HC 431:
(a.k.a., Problem Behaviors)
CRN #32321, Spring 2008
Monday/Wednesday 10:00-11:20, 303 Chapman Hall
Sara D. Hodges, PhD Karyn
Lewis
Associate Professor, Psychology Graduate
Teaching Fellow, Psychology
331 Straub Hall, 346-4919 408 Straub Hall,
346-4852
Office hours: Mon 1:15 - 3:15 Office hours: Wed 1:30-3:30
and by appointment and
by appointment
sdhodges@uoregon.edu klewis3@uoregon.edu
Course Description and
Goals:
Although
criminals and mental patients may be more colorful, “normal” people (i.e., psychologically
healthy and statistically average people) are responsible for producing much of
the world’s hostile, selfish, and discriminatory behavior. This course will
explore how fundamental aspects of human cognition and motivation, evolutionary
pressures, and culture contribute to the roots of everyday social misbehavior.
Keeping in mind that many of humans’ nasty habits are side effects of
behavioral patterns that are often on the whole adaptive, students in the
course will be challenged to consider how some of the bad outcomes can be
eliminated without also losing the generally advantageous aspects of these
behaviors.
Chief
among phenomena studied will be the self-serving biases (i.e., the tendency to
view the self in an unrealistically positive light, such as perceiving the self
as better than average when that perception is inaccurate or taking more credit
for self-behaviors than is merited). In addition, we will consider egocentric
and selfish behaviors by people. We will also explore characteristics of
intergroup perception that form the roots of stereotyping and prejudice. After
touching on gossip and lying, we’ll conclude by looking at some situations
where normal people behave at their worst, often because they are trying to
obey an authority or blend into the crowd.
In
this course, students will become familiar with recurrent issues and themes in
the “darker” side of normal social behavior, along with the empirical
techniques and paradigms used in the field of social psychology. Students will
be invited to hone their critical thinking skills in critiquing past studies of
normal bad behavior, and they will be given the opportunity to identify
creative and important new directions for studying this behavior and
intervening with the goal of potentially reducing it. In-class meetings will
emphasize discussion, reaction and critique of the readings, and ideas for
future research and intervention. Ideally, you will read, write, and think a
lot in this course.
Grade Breakdown:
Mini-quiz on methods: 5%
Written article summary: 5%
(handout with guidelines will be provided)
Participation: 40% (includes
reading responses and in-class discussion)
Portfolio (includes turning
in first part and peer editing): 40%
Class presentation: 10%
Participation (40%): Your thoughtful contributions to the
discussions in this course are an essential part of the course content. In
order to facilitate participation, you are required to electronically post
responses to the readings on Blackboard (under the “Discussion Board” option)
by 10 pm the night before class (so 10 pm Sundays for Monday classes and 10 pm
Tuesday for Wednesday classes). Why the night before? Because I will read your
comments before class and they will influence my approach as instructor for certain
topics. (If you are unfamiliar with Blackboard or need help, please see the
instructor or GTF.) Sometimes, you may be asked to address a specific question
in your response. You get two free “no response” classes (you should still
read, but you don=t need to write a response - please don=t everyone wait to use these in the last weeks of
class!). Please bring a printout of your posting (or a draft version of it)
with you to class; if discussion wanes, I will call on people to present their
reactions to the readings. For those of you who are shy, I will consider
weighting the written versions of your comments more in determining your
participation grade, but ideal class participation involves sharing your ideas
in class, because it allows for dialogue. If participation is uneven, I may occasionally
ask more vocal class members to hold back in order to facilitate participation
by all class members.
What
kinds of responses to the readings am I looking for? Here are some
possibilities:
a)
Questions about the readings - concepts you didn’t understand or question you
had for other reasons.
b)
Considering alternatives – “what if” questions (with possible answers) or the
exploration of related hypothetical situations
c)
Questions for future research - what is the next study that needs to be done,
why, and how should it be conducted?
d)
Methodological and other criticisms - could a study have been conducted better?
are the authors justified in drawing the conclusions they do?
e)
Applications – “real world” examples of something in the reading; proposed
interventions.
Attendance
is required. If you must miss a class, speak to me prior to your
absence, or as soon as possible after your absence. You are allowed to miss a
class, MAYBE two without penalty, although perfect attendance will be looked
upon highly favorably. Absences will affect your participation grade. You must
have a working email account that you access regularly for this course, and you
must have access to Blackboard.
Please
note: IF the proposed structure of
this course fails to provide sufficient motivation for students to read and
respond actively and thoughtfully to the readings, alternate measures (e.g.,
tests; assigning students to lead discussion) might be taken. (This is not a
threat so much as it reflects my desire NOT to waste everyone=s time sitting around in the seminar with nothing to
say.)
Portfolio (40%): Each student will become an expert on one of the
phenomena covered in the course and will complete a portfolio about the
phenomenon. This portfolio will include a thorough description of the
phenomenon, a review of some of psychological literature addressing it, a
consideration of why this particular form of bad behavior may be useful or
adaptive under certain circumstances, and possible means for reducing the “bad”
aspects of the phenomenon. In addition, students will provide three of the
following:
#1 -
A historical example of the phenomenon, or a historical event in which the
phenomenon figured centrally (“historical” in this case means something that is
over and done with, and happened 2 or more years ago).
#2 -
A current events example of the phenomenon, or a current event in which the
phenomenon figured centrally (“current” in this case means either ongoing or
having occurred in the last 2 years).
#3 -
An example of the phenomenon drawn from literature or fictional media.
#4 -
An example of the phenomenon drawn from your own life.
#5 -
An original illustration of the phenomenon (e.g., a story, film, cartoon or
operetta)
#6 –
A demonstration/activity that you do outside of class, or that you can do in 15
minutes in class. Please note that for #6, these are “demonstrations” or
“activities” – and not “experiments,” “research,” or “studies,” all of which
would require approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board.
Participation of students enrolled in the class during class time is fine as
long as the activity is a valid learning experience. If you involve anyone NOT
enrolled in the class, take special care not coerce them to participate,
withhold important information about the activity from them, or violate their
privacy in any way. Please consult with me if you have any questions along
these lines: better safe than sorry – or sued!
#7 -
A proposal for a new study to research some aspect of the phenomenon, including
a well-supported hypothesis and description of proposed methodology.
Your
portfolio MUST include either #1, 2, or 7 above. In describing exemplars #1-6, you must explicitly
state how the examples fit the phenomenon. This portfolio must take a “normal
people behaving badly” perspective (i.e., examples of the phenomena that are
due mental illness or other rare causes are probably not in line with this
perspective).
One
of the three parts of your portfolio is due
MAY 12 – either electronically prior to class or (if not electronically) at
the beginning of class. This is in order to help you pace yourself and to get
some feedback about whether you are on the right track (we’ll grade the
portfolios as a whole at the end of the term).The complete portfolio is due at noon, Thursday, June 5. Your portfolio should be proofread by your
peer editor in time to make any changes (e.g., probably no later than
Wednesday, June 4). Any part of the portfolio that is in a format that can be
read electronically on a basic computer (e.g., a wordprocessing file) should be
mailed to both the instructors (sdhodges@uoregon.edu)
and the GTF (klewis3@uoregon.edu). All
other parts should be turned in to Psychology Office (first floor, Straub Hall).
Presentation (10%): During the class period when the class is
discussing “your” phenomenon (the topic you are doing your portfolio on), you
will prepare a 10 to 15-minute presentation on the topic, preferably drawing on
one of the 7 possible exemplars in your portfolio (described above). If you
need audio-visual aids for your presentation (e.g., a laptop for PowerPoint),
please let me know in advance. Past experiences suggest that presentations that
use novel formats and engage the class will be appreciated by students in the
course, and as long as they are also scholarly, they will be appreciated by the
instructor in the form of higher grades.
Assigning
topics for portfolios and presentations:
You will be asked in class to list your preferences from the course topics. I
will do my best to assign you a topic that is among your preferences. If you
have a time conflict (e.g., you know will not be in class the day your topic
comes up), you must let me know when listing your preferences - this may affect
assignment of topics, but if we can work around it, we will. If you are
desperate to do a particular topic for your portfolio, I may be willing to
bargain with you by letting you do that topic for your portfolio but doing your
presentation on a topic that no one else chose (more work for you, but a way to
possibly get your #1 choice for the portfolio).
Cheating will not be tolerated. Please consult the UO=s student conduct webpage (http://libweb.uoregon.edu/guides/plagiarism/students/)
to find out what is considered academic dishonesty and feel free to discuss
concerns with me, too.
Cell
phone conversations during class will
not be tolerated either. Please turn your ringer off before coming to
class, too.
If
you have a documented disability, please discuss it with me as soon as
possible so that accommodations can be made.
Schedule of Topics and
Symbols key to readings:
## -
%% -
Mon Mar 31 Introduction to class
Wed
Apr 2 Social psychology research methods
##Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P. C., Carlsmith, J. M.,
& Gonzales, M. H. (1990). Chapter 1: An introduction to experiments. In Methods
of Research in Social Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 8-39).
##Myers, D. (2002). Chapter 1: Introducing Social
Psychology. In Social Psychology (7th ed., pp. 3-33).
Mon Apr 7 Mini-quiz on methods
Beginning
thoughts on bad behavior
##Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Four
roots of evil. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil
(pp. 85-101).
##Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). A situationist perspective
on the psychology of evil: Understanding how good people are transformed into
perpetrators. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil
(pp. 21-50).
Wed Apr 9 Better than average effect
%%Klein, W. & Weinstein, N. D. (1995). Resistance
of personal risk perceptions to debiasing interventions. Health Psychology,
14, 132-140.
%%Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The
bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369-381.
Mon Apr 14 Self-serving attributions
%%
##Herzog, T. A. (1994). Automobile driving as seen by
the actor, the active observer, and the passive observer. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 2057-2074.
Wed Apr 16 Egocentrism
##Gilovich, T., Kruger, J., & Savitsky, K. (1999).
Everyday egocentrism and everyday interpersonal problems. In R. M. Kowalski
& M. R. Leary (Eds.), The social psychology of emotional and behavioral
problems: Interfaces of social and clinical psychology (pp. 69-95).
%%Keysar, B., & Henly, A. S. (2002). Speakers= overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological
Science, 13, 207-212
Mon Apr 21 Prejudice and stereotype formation
##Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the
nature of contemporary prejudice: The causes, consequences and challenges of
aversive racism. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting
racism: The problem and the response (pp. 3-32).
##Hamilton, D. L., & Gifford, R. K. (1976).
Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of
stereotypic judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 392-407.
Wed Apr 23 Ingroups and outgroups
##Rothbart,
M. (2004). Category dynamics
and the modification of outgroup stereotypes. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone
(Eds.), Social
cognition, 142-160.
%%Maass, A., Ceccarelli, R., & Rudin, S. (1996).
Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for in-group-protection motivation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 512-526.
Mon Apr 28 Discrimination in response to threat
%%Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as
self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31-44.
%%Parks-Stamm, E. J., Heilman,
M. E., & Hearns, K. A. (2008). Motivated
to penalize: Women's strategic rejection of successful women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 237-247.
Wed Apr 30 Blaming the
victim
##Branscombe, N. R., Owen, S., Garstka, T. A., &
Coleman, J. (1996). Rape and accident counterfactuals: Who might have done
otherwise and would it have changed the outcome? Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 26, 1042-1067.
%%Kaiser, C., R. & Miller, C. T. (2003).
Derogating the victim: The interpersonal consequences of blaming events on
discrimination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 227-237.
Mon May 5 Scapegoating and stigmatizing
##Glick, P. (2002). Sacrificial lambs dressed in
wolves= clothing: Envious prejudice, ideology, and the
scapegoating of Jews. In L. S. Newman & R. Erber (Eds.), Understanding
Genocide: The social psychology of the Holocaust (pp. 113-142).
%%Crandall, C. S. (1994). Prejudice against fat
people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66, 882-894.
Wed May 7 Shallow
perceptions?
%%Black, K. A. & Gold, D. J. (2003).
Men's and women's reactions to hypothetical sexual advances: The role of
initiator socioeconomic status and level of coercion. Sex Roles, 49, 173-178.
##Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). What is
beautiful is good: The myth. In E. Hatfield & S. Sprecher, Mirror, mirror: The importance of looks in
everyday life (pp. 34-67).
%%Park, J. H., Faulkner, J., & Schaller, M.
(2003). Evolved disease-avoidance processes and contemporary anti-social
behavior: Prejudicial attitudes and avoidance of people with physical
disabilities. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 65-87.
Mon May 12 Selfishness & Spite
%%Brucks, W. M.,
& Van Lange, P. A. M.,
(2007). When prosocials act like proselfs in a commons dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 750-758.
Spite reading TBA
**First part of portfolio DUE either
electronically prior to class or (if not electronic) at the the beginning of class!**
Wed May 14 Gossip
%%Baumeister,
R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Review of General Psychology, 8, 111-121.
%%Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A
social comparison account of gossip.
Review of General Psychology, 8, 122-137.
Mon May 19 Lying & hypocrisy
%%Batson, C. D., & Thompson, E. R. (2001). Why don=t moral people act morally? Motivational considerations.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 54-57.
##DePaulo, B. M. (2002). The many faces of lies. In A.
G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 303-326).
Wed
May 21 Not so innocent bystanders
##Cialdini, R. B. (1998). Cause of death:
Uncertain(y). In M. Davis (Ed.), Annual editions: Social Psychology (pp.
197-201).
##Staub, E. (2003). The psychology of good and evil:
Why children, adults, and groups help and harm others (pp. 325-335, 341-350,
360-367).
Mon May 26 MEMORIAL DAY (no class)
Wed May 28 Obedience to authorities who
would have us do evil
##Browning, C. (1998). Ordinary men: Reserve Police
Battalion 101 and the final solution in
##Miller, A. G. (2002). What can the Milgram obedience
experiments tell us about the Holocaust?: Generalizing from the social
psychology laboratory. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good
and evil (pp. 193-239).
Mon Jun 2 Deindividuation and going along with
bad
##Abelson, R. P., Frey, K. P., & Gregg, A. P.
(2004). Hooded hoodlums: The role of deindividuation in anti-social behavior.
In Experiments with people: Revelations from Social Psychology (pp.
TBA).
%%Fiske, S. T., Harris, L. T., & Cuddy, A. J. C.
(2004). Why ordinary people torture enemy prisoners. Science, 306, 1482-1483.
##Miller, M. (1998). Secrets of the cult. In M. Acker
(Ed.), Perspectives: Social Psychology (pp. 102-107).
Wed Jun 4 The evil of labeling evil, and final
thoughts on the good or evil nature of humanity
##Ellard, J. H., Miller, C. D., Baumle, T., &
Olson, J. M. (2002). Just world processes in demonizing. In M. Ross & D. T.
Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 350-362).
##Staub, E. (2002). The psychology of heroic helpers.
In L. S. Newman & R. Erber (Eds.), Understanding Genocide: The social
psychology of the Holocaust (pp. 32-36).
You should
have a version of your portfolio ready no later than today to give to your peer
editor!
Thu June 5 Portfolios
DUE at NOON - send electronically to sdhodges@uoregon.edu
and klewis3@uoregon.edu. Parts of the
portfolio not easily converted or read electronically should be turned into the
Psychology Office, first floor of Straub, at NOON.
Finals Week No final, see
above for portfolios
*****************
How to read for this
class, especially empirical articles (write-ups of particular studies):
It
is very important that you always read the required reading. The readings will
provide us with a common ground. There is no textbook, only the readings which
come from a variety of sources. Some are book chapters, and others are journal
articles. The chapters are often integrated reviews of a wide range of studies,
and therefore are densely packed with a lot of information. Skimming them will
not be sufficient.
You
may find journal articles harder to read than other sources. Keep in mind that
the authors are trying to tell you not only what they found and why it is important,
but how they found it. It is the methods and results that often make journal
articles difficult to read, but it is essential that you read and understand
these sections.
As
you read a journal article, make sure you can answer these questions:
-
What is the research question? What do the researchers hope to show?
-
What are the theoretical independent and dependent variables? How did the
researchers operationalize them? (How did they manipulate the independent
variable? How did they measure the dependent variable?) We will go over these
concepts during the first week of class/
-
What kinds of analyses did the researchers use? What form were their results?
-
What do the results mean, both at the level of the study and on a broader
level? Try to restate the findings as a general statement.
-
Was there anything wrong with the methods the researchers used? Are there
logical flaws in their arguments? Can you think of an alternative explanation
for their findings?
I
will expect you to know the answers to these questions when we are discussing
the articles.
It
may be helpful to skip around while reading a journal article, BUT MAKE SURE
YOU READ THE WHOLE THING. Try reading the abstract first, to give you some idea
of what the article is about and where the authors are going. However, be
prepared for there to be unfamiliar terms and/or concepts in the abstract. Don't
get discouraged--these should be explained in the body of the paper. It may be
helpful to read the intro and then peek at the discussion before tackling the
methods and results. You may also find that you have to read some sections
twice – knowledge you have gleaned from another part of the article may help
you to make sense of something that was unclear at first.
For
all of the readings (not just journal articles), think about reading as if you
have to explain what you have read to someone else.