Log in
Enter the access code you were given. Codes aren't case-sensitive. Type yours without spaces.
How access worksYou're logged in
Your access code stays saved on this device for 30 days.
Name the bias that made me assign blame the way I did — and explain why my ranking moved when the only thing that changed was the victim's reason for being there.
Full screen on the wall, driven by the move you are on. Arrow keys step, N peeks at your notes, Esc leaves.
A woman is stabbed to death and roughly half the room will blame her for it. Someone in front of you has been blamed for something that happened to them.
None of these go on the board until the reveal.
The plan, and the wall it runs. Ten moves, cut three ways by class length; open the wall and arrow straight through. The notes and cautions live here — the wall only ever shows the class-facing piece.
One plan, cut three ways by class length. Minutes are the ones from the original plan, not estimates.
Who is responsible for what happens to a person — and how do we decide?
Why does knowing how a story ends change who we blame for it?
Neither question gets answered out loud until the reveal. The whole design depends on the room arguing before anyone hands them a term.
Round one carries a parked alternate the original plan does not use in the sequence. Switch the round-one reader to The Husband and every gender reverses — he is the one seeing a series of lovers, he is the one refused the fare, he is the one killed on the road. The highwayman stays a man.
Two ways to spend it, if you have the minutes:
Costs about 8 minutes
After the round-two count, switch the reader back and rank a third time. The question afterwards is the same one: what fact about the highwayman changed?
Costs about 2 minutes
Do not read it. Put the first two beats on screen after the reveal and ask what they think would have happened to the rankings. The prediction is worth as much as the data here.
This variant is an addition to the source activity, not part of the published TOPSS lesson — the reversal it is modeled on is the one reported in Hill, Smith, White & Galliano (1997).
Four of the ten moves are you at the front of the room, and on the block plan they add up to 23 minutes. Reading a story aloud is most of it. Two ways to buy some back:
Story from Dolgoff & Feldstein (1984), as used by Bloyd (1990) and by Doug Bernstein. Packaged as Activity 1.2, “Belief in a Just World and Blaming the Victim,” in the APA TOPSS Social Psychology unit lesson plan (2007). The variant reversal is reported in Hill, Smith, White & Galliano (1997). Just-world theory: Lerner & Miller (1978).
Once upon a time, a husband and a wife lived together in a part of the city separated by a river from the places of employment, shopping, and entertainment. The husband had to work nights. Each evening he left his wife and took the ferry to work, returning home in the morning.
Names follow the reader. What each one did does not change.
0 counted
0 counted
Once upon a time, a husband and a wife lived together in a part of the city separated by a river from the places of employment, shopping, and entertainment. The husband had to work nights. Each evening he left his wife and took the ferry to work, returning home in the morning.
0 counted
Same widget, same gesture as round one — that sameness is the experiment. Nothing is compared here; the side-by-side is its own move on the wall.
0 counted in round one · 0 in round two
Nothing to tap here — this card is the read-out. The bars share one scale, so round two reads against round one. Counts only; the papers have the names.