MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01CAE7C2.E54C8770" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer. ------=_NextPart_01CAE7C2.E54C8770 Content-Location: file:///C:/CD1E1E43/syllselfother607spr09doc.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Psy 607: Self and Other
Spring 2009, Mondays, 12:45-3:20
Room 143, Straub Hall
Dr. Sara Hodges, 3=
31
Straub Hall, 346-4919, sdhodges@uoregon.edu
Office hours: Tues=
days
3-4; Wednesdays 2:30-3:30; and by appointment
Course Description=
:
This advanced social
psychology seminar will explore the concept of the self in the context of o=
ther
people in an individual=3D What
kinds of responses to the readings am I looking for? Here are some
possibilities: a)
Questions for future research - what is the next study that needs to be don=
e,
why, and how should it be conducted? (This might lead to a topic for your f=
inal
paper; see below.) b)
Methodological and other criticisms - how could the study have been conduct=
ed
better? Are the researchers justified in drawing the conclusions they do? N=
ote
that pointing out that they should have used subjects other college student=
s is
ok, but gets tiresome if that@ (=
e.g.,
you can=3D=
papers
and providing feedback. Electronic drafts of papers are due to your peer
editors at noon Saturday, June 6, and are due back to paper writers at noon
Sunday June 7 (if this schedule is problematic, we will need to come up with
alternative arrangement). Final drafts of papers are due to me at noon Mond=
ay,
June 8. Please note that even stud=
ents
who are not writing papers will serve as peer editors. Plagiarism<=
/b> will not be tolerated (but I’m not antici=
pating
any in a graduate seminar). I am a big nasty ogre when it comes to penalties
for plagiarism. I reserve the right to run any of your written material in =
this
class through SafeAssign (an electronic database of scholarly sources); sta=
ying
enrolled in this class is an indication of consent to this. I am more than
happy to talk to you in advance about what would constitute plagiarism. You
might also consult the following webpages to learn more about plagiarism: <=
o:p> http://libwe=
b.uoregon.edu/guides/plagiarism/students/ http://studentlife.uoregon.edu/programs/student_judi_affairs/ Content note:
It was really hard to narrow down the readings for this course. I had to cut
out whole topics to keep the reading from being excessive (but managed to p=
ut
some of them back in with the hot topics!), and I probably left out a bunch=
of
stuff that I either forgot or didn’t think to include. In terms of
picking particular papers, papers that were “classic,” cutting
edge, particularly good illustrations of particular phenomena, written by
notable authors in this area of psychology, written by authors with Oregon
connections, and/or written particularly well got priority. I have read man=
y of
the papers on the syllabus-- but not all of them! Some are papers that I am
curious and excited to read and discuss myself. However, if I assigned a paper tha=
t I
have not read before, I had to have very high expectations for it to be
included. Readings Readings are to be do=
ne
before the class for which they are listed. They will be posted on the
Blackboard site for this class, but most are also available from the library
online. Please let me know immediately about any access problems!! Week 1 – March 30: Introduction to the seminar Week 2 – Apr=
il 6: Projection/I=
nability
to get over yourself Barr, C. L., & Kleck, R. E. (1995). Self-other perception of the
intensity of facial expressions of emotion: Do we know what we show? Jou=
rnal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 608-618. Epley, N., Keysar, B.,=
Van
Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective
taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Persona=
lity
and Social Psychology, 87, 327-339. Hoch, S. J. (1987). Perceived consensu=
s and
predictive accuracy: The pros and cons of projection. Journal of Persona=
lity
and Social Psychology, 53, 221-234. Hodges, S. D., Johnsen, A. T., & Scott, N. S.
(2002). You're like me, no matter what you say. Psychologica Belgica, 42=
,
107-112. Vorauer, J. D. (2001). =
The
other side of the story: Transparency estimation in social interaction. In =
G.
Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton Symposium on=
the
legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 261-276). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Week 3 -
April 13: Better
than average effect Krizan,=
Z.,
& Suls, J. (2008). Losing sight of oneself in=
the
above-average effect: When egocentrism, focalism, and group diffuseness
collide. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44,
929-942. Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The
“below-average effect” and the egocentric nature of comparative
ability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 221-232. 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. Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M.
(1995). Resistance of personal risk perceptions to debiasing interventions.=
Health
Psychology, 14, 132-140. Williams, E. F., & Gilovich, T. (2=
008).
Do people really believe they are above average? Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 44, 1121-1128. Week 4 – April 20: OTHER self-other asymme=
tries
and social comparison Hodges, S. D. (2005). Feature matching in social comparisons. In M.
Alicke, D. Dunning, & J. Krueger (Eds.), The self in social judgment=
(pp. 131-153). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Kruger, J., Windschitl, P. D., Burrus,=
J.,
Fessel, F., & Chambers, J. R. (2008). The rational side of egocentrism =
in
social comparisons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44=
,
220-232. Malle, B. F., Knobe, J. M., & Nelson, S. E.
(2007). Actor-observer asymmetries in explanations of behavior: New answers=
to
an old question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93=
,
491-514. Pronin, E. (2008).
Williams, E. F., & Gilovich, T. (2008).
Conceptions of the self and others across time. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1037-1046.
Week 5 – Apr=
il 27:
Reflections of self and other: Looking glas=
s or
not?
Chambers, J. R., Epley=
, N.,
Savitsky, K., & Windschitl, P. D. (2008). Kno=
wing
too much: Using private knowledge to predict how one is viewed by others.=
span>
Psychological Science, 19, 542-548.
Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1993). Do peop=
le
know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychol=
ogical
Bulletin, 114, 145-161.
Klar, Y., & Giladi, E. E. (1999). Are most peo=
ple
happier than their peers, or are they just happy? Personality and Social=
Psychology
Bulletin, 25, 585-594.
Srivastava, S., & Beer, J. S. (200=
5).
How self-evaluations relate to being liked by others: Integrating sociometer
and attachment perspectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog=
y,
89, 966-977.
Tice, D. M., & Wallace, H. M. (2003). The
reflected self: Creating yourself as (you think) others see you. In Leary, =
Mark
R. (Ed); Tangney, June Price (Ed), Handbook of self and identity. (p=
p.
91-105). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Week 6 – May=
4: Self-other accuracy: Empathic and otherwise
Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J.=
S.,
Spataro, S. E., & Chatman, J. A. (2006). Knowing your place:
Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 91, 1094-1110.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., &
Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological
Science, 17, 1068-1074.
Hodges, S. D., Klein, K. J. K., Kramer, A., Veac=
h, D.,
& Villanueva, R. (under revision). Giving birth to empathy: The effects=
of
similar experience on empathic accuracy, empathic concern, and perceived
empathy. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon.
Myers,
M. W., & Hodges, S. D. (2009). Making it up and making do: Simulation,
imagination and empathic accuracy. In K. Markman, W. Klein, & J. Suhr
(Eds.), The handbook of imagination and mental simulation (pp. 281-294). New York:
Psychology Press.
Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. (2008). It
takes two: The interpersonal nature of empathic accuracy. Psychological
Science, 19, 399-404.
Week 7 &nbs=
p; - May 11: When
the self IS other and other wacky perspective taking effects
***One =
page
paper proposal due at beginning of class today!***
Galinsky, A. D., Wang, C. S., & Ku, G. (2008).
Perspective-takers behave more stereotypically. Journal of Personality a=
nd
Social Psychology, 95, 404-419. [Please note the following errat=
um
notice for this article too: Galinsky, A. D., Wang, C. S., & Ku, G. (20=
08).
“Perspective-takers behave more stereotypically”: Correction to
Galinsky, Wang, and Ku (2008). Journal of Personality and Social Psychol=
ogy,
95, 917.]
Libby, L. K., Eibach, R. P., & Gilovich, T.
(2005). Here's looking at me: The effect of memory perspective on assessmen=
ts
of personal change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,=
88,
50-62.
Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral
influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Proce=
sses,
65, 272-292.
Pronin,=
E.,
Olivola, C. Y., & Kennedy, K. A. (2008). Doin=
g unto
future selves as you would do unto others: Psychological distance and decis=
ion
making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34,
224-236.
Taylor, M., Hodges, S. D., & Kohanyi, A. (20=
03).
Fictional people with minds of their own: Characters created by adult novel=
ists
and imaginary companions created by children. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 22, 361-380.
****Special Event: Friday, May 15, 4:00 pm, 146 =
Straub
Hall - Adam Galinsky (Northwestern University) Colloquium. REQUIRED attenda=
nce,
if at ALL possible; otherwise, I will provide a makeup assignment.
Week 8 – May 18: Self-ot=
her
merging
Aron,
A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992).=
Inclusion of others in the self scale and the
structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.
Korchmaros, J. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2001).
Emotional closeness as a mediator of the effect of genetic relatedness on
altruism. Psychological Science, 12, 262-265.
Mashek, D., Stuewig, J., Furukawa, E., & Tangn=
ey,
J. (2006). Psychological and behavioral implications of connectedness to
communities with opposing values and beliefs. Journal of Social &
Clinical Psychology, 25, 404-428.
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The
connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in communi=
ty
with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503-515=
.
Myers, M. W., & Hodges, S. D. (under
review). Looking for
overlap: Are measures of self-other merging tapping the same construct?
Week 9 – May 25: Memorial Day, no class
Week
10 – June 1: Self-conscio=
us
emotions and the presence of others
Baldwin, M. W.&=
nbsp;
(2001). Relational schema activation: Does Bob Zajonc ever scowl at =
you
from the back of your mind? In J. Bargh and D. K. Apsley (Eds.), Unravel=
ing
the complexities of social life: A festschrift in honor of Robert B. Zajonc=
(pp.
55-67). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hass, R. G. (1984). Perspective taking and
self-awareness: Drawing an E on your forehead. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 46, 788-798.
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars a=
nd
me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Persona=
lity
and Social Psychology, 73, 91-103.
Smeesters, D., Wheeler, S. C., & Kay, A. C.=
a> (2009). The role of interpersonal perceptions in =
the
prime-to-behavior pathway. Journal =
of
Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 395-414.
Tangney, J. P., & Salovey, P. (1999). Problema=
tic
social emotions: Shame, guilt, jealousy, and envy. In Kowalski, Robin M. (E=
d);
Leary, Mark R. (Ed), The social psychology of emotional and behavioral
problems: Interfaces of social and clinical psychology. (pp. 167-195).
Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Weekend before Fin=
als Week
Electronic version of=
papers
due to peer editors at noon Saturday June 6. Peer edited versions of papers=
due
back to authors at noon Sunday June 7. Final papers due to me at noon Monda=
y June
8 (as either .doc or .docx files; if that’s a problem, please see me =
in
advance).
How
to read for this class:
It is very important that you do the c=
ourse
readings. The readings will p=
rovide
us with a common ground. Skim=
ming
them will not be sufficient. When reading primary sources (empirical journal
articles) 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 effortful 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 predictor variable? DID they manipulate the predictor variab=
le?!
How did they measure the dependent variable?)
- What kinds of analyses did the
researchers use? What form were their results? (Did they find a difference =
in
means? Did they find different correlations? Did they find main effects?
Interactions?
- 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? C=
an
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 s=
kip
around while reading a journal article, BUT MAKE SURE YOU READ THE WHOLE TH=
ING.
Try reading the abstract first, to give you some idea of what the article is
about and where the authors are going.&nbs=
p;
However, be prepared for there to be unfamiliar terms and/or concept=
s 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 t=
he
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.=
Self & Other, Spring 2009, p.6<= /i>