ADVANCED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Fall 2013

Class Information

Instructor Information

PSYCH 6204

Dr. Helen C. Harton

Baker 315

Baker 357

W 6:30-9:20pm

273-2235; harton@uni.edu

 

Office Hours: W 1:30-3; F 11-11:50;pretty much any time Iím around

 

Readings: 1) Baumeister, R. F., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Advanced social psychology: The state of the science. New York: Oxford

††††††††††† ††††† 2) Articles in the grad mailbox room.

††††††††††† ††††† 3) Articles available online (use google scholar)

 

Course Description: In this class we will explore several major (and overlapping!) areas of social psychology. In addition to the overview of each area provided by the text, we will generally focus on three to four articles each week in depth. Social psychology has been defined as ďan attempt to understand and explain how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others" (Allport, 1954). This course will deal with the theory, research, and methodology of social psychology, including both classic and contemporary approaches. As one of the sciences of human behavior, social psychology has many implications for areas such as industrial/organizational, clinical, and school psychology, and I encourage you to relate the research we discuss in class to your area of interest during discussions. The course will primarily be discussion-based, although I will sometimes give introductions to an area or provide you with further information about research findings.

 

Course Requirements:

†††††††††† Class discussion††††††††††††††††††††† 25%†††††††††††††††† Grades will be distributed as follows:

††††††††††† Midterm exam†††††††††††††††††††††††† 20%†††††††††††††††† 93-100 = A; 90-92 = A-; 87-89 = B+;

††††††††††† Final exam†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 25%†††††††††††††††† 83-86 = B; etc.

††††††††††† Research proposal†††††††††††††††††† 20%

††††††††††† Proposal presentation††††††††††††† 10%

 

Class discussion. Active class discussion is essential to the functioning of the class. You are expected to contribute meaningfully (thoughtful, relevant, critical comments) to class discussions. While mere attendance is not enough to get a good grade for this component, it is imperative in that you canít participate if youíre not here. You should read the readings carefully and critically before class and come to class with specific questions or comments about them to add to the discussion. Think about things like how the research or theory relates to other research you know about, how you could test the theory, criticisms and solutions of the theory or area, etc. I will drop your one lowest discussion grade. Participation (frequency and quality) will be graded each week on roughly the following scale:

††††††††††† 0 = absent

††††††††††† 2 = attended but didnít participate at all or very much (below average)

††††††††††† 3 = comments or questions relevant, but didnít involve much insight (average)

††††††††††† 4 = comments or questions relevant and insightful (good)

††††††††††† 5 = several comments or questions showed a significant contribution (excellent)
I will try to get you feedback as soon as possible after class, but this means that I canít always give a lot of comments related to your grade. The first few weeks, especially if you are below a 4, I will try to give some helpful hints for improving your grade. Feel free to come talk to me if you have further questions about your discussion grades. If we canít get a good (and fairly equal) amount of discussion going, I reserve the right to require reaction papers on the readings as wellóthese would be 1-2 page informal papers about your thoughts and reactions on one or more of the weekís readings. If the majority of the class decides to, we can require these papers, which would be graded on roughly the same scale as discussion above and count 40% of the discussion grade.

 

Midterm and final exams. There will be two noncumulative exams made up of essay questions. I will give you a longer list of questions from which the test questions will be drawn at least a week before the exam. Exams will be taken in the computer lab. The class can vote on whether you want to have 4 required essays, 4 required essays plus some identifications, or 5 essays on each test.

 

Research proposal. This original proposal should be based on one or more social psychological theories (ideally ones discussed in class) and add to the literature in the area. For this paper, you can either 1) choose a theory and propose a study to test a new prediction from the theory. This may take the form of extending or limiting the theory; 2) choose two or more theories and design a study to integrate them, either showing that they would lead to similar predictions or differentiating conditions under which they would lead to conflicting predictions; or 3) apply a theory to a research area to which it has not been previously applied (e.g., your area of interest). The proposals should contain an abstract, a relevant and focused literature review (at least 7-8 pages), a detailed method section, a results section with proposed analyses and expected results, a discussion section examining the implications and limitations of your expected findings, references, and appendices with any questionnaires or measures you designed. The paper should be in APA style. Topics will be due and discussed in class October 23, and the final paper will be due on December 20 (I will accept the papers any time from December 16 to December 20). I will be happy to read and give you comments on rough drafts, but you should turn in any rough drafts to me as soon as possible so Iíll have time to comment on them and get them back to you (that is, before Thanksgiving break). If you have any questions about whether a paper topic is appropriate for any reason, ask me about it. Obviously proposals for projects that you are working on with other faculty or students are not appropriate for this assignment, but you can do something related to your thesis or something that may become your thesis.

 

Presentation. During one of the last class sessions, you will present your proposal to the class (background, method, expected results, what they would mean, etc.). Your presentation, which should include some audio-visual effects (e.g., overheads or PowerPoint), should last about 15 minutes, followed by a discussion of the proposal by the class of no more than 5-10 minutes. You can integrate any helpful comments from the class into your proposal before you turn it in.

Makeup and Late Paper Policies: Class discussion grades cannot be made up. Makeup tests will only be given in very limited circumstances. Proposals will be accepted up to three days (days, not business days) past the due date, but one letter grade will be deducted for each day until they are turned in. Papers are due at 12pm (noon), so after that counts as the next ďday.Ē Plan ahead and donít wait until the last minute to finish (or start) the paper, in case something unexpected arises.

 

Academic Honesty Policy: Cheating and plagiarism of any kind will not be tolerated and will result in a 0 on the assignment in question. This includes using a paper from another class or that you have worked on with another faculty member to fulfill a requirement in this class or looking at or using any outside information (outside your head) during tests. For more information on UNIís academic honesty policies, see the University Catalog as well as the information in the Department of Psychology Graduate Student Handbook. If you have any questions about what is acceptable, ask.

 Reading List and Class Schedule

 

The readings indicated are ones that should be read carefully and critically. You should be ready to discuss them in class, and have points in mind that you want to bring up.

*indicates that article is available in the psych resource room (others are available online via the library databases)

t indicates that there are published responses to the article you may want to check out

 

August 28†††† Introduction: History, Theory, and Methodology

B/F Chapter 1 and 2

*Ellsworth, P. C. (2004). Clapping with both hands: Numbers, people, and simultaneous hypotheses. In J. T. Jost, M. R. Banaji, & D. A. Prentice (Eds.), Perspectivism in social psychology: The yin and yang of scientific progress (pp. 261-273). Washington, DC: APA. doi:10.1037/10750-019

tHenrich, J. Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Lilienfeld, S. C. (2012). Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist, 67, 111-129. doi:10.1037/a0023963

Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013) .What we should expect from theories in social psychology: Truth, Abstraction, Progress, and Applicability As Standards (TAPAS). Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 40-55. doi:10.1177/1088868312453088

 

 

September 4††† The Self

B/F Chapter 5

*Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., Luke, M. A., OíMara, E. M., & Gebauer, J. E. (2013). A three-tier hierarchy of self-potency: Individual self, relational self, collective self. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 235-295. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-407188-9.00005-3

Hayes, J., Schimel, J., Arndt, J., & Faucher, E. H. (2010). A theoretical and empirical review of the death-thought accessibility concept in terror management research. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 699-739. doi:10.1037/a0020524

Sanders, M. A., Shirk, S. D., Burgin, C. J., & Marin, L. L. (2012). The gargle effect: Rinsing the mouth with glucose enhances self-control. Psychological Science, 23, 1470-1472. doi:10.1177/0956797612450034

 

 

September 11††† Cultural Differences and Emotion

B/F Chapters 4 & 18

*Miyamoto, Y. (2013). Culture and analytic versus holistic cognition: Toward multilevel analyses of cultural influences. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 47, 131-188. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00003-6

tGelfand, J. J. et al. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332, 1100-1104. doi:10.1126/science.1197754††

Niedenthal, P. M. (2007). Embodying emotion. Science, 316, 1002-1005. doi:10.1126/science.1136930

Chapman, H. A., & Anderson, A. K. (2013). Things rank and gross in nature: A review and synthesis of moral disgust. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 300-327. doi:10.1037/a0030964

 

 

September 18††† Social Cognition

B/F Chapter 3

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory:

†††††††††† Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status

††††††††††† quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881-919. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x

Shepherd, S., & Kay, A. C. (2012). On the perpetuation of ignorance: System dependence, system justification, and the motivated avoidance of sociopolitical information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 264-280. doi:10.1037/a0026272

Baumeister, R. F., Masicampo, E. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). Do conscious thoughts cause behavior? Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 331-361. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131126

 

 

September 25†††† Prejudice

B/F Chapters 10 & 15

Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414-446. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414

*Schaller, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (2012). Danger, disease, and the nature of prejudice(s). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1-54. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00001-5

Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Albrecht, T. L., Dailey, R. K., & Tsveti, M. (2010). Aversive racism and medical interactions with Black patients: A field study. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 436-440. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.004

 

October 2†††† Attitudes

B/F Chapters 6 & 7

Earl, A., & Albarracin, D. (2007). Nature, decay, and spiraling of the effects of fear-inducing

arguments and HIV counseling and testing: A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term outcomes of HIV-prevention interventions. Health Psychology, 26, 496-506. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.4.496

Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692-731. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692

Petersen, M. B., Sznycer, D., Sell, A., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). The ancestral logic of politics: Upper-body strength regulates menís assertion of self-interest over economic redistribution. Psychological Science, 24, 1098-1103. doi:10.1177/0956797612466415

 

 

October 9†††† Midterm exam

 

October 16†† Social Influence and Cultural Emergence

 

B/F Chapter 11

*Shariff, A. F., Norenzayan, A., & Henrich, J. (2010). The birth of high gods: How the cultural evolution of supernatural policing influences the emergence of complex, cooperative human societies, paving the way for civilization. In M. Schaller, A. Norenzayan, S. J. Heine, Yamagishi, T., & T. Kameda (Eds.), Evolution, culture, and the human mind (pp. 119-136). New York: Psychology Press.

*Harton, H. C., & Bourgeois, M. J. (2004). Cultural elements emerge from dynamic social impact. In M. Schaller & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), Psychological foundations of culture (pp. 41-75). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Ledgerwood, A., & Callahan, S. P. (2012). The social side of abstraction: Psychological distance enhances conformity to group norms. Psychological Science, 23, 907-913. doi: 10.1177/0956797611435920

*Cialdini, R. B. (2012). The focus theory of normative conduct. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology, Volume 2 (pp. 295-312). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

 

October 23††† Groups

 

B/F Chapter 14

Ellemers, N. & Haslam, S. A. (2012). Social identity theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology, Volume 2 (pp. 379-398). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Swann, W. B., Jr., Jetten, J., Gomez, A., Whitehouse, H., & Bastian, B. (2012). When group membership gets personal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review, 119, 441-456. doi:10.1037/a0028589

Ronay, R., Greenaway, K., Anicich, E. M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). The path to glory is paved with hierarchy: When hierarchical differentiation increases group effectiveness. Psychological Science, 23, 669-677. doi:10.1177/0956797611433876

 

Discuss paper topics in class.

 

October 30†††† Relationships

 

B/F Chapter 13 and first part Chapter 12

*Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2012). Adult attachment orientations, stress, and romantic relationships. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 279-328. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394286-9.00006-8

Harden, K. P (2012). True love waits? A sibling-comparison study of age at first sexual intercourse and romantic relationships in young adulthood. Psychological Science, 23, 1324-1336. doi:10.1177/0956797612442550

*Cavallo, J. V., Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (2014). Risk regulation in close relationships. In M. Milkulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Mechanisms of social connection: From brain to group pp. 237-254). Washington DC: APA.

 

 

November 6†††† Helping and Happiness

 

B/F Chapter 8

Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., Monroe, A. E., & Patel, A. (2009). Three stigmas and prosocial behavior: Are people reluctant to help stigmatized persons? In S. Sturmer & M. Snyder (Eds.), Psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. (online book available via library)

Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111-131. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111

Diener, E., (2012). New findings and future directions for subjective well-being research. American Psychologist, 67, 590-597. doi:10.1037/a0029541

 

 

November 13†† Aggression and Rejection

 

B/F Chapter 9 & last part Chapter 12

Smart Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116, 365-383. doi:10.1037/a0015250

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477-489. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.6-7.477

Legate, N., DeHaan, C. R., Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Hurting you hurts me too: The psychological costs of complying with ostracism. Psychological Science, 24, 583-588. doi:10.1177/0956797612457951

Whitaker, J. L., Melzer, A., Steffgen, G., & Bushman, B. J. (2013). The allure of the forbidden: Breaking taboos, frustration, and attraction to violent video games. Psychological Science, 24, 507-513. doi:10.1177/0956797612457397

 

 

November 20†† Evil, Terrorism, and Extremism

 

*Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). A situationist perspective on the psychology of good and evil. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 21-50). New York: Guilford.

Moghaddam, F. M. (2005). The staircase to terrorism: A psychological explanation. American

††††††††††† Psychologist, 60, 161-169. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.161

Gibson, J. T., & Haritos-Fatouros, M. (1986). The education of a torturer. Psychology Today, 20, 50-58.

*Bandura, A. (2004). The role of selective moral disengagement in terrorism and counterterrorism. In F. M. Moghaddam & A. J. Marsella (Eds.), Understanding terrorism: Psychosocial roots, consequences, and interventions (pp. 121-150). Washington, DC: APA.

Saucier, G., Akers, G., Shen-Miller, S., Knezevic, G., & Stankov, L. (2009). Patterns of thinking in militant extremism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 256-271. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01123.x

Ginges, J., Atran, S., Sachdeva, S., & Medin, D. (2011). Psychology out of the laboratory: The challenge of violent extremism. American Psychologist, 66, 507-519. doi:10.1037/a0024715

*Kruglanski, A. W., Sharvit, K., Fishman, S. (2011). Workings of the terrorist mind: Its individual, group, and organizational psychologies. In D. Bar-Tal (Ed.), Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: A social psychological perspective (pp. 195-216). New York: Psychology Press.

 

December 4††† Final exam

 

December 11††† Student presentations

 

December 18 (6:30-9:00pm)†††† Student presentations

 

December 2012:00 pm†† Papers due

 

Bonus Readings:

Jordan, C. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1999). How to read a journal article in social psychology. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), The self in social psychology (pp. 461-470). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Available at http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~sspencer/psych253/readart.html

Bem, D. J. (2002). Writing the empirical journal article. In J. M. Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. L. Roediger III (Eds.),(2002). The compleat academic: A career guide. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Available at http://dbem.ws/WritingArticle.pdf

Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 172-177. Available at http://dottoratopsicologia.unicatt.it/files/Writing%20a%20Review%20Paper.pdf

Sternberg, R. J. (1993). How to win acceptances by psychology journals: 21 tips for better writing. APA Observer. Available at http://www.csustan.edu/psych/todd/sternbrg.html