1. How do individuals high in Ms differ from individuals high in Mae in terms of the task difficulty they choose?

The theory of achievement explains that the tendency to go towards situations of achievement will be maximum for individuals who are high in Ms for the tasks which they seem to perceive as being medium or just normal in difficulty. We might suppose that a person oriented towards achievement would try to complete tasks which are tough enough to obtain a sense of accomplishment when be successful but not as tough as to deplete the success and not so easy to make it easier. Meanwhile, an individual who is quite high in Maf is more likely to choose the tasks which are either very difficult or easy.

Explain Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

It was argued by Maslow that motivation of a human can be studied best by observing a human instead of the behavior of an animal. Needs which are lower on hierarchy are stronger and have to be satisfied before higher ones are triggered. In the hierarchy of needs, the lowest ones are physiological needs, then comes, safety needs, belonging needs, esteem needs, and at last comes self-actualization. Physiological needs form the hierarchy’s first level and such needs concern the necessity of food and water for continue living. Moreover, in the state of starvation, a person will only think and talk about food. Safety needs illustrate a necessity of security and safety in the environment and once these needs have been fulfilled, the needs for belongingness or love emerge. Esteem needs are the ones for a high positive evaluation of oneself. At last, at the level of self-actualization, a person begins to be motivated a completely new set of needs.

2.      Explain the formula B = E x V

It has been suggested by Rotter that behavior seems to depend on the multiplication of value and expectancy which gives the following expression:

Where B is standing for behavior, V is standing for value, and E is standing for expectations. Therefore, Rotter says that behavior takes place as a result of expectations of a person of obtaining different objectives and the value which they have for that person. In situation where there is a possibility of more than just one behavior, we have to choose the one with the largest mix of expected value and success. For instance, if a person is choosing between hiking and bowling then the chances are fifty-fifty. However, when he hears that it is going to rain today and chances are 50 percent, the possibility of hiking would largely decrease.

3.      Describe Asch’s line- length experiment regarding conformity.

The experiment of Solomon Asch is probably one of the most recognized studies conducted on conformity. In the experiment, Asch asked all of participants to make a simple judgment regarding the lengths of lines. In the diagram, there were 3 lines and a standard line. Participants were asked to choose one with equivalent length to that of the standard line. The original study of Asch included thirty-one participants who took a part in twelve trials. In seven of these trials, participants found themselves at an odd with confederate majority’s decision; the other five were neutral or control trials. Large individual differences were found by Asch I the conforming behavior observed in the participants. Nineteen percent of participants didn’t conform to the decision of group, though showed a lot of discomfort. Eighty-one percent, however, conformed at least once and six percent conformed on all the trials.

4.      Give three explanations.

It was determined by Asch that participants yielded in two ways. First one is the distortion of judgment. In this situation, it was realized by participants that their judgment was not same from that of group and they conformed because they supposed that their judgment was not accurate. That is why they conformed because they wanted to be precise in their choice. The second vital reason for this conformation was distortion of action according to Asch which is also referred to as normative social influence. For all these participants conforming to the group, they just wanted not to be different from the group and it appeared to be of utmost significance.

5.      Pluralistic Ignorance

The experiment of smoke-filled room demonstrates another element or factors included in helping behavior’s inhibition. Situations of emergency are ambiguous and we are not certain whether to consider a situation an emergency or not. When people are uncertain, we actually tend to look to the ones around us for testing our ideas regarding the situation. The issue in an emergency situation is that everyone else is takes cues from others because a person does not want to embarrass himself by declaring an emergency when it doesn’t exist at all, we tend to have an apathetic expression as we observe the reactions of others and we see that everyone else is not reacting to it as well. That is why we must not be right and this behavior is referred as pluralistic ignorance.

6.      What is cognitive dissonance?

As a concept, cognitive dissonance emphasizes on the idea that we try to maintain the consistency of our opinions, attitudes, and beliefs with overt behaviors. Therefore, with the maintenance of consistency, no motivation is seemingly triggered. Then there is a question about the reduction of cognitive dissonance. Just as with the balance theory, there are various ways through which dissonance can be reduced. The very first way of reducing dissonance could also alter cognitions. For instance, the dissonance which is created by the smoking could be decreased if our cognition is changed about the impacts of smoking.

7.      Milgram’s experiment

The basic requirement of Milgram needed a participant to teach the other one by delivering painful shocks for the answers which were incorrect in a task of verbal memory. The teacher observed that the learned was strapped in a chain and there was an electrode fitting it. When shocks reached 285 volts, the participant became to scream in agony and the teachers were not relaxed at all. They often asked the experimenter whether it was even right to continue or not. With the delivery of painful shock sixty-five percent of the participants went all the way. This was the average compliance of all the participants as they kept asking about the health of the learner and the experimenter explained that it was significant to continue on with the experiment. Due to the enforcement of the experimenter, the average compliance had increased to sixty-five percent (Petri & Govern, 2012).

Reference of Maslow’s Hierarchy

Petri, H. L., & Govern, J. M. (2012). Motivation: Theory, research, and application. Cengage Learning.