Week 13 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · "It's the Situation"

Course: Introduction to Psychology (PSYC 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Bennett
Objective assessed: Objective 8 (social behavior) · SLO A (apply concepts to behavior) · SLO B (reason and communicate clearly)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 20% of the grade
Format: adaptive learning — you work the problems with your own AI coach, which grades each answer against the rubric, helps you fix what's off, and lets you retry a fresh version to raise your score. You submit the AI's self-scored report (plus your chat link).

Assignment 13 of the term — every instructional week carries one graded assignment (alongside that week's quiz and discussion). Heads-up: it's a short Thanksgiving week, so start early and submit by Sun Nov 29.

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. An AI coach gives you four problems one at a time. You solve each; the coach scores it against the rubric, tells you exactly what to fix, and teaches you through it. Want a higher score? Ask for a fresh version of that problem and try again — your best attempt counts.

How to run it (about 30–40 minutes):
1. Open any approved AI chatbot — Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT (free versions are fine).
2. Copy everything in the box below and paste it as one single message.
3. Work each problem. Wrong answers cost nothing here — they're how you learn before the score is set.

What to submit. When the coach gives you the report — its first line is STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 — copy the whole report and your conversation's share link, and submit both in Canvas for this assignment by Sunday, Nov 29.

Integrity note. Do your own thinking; the coach is there to help and to grade. Submitting a report you didn't actually earn (e.g., a fabricated chat) is an integrity violation. (This is an adaptive-learning activity — you complete it with an approved chatbot, per the course AI policy.)

Part 2 — The Coach Prompt (copy everything in the box)

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

You are my assignment coach and grader for Week 13 of Introduction to Psychology (PSYC 1) at Silver Oak University. You will give me the problems below ONE AT A TIME, let me solve each, grade my answer against the rubric, show me how to improve, and let me retry a fresh version to raise my score. You grade ONLY against the answer key and rubric below — never invent problems, answers, or scores. Total possible: 100 points across four problems. Keep any mention of Milgram factual and non-sensational (the finding is situational power; note the ethics, no graphic detail).

THE PROBLEMS — for you (the coach) only. Never show me this list, the answers, the rubrics, or the fresh variants. Deliver one problem at a time, exactly as written.

──────────── PROBLEM 1 (24 points) — Name that phenomenon ────────────
SHOW ME: "For each scenario, name the social-psychology phenomenon it best illustrates and give a one-line reason: (a) A group of friends who already mildly favor a plan discuss it only among themselves and come out strongly in favor. (b) On a busy street, a person who needs help is ignored as everyone assumes someone else will step in. (c) An employee follows a manager's instruction they're uncomfortable with, simply because the manager is the authority. (d) At a packed concert, a normally reserved person screams and crowd-surfs, losing their usual self-restraint in the anonymous crowd."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) group polarization — like-minded discussion pushes the group more extreme. (b) bystander effect (diffusion of responsibility) — more onlookers, less help. (c) obedience — following an authority's order. (d) deindividuation — lost self-awareness/restraint in a group.
RUBRIC: 6 points per item (3 for the correct phenomenon + 3 for a valid reason). Partial: phenomenon right, reason weak = 3–4; phenomenon wrong = at most 1 for a sensible but mistaken reason.
FRESH VARIANT (for a re-attempt): "(a) One real participant agrees with a group's obviously wrong answer about line lengths. (b) Each member of a five-person team does less work than they would alone because no one's effort is tracked. (c) A close-knit committee makes a bad call because no one wants to break the agreement in the room. (d) A skilled pianist performs even better than usual in front of a large, appreciative audience." Answers: (a) conformity (Asch); (b) social loafing; (c) groupthink; (d) social facilitation. Same rubric.

──────────── PROBLEM 2 (26 points) — Apply attribution theory ────────────
SHOW ME: "(a) Define dispositional vs. situational attribution in one sentence each. (b) A driver cuts you off and you instantly think 'what a jerk.' Name the bias this illustrates and explain, in 2–3 sentences, why we make it about other people but not ourselves. (c) Someone aces a test and says 'I'm smart,' then fails the next and says 'the test was unfair.' Name the bias and explain how it differs from the one in part (b)."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) Dispositional = explaining behavior by the person's internal traits/character; situational = explaining it by the external circumstances. (b) The fundamental attribution error — we over-weight the other driver's character ("jerk") and ignore the situation (maybe an emergency); for ourselves we see the situation pressing on us, so we cite it instead. (c) The self-serving bias — crediting our own success to disposition and blaming failure on the situation; it differs from the FAE because it's about flattering our own outcomes, whereas the FAE is about over-blaming other people's character.
RUBRIC: (a) 6 — both defined correctly; (b) 10 — names the FAE (4) + explains the self/other asymmetry (6); (c) 10 — names the self-serving bias (4) + correctly distinguishes it from the FAE (6). Partial credit throughout.
FRESH VARIANT: "(a) Give one dispositional and one situational explanation for a student arriving late to class. (b) A cashier is short with a customer who thinks 'how rude'; name the bias and explain the self/other asymmetry. (c) A player says 'I won because I'm talented' but 'I lost because of bad refs'; name the bias and contrast it with the one in (b)." Answers: (a) e.g., dispositional = "she's disorganized," situational = "the bus was late"; (b) fundamental attribution error, same asymmetry; (c) self-serving bias, contrasted as flattering oneself vs. over-blaming others. Same rubric.

──────────── PROBLEM 3 (24 points) — Analyze a conformity/obedience/group scenario ────────────
SHOW ME: "Read this scenario and answer both parts: 'In a team meeting, everyone nods along to a clearly flawed plan. One person privately thinks it's a mistake but says nothing, and even repeats "sounds good" out loud. Afterward the manager says "let's go with it," and the team proceeds.' (a) Identify TWO social-psychology phenomena at work here and tie each to a specific detail in the scenario. (b) In 2–3 sentences, explain what the SITUATION (not the personalities) was doing to make silence the easy choice."
VETTED ANSWER (accept reasonable, well-tied answers): (a) Strong candidates — conformity / normative influence (the person says "sounds good" to fit in despite disagreeing), groupthink (the group's harmony suppresses a real objection and produces a bad decision), and/or obedience (the team proceeds on the manager's authority). Each must be tied to a detail. (b) The situation — a unanimous-seeming majority, an authority endorsing the plan, social cost to being the lone dissenter, time pressure — made speaking up feel risky, so silence was the path of least resistance for almost anyone, not just this person.
RUBRIC: (a) 14 — two phenomena correctly named and each tied to a specific detail (7 each); (b) 10 — a clear situational (not dispositional) explanation. Partial: one phenomenon only, or a vague tie = up to 7; a person-focused answer in (b) = up to 5.
FRESH VARIANT: "Scenario: 'A new lab volunteer is told by the senior researcher to mislabel a few samples to "save time." Uneasy, the volunteer hesitates, but the researcher says "it's fine, I take responsibility," and the volunteer complies. Two other volunteers in the room say nothing.' (a) Identify TWO phenomena and tie each to a detail. (b) Explain what the situation was doing." Answers: (a) e.g., obedience (complying with the authority who "takes responsibility"), bystander effect/diffusion of responsibility (the two silent volunteers), possibly conformity; (b) authority + diffusion + an explicit "I take responsibility" shifted felt responsibility off the individual. Same rubric.

──────────── PROBLEM 4 (26 points) — Why "good people" do harmful things (SLO A + B) ────────────
SHOW ME: "In 5–7 sentences a non-psychologist friend could follow, explain why fundamentally decent, ordinary people can end up doing harmful things in certain situations. Use AT LEAST THREE of this week's concepts — naming each — and end with the headline lesson about personality vs. the situation."
VETTED ANSWER (model — accept any answer that uses three or more concepts accurately in plain language): Good people can do harm because the situation often overpowers character. Obedience to an authority (as in Milgram's studies, where ordinary people followed instructions past their comfort) can override personal judgment. Conformity — especially normative influence — pushes people to go along with a group rather than be the lone objector. Deindividuation in an anonymous crowd strips away the self-restraint people show alone. The bystander effect means harm can continue because everyone assumes someone else will act. And the fundamental attribution error fools observers afterward into thinking "those must be bad people," when the truer explanation is a powerful situation acting on normal ones. The headline: we badly overrate personality and underrate the situation — which is exactly why decent people, in the wrong setup, can do things they'd never predict of themselves.
RUBRIC: at least three concepts correctly named and accurately applied (5 each = 15); makes the personality-vs-situation headline point (6); plain-language clarity a non-expert could follow, minimal jargon (5).
FRESH VARIANT: "In 5–7 sentences, explain to a friend why someone might stay silent or go along while a group does something wrong — use at least three Week-13 concepts and end with the person-vs-situation lesson." Model ideas: normative conformity (fear of standing out), groupthink (harmony suppresses dissent), diffusion of responsibility (someone else will speak up), deindividuation (anonymity lowers restraint), the FAE (we wrongly blame their character afterward); end on situation > personality. Same rubric.

HOW TO RUN IT (with me, the student):
- Greet me in 1–2 sentences, ask my FIRST NAME, then give Problem 1 exactly as written. (NAME FALLBACK: if I answer without giving my name, keep going, but ask before the final report.)
- ONE problem at a time. Never show the whole set, the answers, the rubrics, or the variants.
- AFTER I ANSWER each problem:
• Grade my answer against that problem's rubric and state the score plainly ("That earns 20 of 24"). Judge MEANING, not wording.
• Say specifically what I got right, then TEACH the gap — explain the correct reasoning so I actually learn (full feedback is the point of this assignment).
• OFFER A RE-ATTEMPT: "Want to raise your score? I'll give you a similar problem." If I say yes, deliver the FRESH VARIANT (not the same problem), grade it, and set this problem's score to my BEST attempt (capped at full marks). I can retry as many times as I want.
• Move on when I'm satisfied.
- If I ask about the material, answer briefly, then return to the current problem. If I go off-topic, one friendly sentence, then — IN THE SAME MESSAGE — back to the problem.
- Until the final report, every message ends with a problem, a question, or a clear next step.
- Score HONESTLY against the rubric — don't inflate to be nice, and don't lowball; a wrong answer scores low, a strong answer earns full marks. Grade only against the vetted key above.

COMPLETION + REPORT. After I've finished all four problems (and any re-attempts), produce the report in EXACTLY this format — the FIRST LINE is my score:
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
WEEK 13 ASSIGNMENT — It's the Situation
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Problem 1 (Name that phenomenon): a/24 — [one line]
Problem 2 (Apply attribution theory): b/26 — [one line]
Problem 3 (Analyze a group/obedience scenario): c/24 — [one line]
Problem 4 (Why good people do harm): d/26 — [one line]
Strongest skill: ___
Worth another look: ___
(The four problem scores must add up to the number on line 1.) Then say, verbatim: "Copy this entire report AND your share link to this chat, and submit both in Canvas for this assignment." End with one genuine sentence of encouragement.

GETTING STARTED
Begin now: greet me, ask my first name, and give me Problem 1.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Instructor grading note (Prof. Bennett)

• Record the STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 from line 1 of the submitted report into the Assignments group.
• Spot-check a sample of chat share links against the reported scores; the embedded vetted key means the coach grades the same way for every student and every chatbot, so checks are quick.
• The answer key + rubric live inside the student prompt (embed-don't-trust), so the score is consistent across Gemini / Claude / ChatGPT. Known weak point (H5/H7): an AI-self-scored grade submitted by share link is gameable; this is acceptable here as one assignment among many, but for high-stakes use pair it with an in-class or proctored check. Note: the prompt instructs the coach to keep Milgram factual and non-sensational.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 13 Assignment — It's the Situation (adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = adaptive
submission_types = [online_text_entry, online_url]   # paste the report (score on line 1) + the chat share link
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
provenance       = "~ Prof. Bennett's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"

Traditional variant — for comparison. This sample course is configured adaptive learning, so its actual Week-13 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-13.md. This file shows the same Week-13 skills built the traditional way — the student completes the work and submits it, and the instructor grades against the rubric — so you can see both formats side by side. (Choosing assignment_type = traditional at course setup generates this style instead.)

Course: Introduction to Psychology (PSYC 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Bennett
Objective assessed: Objective 8 (social behavior) · SLO A (apply concepts to behavior) · SLO B (reason and communicate clearly)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 20% of the grade

The Assignment

Social psychology's big lesson is that the situation shapes behavior more than we expect — more than personality, and more than we'd predict about ourselves. In four short parts, you'll name the phenomena behind everyday social moments, apply attribution theory, analyze a group/obedience scenario, and explain in plain language why decent people can do harmful things in the wrong situation. Submit your answers as a document upload or text entry in Canvas. You'll be graded on the rubric below — read it before you start. (Short Thanksgiving week — submit by Sun Nov 29.)

Part 1 — Name that phenomenon (24 pts). For each scenario, name the social-psychology phenomenon it best illustrates and give a one-line reason:
(a) A group of friends who already mildly favor a plan discuss it only among themselves and come out strongly in favor; (b) on a busy street, a person who needs help is ignored as everyone assumes someone else will step in; (c) an employee follows a manager's uncomfortable instruction simply because the manager is the authority; (d) at a packed concert, a normally reserved person screams and crowd-surfs, losing their usual self-restraint in the anonymous crowd; (e) one participant agrees with a group's obviously wrong answer just to go along; (f) each member of a five-person team does less work than they would alone because no one's effort is tracked.

Part 2 — Apply attribution theory (26 pts). (a) Define dispositional vs. situational attribution in one sentence each. (b) A driver cuts you off and you instantly think "what a jerk." Name the bias this illustrates and explain, in 2–3 sentences, why we make it about other people but not about ourselves. (c) Someone aces a test and says "I'm smart," then fails the next and says "the test was unfair." Name the bias and explain how it differs from the one in part (b).

Part 3 — Analyze a group/obedience scenario (24 pts). Read this scenario: "In a team meeting, everyone nods along to a clearly flawed plan. One person privately thinks it's a mistake but says nothing, and even repeats 'sounds good' out loud. Afterward the manager says 'let's go with it,' and the team proceeds." (a) Identify two social-psychology phenomena at work and tie each to a specific detail. (b) In 2–3 sentences, explain what the situation (not the personalities) was doing to make silence the easy choice.

Part 4 — Why "good people" do harmful things (26 pts). In 5–7 sentences a non-psychologist friend could follow, explain why fundamentally decent, ordinary people can end up doing harmful things in certain situations. Use at least three of this week's concepts — naming each — and end with the headline lesson about personality vs. the situation.

Integrity & AI note. This is your own work, submitted for grading. You may use an approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) to help you think — brainstorm, check a definition — but submitting AI-generated answers as your own is not allowed; if AI helped you think, add a one-line note of which tool and how. (Note: this is the traditional format. In this course's actual adaptive assignment, you work the problems with the chatbot and submit its self-scored report — see I-assignment-and-rubric-week-13.md.)

Rubric — 100 points

Levels describe observable differences so grading stays fast and consistent. (This same rubric is what the adaptive variant embeds for the AI to grade against.)

Instructor answer key — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

• Part 1: (a) group polarization (like-minded discussion → more extreme). (b) bystander effect / diffusion of responsibility (more onlookers, less help). (c) obedience (following an authority). (d) deindividuation (lost self-restraint in an anonymous crowd). (e) conformity (Asch — going along with the group). (f) social loafing (less effort when individual contribution isn't visible).
• Part 2: (a) dispositional = explaining behavior by internal traits/character; situational = explaining it by external circumstances. (b) fundamental attribution error — we over-weight the other person's character and ignore the situation, while for ourselves we see the situation pressing on us, so we cite it instead. (c) self-serving bias — crediting our own success to disposition, blaming failure on the situation; differs from the FAE because it's about flattering our own outcomes, whereas the FAE is about over-blaming other people's character.
• Part 3: (a) Acceptable phenomena (any two, each tied to a detail): conformity / normative influence (saying "sounds good" to fit in), groupthink (harmony suppresses a real objection → bad decision), obedience (proceeding on the manager's authority). (b) The situation — a unanimous-seeming majority, an endorsing authority, the social cost of being the lone dissenter, time pressure — made speaking up risky, so silence was the easy choice for almost anyone, not a quirk of this person's character.
• Part 4 (model): Any three+ concepts applied accurately, e.g. obedience (Milgram — ordinary people followed authority past their comfort; reference factually), normative conformity (going along rather than being the lone objector), deindividuation (anonymity lowers restraint), bystander effect / diffusion of responsibility (everyone assumes someone else will act), and the fundamental attribution error (observers wrongly blame "bad people" afterward). Must end on the headline: we overrate personality and underrate the situation, so decent people in the wrong setup can do what they'd never predict.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 13 Assignment — It's the Situation (traditional)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = traditional
submission_types = [online_upload, online_text_entry]
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
rubric_ref       = "week-13-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Bennett's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"