AP Psychology Social Psychology and Personality — Worked Answer Explanations

Unit 4 · 12 questions explained

Below is a complete answer key for our AP Psychology Social Psychology and Personality practice questions. For each question you'll find the correct choice, a full written explanation of how to get there, and — for every wrong answer — a short note on exactly why it's tempting and where it goes wrong. Reading these straight through is one of the fastest ways to find the gaps in a unit before exam day.

Prefer to test yourself first? Take the timed Social Psychology and Personality practice test and come back here to review, or head back to the Social Psychology and Personality unit overview.

In-content ad

Question 1 · Easy
Solomon Asch's conformity experiments involved participants judging the lengths of lines while confederates gave obviously wrong answers. The key finding was that:
- A
  People conformed to authority figures even when it meant hurting others.
  Why not A: Obeying authority figures who order harm is Milgram's obedience research, not Asch's conformity study.
- B
  A significant proportion of participants conformed to an incorrect group consensus on an unambiguous perceptual task.Correct
- C
  Participants refused to conform when they could see the lines clearly.
  Why not C: This is the opposite of what Asch found — conformity rates were substantial even when the correct answer was obvious.
- D
  Conformity increased when the group consisted of experts.
  Why not D: Asch's procedure used peers, not experts; his findings focused on the sheer pressure of unanimous group opinion, not expertise.
Explanation
Asch (1951) found that about 75% of participants conformed to the incorrect majority at least once across 12 critical trials. About one-third of all critical trial responses were errors conforming to the group. This is striking because the correct answer was objectively clear. Conformity dropped dramatically when even one other person gave a different (correct) answer — social support breaks conformity. Asch demonstrated normative social influence (desire to fit in).

Key takeaway
Asch's conformity research: people conform to an obviously wrong group consensus due to normative social influence.
Question 2 · Easy
Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance predicts that when people behave in ways inconsistent with their attitudes, they will:
- A
  Increase the behavior to resolve the inconsistency
  Why not A: Increasing a behavior that conflicts with one's attitudes would intensify dissonance, not reduce it.
- B
  Change their attitudes to align with the behaviorCorrect
- C
  Seek social support for their original attitude
  Why not C: Seeking social support for the original attitude is a possible but less common resolution; it is not the core prediction of dissonance theory.
- D
  Experience positive emotions from acting contrary to beliefs
  Why not D: Cognitive dissonance produces psychological discomfort, not positive emotion, when behavior conflicts with attitude.
Explanation
Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) holds that when people's cognitions are inconsistent — especially when they freely behave contrary to their attitudes — they experience an uncomfortable arousal state. To reduce this dissonance, people most commonly change their attitude to match their behavior, especially when they cannot undo the behavior. The classic demonstration: participants paid only $1 t os a y ab or in g t a s k w a s in t er es t in g l a t er r a t e d t h e t a s k m or e p os i t i v e l y t han t h ose p ai d$ 20 (who had sufficient external justification).

Key takeaway
Cognitive dissonance: behaving contrary to attitudes creates discomfort; people resolve it by changing their attitudes to match behavior.
Question 3 · Easy
In Milgram's obedience experiments, what factor most reliably reduced participants' compliance with the experimenter's commands to administer shocks?
- A
  Moving the study to a less prestigious location
  Why not A: Moving from Yale to a run-down building did reduce obedience somewhat, but was not the strongest factor.
- B
  Increasing the voltage on the shock generator
  Why not B: The voltage only increased over time during the procedure; it was not a variable Milgram used to reduce obedience.
- C
  Placing the learner in the same room as the participant (proximity)Correct
- D
  Telling participants they were free to stop at any time
  Why not D: Participants were told they could leave; the authority figure's presence and firm commands overwhelmed this. Changing physical distance to the victim was far more powerful.
Explanation
Milgram systematically varied conditions across many studies. Obedience dropped dramatically when the 'learner' (actually a confederate) was physically close to the participant — in the same room, or when participants had to hold the learner's hand on the shock plate. When the victim was remote (in another room, heard only through a wall), obedience was highest (~65%). Physical proximity increases empathy and makes harm more psychologically real, overriding the influence of authority.

Key takeaway
Milgram: physical proximity to the victim dramatically reduced obedience — remote victims make harm psychologically easier to inflict.
Question 4 · Easy
After a football game, fans of the winning team say 'We won!' while fans of the losing team say 'They lost.' This tendency is an example of:
- A
  The fundamental attribution error
  Why not A: The fundamental attribution error is overemphasizing personality and underemphasizing situation when explaining others' behavior — not identity-based group association.
- B
  Basking in reflected glory (BIRGing)Correct
- C
  The self-serving bias
  Why not C: The self-serving bias is attributing one's own successes to internal factors and failures to external ones — a different self-enhancement mechanism.
- D
  Deindividuation
  Why not D: Deindividuation is the loss of self-awareness in a crowd leading to reduced inhibitions — not the strategic claiming of group victories.
Explanation
Basking in Reflected Glory (BIRGing), studied by Cialdini and colleagues, is the tendency to publicly associate oneself with successful others or groups to enhance one's own self-image. Saying 'we won' connects the individual to the team's success. The reverse, distancing from failure ('they lost'), is called Cutting Off Reflected Failure (CORFing). Both are motivated social identity management strategies.

Key takeaway
BIRGing: claiming group success ('we won') to enhance self-image by associating with winners.
Question 5 · Easy
Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Carl Rogers's person-centered therapy both belong to which broad personality tradition?
- A
  Psychodynamic perspective
  Why not A: The psychodynamic perspective (Freud, Jung, Adler) emphasizes unconscious conflicts and early childhood experiences — not the growth-oriented, self-actualization focus of Maslow and Rogers.
- B
  Trait perspective
  Why not B: The trait perspective (Allport, Cattell, McCrae and Costa's Big Five) focuses on identifying stable personality dimensions, not on human potential and self-actualization.
- C
  Humanistic perspectiveCorrect
- D
  Social-cognitive perspective
  Why not D: The social-cognitive perspective (Bandura, Mischel) emphasizes how cognition and environment interact to shape personality — not the self-actualization emphasis of humanism.
Explanation
The humanistic perspective emphasizes free will, conscious experience, personal growth, and the inherent drive toward self-actualization. Maslow's hierarchy culminating in self-actualization and Rogers's belief that all humans have an actualizing tendency and need unconditional positive regard are defining humanistic ideas. This perspective arose partly as a reaction against both Freudian determinism and behaviorist mechanism, asserting a fundamentally optimistic view of human nature.

Key takeaway
Humanistic perspective (Maslow, Rogers): emphasizes growth, self-actualization, and the positive potential of human nature.
Question 6 · Medium
A researcher assigns participants to be either 'guards' or 'prisoners' in a simulated prison and finds that the guards quickly began abusing power and the prisoners became submissive. This describes Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment. Its primary psychological lesson is that:
- A
  People selected for aggressive personality traits will naturally abuse authority.
  Why not A: Participants were pre-screened as psychologically healthy and randomly assigned; their prior personalities did not predict the outcome.
- B
  Situational roles and social context powerfully shape behavior, overriding individual dispositions.Correct
- C
  Obedience to authority requires direct commands from a legitimate authority figure.
  Why not C: This describes Milgram's mechanism; Zimbardo's study involved role-induced behavior without direct command chains from an external authority.
- D
  Group polarization leads individuals to adopt extreme positions when discussing risks.
  Why not D: Group polarization describes how group discussion shifts attitudes toward the extreme — unrelated to role-based behavioral transformation.
Explanation
Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) demonstrated the power of situational forces: randomly assigned, healthy young men began enacting their roles (guard vs. prisoner) so convincingly that the experiment was halted after six days. This exemplifies the person-situation debate in social psychology — situational factors (roles, uniforms, dehumanizing environment) can override individual character. Zimbardo called this the Lucifer Effect. Note: ethical and methodological criticisms of this study have grown significantly since original publication.

Key takeaway
Zimbardo's SPE: arbitrary role assignment and situational context can powerfully shape behavior, overriding individual personality.
Question 7 · Medium
A manager attributes her team's poor quarterly performance entirely to her employees' laziness, ignoring the tight deadlines and insufficient resources they faced. This attribution error is called:
- A
  The actor-observer bias
  Why not A: The actor-observer bias is when we attribute our own behavior to situation and others' behavior to disposition — the manager is only showing the observer half, which is more specifically the fundamental attribution error.
- B
  The self-serving bias
  Why not B: The self-serving bias involves crediting oneself for success and blaming situation for failure — about self-judgment, not judging others.
- C
  The fundamental attribution error (FAE)Correct
- D
  Confirmation bias
  Why not D: Confirmation bias involves seeking information that confirms existing beliefs; the manager is making an attribution judgment, not selectively filtering evidence.
Explanation
The fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977) is the systematic tendency to overestimate dispositional (personality/character) factors and underestimate situational factors when explaining other people's behavior. The manager blames laziness (disposition) while ignoring structural causes (situation). This bias is especially strong in individualistic Western cultures. It differs from the actor-observer bias, which specifically contrasts how we explain our own vs. others' behavior.

Key takeaway
Fundamental attribution error: over-attributing others' behavior to disposition, under-attributing to situation.
Question 8 · Medium
Muzafer Sherif's Robber's Cave experiment demonstrated that intergroup conflict could be reduced most effectively by:
- A
  Increasing contact between the groups through joint social events
  Why not A: Mere contact (eating together, watching movies together) in Sherif's study actually intensified conflict; contact alone without shared goals does not reduce hostility.
- B
  Introducing superordinate goals that required intergroup cooperationCorrect
- C
  Separating the groups into completely isolated environments
  Why not C: Separation prevents further conflict temporarily but does not reduce underlying hostility or create positive intergroup relations.
- D
  Publicly acknowledging the outgroup's superior performance in competitions
  Why not D: Acknowledging outgroup superiority would likely increase ingroup resentment rather than reduce intergroup conflict.
Explanation
Sherif's Robber's Cave study (1954) first created intergroup competition and hostility between two boys' camp groups, then attempted various reconciliation strategies. Mere contact (meals together, entertainment) failed and sometimes backfired. Only superordinate goals — objectives that required both groups to cooperate (e.g., fixing the water supply, pulling a stuck truck) — reduced hostility and built positive relations. This finding has wide applications in prejudice reduction and organizational management.

Key takeaway
Sherif's Robber's Cave: superordinate goals (requiring intergroup cooperation) reduce intergroup conflict; mere contact alone does not.
Question 9 · Hard
According to Freud's psychoanalytic theory, a person who repeatedly makes self-defeating decisions after a painful divorce is unconsciously recreating familiar patterns from childhood. This dynamic best illustrates which Freudian concept?
- A
  Sublimation
  Why not A: Sublimation is redirecting socially unacceptable impulses into constructive activities (e.g., aggression into competitive sports) — a healthy defense mechanism, not self-defeating repetition.
- B
  Transference
  Why not B: Transference specifically refers to redirecting feelings about significant others onto the therapist during psychotherapy — a clinical phenomenon, not everyday pattern repetition.
- C
  Projection
  Why not C: Projection is attributing one's own unacceptable impulses to others; it does not describe compulsively recreating relationship patterns.
- D
  Repetition compulsion driven by the unconsciousCorrect
Explanation
Freud described the repetition compulsion as an unconscious drive to re-enact early relational experiences, even painful ones. People unconsciously seek situations that reproduce familiar emotional dynamics from childhood, often attempting to achieve a different (better) outcome. Combined with the concept that the unconscious mind drives behavior outside awareness, this explains why people seem to make the same destructive relationship choices repeatedly despite conscious intentions to change.

Key takeaway
Freud's repetition compulsion: the unconscious drive to recreate familiar early relational patterns, even self-defeating ones.
Question 10 · Hard
Bandura's concept of self-efficacy refers to a person's belief in their ability to execute behaviors necessary for a specific outcome. Which factor does Bandura identify as the most powerful source of self-efficacy?
- A
  Verbal persuasion from an authority figure
  Why not A: Verbal encouragement from others does raise self-efficacy somewhat but is considered a weaker source than direct experience.
- B
  Physiological arousal during performance
  Why not B: Physiological states (e.g., anxiety level) provide information about capacity but are the weakest source of self-efficacy information.
- C
  Vicarious experience (modeling)
  Why not C: Watching similar others succeed does raise self-efficacy (especially when the model resembles oneself) but is second to direct personal mastery experiences.
- D
  Mastery experiences (direct personal successes)Correct
Explanation
Bandura identified four sources of self-efficacy in order of strength: (1) mastery experiences — actually succeeding at a task builds the strongest, most authentic efficacy beliefs; (2) vicarious experiences — watching similar others succeed; (3) social/verbal persuasion — encouragement from credible others; (4) physiological states — interpreting arousal as energy vs. anxiety. Mastery experiences dominate because they provide direct evidence of capability.

Key takeaway
Self-efficacy sources (strongest to weakest): mastery experience, vicarious modeling, verbal persuasion, physiological states.
Question 11 · Hard
A researcher wants to assess personality using the Big Five (OCEAN) model. A participant scores very high on Neuroticism and very low on Agreeableness. Which behavioral profile is most consistent with these scores?
- A
  The person is creative, open to new experiences, and comfortable with ambiguity.
  Why not A: This describes high Openness to Experience, not the Neuroticism/Agreeableness pattern.
- B
  The person is emotionally volatile and prone to conflict; may come across as antagonistic and skeptical.Correct
- C
  The person is organized, reliable, and disciplined in achieving goals.
  Why not C: This describes high Conscientiousness — neither Neuroticism nor Agreeableness.
- D
  The person is outgoing, energetic, and enjoys being around large groups of people.
  Why not D: This describes high Extraversion — not the emotional instability or antagonism predicted by high Neuroticism and low Agreeableness.
Explanation
In McCrae and Costa's Big Five (OCEAN) model: Neuroticism captures emotional instability, anxiety, irritability, and moodiness; low Agreeableness captures antagonism, skepticism, competitiveness, and difficulty cooperating. Together these predict a person who experiences frequent negative emotions and responds to social friction with conflict rather than accommodation. The Big Five is the most empirically validated personality model and is widely used in personality research.

Key takeaway
Big Five: high Neuroticism = emotional instability; low Agreeableness = antagonism and difficulty cooperating.
Question 12 · Hard
William James and Walter Cannon debated the sequence of events in emotional experience. James-Lange theory and Cannon-Bard theory differ in that James-Lange argues:
- A
  Emotion and physiological arousal occur simultaneously and independently, triggered by the thalamus.
  Why not A: This is the Cannon-Bard position — the thalamus simultaneously sends signals to the cortex (emotion) and body (arousal), meaning they are simultaneous and parallel.
- B
  Cognitive labeling of arousal determines the specific emotion experienced.
  Why not B: Cognitive labeling of undifferentiated arousal is the Schachter-Singer two-factor theory, not James-Lange.
- C
  Physiological arousal precedes and causes emotional experience; we feel afraid because we tremble.Correct
- D
  Emotions are entirely social constructions without any physiological component.
  Why not D: Both James-Lange and Cannon-Bard assign physiological components to emotion; the debate is about the causal sequence, not whether physiology is involved.
Explanation
James-Lange theory proposes that we perceive a stimulus → experience bodily changes (autonomic arousal, muscle responses) → interpret those changes as emotion. The physiological change IS the emotion's cause: 'We do not tremble because we are afraid; we are afraid because we tremble.' Cannon-Bard countered that the thalamus simultaneously sends emotion signals to the cortex and body — so emotional experience and physical response occur at the same time, not sequentially. Schachter-Singer added cognitive labeling as the third theory.

Key takeaway
James-Lange: body changes first → emotion follows; Cannon-Bard: emotion and arousal are simultaneous; Schachter-Singer: arousal + cognitive label = specific emotion.