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 460/560: Self and Other

Psy 607: Self and Other

Spring 2009, Mondays, 12:45-3:20

Room 143, Straub Hall

 <= /span>

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

 <= /span>

Course Description= :

This advanced social psychology seminar will explore the concept of the self in the context of o= ther people in an individual=3Dt everyone use your “free” class at = the end of the term!). Please bring a printout of your posting with you to clas= s; if discussion wanes, I will call on people to present their reactions to the readings. For those of you who are shy, I will weight your written comments= more in determining your participation grade, but ideal participation involves sharing your ideas in class, because it allows for dialogue. If participati= on is uneven, in order to facilitate participation by all class members, I may occasionally ask more vocal class members to hold back. <= /p>

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/<= /o:p>


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 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: =

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). How we see ourselves and how we see others. S= cience, 320, 1177-1180.

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? <= /p>

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. 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: ***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. (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. <= /p>

 <= /span>

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.=

------=_NextPart_01CAE7C2.E54C8770 Content-Location: file:///C:/CD1E1E43/syllselfother607spr09doc_files/header.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

Self & Other, Spring 2009, p.6<= /i>


------=_NextPart_01CAE7C2.E54C8770 Content-Location: file:///C:/CD1E1E43/syllselfother607spr09doc_files/filelist.xml Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8" ------=_NextPart_01CAE7C2.E54C8770--