Social Psychology
Psychology 720
Science Hall East 2013
Tuesdays 2:00-4:40
Professor: Elizabeth L. Haines, Ph.D.
Classroom: 2038 Science Hall East
Lab: 2013 Science
Email: hainese@wpunj.edu
Phone: 973.720.2500
Office Hours: T 10:00-11:00 and TR 10:00-11:00 and by appointment or Skype
Required Texts
Maddux, J. E., & Tangney, J. P. (Eds.). (2011). Social Psychological Foundations of Clinical Psychology. Guilford Press.
Other primary source material to be distributed in class or on the web.
Prerequisites
Fourth Year Psy.D. status.
Email
Email and frequent access to Blackboard are requirements for this course. You will need to check your email and Blackboard 24 hours prior to each class meeting time. It is a university policy that students use their university email for all course-related maters.
Course Description
Social Psychology provides students with an in-depth examination of how people are affected by how people think about, relate to, and are affected by others. This course surveys the major theories, principles, and methodologies of social psychology as applied to clinical practice. There is a strong emphasis on the cognitive components of social interactions.
In this course, we will use an evidence-based approach for understanding how social psychological principles, theories and methods operate in clinical practice. To that end, we will evaluate data from rigorous social science research to explain the social psychological approach to cognition, emotions, and behaviors. While personal story telling, examples, and experiences may be used to exemplify research findings, examples are not a substitute (or generally equivalent to) research evidence demonstrating how social cognition operates in social interaction and the clinical experience.
Although attitudes and behaviors forged through experience are strong, easily accessible, and resistant to change, it is my goal to present research findings for you to consider as alternative interpretations for how you typically think about social and self-perception. Psychology, at its best, provides a completely different view of the things we think we know best. Have an open mind, be a critical thinker, and drive with your social experimental glasses on.
The course will follow a questioning critical thinking format. Students are expected to guide their learning process. I have permission to stretch you. No laptops or cellphones during class except for the person who is taking minutes for the day. Tablets are permitted for taking notes by hand and or reading and marking up primary source material.
Attendance
Attendance is required.
University Closing Due to Weather/Emergency
When classes are canceled by the university, you will receive a short at home assignment for the day that will be due at the next class meeting. Please check blackboard for these assignments and when weather conditions are poor.
Evaluation
Presentations (50%)
Each student will give two presentations to the group. A first presentation will be as group leader for the day's material. The group leader will choose the chapter from the text, assign at least one primary source empirical article, compose discussion questions for the day (with answers), and write a self evaluation as the group's peer leader. In a second presentation, the presenter will choose will five cognitive biases, develop a point of view regarding how they should be understood in clinical practice and propose actionable mitigation strategies from primary source research. A self evaluation of this presentation is also required.
External Writing: Discussion Questions (20%)
There will be nine assignments to evaluate the application of social psychological themes into the client-practitioner role. These assignments will be in the form of discussion questions that will be used to stimulate students’ critical thinking and application of course material.
In Class Writing (10%)
In class writing activities will be used to assess understanding of readings.
Final Exam (30%)
A final exam on the social psychological point of view on clinical psychology will integrate learners' knowledge of course material. This integrate will include the following elements (a) informs and extends your practice (b) connects social psychological language and content areas to clinical experience (c) applies this social psychological point of view to your clinical scenarios and techniques using examples.
Communication
Communication is essential to the learning process. If the question is brief, email is the most efficient method of contact. Communication between students is strongly encouraged.
Academic Honesty
It is expected that all work handed in for this class is based upon your learning and personal effort. Violations of academic integrity, including cheating, plagiarism, collusion, and lying, can not be tolerated. Please familiarize yourself with the University's Academic Honesty Policy.
Course
Schedule
|
||
Day/Date |
Text Reading |
Articles and Supplemental Reading |
September 10th |
Chapter 1:
Introduction |
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85(2),
348-362 |
September 17th |
Chapter 16: The Social Psychology of Clinical Judgment |
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Gladwell, M. (2007). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. Back Bay Books. Kahneman, D., (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. |
September 24th |
Chapter 5: Self Regulatory Strength and Psychological Adjustment: Implications for the Limited Resource Model of Self Regulation |
Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Everyday temptations: an experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and self-control.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,
102(6),
1318-1335.
|
October 1st |
Chapter 7: Strategies of Setting and Implementing Goals: Mental Contrasting and Implementation Intentions |
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta‐analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. |
October 8th |
Chapter 11: Social Comparison Theory |
|
October 15th |
Student Chapter |
Chapter, Readings to be Assigned |
October 22nd |
Student Chapter |
|
October 29th |
Student Chapter |
Chapter, Readings to be Assigned |
November 5th |
Student Chapter |
Chapter, Readings to be Assigned |
November 12th |
Cognitive Bias in Self and Other Perception: Haines |
Directed Readings: Cognitive Bias |
November 19th |
Cognitive Bias In Self and Other Perception I |
Directed Readings: Cognitive Bias |
November 26th |
Cognitive Bias In Self and Other Perception II |
Directed Readings: Cognitive Bias |
December 3th |
Cognitive Bias In Self and Other Perception III |
Directed Readings: Cognitive Bias |
December 10th |
Cognitive Bias In Self and Other Perception IV |
Directed Readings: Cognitive Bias |
December 17th |
Final Exam Presentation 2:00-4:00 |
Final
Exam Presentation
|
Grading Rubric for In Class Presentation
Category |
Excellent |
Very Good |
Good |
Fair |
Content |
Depth and breadth |
Very good depth or breadth |
Good depth or breadth |
Fair depth or breadth |
Clarity |
Concepts clearly explained, Excellent supporting
examples |
Concepts partially explained, Good supporting
examples |
Concepts explained but ideas or examples unclear |
Concepts not well explained |
Organization |
Material well organized |
Material generally organized but some lack of flow |
Material somewhat organized, several problems with
flow |
Material not well organized |
Visual Aids |
Engaging and relevant to content |
Engaging but not relevant to content |
Somewhat engaging or relevant to content |
Neither engaging nor relevant to content |
Style |
Poised, confident, excellent speech rate and volume |
Mostly poised and confident, some difficult with
fluidity of speech |
Somewhat poised and confident, speech rate or
volume problems |
Nervous, fast speech rate, low volume |
Grading Rubric for Peer Facilitated Class
Category |
A: Excellent |
B: Very Good
|
C: Fair |
Readings referenced |
Assigned readings are described in response to discussion question with
sufficient depth of understanding |
Some assigned readings are described in response to discussion question
and/or depth of understanding is good but incomplete in some areas
|
Assigned readings not described in response to discussion question
and/or response lacks depth/understanding of material is incomplete |
Integration |
Readings are fully synthesized in support of response. Concepts are
analyzed, connected, compared and contrasted across readings in a
sophisticated manner. |
Readings are somewhat synthesized in support of response. Concepts are
somewhat connected across readings but lacks expected sophistication
(e.g., more emphasis on summary than analysis).
|
Readings are described/summarized without any synthesis or integration
across concepts. |
Critical analysis |
Readings are used to analyze discussion question and/or in support of
ideas/ response to discussion question. |
Readings are somewhat used to analyze discussion question and/or
partially support ideas/ response to discussion question.
|
Readings are described or summarized without any analysis |
Writing skills |
Proper grammar, APA style, objective tone (vs. opinion), fluid
expression and transition across paragraphs |
Some errors with respect to grammar, APA style, tone, fluidity of
expression and transition across paragraphs |
Many mechanical and/or stylistic errors |
Grading Rubric for Reflection Papers
Category |
A: Excellent
|
B: Very Good |
C: Fair |
Readings referenced |
Assigned readings are described in response to reflection question with
sufficient depth of understanding |
Some assigned readings are described in response to reflection question
and/or depth of understanding is good but incomplete in some areas
|
Assigned readings not described in response to reflection question
and/or response lacks depth/understanding of material is incomplete |
Integration |
Readings are fully synthesized in support of response. Concepts are
analyzed, connected, compared and contrasted across readings in a
sophisticated manner. |
Readings are somewhat synthesized in support of response. Concepts are somewhat connected across readings but lacks expected sophistication (e.g., more emphasis on summary than analysis).
|
Readings are described/summarized without any synthesis or integration across concepts. |
Profession Wide Competencies |
Reflection is responsive and represents profession wide competencies of assessment, ethics/legal concerns, professional values, attitudes and behaviors |
Reflection is somewhat responsive and represents profession wide competencies of assessment, ethics/legal concerns, professional values, attitudes and behaviors
|
Reflection is not responsive and does not represent profession wide competencies of assessment, ethics/legal concerns, professional values, attitudes and behaviors |
Writing skills |
Proper grammar, APA style, objective tone (vs. opinion), fluid
expression and transition across paragraphs |
Some errors with respect to grammar, APA style, tone, fluidity of
expression and transition across paragraphs |
Many mechanical and/or stylistic errors |
Grading Rubric for Critical Analysis Paper
Category |
A: Excellent
|
B: Very Good |
C: Fair |
Readings referenced |
Selected readings are from appropriate journals and relevant to topic |
Selected readings are from some appropriate journals and/or partially
relevant to topic |
Selected readings are not from appropriate journals |
Question and Thesis statement |
Clear, concise, and specific question and thesis statement /statement of
purpose that demonstrates clear argument or cause-effect statement |
Question and thesis statement is somewhat clear and specific, but lacks
argument or purpose |
No question or thesis statement or question/thesis are vague and non
specific |
DSK Integration |
Two or more DSK are covered and integrated in paper (e.g., research
methods and developmental; developmental and cognitive; biological and
developmental) |
Two or more DSK are covered in paper (e.g., research methods and
developmental; developmental and cognitive; biological and
developmental) but they are not integrated |
Only one DSK is covered. |
Integration |
Readings are fully synthesized in support of topic. Concepts are
analyzed, connected, compared and contrasted across readings in a
sophisticated manner. |
Readings are somewhat synthesized in support of topic. Concepts are
somewhat connected across readings but lacks expected sophistication
(e.g., more emphasis on summary than analysis). |
Readings are described/summarized without any synthesis or integration
across concepts. |
Critical analysis |
Readings are used to analyze topic and/or in support of thesis.
Effectively and appropriately evaluates methodological rigor of
empirical evidence.
|
Readings are somewhat used to analyze thesis and/or partially support
thesis. Partially evaluates methodological rigor of empirical evidence |
Readings are described or summarized without any analysis. No evaluation
of methodological rigor of empirical evidence. |
Current controversies |
Clear exposition of current controversies or innovations in the field. |
Some exposition of current controversies or innovations in the field |
No exposition of current controversies or innovations in the field |
Writing skills |
Proper grammar, APA style, objective tone (vs. opinion), fluid
expression and transition across paragraphs |
Some errors with respect to grammar, APA style, tone, fluidity of
expression and transition across paragraphs |
Many mechanical and/or stylistic errors |