Key Concepts in Social Psychology

Social influence: Prioritise the distinction between normative and informational influence — this is tested constantly. Know Asch (1951) for conformity (normative) and Sherif's autokinetic effect for informational influence. For Milgram, understand the situational *mechanisms* — authority, proximity to victim, gradual commitment — not just the headline result. Know the three types of influence: compliance, identification, internalisation.

Attribution theory: Kelley's covariation model (consensus, distinctiveness, consistency) is the theory to know in depth. The fundamental attribution error (FAE / correspondence bias) — overestimating dispositional causes, underestimating situational ones — is probably the most cited concept in the whole subject. Know the actor-observer asymmetry and self-serving bias as extensions of it.

Group dynamics: Know groupthink (Janis, 1972) — its conditions, symptoms, and remedies. Know social loafing (Latané et al., 1979) — when it occurs and why. Know the distinction between social loafing (less effort in a group) and social facilitation (better performance on well-learned tasks in front of others). Deindividuation and the Stanford Prison Experiment come up — but be prepared to critique SPE heavily.

Normative influence · informational influence · conformity · obedience · compliance · identification · internalisation

Internal attribution · external attribution · correspondent inference theory · covariation model (consensus · distinctiveness · consistency) · fundamental attribution error · actor-observer asymmetry · self-serving bias · just-world hypothesis

Groupthink · social loafing · social facilitation · Ringelmann effect · deindividuation · diffusion of responsibility

Apply to examples: Given a scenario, identify the phenomenon precisely. Social loafing requires reduced individual effort *in a group context* — not just any underperformance. Groupthink requires a cohesive group actively suppressing dissent, not just any bad group decision.

Compare: The most productive contrast is social loafing vs social facilitation — both involve group contexts but predict opposite effects on performance. The key variable is identifiability of effort. Also compare normative vs informational influence: the first is about fitting in (Asch), the second about reducing uncertainty (Sherif). This distinction appears in almost every exam.

Critique: Asch's paradigm has ecological validity questions — would people conform this strongly in real-world decisions? Milgram is ethically problematic (deception, psychological distress) — know what this means for replicability and generalisability. The Stanford Prison Experiment was never peer-reviewed, was influenced by demand characteristics, and its conclusions about situational power have been overstated. FAE is weaker in collectivist cultures (Norenzayan et al., 1999) — it may reflect Western individualist assumptions.

Attribution theory is applied daily in clinical settings (CBT targets maladaptive attributional styles), legal contexts (how juries attribute blame), and organisations (how managers evaluate performance). Social influence research explains whistle-blower silence, groupthink in corporate failures, and obedience in institutional harm. Social loafing has direct implications for team design — identifiability and individual accountability are the key structural remedies. These concepts are not academic abstractions: they describe what happens in hospitals, companies, courts, and governments every day.

Confusing social loafing and social facilitation: loafing = less effort in a group (identifiability is low); facilitation = better performance in front of others (on well-learned tasks). Many students blend these.

Misidentifying the type of influence: Asch's studies test normative influence (participants know the answer is wrong, they yield to avoid rejection). Don't describe it as informational.

Describing SPE as reliable evidence: the Stanford Prison Experiment is methodologically disqualified as serious evidence. Any exam answer that uses it without heavy caveats will lose marks.

Stopping at description in attribution: listing Kelley's three dimensions (consensus, distinctiveness, consistency) without showing how they combine to produce internal vs external attributions misses what the model actually claims.