Title: Chapter 12
Course: Exploring Psychology and Christian Faith Test Bank

Q: Summarize two or three ways that social psychology research has demonstrated that social situations or groups can have powerful effects on our behavior.

Q: Summarize two or three pieces of evidence that illustrate the importance of having relationships and that we are relational beings.

Q: What do the authors mean by a “collective mind,” and how does this help us understand more about individual and/or collective responsibility?

Q: What are some of the negative aspects of “group membership?”

Q: In what ways do scriptural references to groups mirror social psychological understanding of social groups? In what ways are they different?

Q: In a follow-up study to Stanley Milgram’s famous shock experiment, participants watched paid actors refuse to give electric shocks to a person in another room. What did the results reveal?
- Participants felt more empathy for the individuals giving shocks.
- Participants stated that watching others refuse to shock caused them to do it less.
- Participants shocked less but denied that watching others influenced them.
- Participants were more likely to exert their own free will and shock only according to their personal views—not according to the experimenter’s request.
A: Participants shocked less but denied that watching others influenced them.

Q: Author Eric Metaxas provides an extreme example of the negative effects of being part of a mostly positive, supportive group when he describes how . . .
- some members of the German church gradually conformed to Nazi thinking.
- theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer eventually conformed to Nazi thinking.
- most people in the German church were fully aware of and consciously embraced Nazi thinking.
- all of the above are true.
A: some members of the German church gradually conformed to Nazi thinking.

Q: According to Moes and Tellinghuisen, what is one reason that we need to be cautious about attributing blame to an individual in a given circumstance?
- We have a tendency to blame the group more than the individual.
- We are likely to underestimate the influence of the situation and blame individuals exclusively for failures.
- Individuals are almost never fully responsible for what they do—the group or situation is almost always to blame.
- People are more likely to make an “attribution error” for their own behavior than for the behavior of others.
A: We are likely to underestimate the influence of the situation and blame individuals exclusively for failures.

Q: According to Moes and Tellinghuisen, what happens to our understanding of free will when we study social psychology?
- We tend to become fatalistic since we realize that we have very little control of our own behavior.
- We become less free to choose than before because now we are even more susceptible to group influence.
- Our free will and responsibility are not diminished; they are enhanced.
- Our understanding of being responsible, limited agents will be unchanged; we still have the same individual responsibility as before.
A: Our free will and responsibility are not diminished; they are enhanced.

Q: What have social psychologists discovered about peer pressure?
- It only works on adolescents, not adults.
- It can have positive as well as negative influences on our behavior.
- Americans and Europeans are much more influenced by peer pressure than most other cultures.
- We are typically very aware of the social influence exerted by others.
A: It can have positive as well as negative influences on our behavior.

Q: According to Moes and Tellinghuisen, how should “bearing God’s image” be viewed?
- Humans bear God’s image collectively.
- This is a very individual concept—each person is defined as a separate entity before God.
- Bearing God’s image is an important theological concept but does not provide much valuable insight for psychology.
- Only humans who are sinless bear God’s image.
A: Humans bear God’s image collectively.

Q: Many different contemporary thinkers (from diverse disciplines) suggest that the idea of an individual mind acting completely “alone” is . . .
- essential for understanding personhood.
- most evident during infancy, since children are incapable of real relationships.
- very important for stress reduction.
- an illusion.
A: an illusion.

Q: According to Moes and Tellinghuisen, what do both the Old and New Testaments tell us about the relationship between God and humans?
- God only “covenants” with individuals, never groups.
- Sin can only be understood on an individual level.
- Responsibility for actions is both individual and collective.
- Scripture is clear that God never singles out one individual for praise or blame.
A: Responsibility for actions is both individual and collective.

Q: According to Moes and Tellinghuisen, what does it mean to be part of the “body of Christ?”
- It implies that Christians should strive to become like a single entity, having a “collective mind.”
- It’s really very similar to the type of camaraderie that you might find being part of a sports team.
- It only refers to the fact that Christians “break bread” together; Christians need to maintain individual identity so that individual accountability is clear.
- It suggests that Christians should form isolated communities so that they avoid worldly influences.
A: It implies that Christians should strive to become like a single entity, having a “collective mind.”

Q: What did Christian psychologist Martin Bolt suggest about how Christians should resist negative group influences?
- They need to “dare to be a Daniel” and learn to stand alone.
- They must learn to “transcend” their social circumstances and completely step outside their culture, “tribe,” or family.
- They must learn to nourish Christian commitments in a supportive community.
- They should all take many more social psychology classes so that they can learn how groups influence them.
A: They must learn to nourish Christian commitments in a supportive community.

Q: According to Moes and Tellinghuisen, forming strong Christian fellowships . . .
- is always healthy and has no potential “dangers” associated with it.
- is mostly positive but can result in a form of “in group / out group” bias.
- can best be accomplished by avoiding contact with other groups.
- almost always results in being more tolerant and accepting of other groups.
A: is mostly positive but can result in a form of “in group / out group” bias.

Q: In one study, fans watched a video recording of their favorite football team playing a rival team. What did the study results reveal?
- Only Christians avoided the “in group / out group” bias.
- Fans were more favorable toward players from the same race as their own.
- Group dynamics among the fans resulted in huge fights, even though as individuals they were “mild mannered.”
- Fans for both teams thought the referees were more biased against players from their own team than from the other team.
A: Fans for both teams thought the referees were more biased against players from their own team than from the other team.