1

Psychology GA.3404: Intergroup Relations SPRING 2019 | Monday 11:30-1:30pm| Meyer 465

Instructors: Drs. Jay J. Van Bavel & Maureen A. Craig ​ E-mail: [email protected] & [email protected] (preferred form of contact) ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Office: Meyer 506 (Jay) & Meyer 526 (Mo) ​ Office Hours: By appointment ​

Course Website: on NYU CLASSES (via your NYU Home account) ​ ​

Readings: You are responsible for the assigned readings each week (not the additional ​ readings). We​ have included links to online versions of articles in this syllabus.

Additional Reading (not required): ● Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. ● Hogg, M. (2001). Intergroup relations: Key Readings. ● Abrams, D. & Hogg. M. A. (1988). Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. ● Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1999) Social Identity and Social Cognition. ● Brown, R., & Capozza. D. (2006). Social Identities: Motivational, Emotional, Cultural Influences. ● Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999) Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content. ● Otten, S., Sassenberg, K., & Kessler, T. (2008). Intergroup Relations: The Role of Motivation and Emotion.

2

Course Description

This seminar will review theory and research on intergroup relations, providing an overview of the social psychological literature on how our social group identities shape how we get along with others. The study of intergroup relations involves the influence of group memberships of cognition, attitudes, and behavior. The course will focus on the relationship between the self and collective identity, the origins and motives underlying intragroup and intergroup behavior, as well as contextual factors including majority vs. minority group members, social status, and threat. We also ​ consider how processes associated with social identity manifest at various levels of society (intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup, and structural) and examine interventions working at these different levels to improve intergroup relations.

This course will provide an overview and in-depth exploration of the major theoretical debates and key empirical developments in the area of intergroup relations. Students in this class will be directly exposed to many of the core ideas in the field by reading many of the classic articles which are complemented with modern theoretical and empirical papers. We will primarily draw upon social psychology, but will incorporate other subareas of psychology (e.g., developmental, clinical, organizational, and political psychology) as well as other social scientific disciplines (e.g., sociology, anthropology, political science, & neuroscience) throughout the course.

Course format and grades

The work in this course includes active participation, leading discussion, writing a research proposal, a class presentation, and submitting a term paper. Class assignments are designed to develop your ability to think critically and creatively, moderate discussion, present ideas and write—fundamental skills for your research career. Your assignments should be theory-driven, clear, and concise. This year, you get to choose your own adventure: You can either do assignments that will lead you to a (1) traditional research proposal or (2) pre-registered direct replication for ​ Psychological Science. If you do an excellent job, it is possible that you will then be ​ ​ able to conduct the research you propose in this course and turn it into a scientific publication.

Participation & Weekly discussion questions (15%) Each student is expected to read the assigned articles each week and participate in discussion of those readings during the class meeting. Students are graded on their ability to understand and integrate the material. We are especially interested in your ability to add to the dialogue in a constructive way, either by respectfully challenging your peers or building on a discussion and connecting to relevant areas of research that were not present in the weekly readings. Although we are looking for your critical perspectives on the course material, we are equally interested in your 3 ability to understand the historical and contemporary value in the literature. You will also be graded on your ability to help your classmates by providing useful suggestions during their presentations. A successful classroom community exists when we all come to class prepared and contribute to the class discussion in a thoughtful, critical, and active manner. Carefully listening to your classmates and building on their contributions will help facilitate a constructive, interactive classroom experience.

You are also required to email the discussion leader one question you had about each of the required readings at least 48 hours before class each week. Effective ​ ​ questions are those that draw connections between the different readings and topics covered in class, generate new research ideas, and make connections between the readings and events in the larger world. Try not to get caught up on smaller issues (e.g., methodological details—you can raise these critiques in class, of course, but don’t turn your response into a tirade about a small point). The discussion leaders should use these questions/critiques to help guide class discussion. You do not need ​ to submit questions/critiques during the weeks you lead the class discussion.

Leading discussion (15%) Each student will be assigned to lead discussion each week. Discussion leaders will be responsible for facilitating discussion of the assigned readings. Discussion leaders will read the questions submitted from the other students and use them to prepare and distribute a list of ~10 questions and talking points design to provoke discussion. This will be sent to the entire class at least 24 hours before the class meeting. The questions can focus on specific articles or on themes that connect the articles and you can draw from the most popular or (in your opinion) best questions submitted from the other students. Discussion leader assignments will be determined during the first class.

Hypothesis generation (15%), Due February 25th This is where the choose-your-own-adventure begins! Each student will either submit ​ ​ 1) a set of 5 hypotheses for a research proposal or 2) 2 Psychological Science articles that they would like to replicate in the area of intergroup relations. We will provide feedback on the ideas and tell you if any (or all) are approved for use in your presentation and term paper. All ideas for presentation/term paper must be ​ approved. 1. Students writing a traditional research proposal will generate 5 hypotheses. They should first complete McGuire’s creative hypothesis generation steps and ​ develop five potential term paper ideas for consideration. Be sure to explain why your research is theoretically or methodologically innovative (i.e., what is the core contribution of this proposed study). Each research idea should be described succinctly (200 words or fewer—please provide word count). 2. Students writing a replication proposal should select potential target articles. They should first read this guide for pre-registered replication reports at ​ Psychological Science. Be sure to make a case as to why the proposed ​ ​ replication (based on a published paper in Psychological Science) is likely to be ​ ​ 4

theoretically informative and provide rough info about the research plan (e.g., sample, materials). We make that judgment based on the following criteria (from the RRR section of Perspectives on Psychological Science): (a) has the ​ ​ ​ original article been influential in the field, (b) is it methodologically sound and the interpretation of the result unambiguous, (c) has it been replicated already, (d) does it force a reconsideration of an important theory or establish the foundation for a theoretical position, (e) would theoretical models or empirical understanding of the phenomenon under study benefit from a more precise estimate of the effect size for this particular study, (f) would learning that the effect size is larger or smaller than in the original study potentially change how people think about this topic area, and (g) would other labs likely want to participate in conducting their own replications. NOTE: Replications can include a theoretical extension (e.g., a new moderator that would enrich theory in intergroup relations). Each replication idea should be described ​ succinctly (500 words or fewer—please provide word count).

Initial Research Proposal & Peer Review (15%), Due April 1 Each student will submit either 1) an original research proposal or 2) pre-registered replication proposal in the area of intergroup relations. Please keep your paper under ​ 1500 words (includes title page, figures, footnotes, references, etc.—please provide word count). The short proposal should either 1) present a proposal for future research addressing a specific (approved) research question arising from the hypothesis generation assignment (specifying the research question and purpose of the study, followed by design and general method), or 2) propose a pre-registered replication of an (approved) article in Psychological Science. If you choose the ​ replication option, you spend less time focused on the theoretical background and more time making a case as to why the proposed replication is likely to be informative ​ and provide detailed info about a feasible research plan. This will then be reviewed by two of your peers over the following week and you will review proposals from two of your peers (reviews are due April 8). Your reviews should include the following ​ ​ components: 1) Restate the goals, methods, and findings, 2) Assess strong points, 3) Large concerns, 4) Specific concerns, 5) Conclusion – overall assessment of strengths relative to limitations. This feedback can then be used to improve everyone’s projects (in addition to giving practice in reviewing).

Presentation (15%), Due May 13 Each student will briefly present their research proposal / replication proposal (10 minutes) on the last week of class. This will provide you with an opportunity to share your ideas with the class and receive critical feedback before you submit your term paper. Standard presentation format involves Keynote/PowerPoint, but you are free to use any format necessary to effectively communicate your proposal (e.g., interpretive dance, slam poetry, puppet show). You will be graded on your ability to clearly and elegantly communicate the main points of the proposal. The class will be able to ask questions and provide substantive feedback to help improve your project.

5

Term paper (25%), Due May 20 Each student will submit an original research proposal or pre-registered replication proposal in the area of intergroup relations. Please keep your paper under 4000 words ​ (includes title page, figures, footnotes, references, etc.—please provide word count). The papers begin with a review of your specific topic or research issue related to intergroup relations. Following this review of previous research on the selected topic, the paper will either 1) present a proposal for future research addressing some specific question arising from the literature review (specifying the research question and purpose of the study, followed by design and general method), or 2) propose a pre-registered replication using these guidelines. In the case of replications, they are ​ ​ ​ limited to 1,500 words, excluding Method and Results sections. Be sure to make a ​ ​ ​ case as to why the proposed replication is likely to be informative and provide excruciatingly complete info about the research plan (for more details see here). ​ ​ ​

Paper formatting should adhere to APA guidelines (e.g., double-spaced format, ​ one-inch margins, etc.). The paper is an opportunity to study a topic of interest in great depth and go beyond the course material. Papers must be submitted by email ​ to Jay & Mo. Late papers will be deducted 5% for every day they are late. Please contact us at least a week before the due date if you would like to request an extension.

Topic and Assignment Schedule

January 28: Introduction and overview

Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, J. B., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W.(1954/1961). ​ ​ Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robber’s Cave Experiment. (Classics in ​ the History of Psychology by C. D. Green).

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Metatheory: Lessons from social identity research. ​ ​ Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 98-106. ​

Ashmore, R.D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework ​ ​ for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80-114. ​ Additional reading:

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.) Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson. ​ ​ Brewer, M.B. (2001). The many faces of social identity: Implications for political psychology. Political ​ Psychology, 22, 115-125. ​ Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 45-81. ​ ​ 6

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P. & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 149-178. ​ ​

Cikara, M., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2014). The neuroscience of intergroup relations: An integrative review. ​ ​ Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 245-274. ​

Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. ​ ​

Brewer, M.B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93. ​ ​

February 4: Origins of Social Identity: Developmental & Evolutionary Origins

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, ​ ​ ​ 96-103.

Lewis, G.J., Kandler, C., & Riemann, R. (2014). Distinct heritable influences underpin ​ ​ in-group love and out-group derogation. Social Psychological and Personality ​ Science, 5, 407-413. ​ Dunham, Y. (2018). Mere membership. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 780-791. ​ ​ ​ ​ Gray, K., Rand, D. G., Ert, E., Lewis, K., Hershman, S., & Norton, M. I. (2014). The ​ ​ emergence of “Us and Them” in 80 lines of code: Modeling group genesis in homogenous populations. Psychological Science, 25, 982-990. ​ ​

Additional reading:

Manson, J. H., & Wrangham, R. W. (1991). Intergroup aggression in chimpanzees and humans. Current ​ ​ ​ Anthropology, 32, 169-390. ​

Caporael, L. R. (1997). The evolution of truly social cognition: The core configurations model. ​ ​ Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 276-298. ​

McDonald, M. M., Navarrete, C. D., & Van Vugt, M. (2012). Evolution and the psychology of intergroup ​ ​ conflict: The male warrior hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions The Royal Society of London ​ Biological Sciences.

Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Kurzban, R. (2003). Perceptions of race. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 7, ​ 173-179.

Van Bavel, J. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2009). Self-categorization with a novel mixed-race group ​ ​ moderates automatic social and racial biases. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, ​ 321-335.

February 11: Self-Categorization and Identity Organization 7

Turner, J. C., Oakes., P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: ​ ​ Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, ​ ​ 454-463.

Bianchi, M., Mummendey, A., Steffens, M. C., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2010). What do you ​ ​ mean by “European”? Evidence of spontaneous ingroup projection. Personality and ​ Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 960-974. ​ Brewer, M. B., & Pierce, K. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup ​ ​ tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 428-437. ​ ​ Additional reading:

Turner, J.C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J.C. Turner et al. Rediscovering the social group ​ (pp. 42-67). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2007). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group ​ ​ perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 296-330. ​ ​ Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: ​ ​ The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 331-372. ​ ​ Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158-174. ​ Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology ​ Review, 6, 88-106. ​ Crisp, R., & Hewstone, M. (2000). Multiple social categorization. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in ​ Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 163-254). Academic Press. ​ Kang, S.K., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2015). Multiple identities in social perception and interaction: Challenges and opportunities. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 547-574. ​ ​ Pickett, C.L., Bonner, B., & Coleman, J. (2002). Motivated self-stereotyping: Heightened assimilation ​ ​ and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 543-562. ​

Otten, S., & Epstude, K. (2006). Overlapping mental representations of self, ingroup, and outgroup: ​ ​ Unraveling self-stereotyping and self-anchoring. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, ​ ​ 957-969.

Smith, E.R., & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of the self: Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 635-642. ​

February 18: President’s Day - NO CLASS

February 25: Group Prototypicality, Intergroup Perception, & Bias 8

Handron, C., Kirby, T. A., Wang, J., Mastkewich, H. E., & Cheryan, S. (2017). ​ ​ Unexpected gains: Overweight Asian Americans are buffered from prejudice against foreigners. Psychological Science, 28, 1214-1227. ​ ​ Kunst, J. R., Thomsen, L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2018). Divided loyalties: Perceptions of ​ ​ disloyalty underpin bias toward dually-identified minority-group members. Journal ​ of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. ​ Wilkins, C. L., Kaiser, C. R., & Rieck, H. M. (2010). Detecting racial identity: The role ​ ​ of phenotypic prototypicality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, ​ ​ 1029-1034.

Additional reading:

Kaiser, C. R., & Pratt-Hyatt, J. S. (2009). Distributing prejudice unequally: Do Whites direct their ​ ​ prejudice toward strongly identified minorities? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, ​ ​ 432-445.

Kunst, J. R., Dovidio, J. F., Dotsch, R. (2018) White Look-Alikes: Mainstream Culture Adoption Makes ​ ​ Immigrants “Look” Phenotypically White. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 265-282. ​ ​ Xiao, Y. J., Coppin, G., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2016). Seeing the world through group-colored glasses: A ​ ​ perceptual model of intergroup relations. Psychological Inquiry (Target Article), 27, 255-274. ​ ​

March 4: Group-based Emotion

Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social ​ Psychology, 93, 431-446. ​

Yzerbyt, V., Dumont, M., Wigboldus, & Cordijn, E. (2003). I feel for us: The impact of ​ ​ categorization and identification on emotions and action tendencies. British ​ Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 533-549. ​

Wohl, M., Branscombe, N., & Klar, Y. (2006). Collective guilt: Emotional reactions ​ ​ when one’s group has done wrong or been wronged. European Review of Social ​ Psychology, 17, 1-37 (Issue 1) ​

Additional reading:

Lickel, B., et al. (2005). Vicarious shame and guilt. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, ​ ​ 145-157.

Mackie, D. M., Devos, T. & Smith E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 602-616. ​ ​

9

Castano, E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2006). Not quite human: Infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 804-819. ​ ​

March 11: Minority Identity and the Experience of Stigma

Zou, L. X., & Cheryan, S. (2017). Two axes of subordination: A new model of racial ​ ​ position. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 696-717. ​ ​

Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2016). Stigma-based solidarity: Understanding the ​ ​ psychological foundations of conflict & coalition among members of different stigmatized groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 21-27. ​ ​

Warner, R. H., Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2014). When do victim group ​ ​ members feel a moral obligation to help suffering others? European Journal of ​ Social Psychology, 44, 231-241. ​

Chaney, K. E., Sanchez, D. T., & Remedios, J. D. (2018). We are in this together: How ​ ​ the presence of similarly stereotyped allies buffer against identity threat. Journal ​ of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 410-422. ​ Additional reading:

Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). Discrimination divides across identity dimensions: Perceived ​ ​ racism reduces support for gay rights and increases anti-gay bias. Journal of Experimental Social ​ Psychology, 55,169-174. ​

Remedios, J. D., & Snyder, S. H. (2018). Intersectional oppression: Multiple stigmatized identities and ​ ​ perceptions of invisibility, discrimination, and stereotyping. Journal of Social Issues, 74(2), ​ ​ 265-281.

Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional Invisibility: The Distinctive Advantages and ​ ​ Disadvantages of Multiple Subordinate-Group Identities. Sex Roles, 5-6, 377–391. ​ ​

Sanchez, D. T., Chaney, K. E., Manuel, S. K., & Remedios, J. D. (2018). Theory of prejudice and American identity threat transfer for Latino and Asian Americans. Personality and Social Psychology ​ Bulletin, 44(7), 972-983. ​

Cortland, C. I., Craig, M. A., Shapiro, J. R., Richeson, J. A., Neel, R., & Goldstein, N. J. (2017). ​ ​ Solidarity through shared disadvantage: Highlighting shared experiences of discrimination improves relations between stigmatized groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4), ​ ​ 547-567.

Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and ​ Social Psychology, 77, 135-149. ​

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 90, 608-630. ​ ​ 10

Jetten, J., Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & McKimmie, B. M. (2005). Suppressing the negative effect of devaluation on group identification: The role of intergroup differentiation and intragroup respect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 208-215. ​ ​

March 18: Spring Break - NO CLASS

March 25: In-group Bias, Loyalty, and Self-Sacrifice

Brewer, M. B. (2007). The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup ​ ​ ​ ​ relations. American Psychologist, 62, 728-738. ​ ​

Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of ​ ​ morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234-249. ​

Swann, W. B., Gomez, A., Dovidio, J. F., Hart, S., & Jetten, J. (2010). Dying and ​ ​ killing for one’s group: Identity fusion moderates responses to intergroup versions of the trolley problem. Psychological Science, 21, 1176-1183. ​ ​

Additional reading:

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429-444.

Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). Diversity in in-group bias: Structural factors, situational features, and social functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, ​ 944-960.

Shah, J. Y., Brazy, P. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Promoting us or preventing them: Regulatory focus and manifestations of intergroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 433-446. ​ ​

April 1: Intergroup Ideologies

Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., Hurd, K., & Romano, C. A. (2018). Do color blindness and ​ ​ multiculturalism remedy or foster discrimination and racism? Current Directions in ​ Psychological Science, 27(3), 200-206. ​ Wilton, L. S., Apfelbaum, E. P., & Good, J. J. (2018). Valuing differences and ​ ​ reinforcing them: Multiculturalism increases race essentialism. Social Psychological ​ and Personality Science. Advance online publication. ​ Vorauer, J. D., Gagnon, A., & Sasaki, S. J. (2009). Salient intergroup ideology and ​ ​ intergroup interaction. Psychological Science, 20(7), 838-845. ​ ​ 11

Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-size-fits-all: ​ ​ Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of ​ Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 547-566. ​ Additional reading:

Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for ​ ​ minorities? Psychological Science, 20(4), 444-446. ​ ​ Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 94(4), 615-630. ​ ​ Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of ​ ​ multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgments of groups and individuals. Journal of ​ Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 635-654. ​

April 8: Motives underlying Social Identity

Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality ​ ​ ​ and Social Psychology Review, 9, 341-359. ​

Brewer, M.B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same ​ ​ time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482. ​ ​

Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & De Grada, E. (2006). Groups as ​ ​ epistemic providers: Need for closure and the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychological Review, 113, 84-100. ​

Additional reading:

Castano, E., & Dechesne, M. (2005). On defeating death: Group reification and social identification as immortality strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 221-255. ​ ​

Hogg, M. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social ​ Psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 69-126). Academic Press. ​

April 15: Many Forms of Social Identity Threat

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and ​ ​ content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35-58). Oxford: Blackwell. ​

12

Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying ​ ​ the different emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 116-132. ​ ​

Shapiro, J. R., Williams, A. M., & Hambarchyan, M. (2013). Are all interventions ​ ​ created equal? A multi-threat approach to tailoring stereotype threat interventions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 277-288 ​ ​

Huang, J. Y., Sedlovskaya, A., Ackerman, J. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2011). Immunizing ​ ​ against prejudice: Effects of disease protection on attitudes toward out-groups. Psychological Science, 22, 1550-1556. ​

Additional reading:

Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A ​ ​ meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336-353. ​ ​

Rios, K., Sosa, N., & Osborn, H. (2018). An experimental approach to Intergroup Threat Theory: ​ ​ Manipulations, moderators, and consequences of realistic vs. symbolic threat. European Review of ​ Social Psychology, 29(1), 212-255. ​

Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, ​ ​ ​ ​ 415-437.

Shapiro, J. R. (2012). Types of threats: From stereotype threat to stereotype threats. In T. Schmader & ​ ​ M. Inzlicht (Eds.), Stereotype Threat: Theory, Process, and Application (pp. 71-88). New York: ​ ​ Oxford University Press.

April 22: Group Size & Status

Leonardelli, G., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Minority and majority discrimination: When ​ ​ and why. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 468-485. ​ ​

Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2017). Information about the US racial demographic ​ ​ shift triggers concerns about anti-White discrimination among the prospective White “minority.” PLoS ONE, 12, 1-20. ​

Danbold, F., & Huo, Y. J. (2017). Men's defense of their prototypicality undermines ​ ​ the success of women in STEM initiatives. Journal of Experimental Social ​ Psychology, 72, 57-66. ​

Additional reading:

Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3–7. ​ ​ ​ ​

Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York, NY: Capricorn ​ ​ Books. 13

Craig, M. A., Rucker, J. M., & Richeson, J. A. (2018). The pitfalls and promise of increasing racial ​ ​ diversity: Threat, contact, and race relations in the 21st century. Current Directions in ​ Psychological Science, 27(3), 188-193. ​

April 29: Political identities

Cikara, M., Van Bavel, J. J., Ingbretsen, Z., & Lau, T. (2017). Decoding “us” and ​ ​ “them”: Neural representations of generalized group concepts. Journal of ​ Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 621-631.

Brady, W., Wills, J., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes ​ ​ ​ diffusion of moral content in social networks. Proceedings of the National ​ Academy of Sciences, 114, 7313-7318.

Van Bavel, J. J. & Pereira, A. (2018). The partisan brain: An identity-based model of ​ ​ political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 213-224. ​

Additional reading:

Bail, C. A., et al., (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political ​ ​ polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 9216-9221. ​ ​

Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukla, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific ​ ​ literature. SSRN.

May 6: Class Presentations Day 1

May 13: Class Presentations Day 2 - LAST DAY OF CLASSES

May 20: Term papers due

Course website

Log in and you should see this course. If you don’t, please let us know. Readings, grades, assignments and handouts will be posted online. There is also a discussion board for questions. If you have a question you can email us, or post it online. If several people email a similar question I will post it on the website. Please treat the website as a collective resource to ask questions of common interest and share ideas with one another. If you have a dispute or concern with another member of the class, please email us directly and do not try to deal with it on the course website.

14

Academic Conduct

All work must be your own. Cheating or plagiarism will be reported through official university channels, and the consequences will be severe. If you are unwise enough to plagiarize, the minimum punishment is usually failure in the course. If the case of plagiarism or cheating is especially blatant, you may be expelled from the university. The papers and assignments are designed for what you can do based on what we are covering in this class and the skills you have already learned. If you are unsure if an action constitutes academic misconduct, please email us before the assignment is due and/or review NYU’s and CAS’ academic integrity policies (here & here). ​ ​ ​ ​

Students with Disabilities

We encourage students with disabilities, including invisible disabilities like chronic diseases or learning disabilities, to contact the Moses Center. Academic ​ ​ accommodations are available for students with documented disabilities. Please contact the Moses Center for Students with Disabilities at 212-998-4980 for further information.