Department of Psychological Science, University of Vermont PSY 260, Class 13984

Department of Psychological Science, University of Vermont
SELF AND SOCIAL COGNITION
PSY 260, Class 13984
Spring, 2015
Tuesday, Thursday, 10:00AM – 11:15AM, Billings – MLK
Professor: Sylvia P. Perry
Office: 338 Dewey Hall
Phone: 656-1341
Email: [email protected]
Office hours: Wednesday 3-5, and by appointment
Prerequisites
This course requires students to have completed, with a passing grade, Psychology 109
(Psychology Research Methods I) and Psychology 130 (Social Psychology), and Junior
standing.
Course Overview and Objectives
The purpose of this course is to introduce you to social cognition research. Social
cognition is not a “topic” like aggression, persuasion, prejudice, or attraction. It is more
of a general approach to studying human behavior in a social context. In other words, it
represents a specific level of analysis. In this course you will have an opportunity to read
and discuss assigned readings on social cognition research. For the most part, assigned
readings will be from primary sources, and they will cover many of the major issues that
have preoccupied social cognition researchers. Each week, the topic of the readings will
be an issue that is either (1) an older, classic social-psychological phenomena, or (2) still
being actively studied and discussed and is controversial.
By the end of the semester, you should be able to:
•
•
•
•
Understand what is unique about this general approach to studying social psychological
phenomena, along with its advantages and limitations.
Recognize, articulate, and elaborate upon specific theories and research findings on social
cognition.
Communicate effectively, orally and in writing, about social cognition research.
Discuss and critique social cognition research and theory.
Supplemental Materials
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Blackboard
Many aspects of this course are presented and available through the course website on
Blackboard. It is your responsibility to stay current with this material. In other words, check
Blackboard frequently.
Course Requirements and Grading
Attendance and Participation (5% of your grade)
Needless to say, the most basic course requirement is attendance and participation. Students
will be expected to come to class with questions about the readings that might stimulate
discussion. To do this—and more generally, to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful
way—you will need to do the assigned readings before the class for which they are assigned.
These readings will be available online on Blackboard.
Thought Questions (15% of your grade)
The first week of class will include (a) a discussion of the course requirements and
expectations, (b) an overview of “social cognition,” broadly defined, and (c) a discussion on
how to read and analyze an empirical research article.
After the first week of class, we will have 27 meetings during which we will discuss a set of
readings. Students will be expected to submit at least two “thought questions” on the
readings per meeting (for a total of at least four submissions per week). Some weeks will
deviate from the format described above.
The content of these questions can vary widely, but they should reflect some kind of
intellectual engagement with the readings. These questions could consist of critical reactions,
thoughts about how the research might apply to other issues, alternative explanations for
findings, interesting and unanswered questions, and more. They should not, however, just be
straightforward summaries of the readings or lists of things that you did not understand.
Thought questions should be submitted to Blackboard by Friday at 8pm for Tuesday
meetings, and by Sunday at 8pm for Thursday discussions.
Article Presentations (20% of your grade)
Students will also be required to lead one weekly discussion meeting in which they will be
expected to help facilitate the discussion of the assigned readings through two mechanisms.
First, the student is required to present a summary and critique of each of the assigned
readings. Each article presentation should take no longer than 15 minutes. Second, the
student is required to provide an overview of the thought questions submitted for that day’s
readings.
Students who are leading a weekly discussion are required to email the professor an
electronic copy of their presentation, including a paragraph-long critique and summary of
each reading, and a synthesis of the thought questions, the day before they lead the
discussion. Following the presentation, the outline and critique will be posted on Blackboard
for the benefit of all students in the class. The outlines and critiques, along with the
presentation itself, will be graded for clarity, comprehensiveness, accuracy, effort, and
thoughtfulness.
Group Discussions and Reaction Papers (20% of your grade)
In week two of class, students will be randomly assigned to discussion groups. These groups
will serve two purposes. First, during the course of the semester, you will have at least two in
depth in class discussions with your group. The topics of the discussion will be based on a
list of 5-6 questions that will be distributed at the beginning of class. Those questions will
deal with broad issues from the previous weeks’ readings. After the class discussion, students
should write a “reaction paper” of approximately 2 pages (double-spaced) and submit it to
the instructor (by the beginning of the next class). These papers should be written
independent of your group members. Grades for these assignments will be based upon
students’ contributions to the in-class discussion (determined by anonymous group member
evaluations), as well as the reaction papers.
Second, group members will be expected to refer to one another for feedback regarding their
final papers. Information about the final paper and group feedback expectations are below.
Final Paper (40% of your grade)
A paper will be due on Friday of the last week of classes (May 1). It should be approximately
12-15 pages long and prepared in APA style. The paper can take one of three forms:
1. A critical literature review of competing theories, models, or methodologies covered in the
course. The paper should include a summary of the areas of the social cognition literature
you are drawing from. The bulk of the paper, however, should be devoted to discussing the
similarities and differences between the two areas, unanswered questions, and how these
unanswered questions might be resolved in a novel or compelling way.
2. A proposal for novel research related to one of the issues discussed during the semester. If
this option is selected, though, the emphasis should be on the theoretical background and the
issues that would be addressed by the research and not on research design and data analytic
issues.
3. An extended discussion of a novel perspective on one of the issues discussed during the
semester. That is, it should elaborate on a perspective either not discussed in class or only
very briefly touched upon.
You are all required to discuss your paper topic with the instructor before you begin working
on them. Specifically, students will be expected to do the following:
•
Submit a brief proposal (a short paragraph) on their paper topic and format to Blackboard
by the end of week 10, (Friday 3/27).
•
Submit an annotated bibliography of the primary sources used for their paper to
Blackboard by the end of week 11, (Friday 4/3). This annotated bibliography will be
evaluated by the instructor and one group member.
•
Submit an outline/plan of their paper to Blackboard by the end of week 13 (Friday 4/17).
This outline will be evaluated by the instructor and one group member.
•
Provide critical feedback to one group member on his/her annotated bibliography and
paper outline.
•
Submit final draft by May 1.
In summary, your assignments for this class include:
1) Attendance and Participation (5% of your grade)
2) Thought Questions (15% of your grade)
3) Article Presentations (20% of your grade)
4) Group Discussions and Reaction Papers (20% of your grade)
5) Final Paper (40% of your grade)
Grading
At the end of the semester, your grades will be weighted as noted in the above table and your
final grade will be assigned according to the following scale: A = 93-100; A- = 90-92.9; B+
= 86.9-89.9; B = 82.9- 86.9; B- = 79.9-82.8; C+ = 75.5-79.8; C = 70-75.4; D = 60-69.9; F =
59.9 or below.
General Policies
Attendance Policy:
I strongly encourage you to attend class. Your performance and grade in this class largely
hinge on your being there, particularly on the days when you are scheduled to present. It
will also be an educational and intellectually stimulating experience to the extent that all
students are present.
Make-up Policy:
You cannot make-up work, including oral presentations. If you are scheduled to present
on a given day; make sure you show up. If you do not, you can turn in the outline for half
credit. Otherwise, you will receive zero points.
Lateness Policy:
I do not accept late work. If you are having difficulty completing your final paper, please
contact me at least 48 hours before the deadline.
Checks and Balances: All students will be asked to evaluate fellow group members.
These evaluations will be factored into the final grade.
Policy on Cheating (Academic Honesty)
The Department of Psychological Science follows the University system policy on
academic honesty that is published on the student affairs website. You may download a
version from here: http://www.uvm.edu/policies/student/acadintegrity.pdf. You are
expected to know the University’s standards of academic honesty and are responsible for
abiding by these standards. Lack of knowledge of these standards is not an acceptable
defense for academic misconduct. Acts of academic dishonesty include:
• Plagiarism: presenting another person's work as your own, whether or not doing so
was intentional.
• Cheating on examinations: giving or receiving unauthorized help before, during, or
after an examination
• Unauthorized collaboration: submitting academic work, whole or in part, as your
individual effort when it has been developed in collaboration with another person or
source
• Falsification: misrepresenting material or fabricating information in order to gain an
unfair advantage over others
• Multiple submissions: submitting the same work, whole or in part, for credit more
than once without the explicit consent of the faculty member(s) to whom the material
is submitted
The penalty for academic misconduct in this course varies from a 0 on the assignment to
a failing grade in the course, depending on the severity of the offense and the student’s
history of academic conduct. Disciplinary action may be taken in addition to the
academic penalty if the instructor, department, college, or university feels such action is
warranted. All acts of academic dishonesty will be reported to the Chair of the
Department of Psychological Science, the Director of Undergraduate Studies in
Psychological Science, and the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
All members of the University community, including students, faculty, and staff, are
expected to report violations of academic conduct to the appropriate authorities. Failure
to report academic misconduct of which you are aware reflects complicity with the
misconduct. Such complicity may also result in an academic and/or disciplinary penalty
Classroom Environment
This course will uphold the University of Vermont’s Classroom Code of Conduct
University of Vermont Classroom Code of Conduct:
Faculty and students will at all times conduct themselves in a manner that serves to
maintain, promote, and enhance the high quality academic environment befitting the
University of Vermont. To this end, it is expected that all members of the learning
community will adhere to the following guidelines:
1. Faculty and students will attend all regularly scheduled classes, except for those
occasions warranting an excused absence under the University Attendance Policy (e.g.,
religious, athletic, and medical).
2. Students and faculty will arrive prepared for class and on time, and they will remain in
class until the class is dismissed.
3. Faculty and students will treat all members of the learning community with respect.
Toward this end, they will promote academic discourse and the free exchange of ideas by
listening with civil attention to comments made by all individuals.
4. Students and faculty will maintain an appropriate academic climate by refraining from
all actions that disrupt the learning environment (e.g., making noise, ostentatiously not
paying attention, and leaving and reentering the classroom inappropriately). (Please turn
your cell phones off during class).
Special Accommodations and ACCESS
Please contact Dr. Perry in person, by email, or by phone if there is anything that she
needs to know that might improve your learning environment in this class.
UVM, through its ACESSS office, provides accommodation, consultation, collaboration
and education support services to students needing special accommodations. To contact
the ACCESS office, you may go to: http://www.uvm.edu/access/; email them at
[email protected]; or call at 656-7753. If you need specific accommodations in this class,
please bring a letter from ACCESS to the instructor within the first 3 weeks of class so
that we can make appropriate arrangements.
Religious Holidays
According to UVM guidelines, students have the right to practice the religion of their
choice. Each semester students should submit in writing to their instructors by the end of
the second full week of classes their documented religious holiday schedule for the
semester. Faculty must permit students who miss work for the purpose of religious
observance to make up this work.
Helpful Hints
•
•
•
•
•
Come to class every day.
Check Blackboard at least 24 hours before class.
Check at your syllabus often. I will not answer questions that can be answered by
looking at the syllabus
Complete the reading prior to class and come with topics for discussion.
Ask questions! If you don’t understand something, you are likely not the only person.
Topics and Reading Assignments
Week 1, 1/13: Introduction and overview
NO READING ASSIGNMENT
Week 1, 1/15: Introduction and overview
Sample article discussion:
James, K. (1986). Priming and social categorizational factors: Impact on awareness of
emergency situations. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 462-467.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture (Chapter 1, pp.
1-28). New York: McGraw Hill.
Week 2, 1/20: Building blocks of social cognition, Part I--Accessibility
Strack, F., Schwarz, N., Bless, H., & Kübler, A. (1993). Awareness of the influence as a
determinant of assimilation versus contrast. European Journal of Social Psychology,
23, 53-62.
Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (1991). The law of cognitive structure activation.
Psychological Inquiry, 2, 169-184.
Week 2, 1/22: Building blocks of social cognition, Part II—Categorization
Smith, E. R., & Zarate, M. A. (1990). Exemplar and prototype use in social categorization.
Social Cognition, 8, 243-262.
Srull, T. K. (1981). Person memory: Some tests of associative storage and retrieval
models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 440-463.
Week 3, 1/27: Building blocks of social cognition, Part III—Automaticity & the
Unconscious
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture (Chapter 2, pp.
31-58). New York: McGraw Hill.
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects
of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.
Week 3, 1/29: Building blocks of social cognition, Part III—Automaticity & the
Unconscious
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & van Baaren, R. B. (2006). On Making the
Right Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect. Science, 311, 1005-1007.
Bos, M. W., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2011). Unconscious Thought Works Bottom-Up and
Conscious Thought Works Top-Down when Forming an Impression. Social
Cognition, 29, 727–737.
Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R., & White, T. L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of
thought suppression. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53, 5-13.
Week 4, 2/3: Building blocks of social cognition, Part IV—Motivated/biased cognition
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of different decision criteria
for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 568-584.
Week 4, 2/5: Building blocks of social cognition, Part IV—Motivated/biased cognition
Newman, L. S. (1999). Motivated cognition and self-deception. Psychological Inquiry, 10,
59-63.
Newman, L. S., Duff, K. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). A new look at defensive projection:
Thought suppression, accessibility, and biased person perception. Journal Of
Personality And Social Psychology, 72, 980-1001
Week 5, 2/10: What’s so special about the “self”
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture (Chapter 5, pp.
119-148). New York: McGraw Hill.
Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of
personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677-688.
Week 5, 2/12: What’s so special about the “self”
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1989). The self as a memory system: Powerful, but
ordinary. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 41–54.
Sedikides, C., & Green, J. D. (2004). What I don't recall can't hurt me: Information
negativity versus information inconsistency as determinants of memorial selfdefense. Social Cognition, 22, 4-29.
Week 6, 2/17: Terror management versus sociometer theory
Leary, M. R. (1999). Making sense of self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological
Science. 8, 32-35.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2004). Why Do People
Need Self-Esteem? A Theoretical and Empirical Review. Psychological Bulletin, 130,
435-468.
Week 6, 2/19: Terror management versus sociometer theory
Landau, M. J., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., Cohen, F., Pyszczynski, T., Arndt, J., Miller, C.
H., Ogilvie, D. M., & Cook, A. (2004). Deliver us from Evil: The Effects of Mortality
Salience and Reminders of 9/11 on Support for President George W. Bush. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin. 30, 1136-1150.
Leary, M. R. (2004). The function of self-esteem in Terror Management Theory and
Sociometer Theory: Comment on Pyszczynski et al. (2004). Psychological Bulletin,
130, 478-482.
Week 7, 2/24: Putting it all together—Person Perception (with an emphasis on culture)
Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961-978.
Menon, T., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-Y., & Hong, Y.-Y. (1999). Culture and the construal of
agency: Attribution to individual versus group dispositions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 76, 701-717.
Week 7, 2/26: Putting it all together—Person Perception (with an emphasis on culture)
Duff, K. J., & Newman, L. S. (1997). Individual differences in the spontaneous construal
of behavior: Idiocentrism and the automatization of the trait inference process.
Social Cognition, 15, 217-241.
Knowles, E. D., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (2001). Culture and the process
of person perception: Evidence for automaticity among East Asians in correcting for
situational influences on behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
1344-1356.
SPRING BREAK
Week 8, 3/10: Putting it all together—Stereotyping and Prejudice
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture (Chapter 11,
pp.281-310). New York: McGraw Hill.
Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back
in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 808817.
Uhlmann, E., & Cohen, G. L. (2005). Constructed Criteria: Redefining Merit to Justify
Discrimination. Psychological Science, 16, 474-480.
Week 8, 3/12: Putting it all together—Stereotyping and Prejudice
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2013). Social cognition: From brains to culture (Chapter 12,
pp.311-338). New York: McGraw Hill.
Johnson, K. L., Freeman, J. B., & Pauker, K. (2012). Race is gendered: How covarying
phenotypes and stereotypes bias sex categorization. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102, 116-131.
Week 9, 3/17: The Implicit Association Test (IAT)—The perfect nonreactive attitude
measure?
Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Harvesting implicit group
attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration website. Group Dynamics, 6, 101-115.
McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J. M. (2001). Relations among the Implicit Association Test,
discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 37, 435-442.
Week 9, 3/19: The Implicit Association Test (IAT)—The perfect nonreactive attitude
measure?
Fiedler, K., & Bluemke, M. (2005). Faking the IAT: Aided and unaided response control on
the Implicit Association Tests. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 307-316.
Arkes, H. R., & Tetlock, P. E. (2004). Attributions of implicit prejudice, or “Would
Jesse Jackson ‘fail” the Implicit Association Test?” Psychological Inquiry, 15, 257-278.
Uhlmann, E., Brescoll, V. L., & Paluck, E. L. (2006). Are members of low status groups
perceived as bad, or badly off? Egalitarian negative associations and automatic prejudice.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 491-499.
Week 10, 3/24: Doing a number on ourselves: Stereotype threat
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test
performance of African Americans. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69,
797-811.
O'Brien, L. T, & Hummert, M. L. (2006). Memory performance of late middle-aged
adults: Contrasting self-stereotyping and stereotype threat accounts of assimilation to age
stereotypes. Social Cognition, 24, 338-358.
Week 10, 3/26: Doing a number on ourselves: Stereotype threat
Beilock, S. L., & Jellison, W. A., Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Carr, T. H.
(2006). On the causal mechanisms of stereotype threat: Can skills that don’t rely heavily
on working memory still be threatened? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32,
1059-1071.
Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. (2007). From stereotype threat to stereotype threats:
Implications of a multi-threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators,
consequences, and interventions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 107130.
Week 11, 3/30: Current trends, Part I—Evolutionary social cognition
Ackerman, J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, V., Griskevicius, V.,
Maner, J. K., & Schaller, M. (2006) They All Look the Same to Me (Unless They're
Angry): From Out-Group Homogeneity to Out-Group Heterogeneity. Psychological
Science, 17, 836–840.
Park, J. H., Faulkner, J., & Schaller, M. (2003). Evolved Disease-Avoidance Processes and
Contemporary Anti-Social Behavior: Prejudicial Attitudes and Avoidance of People
with Physical Disabilities. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 65-87.
Week 11, 4/2: Current trends, Part I—Evolutionary social cognition
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., Knobe, J., & Bloom, P. (2009). Disgust sensitivity predicts
intuitive disapproval of gays. Emotion, 9, 435-439.
Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M. N., & Neufeld, S. L. (2010). Influence of different positive
emotions on persuasion processing: A functional evolutionary approach. Emotion,
10, 190-206.
Week 12, 4/7: Current trends, Part II—Social cognitive neuroscience
Ochsner, K. N., & Lieberman, M. D. (2001). The emergence of social cognitive
neuroscience. American Psychologist, 56, 717-734.
Heatherton, T. F., Macrae, C. N., & Kelley, W. M. (2004). What the social brain sciences can
tell us about the self. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 190-193.
Week 12, 4/9: Current trends, Part II—Social cognitive neuroscience
Westen, D., Kilts, C., Blagov, P., Harenski, K., & Hamann, S. (2006). The neural basis
of motivated reasoning: An fMRI study of emotional constraints on political
judgment during the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 18, 1947-1958.
Cunningham, W. A. (2010). In defense of brain mapping in social and affective
neuroscience. Social Cognition, 28, 717-722.
Cunningham, W. A., Johnson, M. K., Raye, C. L., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., & Banaji,
M. R. (2004). Separable neural components in the processing of Black and White
faces. Psychological Science, 15, 806-813.
Week 13, 4/14: Current trends, Part III—Accuracy and Embodiment
Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. (2011) Reintegrating the Study of Accuracy Into Social Cognition
Research. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 159-182.
Epley, N., & Eyal, T. (2011) Integrations need both breadth and depth: Commentary on Zaki
and Ochsner. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 187-192.
Week 13, 4/16: Current trends, Part III—Accuracy and Embodiment
Slepian, M. L., Weisbuch, M., Pauker, K., Bastian, B., & Ambady, N. (2014). Fluid
Movement and Fluid Social Cognition Bodily Movement Influences Essentialist
Thought. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 111-120.
Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005).
Embodiment in Attitudes, Social Perception, and Emotion. Personality And Social
Psychology Review, 9, 184-211.
Week 14, 4/21: Revisiting classic issues, Part I—Aggression and prosocial behavior
Anderson, C. A.; Anderson, K. B., & Deuser, W. E. (1996). Examining an affective
aggression framework: Weapon and temperature effects on aggressive thoughts, affect, and
attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 366-376.
Anderson, C. A., Benjamin, A. J. Jr., & Bartholow, B. D. (1998). Does the gun pull the
trigger? Automatic priming effects of weapon pictures and weapon names. Psychological
Science, 9, 308-314.
Week 14, 4/23: Revisiting classic issues, Part I—Aggression and prosocial behavior
Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Moskowitz, G. B., & Darley, J. M. (2002). Crowded minds: The
implicit bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 843-853.
Nelson, L. D., & Norton, M. I. (2005). From student to superhero: Situational primes shape
future helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 423-430.
Week 15, 4/28: Revisiting classic issues, Part II—Relationships and culture
Andersen, S. M., & Berk, M. S. (1998). The social-cognitive model of transference:
Experiencing past relationships in the present. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 7, 109-115.
Mikulincer, Mario, & Horesh, N. (1999). Adult attachment style and the perception of
others: The role of projective mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 1022-1034.