Week 13 Discussion — Person or Situation? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

You have probably watched a stranger do something odd and decided on the spot what kind of person they were, gone along with a group you privately doubted, or walked past someone who might have needed help because plenty of other people were around. This week you learned that the situation a person is in is often more powerful than it looks, and that people routinely underrate it when they explain one another. That raises a question worth arguing: when people go along, obey, or fail to help, how much is the person, and how much is the situation?

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: Think of a real moment from your own life, job, team, or community when you or someone you watched went along with a group, followed an order that seemed wrong, held back from helping, or stepped in when others did not. Using at least two ideas from this week, such as dispositional and situational attributions, the fundamental attribution error, conformity, normative or informational social influence, obedience, groupthink, social loafing, deindividuation, the bystander effect, or diffusion of responsibility, argue: was that behavior better explained by the person or by the situation, and what would have changed it?

Option B: In Milgram's 1963 study, 65% of participants (26 of 40) continued to the 450-volt switch, and in a later version obedience fell to 10% when two fellow participants refused first; in Darley and Latané's 1968 study, 85% reported an emergency when they believed they were the only listener, but only 31% with four other listeners. Pick one real setting where authority or a crowd shapes what people do, such as a hospital unit, a restaurant kitchen, a sports team, a workplace meeting, or an online group chat. Using at least two ideas from this week, argue which single change to that setting would most reduce harmful obedience or bystander inaction, and explain why these two studies, as experiments, give you a reason to expect the change to work.

There is no single right answer. A moment of going along, a missed chance to help, or a proposed change to a workplace can each be argued well in more than one direction. Pick one you actually care about, and tell us the story.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• Describe the moment or setting, and say whether the person or the situation better explains it.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (social psychology, attribution, dispositional attribution, situational attribution, fundamental attribution error, self-serving bias, attitude, cognitive dissonance, foot-in-the-door phenomenon, conformity, normative social influence, informational social influence, obedience, social facilitation, social loafing, groupthink, group polarization, deindividuation, bystander effect, diffusion of responsibility, stereotype, prejudice, discrimination) correctly.
• Give your position with a reason, and say what change to the situation would have made a difference.
• Describe other people with respect and without names or details that would identify them, and never use a stereotype about any group as an example.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: offer a situational explanation the classmate did not consider, name a different idea from this week that fits their case, or suggest a change to the setting they could test. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option A. At my old job, a coworker kept quiet when a manager told us to skip a cleaning step, and I decided she was a pushover. That was the fundamental attribution error: I blamed her character and ignored her situation, a new hire with no one beside her willing to object. Milgram's two-peers version suggests one person speaking up first would have changed it, so I now think the situation explained more than she did.

Notice how it names the idea, weighs the person against the situation, and takes a position with a reason. That is the bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com