ADVANCED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Fall 2015
|
Class Information |
Instructor Information |
|
PSYCH 6204 |
Dr. Helen C. Harton |
|
Bartlett 34 |
Bartlett 2080 |
|
W 7-9:50pm |
273-2235; harton@uni.edu |
Office Hours: W 1:30-2:50; F 11-11:50; pretty much any time
I’m around
Readings: 1) Baumeister, R. F.,
& Finkel, E. J. (2010). Advanced social psychology: The state of the science. New York:
Oxford
2) Articles available online (use google
scholar)
3) Articles to be emailed out
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 about four articles or chapters each week in depth. Social psychology
has been defined as “an 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 can’t participate if you’re not here. You should read the readings carefully and critically before class and come to class with specific questions or comments about each of 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 didn’t participate very much; comments irrelevant (below average)
3 = comments or questions relevant, but didn’t 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 can’t 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 can’t get a good (and fairly
equal) amount of discussion going, I reserve the right to require reaction
papers on the readings as well—these would be 1-2 page informal papers about
your thoughts and reactions on one or more of the week’s 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. Papers with APA style or citation errors will be returned for you to fix, and late points will be deducted until the corrected paper is turned back in. Topics will be due and discussed in class October 23, and the final paper will be due on December 18 (I will accept the papers any time from December 14 to December 18 at noon). I will be happy to read and give you comments on (fairly complete) rough drafts, but you have to turn them in before Thanksgiving break to get this feedback. 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 or for another class 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., PowerPoints), 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. Presentation schedule is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/198miYea2EB-In-DNz2Z3EIVWge7khtI87Q9tii-4PMU/edit#gid=0
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 “day.” Plan ahead and don’t 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, quoting material in a paper without proper
attribution, or looking at or using any outside information (outside your head)
during tests. For more information on
UNI’s academic honesty policies, see the UNI website 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 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.
t indicates that there are published responses to the article you may want to check out
*not
available online
August 26 Introduction: History, Theory,
and Methodology
B/F Chapter 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
*Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B. Jr., Bahnik, S., Bernstein, M. J….Nosek, B. A. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A ‘many labs’ replication project. Social Psychology, 45, 142-152. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000178
September
2 The
Self
B/F Chapter 5
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 574-601. doi:10.1037/a0038781
*Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (2015). Thirty years of terror management theory: From genesis to revelation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 1-70.doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.03.001
Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Smith, S. F., Miller, J. D., Campbell, W. K., Waldman, I, D.,…Faschingbauer, T. J. (2013). The double-edged sword of grandiose narcissism: Implications for successful and unsuccessful leadership among U. S. Presidents. Psychological Science, 24, 2379-2389. doi:10.1177/0956797613491970
September
9 Cultural Differences, Emotion, and Morality
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
16 Social Cognition
B/F Chapter 3
*Jost, J. T., & van der Toorn, J. (2012). System justification theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology, Volume 2 (pp. 313-343). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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., & Monroe, A. E. (2014). Recent research on free will: Conceptualizations, beliefs, and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 1-52. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.00001-1
September
23 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
*Chan, M. (2014). (Re)categorizing
intergroup relations and social identities through news discourse: The case of the China Daily’s reporting
on regional conflict. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
33, 144-164. doi: 10.1177/0261927X13508125