THEORIES IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY PSY834, Fall 2018 Thursdays, 9:10-12:00 210A Berkey Hall

Transcription

1 THEORIES IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY PSY834, Fall 2018 Thursdays, 9:10-12:00 210A Berkey Hall Course open to graduates and advanced undergraduates (with permission) DESCRIPTION The purpose of this course is two-fold: to compare the contributions and limitations of major theoretical perspectives on social behavior, and to learn about the nature of theory construction and theory-testing in psychology generally. Both general models and middle-level models of social behavior are reviewed. The advantages and disadvantages of different models for different levels and different kinds of socialpersonality phenomena are highlighted. Exercises comparing the predictions of different theories for the same study are designed to teach an appreciation of how to operationalize theories and an understanding of the various features of a "good" theory. Approaches to designing research in social-personality that actually tests alternative theories is emphasized. ASSIGNMENTS A. Class Participation Preparation for and participation during class will account for 20% of the total grade. Each week there will be preparation questions; you are to study and prepare for all of them because you can be called to answer any of them. Each week you will hand in your answers (upload to D2L every Wednesday by 5:00) to these two questions: 1. What was the most interesting aspect of this week's readings? 2. Think about the strengths and weaknesses of this week's theories. On balance, do you think there are more strengths or weaknesses? If your answer is "more strengths," describe just the strengths; if your answer is "more weaknesses," describe just the weaknesses. Be prepared to defend your position. B. Take-Home Exercises There are four take-home exercises, each worth 20%. For each of the first three exercises, you will be given a method section from an experimental study and two different theories to apply to the study. For each theory, your task will be to use the theory as the basis for making predictions about what the results of the study should be according to the party-line theory. At the beginning of each exercise, the assumptions, axioms, and postulates of each theory relevant to making predictions for the study must be described. For each theory, any additional assumptions that you believe need to be made in order to make predictions must be clearly identified as your additional assumptions (as distinct from the theory). The final exercise consists of taking any one of the three studies in the previous exercises and modifying it in order to make it a more adequate test of the predictive power of any two competing theories you choose. Alternatively, you can design a completely new experiment testing the predictive power of any two competing theories you like, even if they were not covered in the course, as long as you use the theories to predict social behavior. Your answers to the exercises must be handed in on the day that the exercise will be discussed. Each take home exercise should not be longer than five double-spaced pages. NOTE About the title of this course: Officially, in this course you will learn about theories in social psychology, as distinct from personality psychology which is itself a separate graduate-level course in our department. In practice, this distinction is ignored. You will learn about theories that relate to human social behavior, regardless of whether these behaviors and the causes of these behaviors tend to be classified as "social" versus "personality." In fact, a major theme of this course is the importance of uncovering broad principles of social behavior that operate in consistent ways regardless of whether there are chronic or situational influences.

2 STATEMENT OF ACADEMIC HONESTY The following is the academic honesty statement from the Office of the Ombudsman; all students are required to adhere to this statement: Article of the Academic Freedom Report states that "The student shares with the faculty the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of scholarship, grades, and professional standards." In addition, the Psychology department adheres to the policies on academic honesty as specified in General Student Regulations 1.0, Protection of Scholarship and Grades; the all-university Policy on Integrity of Scholarship and Grades; and Ordinance 17.00, Examinations. (See Spartan Life: Student Handbook and Resource Guide and/or the MSU Web site: Therefore, unless authorized by your instructor, you are expected to complete all course assignments, including homework, lab work, quizzes, tests and exams, without assistance from any source. You are expected to develop original work for this course; therefore, you may not submit course work you completed for another course to satisfy the requirements for this course. Also, you are not authorized to use the Web site to complete any course work in PSY 235. Students who violate MSU rules may receive a penalty grade, including--but not limited to--a failing grade on the assignment or in the course. Contact your instructor if you are unsure about the appropriateness of your course work. (See also Any violations of Academic Honesty will result in a 0.0 for the course.

3 PART I: GENERAL THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES dates topics readings Aug. 30 Introduction and overview Sept. 6 Conditioning Theories Heidbreder [7] Deutsch & Krauss [4] optional: Skinner Sept. 13 Psychodynamic Theories Heidbreder [10] Deutsch & Krauss [5] optional: Erikson Sept. 20 Gestalt/Field Theories Heidbreder [9] Deutsch & Krauss [2,3] Sept. 27 Symbolic Interactionism Deutsch & Krauss [6] Stryker & Statham optional: Goffman Oct. 4 Evolutionary Psychology Tooby & Cosmides optional: Caporael PART II: MIDDLE LEVEL THEORIES Oct. 11 Cognitive Consistency Festinger Festinger & Carlsmith Heider optional: Abelson Oct. 18 Social Perception Kelley; Jones & Davis Trope Oct. 25 Self-Perception Bem; Weiner et al. Schachter & Singer Nov. 1 Social Information Ross; Bargh Processing Higgins (a) Nov. 8 Attitudes & Persuasion Kelman; Chaiken et al. Hovland, Harvey, & Sherif Nov. 15 Social Influence Brewer Tajfel & Turner Hardin & Higgins Nov. 22 No class, Thanksgiving Nov. 29 Motivation and Cognition Kruglanski & Webster Tesser; Higgins (b) Dec. 6 Personality Mischel & Shoda Dweck & Leggett Higgins (c)

4 READINGS Abelson, R. P. (1983). Whatever became of consistency theory? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, Bargh, J. A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social perception and cognition. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended Thought (pp. 3-51). New York: Guilford. Bem, D. J. (1965). An experimental analysis of self-persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, Caporael, L. R. (1997). The evolution of truly social cognition: The core configuration model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended Thought (pp ). New York: Guilford. Deutsch, M., & Krauss, R. M. (1965). Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Basic Books. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and Society (Revised edition. Original edition 1950). New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, WY: Doubleday. Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, Vol. 3: The Interpersonal Context (pp ). New York: Guilford. Heidbreder, E. (1933). Seven Psychologies. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.

5 Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (pp ). New York: Guilford. [A] Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from "fit." American Psychologist, 55, [B] Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, [C] Hovland, C. I., Harvey, O. J., & Sherif, M. (1957). Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to communication and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (pp ). New York: Academic Press. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium of Motivation, 15, Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and "freezing." Psychological Review, 103, Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (3 rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 10, pp ). New York: Academic Press. Schachter, S., & Singer, J. E. (1962). Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69, Sherif, M. (1936). The Psychology of Social Norms. New York: Harper & Brothers. Skinner, B. F. (1959). A case history in scientific method. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A Study of a Science, Vol. 2 (pp ). New York: McGraw-Hill.

6 Stryker, S., & Statham, A. (1985). Symbolic interaction and role theory. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (3rd ed., Vol. I, pp ). New York: Random House. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. Tesser, A. (1986). Some effects of self-evaluation maintenance on cognition and action. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (pp ). New York: Guilford. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 5-67). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Trope, Y. (1986). Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution. Psychological Review, 93, Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S. & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp ). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.