| Course | PSYC 110N Psychology |
|---|---|
| Week | 6 |
| Paper type | Social influence analysis |
| Length | About 560 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | BSN general education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PSYC 110N Week 6
Social Influence Analysis of a Classmate Changing an Answer in a Skills Lab Quiz After Hearing Others: Who Could See Whom, Information or Approval as the Reason, Ruling Out the Other Reading, Obedience Kept Separate and a Private Forecast
Student Name
Chamberlain University
PSYC 110N: Psychology
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Social Influence Analysis of a Classmate Changing an Answer in a Skills Lab Quiz After Hearing Others: Who Could See Whom, Information or Approval as the Reason, Ruling Out the Other Reading, Obedience Kept Separate and a Private Forecast
The Occasion
In a nursing skills lab, the instructor asked six students in a circle to call out, one by one, the correct needle angle for an intramuscular injection. The first four said 45 degrees. The fifth, a classmate I will call J., had written 90 degrees on a notepad before the round began, then said "45" aloud. I was sixth and said 90. The instructor confirmed 90 degrees.
Who Could See Whom
Everyone could hear every answer. The instructor stood outside the circle. J.'s notepad was visible only to J. and to me, sitting next to J.
Visibility is the variable that matters most here. If J.'s notepad had been private and the answers also private, the pressure to match four classmates aloud would have been absent.
Information or Approval
Conformity can come from informational influence, using others' answers as evidence of what is correct, or from normative influence, going along to fit in or avoid disapproval. In the classic line-judgment studies, participants often went along with a unanimous wrong majority even when the correct answer was clear (Asch, 1956). J. had already written the correct answer, which suggests J. was not unsure of the fact. That points to normative influence: J. said 45 to avoid standing alone after four classmates.
Ruling Out the Other Reading
If J. had changed answers because of doubt, I would expect J. to cross out 90 on the notepad. J. did not. After the lab, J. said, "I knew it was 90, I just didn't want to be the weird one." That supports the normative reading.
Obedience Kept Separate
Obedience is following a direct order from an authority, as studied in experiments where participants continued to give what they believed were shocks when instructed (Milgram, 1963). Nothing here involved an order; the instructor did not direct any answer. The influence came from peers.
The Private Forecast
If the round had been written and private, I forecast J. would have answered 90. Normative influence weakens when responses cannot be seen by others.
The forecast could be tested in the next lab: half the questions answered aloud in turn, half written first and then read out. If J.'s answers match the group more often in the spoken half, the normative reading gains support.
Why It Matters for Nursing
A wrong answer in a lab costs little. The same pressure at a bedside, agreeing with a team's wrong dose, could harm a patient. Writing an answer down before hearing others is one way to protect against it.
I said 90 partly because I was sixth and had seen J.'s notepad. Knowing that one other person agreed with me made it easier to stand apart, which is also what the conformity research found when a single ally was present (Asch, 1956).
References
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1-70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
The Chamberlain PSYC 110N Week 6 instructions
Choose one moment when someone changed what they said or did in the presence of others. Describe the setting, the order of events and who could see or hear whom. Weigh the two main kinds of conformity, informational and normative, using a classic study as reference. Test your reading against evidence such as what the person wrote, did or said afterward. Keep obedience separate if no direct order was given. Forecast what the person would do if their response were private, and propose a simple way to test the forecast. Close with why the pattern matters in your field. Use pseudonyms and avoid any detail that would identify classmates.
How the PSYC 110N Week 6 example is put together
The occasion section describes six students calling out an intramuscular needle angle, four saying 45 degrees and J. saying 45 after writing 90. The visibility section notes who could hear and that only the writer saw J.'s notepad, and explains why visibility matters. The influence section uses Asch (1956) and points to normative influence. The test section notes J. did not cross out 90 and said afterward, "I just didn't want to be the weird one." The obedience section cites Milgram (1963) and notes no order was given. The forecast predicts 90 in private and proposes a lab comparison. A nursing section draws the bedside lesson and the effect of one ally.
Where the points sit in the PSYC 110N Week 6 rubric
Markers look for a reading tested against evidence and influence types kept distinct. A paper that calls any going-along obedience, or that names a type without testing it, loses the most. The strongest papers offer a clear account of who could see whom, informational and normative influence weighed, a test using the person's own words or actions, obedience kept separate and a private forecast with a proposed test. Describe Asch and Milgram as they actually ran their studies, with APA citations. The link to professional practice should be specific. Classmates must be protected by pseudonyms and described without mockery. A paper that proposes a fair test of its own forecast, such as written answers before spoken ones, shows the reading can be checked.
Common PSYC 110N Week 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Analyses most often slip by assuming the person was unsure, without checking. Another frequent gap is merging conformity and obedience because both involve going along. Some papers describe classic studies inaccurately, such as overstating results. Others forget to say who could see whom, which is the variable that matters. If your example involves an instructor's instruction, treat it as obedience and analyze it with that framework. A paper that ends with a simple test anyone could run in the next lab shows the analysis can be checked rather than only argued. Write down the order of speakers right after the event; memory blurs who spoke when.
Get a PSYC-110N Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the assignment instructions and rubric your section published and a PSYC-110N Week 6 analysis is written to them in 24-48h, one occasion, both mechanisms argued, obedience kept separate and a private forecast at the end. The first one is free, and if your classroom names the study to work from, say which.
More PSYC 110N papers and BSN general education samples
- PSYC 110N Week 1: What Psychology Asserts Post
- PSYC 110N Week 2: Classical Conditioning Paper
- PSYC 110N Week 3: Reinforcement Analysis of Snooze
- PSYC 110N Week 4: Attitude and Persuasion Write-Up
- PSYC 110N Week 5: Personality Traits Write-Up
- PSYC 110N Week 7: Alternative Explanation Paper
- PSYC 110N Week 8: Motivation and Leadership Essay
- PSYC 290N Week 6: Child Observation Write-up
PSYC 110N Week 6 questions, answered
Can the occasion come from a published study?
In many sections yes, and some assignments require it. When the material is a classic study, the analysis still has to do the same work: name which mechanism the setup created, point at the feature of the procedure that made it so, and forecast the variant that would change the result. Retelling the study without those moves reads as a summary and is marked as one.
What actually separates conformity from obedience here?
Where the pressure comes from. Conformity runs on what other people around you appear to be doing or believing, and it works without anyone issuing an instruction. Obedience runs on standing: somebody with a recognized position asks, and compliance follows the position rather than the numbers. An occasion can contain both, but the analysis has to say which part of it is which.
Does somebody have to have gone along with the group?
No, and resistance episodes often score well. Someone holding out is informative precisely because the course material predicts when holding out becomes easier: one other person breaking the unanimity, an answer that can be checked independently, a group whose approval the person does not want. An analysis of resistance names the condition that made it possible and forecasts what would have removed it.
Where can I find a free PSYC 110N Week 6 sample paper?
You will find the complete PSYC 110N Week 6 analysis of a classmate changing a skills lab answer after hearing four others further down this page.
Why is it normative influence in the PSYC 110N Week 6 sample?
J. had already written the correct angle, did not cross it out and said afterward that the point was not to be the odd one out, which points to fitting in rather than doubt.