Social Syllabus For Spring, 1996

SYLLABUS PSY 1135: SOCIAL PERECPTION AND COGNTION

FALL 2014

INSTRUCTOR: Edward Orehek, Ph.D. Office: 3105 Sennott Square E-mail: [email protected] Office hours:

COURSE OVERVIEW:

Social perception and cognition provides a systematic review of research and points of view in regard to major problems in the field of social cognition. The course will cover major theories in the field and the empirical evidence in support of them. Students will be challenged to understand the theories, to recognize their scholarly significance, to infer their implications, and to think critically about them. COURSE FORMAT:

CLASS ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION IN CLASS DISCUSSION The class sessions will be designed to provide you with an understanding of the major theoretical ideas in social psychology and the research that supports them. Specifically, students are expected to have read each week’s reading(s) prior to class and to contribute to class discussion. Each week, you must turn in your written work during class (you may not email it, or turn it in at any other time). During class, we will discuss the basic principles proposed by each theory, the implications of that theory, and think critically about the merits of each theory. Each student is expected to come to class prepared to summarize the key points of the theory and to participate in the discussion regarding it.

CLASSROOM ETIQUETTE The class sessions are designed discuss the assigned readings. To help others learn and do well in the course everyone must practice classroom etiquette. Students who violate these rules may be singled out and/or asked to leave the class:

1. Arrive to class on time 2. Use laptops only for class-related activities 3. Do not text or talk on the phone during class

DISABILITY SUPPORT SERVICES If you have a disability for which you are or may be requesting an accommodation, you are encouraged to contact both your instructor and Disability Resources and Services, 216 William Pitt Union, (412) 648- 7890 / (412) 383-7355 (TTY), as early as possible in the term. DRS will verify your disability and determine reasonable accommodations for this course.

PROBLEMS If you are experiencing a problem with the course or if you foresee a problem, PLEASE talk to your instructor before it gets any worse. When there is a problem, communication is important. I can usually offer assistance when there is a problem, but I cannot help if you do not talk to me about it. There is much more I can do before an assignment takes place than after.

Social Perception and Cognition Syllabus - Page 1 GRADING The final grade in this class will be based on a percentage of 500 points accumulated from a mid-term paper (150 points), a final term paper (150 points), an oral presentation (50 points), weekly written assignments (totaling 100 points), and a written journal that captures your thoughts throughout the semester (50 points).

1. Papers You will write two papers for this class. Your mid-term paper is expected to be 6-8 pages in length (150 points). You will receive feedback on this paper, and will be asked to revise and extend this paper, culminating in a final term paper, which is expected to be 12-15 pages in length (200 points). Details are specified at the end of the syllabus and will be discussed during class. A full letter grade will be deducted for every day the paper is late.

2. Oral Presentation You will give a presentation at the beginning of one class session, discussing the topic to be covered that day (50 points). Presentations will be made individually. You should present the research from the assigned reading, including the background, hypothesis, rationale for the hypothesis, research methods, research findings, and implications of the findings. You will be graded based on the rubric at the end of the syllabus.

3. Weekly Writing Assignment You will be expected to turn in a one page written assignment each Monday. For this assignment, students are expected to (a) concisely summarize one of the main ideas from the week’s readings, and (b) to thoughtfully discuss any questions or comments that relate to the idea. This may include (but is not limited to) implications of this idea for research/theory, further research that could be conducted to extend the idea, how this idea may be put into practice, or how this idea relates to other psychological literature. Each assignment will be graded based on the clarity and thoughtfulness of the writing. You can receive a maximum of 100 points, which will be determined by the total of your 10 highest grades on the assignments (each is worth 10 points).

Grading scale: 90-100% (min 450 points) = A-, A, A+ 80-89% (400 – 449 points) = B-, B, B+ 70-79% (350 -399 points) = C-, C, C+ 60-69% (300 - 349 points) = D-, D, D+

4. Written Journal You should write a journal entry following each class session about your thinking regarding the course material. Students find the conversations in class to be stimulating, thought-provoking and informative. To facilitate your elaboration of the material and memory for interesting insights, you should write at least half a page following each class session. These can be hand written or typed, but must all be turned in together at the end of the semester, along with a 1-2 page reflection at the end of the semester about what you took away from the course.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY EXPECTATIONS My interactions with you are based on the expectation of mutual trust and honor. You are expected to do your own work on assignments (unless I explicitly say otherwise).

Although it is often helpful to discuss assignments and course materials with other students, your written work must represent your own ideas in your own words. Acts of academic dishonesty will not be tolerated in this course. Any behavior that appears to be academic dishonesty will be referred immediately to the university and may result in a failing grade for the course. Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:  Purchasing or copying an article or paper from any source(s) and turning it in as your own.  Failing to cite or improperly citing the ideas of others.  Working with other students on assignments, unless the instructor has explicitly said that you may work together.  Lying about reasons for turning an assignment in late or missing class.

Social Perception and Cognition Syllabus - Page 2 COURSE SCHEDULE

Social Perception and Cognition Syllabus - Page 3 WEEK DATE TOPICS TO BE COVERED READINGS

1 Course Introduction Organizational Meeting 2 Knowledge Activation Higgins, E. T. (2000). Social cognition: Learning about what matters in the social world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 3-39

Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141– 154.

Forster, J., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Accessibility from active and fulfilled goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 220–239. 3 Self-Control Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. (2000). Self- regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247-259.

Vohs, K.D., Baumeister, R.F., Schmeichel, B.J., Twenge, J.M., Nelson, N.M., & Tice, D.M. (2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited resource account of decision making, self- regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 883-898.

Molden, D. C., Huim C. M., Scholer, A. A., Meier, B. P., Noreen, E. E., D’Agostino, P. R., & Martin, V. (2012). Motivational versus metabolic effects of carbohydrates on self-control. Psychological Science, 23, 1137-1144. 4 Automaticity Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being.American psychologist, 54(7), 462.

Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322, 606-607.

F: Ackerman, J. M., Nocera, C.C., & Bargh, J.A. (2010). Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments. Science, 328, 1712-1715. 5 Unconscious Thought Dijksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L. F. (2006). A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 95-109.

Dijksterhuis, A (2004). Think Different: The Merits of Unconscious Thought in Preference Development and Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 586-598.

Strick, M., Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M., Sjoerdsma, A., Van Baaren, R., & Nordgren, R. F. (2010). A meta- analysis on unconscious thought effects. Social Cognition 29, 738-762.

Social Perception and Cognition Syllabus - Page 4 6 Dual Process Theory: Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2011). The Associative and Propositional Processes associative-propositional evaluation model: Theory, evidence, and open questions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 59-127.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.

Eitam, B., Hassin, R. R., & Schul, Y. (2008). Nonconscious goal pursuit in novel environments: The case of implicit learning. Psychological Science, 19, 261– 267. 7 A single process account: Kruglanski, A. W., Dechesne, M., Orehek, E., & Lay Epistemic Theory: The Unimodel, Pierro, A. (2009). Three decades of lay epistemics: Need for Closure, and Epistemic The why, how and who of knowledge formation. Authority European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 146-191.

Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Pierro, A. & Manetti, L. (2002). When similarity breeds content: Need for closure and the allure of homogeneous and self- resembling groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 648-662.

Chun, W.Y., & Kruglanski, A.W. (2006). The role of task demands and processing resources in the use of base rate and individuating information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 205-217. 8 No Class- Day treated as a Monday on university calendar

9 Construal Level Theory Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463. MID-TERM PAPER DUE Hansen, J., & Trope, Y. (2012). When Time Flies: How Abstract and Concrete Mental Construal Affect the Perception of Time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

Maglio, S. J. & Trope, Y. (2012). Disembodiment: Abstract construal attenuates the influence of contextual bodily state in judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 211-216. 10 Mental Control Wenzlaff, R., & Wegner, D. (2000). Thought suppression. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 59-91.

Pronin, E., Wegner, D. M., McCarthy, K., & Rodriguez, S. (2006). Everyday magical powers: The role of apparent mental causation in the overestimation of personal influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 218-231.

Wegner, D. M., & Gold, D. B. (1995). Fanning old flames: Emotional and cognitive effects of suppressing thoughts of a past relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 782-792.

Social Perception and Cognition Syllabus - Page 5 11 Affective Forecasting Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 35 (pp. 345- 411). New York: Elsevier.

Whitchurch, E. R., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2011). He loves me, he loves me not: The effects of uncertainty on romantic attraction. Psychological Science, 22, 172-175.

Kassam, K. S., Morewedge, C. K., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2011). Winners love winning but losers love money. Psychological Science, 22, 602-606. 12 Affect as Information Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed.) (pp. 385-407). New York, NY US: Guilford Press.

Xu, A. J., Zwick, R., & Schwarz, N. (2012). Washing Away Your (Good or Bad) Luck: Physical Cleansing Affects Risk-Taking Behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 26-30.

Chandler, J. & Schwarz, N. (2009). How extending your middle ﬁnger affects your perception of others: Learned movements inﬂuence concept accessibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 123- 128 13 Goal Systems Theory Kruglanski, A., Shah, J., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 34 (pp. 331-378). San Diego, CA US: Academic Press.

Chun, W.Y., Kruglanski, A. W., Sleeth-Keppler, D., & Friedman, R. S. (2011). Multifinality in implicit choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1124-1137.

Orehek, E., Mauro, R., Kruglanski, A. W., & van der Bles, A. M. (2012). Prioritizing association strength versus value: Regulatory mode and means evaluation in single and multi-goal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 22-31. 14 Motivated Reasoning Kruglanski et al. (2012). The energetics of motivated cognition: A Force Field Analysis. Psychological Review, 119, 1-20.

Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2010). Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science, 21, 147-152.

Critcher, C. R., & Dunning, D. (2009). How chronic self-views influence (and mislead) self-evaluations of performance: Self-views shape bottom-up experiences with the task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 931-945. 15 Morality Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational Social Perception and Cognition Syllabus - Page 6 tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814.

Gray, K., Knobe, J., Sheskin, M., Bloom, P., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). More than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objectification. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(6), 1207.

Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of personality and social psychology, 96(3), 505. 16 FINAL PAPER DUE

Social Perception and Cognition Syllabus - Page 7 SOCIAL PERCEPTION & COGNITION MID-TERM PAPER

BACKGROUND: The goal of this project is to get you to think deeply and critically about the current theories in social cognition, and to be creative and generative in response to both strengths and limitations of existing work. In addition, you should learn to take an active role in research and to engage in the process of hypothesis generation.

ASSIGNMENT: Your mission is to write a 6-8 paper in which you outline a new hypothesis derived from the theories covered in class. There are many ways to come up with a new research hypothesis. For example you could:

 Combine two theories/constructs that have not been previously researched together (e.g., suggest a moderator of an effect)  Identify a debate in the field and attempt to resolve it  Identify an inconsistency in research findings and attempt to resolve it  Point out a hole in the empirical support for a theory and attempt to fill it  Argue that a theory is limited or incorrect and propose an alternative

Remember that you are being asked to do more than to write a “book report” or summary of existing theory/research. You are being asked to go beyond the current state of the field and to propose a new idea.

You must cite at least one theory covered in class and at least five journal articles to provide support for your claims. This means that you should summarize the methods and results from at least one study per journal article. It should be clear what was found in each study and how it relates to the points you are making in your paper. Explain clearly how the study you are summarizing supports your argument.

Each of the additional sources must be from an academic journal. I suggest using papers from the journals Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Psychological Science, Science, Social Cognition, Psychological Review, Psychological Bulletin, and/or the Annual Review of Psychology.

All papers must be turned in at the beginning of class. You may not email the paper or turn it in to my mailbox. If you cannot make class for any reason (if you are sick, out of town, etc.) then you should have someone else deliver your assignment to class for you. If you cannot make such arrangements, then you may hand it to me sometime before then. However, you must directly hand it to me (not in my mailbox, etc.).

Social Perception and Cognition Syllabus - Page 8 ANONYMOUS PEER REVIEW

To be completed by students in class on the day papers are turned in

1. Provide a summary of the background: What is the general topic that this paper is addressing? What has previous research on this (or related) topics demonstrated? What is the purpose of the research described in this paper? How does it complement the previous research on this topic? 2. Provide a summary of the hypothesis: What is/are the author’s hypothesis/hypotheses? 3. Provide an analysis of the strengths: What was the most original aspect of the paper? What do you think were the strongest arguments proposed in the paper? 4. Provide an analysis of the weaknesses: Were there any aspects that were unclear to you? What was the weakest section of the paper? What are the limitations of the current draft? 5. Provide a critical review: Is the hypothesis clearly presented? Is it well-supported? Does it seem to have important implications? How can the strengths be enhanced and limitations be reduced?

The instructor will then have the peer reviews available when crafting feedback, which will be provided in the form of an editorial decision on a manuscript submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. This feedback will include specific expectations (usually about 4 major points) for how to expand and revise the paper.

FINAL PAPER

You should revise and resubmit your paper according to the feedback you received from the three student peer reviews and your instructor/editor. This should include the addition of at least two new references. This revised paper should be 12-15 pages in length. You should include your original paper, the peer reviews and editor feedback with this resubmission. In addition, you should write a cover letter detailing the way in which you addressed the concerns, suggestions, and requests made by the editor and the reviewers.

Social Perception and Cognition Syllabus - Page 9 PRESENTATION RUBRIC

CONTENT ______Clearly presented research question/hypothesis ______Clearly presented research methods ______Clearly summarized research findings

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING ______Clearly presented the importance of the research question ______Clearly articulated the rationale for the hypothesis ______Clearly discussed important implications of the findings

CREATIVITY ______Narrative was compelling and captured the audience’s attention ______The material was made memorable and engaging ______Delivery was professional and authoritative

*Each of these criteria will be graded, and will be given equal weight in determining a final grade for the presentation.

COMMENTS TO PRESENTER:

Social Perception and Cognition Syllabus - Page 10