Applying social psychology theories to explain behavior
A short social psychology paper built on a three-response social media scenario, where the group that said nothing is the one the assignment is really about.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 8, 2026
Which of the three response types gets left out?
The scenario contains **three** response types and the third is the one papers lose. A small group belittling him and encouraging suicide; a larger group offering support and a crisis line; and *many of his online followers have not responded to his post*. Silence does not feel like a behaviour, so it gets dropped — but it is the behaviour the brief's own opening paragraph is about. Darley and Latané's finding is precisely that inaction in the presence of others is produced by the situation rather than by indifference, and the non-responders are the largest group in the scenario. The brief says *each of the responses*, and it gives you the worked pattern in brackets: which principles explain response type A, which explain type B, and so on. Give the silent group its own labelled passage, because a marker checking three response types against three explanations will otherwise find only two.
The first bullet is separate from the scenario and names three phenomena, not one: *the impact of social context on **conformity**, **obedience**, and **helping behaviors***. Each has its own classical literature and its own mechanism, and collapsing them into a general statement that context shapes behaviour answers none of them. Conformity is about matching a group's judgement or behaviour; obedience is about compliance with a perceived authority; helping is about whether assistance is offered at all, and it is where diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance and evaluation apprehension operate. Treat them as three short passages. They also set you up for the second bullet, since each of the three response types in the scenario maps most naturally onto a different one of them. Keeping them separate also stops the classic slippage where obedience research is used to explain a situation containing no authority figure at all.
The brief warns you off the easy explanation before you reach the scenario: *it might be tempting to assume that aggressors and the bystanders who do nothing to intervene are just “bad” people; however, the reasons... are much more complex*. That is a direct instruction to explain the hostile comments situationally. The available mechanisms are specific — deindividuation, where reduced identifiability in a crowd lowers self-regulation; online disinhibition, where anonymity and the absence of visible consequences loosen restraint; and the effect of an emerging local norm once the first hostile comment has been posted. Explanation is not exculpation, and it is worth saying so in a clause so the paper cannot be read as excusing the behaviour it is analysing. The scenario supplies the evidence for this reading, since the hostile comments come from a small group while the supportive ones come from a larger one.
The third bullet asks for *at least one recommendation... based on what you have learned about social psychology*, and the qualifier is the whole test. A recommendation such as “moderate the comments more heavily” is a platform policy, not a social-psychological intervention. Recommendations that follow from the theories you have just used look different: naming a specific person to act, because diffusion of responsibility weakens when responsibility is assigned; reducing anonymity, because deindividuation depends on it; or making the supportive responses more visible, because people follow the norm they believe is prevalent rather than the one that is. Tie the recommendation explicitly to the mechanism it targets. Recommendations that would also work offline are usually the weaker ones, because the scenario's mechanisms are specific to an anonymous, asynchronous comment thread.
Two smaller things. The paper is **2 to 3 pages** for three bullets, one of which has three sub-parts and another of which has three response types — so this is seven or eight short passages rather than an essay with an argument, and an extended introduction will cost you a section. And the sourcing note asks for *specific references to the Learning Resources and any additional sources*, with in-text citations as well as a reference list; the Hock readings are named for a reason and should appear. Finally, the scenario describes sexual violence and suicidal intent, so keep the register analytic rather than dramatic; the assignment is about the responses, not about the disclosure. A real post of this kind warrants reporting it to the platform and pointing the person to crisis support, which is worth one sentence and is not the assignment.
Requirement | What it means here | The paper that fails it |
|---|---|---|
Conformity, obedience, helping | Three mechanisms, treated separately | One paragraph on social context |
Each of the responses | All three types, including the silent one | Only the hostile and supportive groups |
The non-responders | Diffusion of responsibility, explicitly | Silence treated as an absence of data |
The hostile comments | Deindividuation and disinhibition | “Some people are just cruel” |
Support your assertions | Scholarly content per claim | Theory names with no citation |
One recommendation | Targeting a named mechanism | “The platform should moderate better” |
2–3 pages | Seven or eight short passages | A long introduction and two bullets |
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Treat inaction as a behaviour with its own explanation.
- 02Distinguish conformity, obedience and helping as separate mechanisms.
- 03Explain hostile behaviour situationally without excusing it.
- 04Design an intervention that targets a named psychological mechanism.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!
What the 2- to 3-page social psychology paper needs
- 01A 2- to 3-page paper.
- 02The impact of social context on conformity, obedience and helping behaviours.
- 03Theories or principles accounting for each of the three response types.
- 04Scholarly support for each assertion.
- 05At least one recommendation grounded in social psychology.
- 06In-text citations and references, including the Learning Resources.
From conformity and obedience to a mechanism-based recommendation
Social context and conformity
Explain how group judgement shapes individual behaviour.
Social context and obedience
Explain compliance with perceived authority and power.
Social context and helping
Set out diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance and audience effects.
Response type A: the hostile group
Apply deindividuation, disinhibition and emerging local norms.
Response type B: the supportive group
Explain what made intervention more likely for this group.
Response type C: the non-responders
Apply the bystander effect to the group that did nothing.
Recommendation
Propose an intervention and name the mechanism it acts on.
Finding evidence for online bystander behaviour
Recommended databases
- The Hock (2013) readings and Learning Resources
- PubMed Central
- PsycINFO
- Social psychology journals
Search sequence
- 1.Start from the Hock readings, because the brief names them and the classical studies they cover are the ones the marker expects to see applied.
- 2.Search bystander intervention in online rather than physical settings, since the scenario is a comment thread and the mechanisms transfer only partly.
- 3.Search for what makes hostile online behaviour more likely, so response type A has a measured mechanism rather than a character judgement behind it.
- 4.Search social norms interventions specifically when you reach the recommendation, because that is where an evidence-based proposal comes from rather than from intuition.
Bystander intervention and online disinhibition sources
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Barriers to action: behavioral determinants of bystander intervention in medical emergencies
BMC Public Health · 2026
Current evidence on why bystanders do not act, which is what response type C needs. It moves beyond naming diffusion of responsibility to the determinants that actually predict inaction, so your account of the silent majority rests on measured barriers rather than on a citation to a 1968 study alone.
- 02
An Exploration of Victim Blaming and Bystander Intervention in the Context of Image-Based Sexual Abuse
Journal of Interpersonal Violence · 2026
Unusually close to this scenario: bystander responses to online sexual harm, including victim blaming of the kind response type A displays. Use it for the hostile group and for the point that the same situation produces both blame and support depending on how the bystander construes it.
- 03
Greater toxic online disinhibition and lower consistent online self-presentation contribute to cyberbullying
Frontiers in Psychology · 2025
The mechanism behind response type A, stated as a measured construct rather than as a characterisation. Toxic online disinhibition gives you a situational explanation for the belittling comments, and it points directly at the anonymity-reducing recommendation the third bullet asks for.
- 04
Outcome and process evaluation of a social norms approach intervention on nonmedical use of prescription drugs
BMC Public Health · 2025
An evaluated social norms intervention, which is the strongest template for the recommendation bullet. The logic transfers directly: people act on the norm they believe is prevalent, so making the supportive responses more visible than the hostile ones is an intervention with a mechanism and an evidence base rather than a suggestion.
Before the social psychology paper is submitted
Common mistakes
- Omitting the non-responders, who are the largest group and the point of the framing.
- Merging conformity, obedience and helping into one statement about social context.
- Explaining the hostile comments as evidence of bad character, which the brief pre-empts.
- Naming theories without citing anything to support them.
- Using the bystander effect as a label rather than as an explanation with a mechanism.
- Recommending platform moderation, which is policy rather than social psychology.
- Making a recommendation that is not tied to any mechanism you identified.
- Spending a page on introduction in a two- to three-page paper.
- Ignoring the Hock readings the brief names.
- Writing about the disclosure rather than about the responses to it.
Submission checklist
- All three response types are explained, including the silence.
- Conformity, obedience and helping are each addressed separately.
- Diffusion of responsibility is applied to the non-responders explicitly.
- The hostile comments have a situational mechanism named.
- The paper states that explanation is not excuse.
- Every theoretical claim carries a citation.
- The recommendation names the mechanism it targets.
- The Learning Resources appear in the citations.
- The paper is 2 to 3 pages.
- APA in-text citations and a reference list are both present.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.