SOCIAL COGNITION - PSYCHOLOGY 525

Section 1, Spring 2007

Reference # 06069


M, W............. 2:00PM - 3:15PM ............... 3 Credits .............. PM210

Prerequisite: PSYC 520 and graduate standing in psychology or consent of department


SAVE THIS SYLLABUS FOR FUTURE REFERENCE!


Information in this syllabus is subject to changes and additions announced in class!

And there WILL likely be some changes, so come to class!

Rating: NC - 17 (not for the faint of heart, but definitely for inquiring minds!)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


COURSE DESCRIPTION FROM THE NIU BULLETIN


Topics at the interface between social psychology and cognitive psychology, addressing how cognitive processes, structures, and theories are related to and influence peoples’ understanding of themselves, others, and the social world. Discussion of these processes, structures, and theories in the context of classic topics in social psychology, including impression formation, attribution, person memory, stereotyping, prejudice, self-perception, and autobiographical memory.


A BIT MORE DETAIL FROM DR. JOHN

As a part of the social cognition movement, research exploring social cognition has become increasingly concerned with mental structures and processes. Hence, this course not only will focus on what happens (e.g. stereotypes bias judgments), but will also address (and attempt to assess) from a cognitive viewpoint WHY and HOW it happens. For example, one thrust of social judgment research explores how accessible constructs guide event interpretations. A second thrust examines the how these activated constructs can be used in different ways, so that sometimes judgments are assimilated to the constructs and sometimes they are contrasted away from the constructs. In this course we will also discuss the mental representation of social concepts and categories, judgment rules and heuristics, the role of affect on the judgment process, and various forms of automatic and controlled processing, including counterfactual thinking. We will be addressing issues from alternative theoretical perspectives, some more prominent in the U.S., some more prominent in Europe. Just to round things off, we will also spend a bit of time discussing the self and cross-cultural issues as they relate to important issues in social cognition.


The approach that this class will take is CONTEMPORARY, EMPIRICAL and focused on THEORY EVALUATION. That is, we will be focusing most of our time thinking about and talking about how recent research has been generated to test theories. We will be covering a lot of ground in this course - please dedicate yourself to keeping up with the course’s rapid pace.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ABOUT YOUR PROFESSOR

 

Name: John J. Skowronski, Ph.D.      Aliases: Dr. Skowronski, Dr. John, Dr. J.


            Feel free to call me whatever you like — just be careful what you call me to my face!


NIU Rank: Full Professor (and people generally think that I’m full of it!)


Birthplace: Chicago (so don’t even THINK of messing with me)


Degrees: M.A., Ph.D., University of Iowa, B.A., Augustana College (Il.)

                                    Go Hawks! Go Vikings!


            Yes, as much as it amazes you I am a Ph.D. --- that means I can, indeed, Pile it Higher and Deeper.


A Few Professional Factoids:


            Past Associate Editor, Social Cognition

            Current Associate Editor, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

            Editorial Board Member:

                        Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

                        Personality and Social Psychology Review

            Past Editorial Board Member:

                        European Journal of Social Psychology

Co-author of the book Autobiographical Memory (Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers)

            Author or co-author of over 65 professional journal articles and book chapters.

Recipient, Ohio State University Alumni Award for Distinguished Teaching (back in my former job {Go Buckeyes!}, they were under the mistaken impression that I could actually teach.....)

            


CONTACTING YOUR PROFESSOR

 

Office: PM 418              Office Phone: 753-7073             E-mail: jskowron@niu.edu


As pro golfer Fred Couples once said, the problem with answering the phone is that there might be someone on the other end. So chances are that if you call me, you’ll have to leave a message on my voice mail. E-mail is another place to leave me messages that I can ignore - but am less likely to do so than phone messages.


Office Hours: M/W/F 8:30AM - 9:30AM or by appointment


Stop by during office hours. If you can’t see me at those times, feel free to make appointments to see me -- whatever reason is good enough for you is good enough for me! You can even take a chance and just drop by if you are feeling lucky, but I am often about on other university business, so appointments are safer. Bring along pizza and root beer, just to make sure I’ll let you into my office.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MORE ABOUT THE COURSE: THE APPRENTICESHIP MODEL


This class is focused on the training of future academic psychologists, and is unapologetic about that fact. Note that if you are a non-psychologist, you will simply need to tolerate this focus if you wish to stay in the class. For many, this will not be a problem: The approach of the class will still likely apply to you if you are a visitor from a related discipline (sociology, anthropology). If you are from such a discipline, welcome! As you will find out in this course, I embrace perspectives that can inform social cognitive theory and research and invite you to educate me about such perspectives in this course.

 

If you are a graduate student in psychology, I want you to STOP thinking of yourselves as “graduate students” and START thinking of yourselves as APPRENTICE PSYCHOLOGISTS. In my warped view of the world, there are crucial differences in how students and apprentices think about themselves and how they react to the world. For example:


Students try to avoid work whenever possible; apprentices seek out opportunities to work whenever they can so that they can function well when they leave the apprenticeship.


Students are primarily concerned with the grade they get in a course; apprentices are primarily concerned with how much they’ve learned in a course.


Students want to avoid corrective feedback; apprentices want corrective feedback because they want to get better in their chosen line of work.


Certainly, in your interactions with me you should be aware that I am assuming that you have apprentice-like motives and not student-like motives. My assumption is that you WANT TO GET BETTER at being a psychologist; I have tried to structure the course to HELP YOU DO SO.


How? I will try to give you the opportunity to do some of the same tasks that you will do in your future academic jobs (again, this course is unashamedly geared toward those who are on an academic job path). I also will try to provide some insight and corrective feedback along the way, and ultimately hope to move toward the stage when corrective feedback from folks like me becomes unnecessary. After all, part of the training of a bricklayer is to is to teach her/him recognize when a crooked wall has been put up and to know when to tear it down and start over - and maybe to eventually avoid putting up those crooked walls. I want you to be able to do the same thing for the kinds of tasks that confront academic psychologists.


In this regard, it is important to know that I don’t expect you to be perfect at these skills now: The fact that you are still apprentices means that you have imperfect knowledge and skills and require training (as do we all, throughout our careers)! Hence, don’t expect your work to be “perfect” and don’t be terribly surprised when I give you (sometimes extensive) corrective feedback. The fact that you receive corrective feedback does not mean you are doing poorly! It is simply a an expected part of the training process. So don’t get upset when I critique your writing or analysis - that’s why we’re both here! Instead, have a promotion focus (and you will learn what that term means in the course). Go for the gusto! Do your best now, and you will get better the more you try! Do it! Do it! Do it!




The Four Skills That I Expect You To Sharpen In This Course



There are four specific skills that I am going to give you the opportunity to sharpen in this course.

 

The first of these skills is KNOWLEDGE. Knowledge often gets a bum rap. People sometime deride a focus on “learning facts” and instead suggest that people should be taught “how to think.” Well, guess what? A lot of very good research examining expert/novice differences in thinking strongly suggests that your thinking ability is partially tied to how much you know and how much experience you have in a given area. Hence, KNOWLEDGE MATTERS - A LOT. Accordingly, I want to give you the opportunity to develop your EXPERTISE about Social Cognition - both the research that is done in the area and the theory that drives the research. Development of this capacity will come largely from the assorted stuff that I assign you to read, my lectures, and our class discussions. We will be covering an awful lot of intellectual territory, and I know that it might sometimes be hard to organize and integrate the knowledge that you are acquiring. To help you in this regard, I have provided a set of questions for you. Writing out or outlining the answers to these questions may help you to thematically crystallize your knowledge of Social Cognition and may help you to see how the various elements of the course might fit together. If you are taking the Social area comprehensive exams, this activity will provide an additional benefit - one or more of these questions will likely appear on your comprehensive exam (HUGE HINT!!!!).


The second of the skills emphasized by the class is CRITICAL ANALYSIS. In our field, we are constantly posed with the problem of knowing if a piece of research is good. “Goodness” can be evaluated on several dimensions. Typical questions are: Is the research novel? Is the research interesting? Is the research internally valid? Does the research have theoretical implications? Are there alternative theoretical interpretations that make the paper less interesting than it might be? Is the result interesting enough to publish even though it might not be theoretically “clean?” I want to help you to sharpen your evaluation skills, and will do so via a class assignment that involves role playing. I want you to imagine that you are a big-time academic professor who is regularly sent manuscripts to review by a leading journal in the area. The journal that you are reviewing for and on which you are an associate editor is Social Cognition at NIU. You will be “sent” four manuscripts to review, and will construct a review of three (one will be used as a sample). In these reviews your task will be to critically analyze the research, along all dimensions - theory, method, analysis, and exposition. You will make a recommendation about the publishability of the research to the editor who sent you the review, outlining the reasons for your recommendation. In addition, for each manuscript you will also take on the role of a journal associate editor. An associate editor has to read the papers, and read the reviews. The associate editor then must both make a decision about the manuscript and write an “action letter” conveying the decision. In making your decision, you not only need to do the same things that a reviewer does, but you also need to take into account the opinions of those experts that you have solicited to help you evaluate the manuscript. This often involves critically analyzing the reviews and figuring out which reviews are worth attending to and which are not




The third of the skills to be honed in this course is WRITING. My experience as a writer suggests to me that becoming a better writer requires much, much, much practice. You will get writing practice in this course by writing three reviews (one for each manuscript) and three editorial action letters (again, one for each manuscript). These letters and reviews typically are not made public. However, whenever you write in any professional capacity, you should be aware that you are still “on stage.” In this case, your reviews allow prominent people (e.g., journal editors) who are “in the know” to see brief snippets of your work, and they WILL form impressions about you and your abilities based on such work. Those impressions matter to your future academic careers. Hence, both the intellectual content and the expository qualities of the letters matter. Do the best job of thinking that you can in analyzing the research. If you don’t think that you know enough about an area to do a decent review, you’ll have to do what we real associates have to do when placed in the same spot - go do some reading! In addition, use the expository tools that you have at your disposal (spell checkers, grammar checkers, repeated reading of your documents by yourself and others) to try to make sure that your document is tersely written, and is correct in grammar and punctuation.



The fourth of the skills to be honed in this course is SPEAKING AND DISCUSSION. One of the important things that you will be doing in your future jobs as academic psychologists is to talk to other people about psychology. Often, this will be in an informal setting in which ideas are freely exchanged. Such exchanges often involve the presentation of your own thoughts, as well as presenting critiques of the ideas of others. Both kinds of presentations are important. It is important to be clear and organized in such communications. It is also important to both be intellectually rigorous in your evaluations of the ideas of others, but to temper that rigor when being critical (e.g., lines such as Dan Aykroyd’s famous “Jane, you ignorant slut” from old-school Saturday Night Live episodes are probably best avoided). This class will provide the opportunity to informally share ideas about social cognition theory and research, and I want you to consciously shape your communications in these discussion so that they are SHORT, CLEAR, RIGOROUS, and SENSITIVE.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

READING STUFF


COURSE TEXTBOOKS


Moskowitz, G.B. (2005). Social cognition: Understanding the self and others. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Augoustinos, M., Walker, I., & Donaghue, N. (2006). Social Cognition: An integrated introduction (2nd ed.) London: Sage Publications.


These are two very different books written by people who come from two very different research traditions in Social Cognition. The Moskowitz book is very American in its perspective, and consequently, tends to closely reflect the way that I think about Social Cognition. The Augoustinos et al. book has more of a British/European take on Social Cognition, and reflects some ideas that are a bit foreign to me. One of my goals is to broadly educate you about Social Cognition, so I assigned both books to aid this goal. There will be some overlap between books, but I’m hoping that the alternative perspectives presented by the books will outweigh the repetition. Besides, as psychologists we know that repetition is valuable to learning, right?




It is important for you to know that reading the books and learning from the books will largely be YOUR responsibility. At any given time, my class presentations will generally not overlap with the stuff that you happen to be reading from these books at any given time. I have my own stories to tell about social cognition, and I intend to tell them. My presentations will provide a personal perspective on social cognition. No source can talk about everything - I will focus on stuff I like, that I am interested in, that I want to understand better (I’m still learning, too), and that the books don’t cover that I think you need to know about. Hence, you’ll need to take good notes in class (or audiotape my class presentations), because some of what I will discuss will not be in your readings.


My class style also has implications for you and your reading. It is IMPORTANT for you to read ahead, to think about what you are reading, and to use our interactions in class to clarify your understanding of reading. That is, in part, what the “discussion questions” that I am asking you to submit are for. They are designed to give you the opportunity (even force you) to TALK TO ME about what you are reading from the textbooks. However, don’t feel confined to these questions to get my insights into the books. One thing that I will ask before every class sessions is “do you have questions today?” WHEN I ASK THIS QUESTION, I MEAN IT. This is your opportunity to use me to help you. I can’t help you if I don’t know that you need help. So ask!



COURSE READINGS


I have accumulated some chapters and journal articles for you to read. The chapters and reviews have been included primarily to give you overview information that might be lacking in the text, such as an introduction to the history of social cognition. The remainder of the readings are research papers that you can read to see how research in various topic areas is conducted. These are intended to give you a perspective on social cognition that the “filtering” of textbooks often bypasses. These will also be the fodder for class discussions about theory and research. All these readings are listed in detail later in this syllabus. These readings are loaded on the computer in Room 408, so all you have to do is to take a storage device (cd, zip disk, jump drive) to the computer in that room and copy the readings to your storage media.. You can print them (or not, as you prefer) and read them later at your leisure.


 

MANUSCRIPTS, REVIEWS AND LETTERS


I have selected four manuscripts for us to play with. These also are loaded onto the computer in room 408 (available M - F, 8AM to 4:30PM), and are entitled Manuscript 1 through 4. You will write reviews of manuscripts 2 through 4, and for each of these three manuscripts will also use the reviews of others to write an editorial action letter to the manuscript authors. There will also be a file labeled “review and letter examples” that will contain sample manuscript reviews and sample editorial decision letters These serve to illustrate the review process.


  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SUMMARY OF CLASS TASKS



WRITE REVIEWS AND ACTION LETTERS


In this course you will write three reviews and three action letters.


Reviews are designed to help action editors evaluate a manuscript and to provide feedback to authors that can be used to improve the manuscript. Be tough-minded, but also be constructive in your commentary! YOU WILL NEED TO SEND ME ONE COPY OF THE REVIEW AS AN E-MAIL ATTACHMENT. YOU WILL ALSO NEED TO BRING SIX COPIES OF YOUR REVIEWS TO CLASS!!!!!


Action letters are the letters that editors write to authors. These letters typically summarize the comments of the reviewers (at least, those comments that seem particularly important), include the perspective of the action editor, and convey a decision about the manuscript to the authors. YOU WILL NEED TO E-MAIL ME ONE COPY OF THE ACTION LETTER.


Please use your class alias when submitting these class documents - do not use your real name.



 

SUBMIT WEEKLY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS


Submit TWO questions on Monday of each week. These questions can be about anything - requests about whether a research idea that you had might be good, request for clarifications of terms or ideas, connections that you’ve made between bodies of knowledge, etc. Some of these questions will be answered in each Wednesday class session. These must be submitted in typed format (e.g., typewriter, word processor).

 



ANSWER PSYCHOJEOPARDY QUESTIONS


To help you keep up with the reading, each class period will begin with a session of Social Cognition Psychojeopardy. In each session I will give you answers to questions and you will try to provide the questions. You get a point for each question you correctly provide. You will be called on arbitrarily in the class, so you need to read to be ready - unless you want to look like a doofus to the rest of the class. The syllabus describes the reading material that will be the focus of each jeopardy session.




ANSWER OVERVIEW QUESTIONS


There is a set of overview questions provided in this syllabus. As you read, you will find it useful to outline or write out answers to these questions. Such mental activity promotes learning. For those of you in Social/I-O psychology, these reviews will also be useful in another way - they will help you to prepare for the area comprehensive exam. Each of the questions on this syllabus is a question that might appear on the exam.



INTERACT IN CLASS


Students get in the habit of expecting to be force fed by professors - almost as if the profs should jam a funnel in a student’s ear and stuff the knowledge in. Not here. You are responsible for educating yourselves. I’m here to guide and help you. If you get lost in your reading and thinking, ask me for help and maybe I can do so. You also are here to stimulate me - I’m a student too. It has often happened that student questions and perspectives have caused me to reconsider an area of research or theory. If you can do that in this course, it helps to make the course useful to me - and that makes me especially happy to teach.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


COURSE GRADING


The Grading Scale


Think of the response scale for all intellectual products of this course as ranging from 3 (Delightfully Wonderful) to 0 (A Total Waste of Time). On this scale, a value of 2 represents “standard” A-level graduate student work. Values above 2 are used to indicate those whose work is better then that expected for the typical advanced graduate student. Values that approach 2.5 reflect the level or work expected from a practicing academic psychologist; values that approach 3 are reserved for the gods (e.g., Tory Higgins; John Bargh). Values below 2 are used to indicate work that is less-than-expected for a Ph.D. - track graduate student.



The Sources of Your Grade and How They Are Combined


Your grades will be entirely determined from the following sources: (1) 3 manuscript reviews (10% each), (2) 3 editorial action letters (10% each), (3) discussion question submissions (10%), (4) psychojeopardy performance (20%) and (5) class participation (10%). To derive a course grade, a numerical value (0 to 3) for each category will be generated and these values will be multiplied by the category weight. These weighted averages will then be translated into a course grade. The general rule translating weighted averages to grades used in past courses has been:

 

1.9 and above = A      1.56 - 1.89 = B          1.22 - 1.55 = C        .88 - 1.21 = D             .87 and below = F


I do not expect this rule to change, but I reserve the right to do so.  




Where The Evaluations Come From


Despite the fact that I sometimes seek student input, I am solely responsible for grading. Because this is a dictatorship, I am the legislature and the Supreme Court all rolled into one: There will be no recounts. But, just to be clear:

 

-My evaluations of your reviews are based on my judgment of their quality and on the judgments provided by the “associate editors” (your fellow students) who had to use your reviews to write their decision letters. Accordingly, each associate editor grades your review and submits those grades to me.

-My evaluation of your editorial letters will be based on my judgment of their quality.

-Your discussion question grade will be based on the frequency with which you submit discussion/clarification questions and on my evaluation of the quality of your questions.

-My evaluation of your class participation will be based on my own judgments and observations, as well as on the input solicited from your classmates.

-Your psychojeopardy grade will be derived from the number of psychojeopardy items that you get correct throughout the semester.


As in the Olympics, my quality judgments will use both my evaluation of content and my evaluation of the technical elements of writing (just think of me as the judge from Skowronsonia). I expect editors’ grades (e.g., of the manuscript reviews that you use to generate an action letter) to do the same. When I ask you to grade others’ work, remember the scale anchors (3 = gods, 2 = expected from a good grad student, 0 = waste of time) when making your ratings and use the scale anchors when making your judgments.



Deadline Rules 


Reviews and Letters. Reviews and/or decision letters are due in my electronic mailbox before the START of class (2PM) on the assigned due date. Your e-mails are time and date stamped; for purposes of this class, that is the OFFICIAL time. Remember that there is a delay between when you send an e-mail and when it arrives - IT IS THE ARRIVAL TIME THAT COUNTS. Remember that the due date and time is the LAST POSSIBLE MOMENT to submit before penalties accrue. Given that you usually have ample time to complete the assignment, I will be unsympathetic to even valid excuses for late submissions (e.g., illness, balky electricity, bottled-up server, dragon ate my computer).


I also recognize that life happens. Hence, I will accept late reviews and letters. However, regardless of the reason, there will be a cost to late submissions: the grade on late submissions will be automatically reduced by .33 points on the grading scale. Hence, the sensible student response to this policy should be early submission.. Be a “deadline walker” at your peril.


Discussion questions. Discussion questions CANNOT be turned in late - I will never accept late submissions of these. Misses are related to your grade in a nonlinear fashion: one missed question set will not hurt your grade much, but the more you miss, the more your grade in this area is affected via a positively accelerating penalty curve (e.g., the penalty grows in an exponential fashion).


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COURSE OVERVIEW, ASSIGNMENTS, & DEADLINES


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


1/17 (W)                                         Course Overview (Or...Officer Barney Fife, lay down the law!)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Class on 1/31: Manuscript 1, Manuscript 1 Correspondence, Sample Correspondence


For Next Class

Textbook Readings: None


Other Readings  

Markus, H., & Zajonc, R.B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd Edition (Vol. 1, pp. 137-230). New York, NY: Random House.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

                        

1/22 (M)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings

                                           Questions Over Readings Due

 

                                           Introduction to Social Cognition: A Historical Perspective (Or...Where the hell did YOU come from?)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Next Class

Textbook Readings: None


Other Readings  

Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill. (Chapter 1, pp. 1-20).

Fiske, S.T. (1992). Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social cognition from Daguerreotype to laserphoto. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63, 877-889.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1/24 (W)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings 

                                           Some Questions From Last 2 Reading Sets Answered


                                           Introduction to Social Cognition: A Conceptual and Methodological Perspective  (Or...Why you should give a damn about process and structure) 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Next Class

Textbook Readings: None


Other Readings 

Bless, H., Fiedler, K., & Strack, F. (2004). Social Cognition: How Individuals Construct Social Reality. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Chapters 1 & 2.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

1/29 (M)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings

                                           Questions over last 2 reading sets due


                                           Introduction to Social Cognition: A Conceptual; and Methodological Perspective (Or...Doing “It” is fun!)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Next Class

Textbook Readings: None


Other Readings  

Schneider, D.J. (1991). Social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 527-561.

Macrae, C.N., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2000) Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93-120.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

1/31 (W)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings 

                                           Some Questions From Last 2 Reading Sets Answered                              


                                           Insight Into the Reviewing Process: Manuscript 1 as a focus (Or... How you too can start down the road

                                                          toward being Darth Vader – Luuuuke, feel the dark side of the force! (wheeze, wheeze)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Next review Assignment: Read Manuscript 2

For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Moskowitz - Introduction


Other Readings

Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: Automaticity in goal-directed behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 53-63.

Wentura, D., Rothermund, K., & Bak, P. (2000) Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of approach- and avoidance-related social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1024-1037.

Judd, C.M., Blair, I.V., & Chapleau, K.M. (2004). Automatic stereotypes vs. automatic prejudice: Sorting out the possibilities in the Payne (2001) weapon paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 75-81.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

2/5 (M)                              Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings

                                           Questions over last 2 reading sets due


                                           Automaticity in thought and behavior (Or...I couldn’t help myself)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Moskowitz - Chapter 1


Other Readings

Roese, N.J., Pennington, G.L., Coleman, J. Janicki, M.; Li, N.P., & Kenrick, D.T. (2006). Sex Differences in Regret: All For Love or Some For Lust? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 770-780.

Pryor, J.B., Reeder, G.D., Yeadon, C., & Hesson-Mclnnis, M. (2004). A Dual-Process Model of Reactions to Perceived Stigma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 436-452.

Kunda, Z., & Oleson, K.C. (1995). Maintaining stereotypes in the face of disconfirmation: Constructing grounds for subtyping deviants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 565-579.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


2/7 (W)                              Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings 

                                           Some Questions From Last 2 Reading Sets Answered


                                           Thinking happens - what happens when it does? (Or...Do I really overanalyze our relationship?)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Moskowitz - Chapter 2


Other Readings

Blair, I.V., Judd, C.M., & Fallman, J.L. (2004). The Automaticity of Race and Afrocentric Facial Features in Social Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 763-778.

Zebrowitz, L.A., & Rhodes, G. (2004) Sensitivity to "Bad Genes" and the Anomalous Face Overgeneralization Effect: Cue Validity, Cue Utilization, and Accuracy in Judging Intelligence and Health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 167-185.

Zebrowitz, L.A., Andreoletti, C., Collins, M.A., Lee, S.Y., & Blumenthal, J. (1998). Bright, bad, babyfaced boys: Appearance stereotypes do not always yield self-fulfilling prophecy effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1300-1320.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

2/12 (M)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings

                                           Questions over last 2 reading sets due


                                           Making snap judgments about others from appearance and behavior (Or...your

                                                                         mom was right to tell you to put on a tie and comb your hair!)                               

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Moskowitz - Chapter 3


Other Readings

Carlston, D.E., & Skowronski, J.J. (2005). Linking versus thinking: Evidence for the different associative and attributional bases of spontaneous trait transference and spontaneous trait inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 884-898.

Magliano, J.P., Skowronski., J.J., Britt, M.A., Guss, D., & Forsythe, C. What do you want? How perceivers use cues to make goal inferences about others. Unpublished manuscript.

O'Laughlin, M.J., & Malle, B.F. (2002) How people explain actions performed by groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 33-48.

Skowronski, J.J. (1002). Honesty and intelligence judgments of individuals and groups: The effects of entity-related behavior diagnosticity and implicit theories. Social Cognition, 20, 136-169.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

2/14 (W)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings 

                                           Some Questions From Last 2 Reading Sets Answered


                                           Making snap judgments about others from appearance and behavior (Or ... Did

                                                         you SEE that touchdown run? What a jock!)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Moskowitz - Chapter 4


Other Readings

Stapel, D.A., & Koomen, W. (2000). How far do we go beyond the information given? The impact of knowledge activation on interpretation and inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 19-37.

Kunda, Z. Sinclair, L., & Griffin, D. (1997). Equal ratings but separate meanings: Stereotypes and the construal of traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 720-734.

Bargh, J.A., Lombardi, W.J., &; Higgins, E. T. (1988). Automaticity of chronically accessible constructs in personxsituation effects on person perception: It's just a matter of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 599-605.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

2/19 (M)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings

                                           Questions over last 2 reading sets due


                                           Construct activation: Temporary and chronic influences (Or...So THAT’s what

                                                         happens when you spend all day watching the Sopranos)


                                           Manuscript 2 Reviews Due

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Moskowitz - Chapter 5


Other Readings  

Mussweiler, T., & Forster, J. (2000). The sex rightwards-arrow aggression link: A perception-behavior dissociation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 507-520.

Smeesters, D., Warlop, L., Van Avermaet, E., Corneille, O., & Yzerbyt, V. (2003). Do not prime hawks with doves: The interplay of construct activation and consistency of social value orientation on cooperative behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 972-987.

Cesario, J.,Plaks, J.E. & Higgins, E. T. (2006). Automatic Social Behavior as Motivated Preparation to Interact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 893-910.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

2/21 (W)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings 

                                           Some Questions From Last 2 Reading Sets Answered 

 

                                           Construct activation: Temporary and chronic influences (Or...why do you think

                                                         that everyone is out to get you...unless it’s true?)                                     

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Moskowitz - Chapter 6


Other Readings

 

Sanna, L.J., & Schwarz, N. (2003). Debiasing the hindsight bias: The role of accessibility experiences and (mis)attributions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 287-295.

Buchner, A., Steffens, M.C.., & Berry, D.C. (2000). Gender stereotyping and decision processes: Extending and reversing the gender bias in fame judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1215-1227.

Sanna, L.J., Schwarz, N., & Stocker, S.L. (2002). When debiasing backfires: Accessible content and accessibility experiences in debiasing hindsight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 497-502.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

2/26 (M)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings

                                           Questions over last 2 reading sets due


                                           Accessibility experiences and social judgment (Or...I couldn’t remember any, so

                                                          there must not have been any)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Moskowitz - Chapter 7


Other Readings: None

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

2/28 (W)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings 

                                           Some Questions From Last 2 Reading Sets Answered

 

                                           Review of Manuscript 2 Reviews and Decision Letters

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Next Review Assignment: Read Manuscript 3


For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Moskowitz - Chapter 8


Other Readings

 

Bless, H., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Context effects in political judgement: Assimilation and contrast as a function of categorization processes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 159-172.

Quellar, S., Schell, T., & Mason, W. (2006). A Novel View of Between-Categories Contrast and Within-Category Assimilation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 406-422.

Biernat, M., Manis, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Simultaneous assimilation and contrast effects in judgments of self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 254-269.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


 

3/5 (M)                              Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings

                                           Questions over last 2 reading sets due


                                           Construct Use: Why does judgmental contrast occur (Or...he led such an

                                                                         underpriviliged life, to accomplish what he has is just tremedous!)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Moskowitz - Chapter 9


Other Readings

 

Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 544-557.

Ruys, K.I., Spears, R., Gordijn, E.H. & de Vries, N.K. (2006) Two Faces of (Dis)similarity in Affective Judgments of Persons: Contrast or Assimilation Effects Revealed by Morphs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 399-411.

Wegener, D.T., & Petty, R.E. (1995). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: The role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 36-51.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

3/7 (W)                             Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings 

                                           Some Questions From Last 2 Reading Sets Answered

 

                                           Construct Use: Why does judgmental contrast occur (Or ... He’s not what he seems - he’s

                                                          gotta have something up his sleeve...)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Moskowitz, Chapter 10


Other Readings

 

Klauer, K.C., & Musch, J. (2002). Goal-dependent and goal-independent effects of irrelevant evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 802-814.

Crawford, M.T., Skowronski, J.J., Stiff, C., & Scherer, C. (in press). Interfering With Inferential, But Not Associative, Processes Underlying Spontaneous Trait Inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Rydell, R.J., & McConnell, A.R. (2006). Understanding Implicit and Explicit Attitude Change: A Systems of Reasoning Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 995-1008.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

3/19 (M)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings

                                           Questions over last 2 reading sets due

 

                                           Goals, social information processing and social behavior (Or...try to remember the kind of September....)    

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

For Next Class

 

Textbook Readings: Moskowitz, Chapter 11

 

Other Readings

 

Aarts, H. Chartrand, T.L.; Custers, R., Danner, U., Dik, G., Jefferis, V.E., & Cheng, C.M.(2005). Social stereotypes and automatic goal pursuit. Social Cognition, 23, 465-490.

Custers, R. & Aarts, H. (2005) Positive Affect as Implicit Motivator: On the Nonconscious Operation of Behavioral Goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 129-142.

Gillath, O., Mikulincer, M., Fitzsimons, G.M., Shaver, P.R., Schachner, D.A., & Bargh, J.A. (2005). Automatic Activation of Attachment-Related Goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1375-1388.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

3/21 (W)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings 

                                           Some Questions From Last 2 Reading Sets Answered

 

                                           Goals and social information processing (Or...what were you TRYING to do?)                   

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Moskowitz, Chapter 12

 

Other Readings  

 

Ambady, N., & Gray, H.M. (2002). On being sad and mistaken: Mood effects on the accuracy of thin-slice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 947-961.

Stapel, D.A., & Koomen, W. (2006). The flexible unconscious: Investigating the judgmental impact of varieties of unaware perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 112-119.

Ferguson, M.J., Bargh, J.A., & Nayak, D.A. (2005). After-affects: How automatic evaluations influence the interpretation of subsequent, unrelated stimuli. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 182-191.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

3/26 (M)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings

                                           Questions over last 2 reading sets due

 

                                           Affect and emotion in social cognition (Or... grr, I’m SO, angry, I can’t even think!!!)

   

                                           Manuscript 3 Reviews Due

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Moskowitz, Chapter 13

 

Other Readings

 

Albarracin, D., & Kumkale, G. T. (2003). Affect as information in persuasion: A model of affect identification and discounting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 453-469.

Sechrist, G.B., Swim, J. K., & Mark, M.M. (2003). Mood as information in making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 524-531.

Pratto, F., & John, O.P. (1991) Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 380-391.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

3/28 (W)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings 

                                           Some Questions From Last 2 Reading Sets Answered

 

                                           Affect and emotion in social cognition (Or...hey, he’s HOT!)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Augoustinos, Chapter 1

 

Other Readings

 

Chaplin, W.F., John, O.P., & Goldberg, LR. (1988). Conceptions of states and traits: Dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54, 541-557.

Knapp, B.R., Nosofsky, R.M., & Busey, T.A. Recognizing distinctive faces: A hybrid-similarity exemplar model account. Memory & Cognition, 34, 877-889.

Van Overwalle, F., & Van Rooy, D. (2001). When more observations are better than less: A connectionist account of the acquisition of causal strength. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 155-175.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

4/2 (M)                              Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings

                                           Questions over last 2 reading sets due

 

                                           Social cognitive mental structures: issues in mental representation (Or...what’s in there?)

   

                                           Manuscript 3 Decision Letters Due 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Augoustinos, Chapter 2

 

Other Readings :None

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

4/4 (W)                              Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings 

                                           Some Questions From Last 2 Reading Sets Answered  

              

                                           Review of Manuscript 3 Reviews and Decision Letters

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

For Next Assignment: Manuscript 4

 

For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Augoustinos, Chapter 3

 

Other Readings

 

Meade, M.., & Roediger, H.L. III.(2002). Explorations in the social contagion of memory. Memory & Cognition, 30, 995-1009.

Betz, A.L., Skowronski, J.J., & Ostrom, T.M. (1996). Shared realities: Social influence and stimulus memory. Social Cognition, 14, 113-140.

Hauck, M., Fein, D. Maltby, N., Waterhouse, L., & Feinstein, C. Memory for faces in children with autism. Child Neuropsychology, 4, 187-198.

De Gelder, B., & ; Rouw, R. (2001). Beyond localisation: A dynamical dual route account of face recognition. Acta Psychologica, 107, 183-207.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

4/9 (M)                              Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings

                                           Questions over last 2 reading sets due

 

                                           Social aspects of memory: whey we remember and why we forget (Or...why you always

                                                          remember the day your brother fell in the swamp...)    

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

For Next Class

 

Textbook Readings: Augoustinos, Chapter 4

 

Other Readings

 

Heider, J.D., Scherer., C.R., Skowronski, J.J., Wood, S.E., Edlund, J.E., and Hartnett, J.L. (In press). Trait expectancies and stereotype expectancies have the same effect on memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Ehrenberg, K., & Klauer, K.C. (2005). Flexible use of source information: Processing components of the inconsistency effect in person memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 369-387.

Gramzow, R.H., Gaertner, L., & Sedikides, C. (2001). Memory for in-group and out-group information in a minimal group context: The self as an informational base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 188-205.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

4/11(W)                             Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings 

                                           Some Questions From Last 2 Reading Sets Answered

 

                                           Social memory: whey we remember and why we forget (Or ... officer, I can’t remember if

                                                          he had a scar on his forehead...).

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

For Next Class

 

Textbook Readings: Augoustinos, Chapter 5

 

Other Readings

Eichstaedt, J., & Silvia, P.J. (2003). Noticing the self: Implicit assessment of self-focused attention using word recognition latencies. Social Cognition, 21, 349-361.

Smith, N.K., Larsen, J.T., Chartrand, T.L., Cacioppo, J.T., Katafiasz, H.A., & Moran, K.E. (2006) Being Bad Isn't Always Good: Affective Context Moderates the Attention Bias Toward Negative Information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 210-220.

DeCoster, J., Banner, M.J., Smith, E.R., & Semin, G.R. (2006). On the inexplicability of the implicit: Differences in the information provided by implicit and explicit tests. Social Cognition, 24, 5-21.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

4/16 (M)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings

                                           Questions over last 2 reading sets due

 

                                           “Implicit measurement”: Techniques and issues (Or ... why you sittin’ all the way

                                                          over there, big boy? I won’t bite....hard....)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Augoustinos, Chapter 6

 

Other Readings

 

Nosek, B.A., Greenwald, A.G., & Banaji, M.R. (2005). Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method Variables and Construct Validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 166-180.

Hermans, D., De Houwer, J., & Eelen, P.. A time course analysis of the affective priming effect. Cognition & Emotion, 15, 143-165.

Payne, B.K., Cheng, C.M., Govorun, O., & Stewart, B.D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 277-293.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

4/18 (W)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings 

                                           Some Questions From Last 2 Reading Sets Answered  

 

                                           Implicit measurement”: Techniques and issues (Or ... just tell me the first word

<>                                                                         that comes to your mind, no matter what it is...)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Augoustinos, Chapter 7

 

Other Readings

 

Maass, A., Karasawa, M., Politi, F., & Suga, S. (2006). Do Verbs and Adjectives Play Different Roles in Different Cultures? A Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Person Representation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 734-750.

Kosic, A., Kruglanski, A.W., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2004). The Social Cognition of Immigrants' Acculturation: Effects of the Need for Closure and the Reference Group at Entry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 796-813.

Zarate, M.A., Uleman, J.S., & Voils, C.I. (2001). Effects of culture and processing goals on the activation and binding of trait concepts. Social Cognition, 19, 295-323.

Choi, I., Dalal, R., Kim-Prieto, C., &; Park, H. (2003). Culture and judgement of causal relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 46-59.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

4/23 (M)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings

                                           Questions over last 2 reading sets due

 

                                           Social cognition in cultural context (Or ... geez, those British are SO cold)

                                                            

                                           Manuscript 4 Reviews Due

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

For Next Class

Textbook Readings: Augoustinos, Chapter 8

 

Other Readings

 

Bartholow, B.D., & Heinz, A. (2006). Alcohol and Aggression Without Consumption: Alcohol Cues, Aggressive Thoughts, and Hostile Perception Bias. Psychological Science, 17, 30-37.

Wells, G.L., Charman, S.D., & Olson, E.A.(2005). Building Face Composites Can Harm Lineup Identification Performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 147-156.

Posavac, S.S., Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Kardes, F.R., & Fitzsimons, G.J. (2004). The Brand Positivity Effect: When Evaluation Confers Preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 643-651.

Tewksbury, D. (1999) Differences in how we watch the news: The impact of processing goals and expertise on evaluations of political actors. Communication Research, 26, 4-29.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

4/25 (W)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings 

                                           Some Questions From Last 2 Reading Sets Answered

                                           Why should we care? Social cognition in the real world (Or .. so that’s what

                                                         happens when you spend 10 years of your life playing violent video games!)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

For Next Class

 

Textbook Readings: Augoustinos, Chapter 9

 

Other Readings

 

Bodenhausen, G.V., Macrae, C.N., & Hugenberg, K. (2003). Social cognition. In T. Millon & M.J. Lerner (Eds.) Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 257-282). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

4/30 (M)                            Psychojeopardy over Previous “Next Class” Readings

 

                                           Putting It all Together: Recapitulation of themes and final remarks (Or...Hit the

                                                                         road, Jack...)

 

                                           Class Evaluations                                                         

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

5/2 (W)                              NO CLASS - MPA Executive Council Meeting

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

5/7 (M) 2PM                      Manuscript 4 Decision Letters Due

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Focus questions (Possible Comprehensive Exam Questions, You Think?) BY the end of the course, you should be able to answer all of these questions.

 

 

What is Social Cognition and what are some of the important themes and ideas that underlie the area? Be as specific as you can in describing relevant theories and research.

 

Provide an overview of the cognitive processes that are involved in thinking about others and give examples of the impact of these different processes on thought and/or behavior. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

Provide some examples of how peoples’ social thinking appears to be illogical and trace the origins of such illogic to the cognitive processes or procedures that people use to make decisions about others. Be specific in citing and describing relevant research results.

 

How do people “know” the internal characteristics (goals, motives, traits) of others? Describe some critical ideas that have been proposed in an attempt to answer that question and highlight how those ideas explain the outcomes of experiments in social psychology. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

What are some of the major theoretical ideas and major findings that pertain to social memory: how we remember the events, traits, and characteristics, and appearances of others? Illustrate how such ideas have been tested by describing specific research examples. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

How have various theorists approached the interplay between affect and social cognition? Describe these theoretical ideas and illustrate how they have been tested by describing specific theories and research studies. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

Why should people who do research in social cognition care about culture? Convince me that I should by citing relevant theory and research. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

What the literature say about the extent to which peoples’ social thinking is automatic? If it is automatic, can it ever be controlled? Cite theory and research on the topic, making sure to discuss relevant studies in detail. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

How is social cognition relevant to the study of stereotypes and stereotyping? Describe relevant theories and illustrate their operation by discussing in detail relevant research.

 

Construct accessibility and priming research shows that sometimes priming leads to assimilation and other times priming leads to contrast. Describe current ideas about which occurs when and support these ideas with relevant research. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

Why is the study of social cognition relevant to an understanding of the self? Discuss in detail theories that illustrate how ideas from social cognition aid in understanding the self and describe in detail how research testing such theories has been conducted. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

Take a social cognition approach to the study of attitudes. Describe some critical theories that might relate to this approach and some critical studies that have been generated using this approach. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

Do people make spontaneous trait inferences? How do you know? Discuss the history of this line of research, illustrate the various paradigms that have been used and their findings, and describe some of the major unsolved questions that you think exist in this research area. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

Dual-process models have become all the rage in social psychology. Describe some of the major dual process models, being sure to include models across domains (e.g., in areas other than attitudes). Then, describe some of the research results in these domains that pertain to such dual process models. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

People sometimes think about how events in their lives might have turned out otherwise (counterfactual thinking). Define some of the major research themes and ideas in this area, including ideas about those elements of events that get mutated and the emotional outcomes of such mutations. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

Work in social cognition has sometimes focused on ‘social categorization.’ What is social categorization, how might it differ from non-social categorization, and what are some of the things that we know about the social categorization process? Be sure to cite both specific theories and experiments in your answer.

 

What are some of the behavioral implications of work in Social Cognition? Describe research that has explored such behavioral implications and use that research to discuss some of the theoretical ideas that apply. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

How might processing goals affect social cognition? Provide examples of research that has explored such goals and describe the theoretical implications of such research. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

How and when might goals serve as automatic guides to behavior? Describe some of the main theoretical ideas in this area and some of the critical experiments that illustrate automatic goal-influenced behaviors. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

What are the contributions that the social representations theory approach has to make to the study of social cognition? Describe some critical theories underlying this approach and some critical studies that have been generated using this approach. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

What are the contributions that the discursive psychology approach has to make to the study of social cognition? Describe some critical theories underlying this approach and some critical studies that have been generated using this approach. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.

 

What does ideology have to do with social cognition? Describe some critical theories underlying this approach and some critical studies that have been generated using this approach. Be as specific as you can in citing relevant research paradigms and results.