The fundamental attribution error is the tendency to people to attribute a negative outcome to individual characteristics when it refers to someone else (Jake being dumb) and attribute a negative outcome to the context of the situation when it refers to themselves (Jake citing his lack of sleep and studying). Cognitive dissonance is the conflict that you feel when your attitudes are not in synch with your behaviors. The gain-loss principle suggests that an evaluation that changes over time has more of an impact than an evaluation that remains constant over time. Diffusion of responsibility occurs when an individual assumes less personal responsibility in a given situation when there are other people present.

Cognitive dissonance is the theory that your attitudes and actions will eventually align; if they are not congruent, either your attitudes or your actions will change. In this case, Tony's attitude is changing to align with his actions (using online testing resources). 

Solomon Ashe was most famous for his conformity study, the line test. The social psychologist most widely recognized for door in the face is Robert Cialdini. 

As stated by the bystander effect, individuals do not feel as responsible for helping others when other individuals are present. According to social psychological research, bystanders are most likely to intervene only when the following conditions are met: they share some similarities with the victim of the crime, are happy overall, feel guilty, and are not focused on their own affairs.

Darla first presents a small request and then presents a larger request. This is an example of a "foot-in-the-door" technique. Darla would be practicing "door-in-the-face" if she first presented a large request, then followed it with a smaller request. "Minority persuasion" involves a minority in a group persuading the majority members, and does not fit with this example. "Obedience" occurs when a subordinate complies with an authority figure's request, and is associated with the researcher Milgram. 

This scenario most resembles Milgram's Obedience Study involved subjects obeying direct instructions from an experimenter to administer shocks to another participant (confederate) even though there appeared to be strong negative consequences. For the teacher in this scenario, she was instructed by an authority figure to leave school and buy a pizza even though she would miss her class if she did. Soloman Asch's Conformity Study involved subjects conforming to an obviously wrong answer that all other group members had agreed upon. Clark and Clark's doll preference study involved a task for White and Black children to select the doll that they liked most. Zimbardo's prison experiment involved members of assigned groups assuming roles (i.e. prison guards, prisoners). 

The door in the face effect refers to a tendency in which people who refuse a large initial request will be more likely to agree to a later smaller request. By dropping the price from $100,000 to $40,000, the customer might believe he/she is getting a good deal even if the car should be priced lower. The non-profit call answer was an example of the foot in the door effect. The other two examples were sales techniques, but not examples of the door in the face effect because there is not a sequence of a large request followed by a smaller one. 

The foot in the door effect refers to a tendency in which after agreeing to an initial small request, people will be more likely to agree to subsequent larger requests. By asking for a small initial donation of $10, the donor would be more likely to give $20 the following month than if the donor had been asked for $20 to begin with. The price drop on the car answer was an example of the door in the face effect. The other two examples were sales techniques, but not examples of the door in the face effect because there is not a sequence of a large request followed by a smaller one. 

Stanley Milgram's Obedience Experiment involved an experimenter instructing participants to administer shocks to an confederate subject in an adjacent room when the subject answered "incorrectly". (No shocks were actually administered). The majority of participants continued to "administer shocks" at high levels when instructed to do so by the experimenter. Asch's classic conformity study involved subject's comparing lengths of lines and Sherif's classic conformity study examined the autokinetic effect. Clark and Clark performed a study on doll preference, but this was not a conformity/obedience study.