PSY/PSYC Social Psychology: Social Influence, Identity, and Everyday Contexts

Assessment 2: Applied Social Psychology Essay (Individual)

Weighting: 30% of overall grade

Length: 1,200–1,500-word essay (excluding title page and reference list)

Due: End of Week 6 (Sunday, 11:59 p.m., local time)

Submission: Upload as a single Word or PDF document via the Learning Management System (LMS) assignment portal

Assignment Overview

In this assignment, you will apply core concepts and empirical findings from social psychology to analyse a contemporary issue involving social influence, identity, and group processes in real-world contexts such as health behaviours, prejudice and discrimination, political polarisation, or online interactions.

You will select one focused case (e.g., a specific public health campaign, social media movement, protest, or organisational policy) and use social psychological theories to explain the behaviour observed, evaluate the strengths and limitations of these explanations, and propose evidence-based strategies for change.

Learning Outcomes Assessed

• Demonstrate accurate knowledge of key theories and concepts in social psychology (e.g., conformity, obedience, social identity, attribution, attitudes and persuasion).
• Critically apply social psychological research to analyse real-world social issues and everyday behaviour.
• Synthesise and evaluate empirical evidence from peer-reviewed sources.
• Communicate arguments clearly in written academic form using appropriate structure and referencing conventions.

Task Description

Step 1: Select a Case Study

Choose one clearly defined, recent case (from approximately 2020 onwards) that involves social influence and group processes, for example:

• A public health campaign targeting vaccine uptake, mask-wearing, or other health-protective behaviours.
• An online social movement (e.g., hashtag activism, digital mobilisation around climate action or racial justice).
• A specific example of workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives or their resistance.
• A documented case of crowd behaviour, protest, or collective action in your local or national context.

Your case can be drawn from news reports, organisational reports, policy documents, or reputable online sources, but your explanation and evaluation must be grounded in peer-reviewed social psychology research.

Step 2: Apply Social Psychological Concepts

Using your selected case, write a structured essay (1,200–1,500 words) that addresses the following:

1. Introduction (approx. 150–200 words)
   • Briefly describe the case and why it is relevant to social psychology.
   • Identify the main behaviour or outcome you will explain (e.g., resistance to health guidelines, rapid spread of a social norm, intergroup tensions).
   • Outline the key social psychological concepts and theories you will use.
2. Theoretical Explanation (approx. 500–650 words)
   • Select and accurately describe at least three core theories or concepts (for example: social identity theory, normative and informational influence, conformity and obedience, attribution processes, cognitive dissonance, stereotype threat, system justification, attitudes and persuasion).
   • Apply these concepts directly to your case, showing precisely how they help to explain the observed behaviour, decisions, or group dynamics.
   • Integrate evidence from at least four recent peer-reviewed empirical studies to support your explanations.
3. Critical Evaluation (approx. 300–400 words)
   • Compare and contrast the explanatory value of the theories you have used (e.g., where each framework is strong, where it is limited, and what each may overlook).
   • Discuss relevant methodological or contextual limitations in the research you have cited (e.g., sample characteristics, cultural context, ecological validity).
   • Comment on ethical and cultural considerations when applying these theories to your specific case.
4. Evidence-Based Recommendations (approx. 200–250 words)
   • Propose two to three practical strategies or interventions grounded in social psychology (e.g., norm-based messaging, reframing group identities, reducing intergroup bias, improving contact conditions).
   • Justify each strategy with reference to empirical research and show how it could realistically be implemented in your context.
5. Conclusion (approx. 100–150 words)
   • Summarise the key points of your analysis without introducing new literature.
   • Clearly state what your case demonstrates about the power and boundaries of social psychological explanations of real-world issues.

Formatting and Referencing Requirements

• Use clear academic prose, organised into paragraphs with appropriate transitions.
• 12-point readable font, double spacing, standard margins.
• Include a title page with your student ID, unit code (e.g., PSY/PSYC Social Psychology), assignment title, word count, and date.
• Use a recognised academic referencing style (e.g., APA 7th or Harvard), consistently applied throughout.
• Include a reference list with a minimum of six peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2018 and 2026; additional reputable sources may be used in moderation.

Marking Rubric / Grading Criteria

1. Understanding and Application of Social Psychological Theory (30%)

• High Distinction (85–100%): Demonstrates precise, nuanced understanding of relevant concepts and theories; application to the case is sophisticated, logically developed, and consistently grounded in high-quality empirical research.
• Distinction (75–84%): Demonstrates strong understanding of key theories and concepts; application is clear and mostly well-supported, with only minor conceptual gaps.
• Credit (65–74%): Demonstrates generally accurate understanding; application is relevant but may be descriptive at times, with limited depth or integration.
• Pass (50–64%): Demonstrates basic understanding with some inaccuracies or omissions; application is superficial or partially unrelated to the chosen case.
• Fail (<50%): Shows minimal or incorrect understanding; theories are misapplied or not meaningfully linked to the case.

2. Critical Evaluation and Use of Evidence (30%)

• High Distinction: Critically evaluates multiple theoretical perspectives and empirical studies; integrates findings to highlight tensions, gaps, and implications for practice.
• Distinction: Offers clear evaluation with some comparison of theories and research; identifies relevant limitations and implications.
• Credit: Provides some critical comment but tends toward description; limited engagement with methodological or contextual issues.
• Pass: Minimal critical engagement; relies heavily on summary of readings without deeper analysis.
• Fail: No meaningful evaluation; evidence is presented uncritically or is largely absent.

3. Structure, Coherence, and Argumentation (20%)

• High Distinction: Essay is logically organised, with a clear line of argument supported by well-connected paragraphs and effective signposting; transitions between sections are smooth and purposeful.
• Distinction: Structure is clear and mostly coherent; argument is apparent with only minor lapses in flow.
• Credit: Overall structure is adequate but may be uneven; argument is sometimes implicit or underdeveloped.
• Pass: Basic structure is present but may be repetitive or disjointed; argument lacks clarity.
• Fail: Little or no discernible structure; argument is confusing or absent.

4. Academic Writing and Referencing (20%)

• High Distinction: Writing is concise, precise, and engaging; tone is appropriate to academic work; referencing is accurate and consistent, with minimal to no errors.
• Distinction: Writing is clear and mostly free from errors; referencing contains only minor inconsistencies.
• Credit: Writing is understandable but may include awkward phrasing or some grammatical errors; referencing is generally correct with some issues.
• Pass: Writing is frequently unclear or error-prone; referencing is inconsistent or incomplete.
• Fail: Writing impedes understanding; referencing is largely incorrect, missing, or plagiarised.

Academic Integrity

You are expected to adhere to your institution’s academic integrity policy, including correct citation of all ideas, quotations, and data taken from sources.

Plagiarism, collusion, the use of AI-generated text without proper acknowledgement, or purchasing assignments will result in penalties in line with university regulations.

A focused social psychology essay does more than describe a trend; it traces how identity, social norms, and perceived group boundaries shape concrete decisions in everyday settings. Anchoring the analysis in peer-reviewed research allows you to move beyond opinion and show exactly where common explanations are supported, overstated, or contradicted. Well-chosen interventions then follow naturally from the theory, linking abstract concepts like social identity or normative influence to small, actionable shifts in policy, communication, or design.

1. Jetten, J., Reicher, S.D., Haslam, S.A. & Cruwys, T. (2020) ‘Shared identity and group-based health interventions’, Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, pp. 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.007​

2. van Bavel, J.J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P.S. et al. (2020) ‘Using social and behavioural science to support COVID‑19 pandemic response’, Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), pp. 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z​

3. Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S.D. & Platow, M.J. (2020) The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power, 2nd edn, Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351108232​

4. Paluck, E.L., Porat, R., Clark, C.S. & Green, D.P. (2021) ‘Prejudice reduction: Progress and challenges’, Annual Review of Psychology, 72, pp. 533–560. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619​

5. Sparkman, G. & Walton, G.M. (2019) ‘Dynamic norms promote sustainable behaviour, even if it is counternormative’, Psychological Science, 30(11), pp. 1602–1614. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619865139​