Sociology 740
Advanced Social Psychology II
Spring 2002
Instructor: Markus
Kemmelmeier, Ph.D.
Office: 304 Mack Social Sciences
Phone: 784-1287
Email: markusk@unr.edu
Times: Thursdays 2:15 – 5:00
Location: Mack Social Sciences, Room 345
Office
hours: Thursdays 11 AM – 1 PM and by appointment
Course description
This course provides an overview of various topics and
research arenas in the field of social psychology. Each session topic will be taught by an expert/two
experts on the particular subject.
Goals
This course has two main objectives. The first is to provide an examination of
important theories and findings pertaining to each topic and research
area. The second goal is to use writing
to critically reflect and integrate on the research you read about. Writing is the central means of communication in the social sciences, and your
success in the field of social psychology critically depends on your ability to
communicate your thoughts and ideas effectively. With the help of continuous feedback, the
goal is for you to develop your skills in writing about social psychological
issues.
Format
This is a course that is taught
jointly by the social psychology faculty.
Each session will be taught by a different instructor who is
knowledgeable about the respective topic.
The format of each course is likely to vary according to the preferences
of the individual instructor. However, regardless
of the specific format of the course, your active engagement and participation
is essential to the quality of the course and to your personal learning
experience.
Course materials
Individual readings for each session
will be made available by the course instructor via Erin
in the social psych office. However it
is assumed that all of you have the following handbooks:
Cook, K.
S., Fine, G. A., & House, J. S. (1995). Sociological
perspectives on social psychology. Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gilbert,
D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (1998). Handbook
of social psychology (4th ed.).
Vols. 1 & 2. Boston,
MA: McGraw-Hill.
Typically,
the amount of assigned readings will not exceed 100 pages.
Requirements
Reaction
papers. Every participant is
required to write weekly reaction papers. The reaction papers provide you with an
opportunity to thoughtful elaborate on your ideas, questions, doubts, or
concerns concerning the readings. Each
instructor will provide you with a set of guiding
questions that are designed to draw your attention to important problems in
the field. You are not necessarily
expected to answer these questions, but they communicate to you (a) what is
interesting to look out for, e.g., in case divine inspiration does not strike
you; and (b) the nature of the issues that the instructor expects you to think
and talk about in your reaction papers.
The preferred format of the reaction paper is a brief
essay in which you try to expand on aspects that connect various readings, or
in which you critically discuss apparent differences or contradictions between
theoretical approaches or empirical findings.
You may also wish to apply various theoretical approaches to the same
phenomenon and highlight their strengths and weaknesses. The discussion of personal experiences or
preferences is perfectly legitimate, as long as you clearly link them to the
concepts you wish you discuss.
Keep in mind that the instructors have read the papers
as well; hence there is no need for extant summary of the papers. Also, it is critical that you argue clearly,
support your statements, and present justifications, e.g., for suggested
extensions of the present research.
The reaction papers should be around one to two single-spaced
pages, and should be turned in no later than 3 PM on Wednesday, preferably
via email. Send the reaction papers
to the instructor of the day, as well as to me (MK). [Marta Elliott melliott@unr.edu;
Bill Evans evans@unr.nevada.edu; Colleen
Murray cimurray@unr.nevada.edu;
Ron Dillehay dillehay@unr.nevada.edu;
David Harvey dharvey@unr.nevada.edu;
Paul LaMarca plamarca@nsn.k12.nv.us
].
Given that the task of integrating and criticizing the
readings is relatively open-ended, the grading of the reaction papers will
focus on their thoughtfulness and the degree to which you succeed advance an
argument and make a (good) point.
Integration
papers. Over the course of the
semester, every participant is required to write two integrative papers. The main purpose of these papers is for you
to critically reflect on the topics covered, and seek connections between
them. Application of various topics to a
particular social problem or theoretical issues is also encouraged. The first integration papers should focus on
the materials covered in the first half of the course, and the second one on
the materials covered in the second half of the course. You are required to provide me with at least
a précis (2 to 3 pages) of what you are planning on writing about at
least one week before the final proposal deadline (earlier
submissions are strongly encouraged).
Alternatively, you have the option of submitting a first draft of your
proposal, on which you will receive extensive feedback. In any case, you are encouraged to meet with me
to discuss your ideas and plans for the paper.
The format of the papers should follow
APA style (5th ed.) or ASA style (4th ed.). The length of each paper should be around 15
pages (20 pages maximum). The papers
will be graded based on the breadth of the literature they are able to
integrate, on the originality and quality of the analysis, and the quality of
writing.
Grading
|
In-class participation
|
20%
|
|
Weekly reaction papers
|
30%
|
|
Integrative paper #1
|
25%
|
|
Integrative paper #2
|
25%
|
|
Total
|
100%
|
Following each session,
the (a) participation and (b) quality of the reaction paper will be evaluated
by the respective instructor of the session.
Feedback
Following each session, course participants will be asked
to provide written feedback about the session, the course materials and their
learning experience.
Course schedule
READING ASSIGNMENTS
Readings
February 1
Socialization (Marta Elliott)
Kessler, R. C.,
House, J. S., Anspach, R. R., & Williams, D. R. (1995). Social psychology
of health. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House
(1995). Sociological perspectives on
social psychology (pp. 548-570). Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Salovey, P., Rothman,
A. J., & Rodin, J. (1998). Health behavior. In In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (1998). Handbook
of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 633-683). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Taylor, S. E., Repetti,
R. L., & Seeman, T. (1997). Health psychology: What is unhealthy environment
and how does it get under the skin. Annual Review of Psychology, 48,
411-447.
Readings
February 7
Socialization (Colleen Murray)
Corsaro, W. A.,
& Eder, D. (1995). Development and socialization of children and adolescents.
In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S.
House (1995). Sociological perspectives
on social psychology (pp. 421-451).
Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Elder, G. E., Jr., &
O'Rand, A. M. (1995). Adult lives in a changing society. In
K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House (1995). Sociological
perspectives on social psychology (pp. 452-475). Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Pp. 757-768 from Ruble,
D. N., & Goodnow, J. J. (1998). Social development in childhood and adulthood.
In In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (1998). Handbook
of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 741-787). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Peterson, G. W., &
Hann, D. (1999). Socializing children and parents in families. In M. B. Sussman,
S. K. Steinmetz, & G. W. Peterson (Eds.) Handbook of marriage and the
family (2nd ed.) NY: Plenum.
Gubrium, J., Holstein,
J., & Buckholdt, D. (1994). The constructionist approach. In Constructing
the life course (chapter 2). General Hall.
Readings
February 14
Aggression (Bill Evans)
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli,
C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanics of moral disengagement
in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
71, 364-374.
Geen, R. Y. (1995). Human aggression. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advances
social psychology (pp. 383-417). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pp. 347-371 in Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R
B. (1994). Violence, aggression and coercive action. Washington, D.C.:American
Psychological Association.
Calhoun, A., & Clark-Jones, F. (1998). Theoretical
frameworks, developmental psychopathology, the public health approach to violence,
and the cycle of violence. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 45,
281-291.
Readings
February 21
Altruism & Prosocial Behavior
(Bill Evans & Markus Kemmelmeier)
Batson, C. D. (1995).
Prosocial motivation: Why do we help others. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced
social psychology (pp. 333-381). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Batson, C. D. (1994).
Why act for the public good? Four answers. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 20, 603-610.
Burnstein, E.,
Branigan, C., & Wieczorkowska-Nejtardt, G. (2002). Altruism begins at
home: Evidence for a kin selection heuristic sensitive to the costs and benefits
of helping. In F. Salter (Ed.), Risky transaction: Trust, kinship, and
ethnicity (pp. 71-106). Oxford, UK: Berghahn.
Clary, E. G., &
Snyder, M. (1999). The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical
considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 156-159.
Holmes, J. G.,
Miller, D. T., & Lerner, M. J. (2002). Committing altruism under the cloak
of self-interest: The exchange fiction. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 38, 144-151.
Readings
February 28
Applied Social Psychology (Ron
Dillehay)
Pp. 155-169 "Problems
of research in social psychology" in Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory
in social science. New York: Harper.
Cook, S. W. (1962).
The systematic analysis of socially significant events: A strategy for social
research. Journal of Social Issues, 18, 66-84.
Ford, T. R. (1977).
The production of social knowledge for public use. Social Forces, 56,
504-518.
Blaney, N. T.,
Stephan, C., Rosenfield, D., Aronson, E., & Sikes, J. (1977). Interdependence
in the classroom: A field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69,
121-128.
Lucker, G. W.,
Rosenfield, D., Sikes, J., & Aronson, E. (1976). Performance in the interdependent
classroom: A field study. American Educational Research Journal, 13,
115-123.
Kaysen, D., &
Stake, J. E. (2001). From thought to deed: Understanding abortion activism.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2378-2400.
Readings
March 7
Judgment and decision making
(Markus Kemmelmeier)
Dawes, R. M. (1998).
Behavioral decision making and judgment. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, &
G. Lindzey (1998). Handbook of social
psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 497-548). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Hilton, D. J. (1995).
The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational
judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 118,
248-271.
Schwarz, N. (1995).
Social Cognition: Information accessibility and use in social judgment. In
E. E. Smith, & D. N. Osherson (Eds.), Thinking: An invitation to cognitive
science (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 345-376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Readings
March 14
Political
Psychology (Markus Kemmelmeier)
Kinder, D. R. (1998).
Opinion and action in the realm of politics.
In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (1998). Handbook of social psychology (4th
ed., Vol. 2, pp. 778-867). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Tetlock, P. E. (1998).
Social psychology and world politics. In
D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (1998). Handbook of social psychology (4th
ed., Vol. 2, pp. 868-894). Boston,
MA: McGraw-Hill.
Readings
March 21
Legitimation of social
inequality (Marta Elliott & Markus Kemmelmeier)
Zelditch, M. Jr.
(2001). Theories of legitimacy. In J. T.
Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The
psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and
intergroup relations (pp. 33-53). New York:
Cambridge University
Press.
Major, B., &
Schmader, T. (2001).Legitimacy and the construal of social disadvantage. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging
perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 176-204). New
York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sidanius, J., Levin,
S., Federico, C. M., & Pratto, F. (2001).Legitimizing ideologies: The
social dominance approach. In J. T. Jost
& B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of
legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup
relations (pp. 307-331). New York:
Cambridge University
Press.
Jackman, M. R. (2001).
License to kill: Violence and legitimacy in expropriative social relations.
In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The
psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and
intergroup relations (pp. 437-467). New York:
Cambridge University
Press.
Readings
March 28
Anomie and Anomia (David Harvey)
Merton, R. K. (1968).
Social structure and anomie (pp. 185-214). In Social theory and social
structure. New York: The Free Press.
Harvey, D. L. (1982).
Anomie and hegemony. In S. G. McNall (Ed.), Current perspectives on social
theory (vol. 3, pp. 129-160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Readings
April 11
Alienation and reification (David
Harvey)
Marx, K. (1975). Estranged labor (pp. 270-282). In Collected
works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Vol. 3. New York: International
Publishers.
Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of alienation.
American Sociological Review, 24, 783-791.
Harvey, D. L., Warner,
L. G., Smith, L., & Harvey, E. S. (1983-84). Critical analysis of Seeman's
concept of alienation.Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 11, 16-52.
Readings
April 18
Stereotyping and
prejudice (Markus Kemmelmeier)
Fiske, S. T. (1998).
Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination.
In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (1998). Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 357-411).
Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Steele, C.
M (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity
and performance. American Psychologist,
52, 613-629.
Yzerbyt, V., Rocher,
S., & Schadron, G. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic
view of group perception. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers,
& S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20-50).
Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Readings
April 25
Justice (Ron Dillehay)
Lerner, M. J., & Goldberg, J. H. (1999). When do
decent people blame victims? The differing effects of the explicit/rational
and implicit/experiential cognitive systems. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope
(Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 627-640). New
York: Guilford.
Montada, L. (1996). Tradeoffs between justice and
self-interest. In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Current societal
concerns about justice (pp. 259-275). New York: Plenum.
Tyler, T. R., &
Smith, H. J. (1998). Social justice and social movements. In D. T. Gilbert,
S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 595-629). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Readings
May 2
Intergroup Relations (Paul LaMarca)
Brewer, M. B., &
Brown, R. J. (1998). In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),
The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 554-594). Boston,
MA: McGraw-Hill.
Pp. 83-114 of Massey,
S. D., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and
the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pp. 375-400 of Cook,
P. J., & Ludwig, J. (199x). The burden of "acting White": Do
Black adolescents disparage academic acheivement? In C. Jencks & M. Phillips
(Eds.), The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.