one research-ethics protection. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a friend planning a crowded festival, explaining in everyday words why a crowd can make each person less likely to act, one practical change that could help, and one limit of what the classic study shows. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations (20 points), social-psychology and research reasoning (40 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing work so it can be checked (20 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 computation points, 10 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 5 showing-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my message to the friend only with P1, not again with P2.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct result = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing result or the wrong values or operation = 0. Accept equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, BOTH an accurate explanation of the drop through diffusion of responsibility with the independent and dependent variables named correctly and the causal claim tied to the manipulation, AND a friend message that explains why a crowd can reduce helping, offers a practical change, and names a limit = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. For P2, an accurate account of the situational lesson that does not blame cruel people and describes in words how obedience changed with the situation, plus a correctly named research-ethics protection = 2; exactly one of the two = 1; neither = 0. Calling either study correlational, swapping the independent and dependent variables, or saying more bystanders means more help does not count. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to psychology, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the friend message with P1 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the starting values and the operation shown = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a result alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Offer the reflection as a choice of two equally weighted prompts and let me pick one: (a) what did the revision change about how I read a classic experiment, or (b) what would I now tell someone who believes a crowd guarantees help. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both answers and their brief interpretations AND written my message to the friend AND revised at least one calculation or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my calculations and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised brief, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised brief with both answers, their brief interpretations, and your message to the friend — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled sketch of the two studies' results with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 13 skills — explaining the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility, reading the independent and dependent variables in a classic experiment and the causal claim it supports, explaining obedience as the power of the situation, and naming the research-ethics protections that followed — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, the two brief interpretations, and the message to the friend. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one calculation or explanation you changed, the evidence that prompted the change, and one question you still have. Submit the revised brief, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The calculations, reasoning, revision, and final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment or add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com