Assessment Task 2: Case-Based Analysis of Social Influence, Conformity, and Obedience

Course Context

Discipline: Psychology / Social Psychology / Sociology

Course Level: Upper-level Undergraduate or Taught Postgraduate

Typical Course Codes: PSYC

Assessment Weight: 30–40% of final grade

Submission Format: Individual written assignment

Length: 1,500 words ±10% (excluding references)

Referencing Style: APA 7th (US/Canada/Australia) or Harvard (UK)

Assessment Rationale

This assessment evaluates students’ ability to apply core social psychology theories of social influence, conformity, and obedience to a contemporary, real-world case. It aligns with accreditation expectations across psychology and social science programs that require demonstrated competence in theory application, critical evaluation of empirical research, and ethical reasoning. The task assesses higher-order cognitive skills consistent with Bloom’s revised taxonomy, including analysis, evaluation, and synthesis.

Task Description

You are required to select one contemporary case from the past ten years in which social influence, conformity, or obedience played a central role. Acceptable cases include, but are not limited to, workplace misconduct, policing practices, online group behavior, political rallies, social media challenges, educational settings, or institutional decision-making.

Using this case, write a structured analysis that:

1. Clearly describes the selected case and its social context.
2. Applies at least two established theories or models of social influence, conformity, or obedience.
3. Critically evaluates how well these theories explain the observed behaviors.
4. Integrates empirical research evidence to support your analysis.
5. Considers ethical implications and limitations of the theoretical explanations.

Required Theoretical Frameworks

You must draw on a minimum of two of the following:

• Normative and informational social influence
• Asch’s conformity paradigm
• Milgram’s obedience studies
• Social Identity Theory
• Groupthink (Janis)
• Contemporary extensions or replications of classic studies

Structural Requirements

• Introduction outlining the case and analytical focus
• Brief overview of selected theories
• Case analysis with explicit theory application
• Critical evaluation supported by peer-reviewed research
• Ethical considerations and limitations
• Conclusion synthesising key insights

Academic Expectations

This is not a descriptive summary. High-quality submissions demonstrate clear argumentation, precise use of terminology, integration of research evidence, and explicit links between theory and observed behavior. Unsupported opinion, anecdotal reasoning, and over-reliance on textbook summaries will be penalised.

Submission and Integrity

Assignments must be submitted via the institutional learning management system. Standard academic integrity policies apply. Use of generative AI tools is permitted only for planning and proofreading, not for content generation, unless explicitly authorised by the course coordinator.

Marking Criteria and Rubric

Criterion	High Distinction / A	Credit / B–C	Pass / D	Fail
Theoretical Application (30%)	Accurate, sophisticated application of multiple theories directly to the case	Clear application with minor conceptual gaps	Basic or partially accurate application	Minimal or incorrect use of theory
Critical Evaluation (25%)	Insightful evaluation of strengths, limitations, and alternatives	Some evaluative commentary with limited depth	Largely descriptive with minimal critique	No critical evaluation
Use of Research Evidence (20%)	Consistent integration of high-quality peer-reviewed sources	Adequate use of relevant research	Limited or weak research support	Little or no scholarly evidence
Structure and Academic Writing (15%)	Logical structure, clear argument flow, precise academic language	Generally well-organised with minor clarity issues	Organisation present but inconsistent	Disorganised, unclear, or inappropriate style
Referencing and Presentation (10%)	Consistent, accurate referencing and professional presentation	Minor referencing or formatting errors	Frequent errors or inconsistencies	Referencing largely absent or incorrect

Public compliance with harmful group norms often reflects the interaction of normative pressure and perceived authority rather than individual moral failure. Experimental evidence shows that obedience increases when responsibility is diffused and authority is legitimised within institutional settings. Contemporary analyses of online group behavior mirror these mechanisms, suggesting that classic findings retain explanatory power when adapted to digital contexts (Haslam et al., 2019, https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000404).

Learning Resources

• Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Birney, M. E. (2019). Nothing by mere authority: Evidence that obedience depends on legitimacy. American Psychologist, 74(5), 617–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000404
• Hogg, M. A. (2020). Social identity theory. In Understanding Peace and Conflict Through Social Identity Theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28103-9
• Forsyth, D. R. (2021). Group dynamics (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Griggs, R. A. (2017). Coverage of the Stanford Prison Experiment in introductory psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology, 44(3), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317713065