Week 5 — Going Along and Getting Hired: Reading Two Studies of Group Life

Assignment 5 of the term — read two classic studies of group life, work out what their figures say, and explain to someone outside sociology what the weak-ties finding can and cannot tell a job seeker.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, evidence-based report. 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 to read any study four ways and to keep percentage points separate from percent; this week you use those habits on two classic studies of group life. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Sociology in Action Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together.

The task

You will use these figures, all from this week's chapter:

• Asch's line-judgment study (1951): 50 participants each faced a unanimous majority of confederates who gave a plainly wrong answer on the critical trials. 37 of the 50 went along with the wrong majority at least once. About one-third (32%) of critical-trial answers were pro-majority errors under a unanimous majority, and 10.4% were when one partner answered correctly.
• Granovetter's weak-ties survey (1973): of 54 professional, technical, and managerial job changers who found their job through a contact, 16.7% saw that contact often, 55.6% occasionally, and 27.8% rarely.

Work these four problems, showing your arithmetic:

1. In Asch's 1951 line-judgment study, 37 of 50 participants went along with a plainly wrong unanimous majority at least once. What percent of the participants is that?
2. In Asch's 1951 study, pro-majority errors were 32% of critical-trial answers under a unanimous majority and 10.4% when one partner answered correctly. By how many percentage points did the error share fall?
3. In Granovetter's 1973 survey of 54 job-finders who used a contact, 55.6% saw the contact occasionally and 27.8% saw the contact rarely. What percent saw the contact occasionally or rarely?
4. In Granovetter's 1973 survey, 55.6% of the job-finders saw their contact occasionally and 16.7% saw their contact often. By how many percentage points does the occasionally share exceed the often share?

Beside each answer, add one brief interpretation of what that value shows and one limit of it. For problem 1, say what the figure measures and whom it describes, and explain why it does not mean that most people always conform. For problem 2, explain why the drop is written in percentage points rather than as a percent, and say whether Asch's result is a correlation or a cause, and why. For problem 3, say what the combined share shows, name one thing it does not show, and say whether the survey is a correlation, a cause, or neither. For problem 4, use tie strength to explain why an acquaintance can carry job news that a close friend does not, and name the kind of group a person's strongest ties usually form.

Explain it to a non-expert

Your cousin is job hunting, has never studied sociology, and says, "I'm only telling my closest friends I'm looking; they're the only ones who will really help." Write a 3–5 sentence message to your cousin that recommends a more useful plan, explains in everyday words what Granovetter's survey found about the people who passed along job leads, says what the figures do not show (they do not show that close friends are useless or that acquaintances are better people to know), and names one limit, such as that the survey covered 54 people in professional, technical, and managerial jobs at one time. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one accurate plan can be defensible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a volunteer coordinator for a 30-member community choir who worries, "We're too big to be a close group anymore." Model answer: "I'd say 'Size alone doesn't decide how close we are.' Sociologists sort groups by how personal and lasting the relationships are, not by how many people belong. A choir whose members have sung together and supported one another for years can work like a close, primary group even with 30 people, while a small crew that only talks about the task stays impersonal. The limit is that closeness still depends on how members actually treat each other, so it is worth asking them."

Use that pattern for your message to your cousin, with your own recommendation and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft all four answers, the four brief interpretations, and your message to your cousin 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 report for you.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about two studies of group life: Asch's conformity experiments and Granovetter's weak-ties survey, including shares of people versus shares of answers, percentage points, tie strength, kinds of groups, and correlation versus cause. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these four problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. The data: Asch's line-judgment study (1951): 50 participants each faced a unanimous majority of confederates giving a plainly wrong answer on the critical trials; 37 of the 50 went along with the wrong majority at least once; about one-third (32%) of critical-trial answers were pro-majority errors under a unanimous majority, and 10.4% were when one partner answered correctly. Granovetter's weak-ties survey (1973): of 54 professional, technical, and managerial job changers who found their job through a contact, 16.7% saw that contact often, 55.6% occasionally, and 27.8% rarely.
PROBLEM P1: In Asch's 1951 line-judgment study, 37 of 50 participants went along with a plainly wrong unanimous majority at least once. What percent of the participants is that?
PROBLEM P2: In Asch's 1951 study, pro-majority errors were 32% of critical-trial answers under a unanimous majority and 10.4% when one partner answered correctly. By how many percentage points did the error share fall?
PROBLEM P3: In Granovetter's 1973 survey of 54 job-finders who used a contact, 55.6% saw the contact occasionally and 27.8% saw the contact rarely. What percent saw the contact occasionally or rarely?
PROBLEM P4: In Granovetter's 1973 survey, 55.6% of the job-finders saw their contact occasionally and 16.7% saw their contact often. By how many percentage points does the occasionally share exceed the often share?
After the four answers, I must briefly interpret each one: what that value shows and one limit of it; for P1, what the figure measures, whom it describes, and why it does not mean most people always conform; for P2, why the drop is written in percentage points rather than as a percent, and whether Asch's result is a correlation or a cause, and why; for P3, what the combined share shows, one thing it does not show, and whether the survey is a correlation, a cause, or neither; for P4, why an acquaintance can carry job news a close friend does not, using tie strength, and the kind of group a person's strongest ties usually form. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to my cousin, who is new to sociology and plans to tell only close friends about a job search, recommending a more useful plan, explaining the finding in everyday words, saying what the figures do not show, and naming one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct computations from the data (40 points), concept and interpretation reasoning (32 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (16 points), and showing work so it can be checked (12 points). For each of P1-P4, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 computation points, 4 reasoning points, 2 clarity points, or 1.5 showing-work points. Sum all four problems within each criterion. Count my final message only with P4, not again with P1-P3.
COMPUTATION UNITS: A correct share, difference, or sum = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing result or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1-P3 separately, an accurate account of what that value shows plus a limit or a correlation-or-cause reading tied to that figure = 2; exactly one of the two = 1; neither = 0. For P1, reading 74% as "most people always conform" does not count. For P2, calling the drop a percent change does not count. For P4, BOTH a tie-strength explanation of why an acquaintance can carry new job news plus the kind of group strong ties usually form AND a final message that recommends a more useful plan, explains the finding, says what the figures do not show, and names a limit = 2. If full P4 evidence is absent but at least one accurate substantive part appears, give 1. No accurate reasoning = 0. An arithmetic slip alone is not a reasoning error.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labeled evidence understandable to someone new to sociology, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Include the final message with P4 if submitted. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, checkable values and steps = 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. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied all four answers and their brief interpretations AND written my message to my cousin 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; it may end in .5 and must not be rounded to a whole number. 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 data-reading report, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised data-reading report with all four answers, their brief interpretations, and your message to your cousin — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled diagram of the Asch and Granovetter shares 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 5 skills — reading a share of people apart from a share of answers, writing a drop between two percentages in percentage points, deciding whether a study shows a correlation or a cause, explaining weak and strong ties, and sorting the groups that strong ties form — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same four problems, the four brief interpretations, and the message to your cousin. 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 data-reading report, 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