Social Psychology: Course Goals and Exam Preparation

The goals below are drawn from the official learning outcomes for 2PS003 Socialpsykologi at Karolinska Institutet. They represent the standard scope of a second-cycle undergraduate social psychology course and are closely comparable to equivalent courses at other Swedish universities.

• Describe how people acquire, process, and relate to information about themselves and their social environment. This covers social perception (how we form impressions of others), mental attribution (how we explain behaviour), identity (including Tajfel's social identity theory), stereotypes and their effects on judgement, social learning (Bandura's observational learning model), and decision-making under conditions of social uncertainty.

• Describe different forms of social influence — conformity and obedience — and discuss their practical implications. You need to know Asch's conformity studies and Milgram's obedience research in detail, be able to explain the mechanisms behind them (normative vs informational influence, gradual commitment, situational authority), and reflect on what they mean for behaviour in organisations, institutions, and everyday life.

• Discuss the relationship between social psychology and neighbouring disciplines. Social psychology draws on and contributes to evolutionary biology (ultimate explanations of social behaviour), neuroscience (neural correlates of social cognition), and sociology (social structures and norms as determinants of behaviour). You should be able to articulate what each discipline adds and where the explanations are complementary rather than competing.

• Describe biological and social accounts of attraction and mate selection. Evolutionary models — parental investment theory (Trivers), sexual selection (Darwin) — predict systematic patterns in mate preferences. Social-cultural models emphasise similarity, proximity, and reciprocal liking. You should be able to describe both frameworks and reflect on their implications for gender norms and partner dynamics.

• Describe biological and social theories of aggression, evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, and discuss how aggression can be prevented. Biological accounts include hormonal influences, genetic contributions, and evolutionary models of male–male competition. Social-learning accounts focus on reinforcement and modelling (Bandura). Neither framework alone accounts for the full range of aggressive behaviour; you should be able to apply each selectively and discuss prevention strategies (de-escalation, situational design, norm change).

• Describe theoretical models of cooperation and altruism. Why do people help others at cost to themselves? Key frameworks include kin selection, reciprocal altruism, and social-exchange theory. Prosocial behaviour in groups is also shaped by bystander effects (diffusion of responsibility) and the presence of norms that make helping the socially expected response.

• Describe social dilemmas and the role of norms and moral emotions in resolving them. A social dilemma arises when individually rational choices produce collectively suboptimal outcomes — the prisoner's dilemma and public goods games are the canonical models. Norms, reputation effects, and moral emotions (guilt, shame, moral elevation) are the primary mechanisms through which groups escape the logic of defection.

Examiners in social psychology frequently test whether students can apply concepts rather than simply recall them. A few patterns to watch for:

Scenario questions ask you to identify a named phenomenon in a described situation. The key is precision: social loafing requires that effort is reduced in a group context; conformity requires a change in behaviour or belief due to perceived group norms; groupthink requires a specific cluster of symptoms, not just any poor group decision. A common trap is using a term loosely — write the definition before you apply it.

Evaluation questions expect you to engage critically. Know the key methodological criticisms: Milgram's deception and psychological harm, the ecological validity debates around lab-based conformity studies, and the reproducibility concerns that have affected some social psychology findings (the "replication crisis" has hit this field hard, including famous priming studies and ego depletion). Naming a limitation is not enough — you need to explain what it means for the validity of the conclusion.

The distinction between normative and informational social influence is frequently tested and easily confused. Normative influence is about belonging; informational influence is about accuracy. Asch's paradigm primarily tests normative influence (the answer is objectively correct — participants know this). Sherif's autokinetic studies are the classic demonstration of informational influence (the task is genuinely ambiguous).

When questions ask you to discuss cross-disciplinary connections — a common feature of KI exams in particular — use a concrete example. Don't just say "evolutionary biology offers ultimate explanations." Say: "Daly and Wilson's analysis of homicide patterns (1988) uses evolutionary reasoning to explain why male–male violence peaks in young adulthood and concentrates around resource competition — a pattern that social-learning accounts alone cannot predict."