Psychology 356: Social Psychology Seminar

Spring 1994

T 1:30–2:45, Th 2:00–3:15

Professor: Bill Klein

Office: 333 Roberts

Phone: Office: x3183, Home: 873-3210, computer mail: wmklein

Office Hours: MW 1:00-3:00, T 3:00-5:00, Th 3:30-5:30, and by appointment

Course Description: The aim of this course is to acquaint you with current topics in social psychology. The focus of the course this year will be judgment and decision making. We will explore various types of heuristics and rules that people follow when making choices, judgments, and decisions. In doing so, we will consider the consequences of doing so, and the applications of this work to the way we reason in everyday life. We will use a classic 1980 book by Nisbett and Ross as the building block, and will then consider what we have learned about human reasoning within the 14 years since that book was published. The course is designed to build on your previous coursework in social psychology (e.g, PS122, PS253, PS331) by introducing you to a number of different topical areas in the field, while giving you more of an opportunity to (1) engage in the type of research social psychologists do, (2) make presentations on those topics you find most interesting and informative, (3) report your own research formally to your colleagues in class.

Readings:

(1) Required textbook: Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. May be purchased at the Colby Bookstore.

(2) All of the remaining readings are on reserve in Miller Library. There should be two copies of each article available.

Course requirements:

(1) We will meet twice a week and discuss the assigned articles and chapters in a seminar format. Many sessions will be conducted by members of the class. Discussion leaders will prepare a 30 minute presentation on their topic. In doing so, they will give an overview of the readings assigned to the class for that day, introduce other current research that has been published on this topic, and moderate the ensuing class discussion. You will have the opportunity to choose three sessions for which you will be the discussion leader. Leaders will meet with me three weekdays beforehand to discuss the format of their session. In other words, if you are leading a Tuesday session you should meet with me on the previous Thursday, and if you are leading a Thursday session you should meet with me on the Monday of that week. The first student-led class meeting will be Thurs., Feb. 17, meaning the leader of that session should meet with me by Mon., Feb. 14. I am always happy to give you suggestions and talk over any questions and ideas that you have about your topic. In our preparatory meeting, I will suggest some appropriate references, and give you feedback on how to present the material. You should schedule a meeting with me soon after your presentation in order to get feedback about their performance. Your work as a discussion leader will constitute 30% of your grade, and I will take improvement over the term into account.

(2) In a class such as this it is important that all class members prepare the assigned readings adequately so that they are able to discuss them when we meet. It is useful to take notes on the main points of the readings so you can refer to them when necessary during these meetings and when writing papers. Also, class discussion will be key in trying to understand the topics we review, including how researchers have approached them and what we have learned, and what kinds of things we could do to further our knowledge. Your contribution to class discussion is an important part of the class and will thus constitute 20% of your grade.

(3) It is hard to really know what this research is all about without experiencing it yourself. It is a very useful (and fun!) exercise to conduct research in the field you are studying. For this reason, in this class you will be carrying out, with one or two other students, a research project in an area of your collective choosing. This project may be in any area of current research on human reasoning. You can do one of the following: (1) replicate a study that has already been reported in the literature, with appropriate modifications given available time and resources, (2) replicate a study already done while including any methodological changes or new variables that would shed further light on the results, or (3) execute a novel study that would make a contribution to a current area of judgment and decision making. In all cases, these studies must be approved by me as soon as possible, and no later than March 10 (one month from the beginning of the course). Let me know if there are particular people you would like to work with; otherwise, I will assign people to groups. Also, it will be your group’s responsibility to furnish the subjects for your study, so try to plan simple studies that your friends wouldn’t mind doing. At the end of the term, you will hand in a final write-up of your research, in APA style. Although you will conduct this research in your groups, you will each be responsible for writing up the project in an original paper. This project will compose 20% of your grade.

(4) There will be three papers due during the course. Two of these will be 5-7 page papers on questions I will give you in advance, each accounting for 15% of your grade. These papers will give you an opportunity to critique and integrate the research we have read, as well as apply it to human reasoning. You should take careful notes of all the readings in order to assist you in your writing. The third paper will be the write-up of your research project, as explained above.

I will grade each of you individually, which means that you are not competitors but colleagues in class. I believe that such an environment is more conducive to effective and exciting learning.

Evaluation: In short, your grade will be determined as follows:

Discussion leader: 30%

Class participation: 20%

Short papers: 15% each (30% total)

Final research proposal: 20%

Office Hours: Although my door is generally open, I will hold special office hours for students in my classes on MWF 1:00-3:00, T 3:00-5:00, Th 3:30-5:30, and by appointment. I am there to answer any questions you have about the course -- no question is too dumb to ask. Class leaders should make appointments with me during these hours. By the way, if your schedule prohibits you from attending any of the hours, feel free to call me (O: x3183, H: 873-3210) to set up an appointment for another time. You can also send me computer mail (wmklein).

Policies: Please refer to our department policy (attached) and to the Colby College Catalogue for questions regarding attendance, academic honesty, and other such matters.

COURSE TOPICS AND READING

***Other than the Nisbett and Ross reading, all of these articles may be found on reserve at Miller Library. There is a fair amount reading for each topic, usually more than you can read in just one night, so it will help for you to budget your reading time accordingly. In general, it would be a good idea to read 1-2 articles each night of the week. Take advantage of the extra time between Thursdays and Tuesdays to work on your papers and research.

February 8: Introduction

February 10: The intuitive scientist; use of heuristics

Nisbett & Ross, Preface, Ch. 1, 2

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.

February 15: Mental simulation and counterfactual thinking

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. L., & Gavanski, I. (1989). Mental simulation of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 161-169.

Miller, D. T., & Turnbull, W. (1990). The counterfactual fallacy: Confusing what might have been with what ought to have been. Social Justice Research, 4, 1-19.

February 17: The base rate fallacy

Nisbett & Ross, Ch. 7 (pp. 139-150, 156-160)

Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica, 44, 211-233.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.

February 22: Dilution effect, regression, and other misuses of representativeness

Nisbett & Ross, Ch. 4 (pp. 77-89), 6 (pp. 115-122), 7 (pp. 150-156, 160-166)

Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. E. (1981). The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 248-277.

Quattrone, G. A., & Jones, E. E. (1980). The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 141-152.

February 24: Vividness and availability

Nisbett & Ross, Ch. 3, 4 (pp. 73-76), 6 (pp. 122-127)

Nisbett, R. E., Borgida, E., Crandall, R., & Reed, H. (1976). Popular induction: Information is not always informative. In J. S. Carroll & J. W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior, 2, 227-236.

March 1: Covariation detection and illusory correlation

Nisbett & Ross, Ch. 5

Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1969). Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74, 271-280.

Harkness, A. R., DeBono, K. G., & Borgida, E. (1985). Personal involvement and strategies for making contingency judgments: A stake in the dating game makes a difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 22-32.

March 3: Perceptions of chance and randomness

Langer, E. J., & Roth, J. (1975). Heads I win, tails it’s chance: The illusion of control as a function of the sequence of outcomes in a pure chance task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 951-955.

Gilovich, T., Vallone, R., & Tversky, A. (1985). The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 295-314.

Rothbart, M., & Snyder, M. (1970). Confidence in the prediction and postdiction of an uncertain outcome. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 2, 38-43.

March 8: Perceptions of public risk

Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit vs. technological risk: What is our society willing to pay for safety? Science, 165, 1232-1238.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In R. Schwing & W. A. Albers (Eds.), Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough? NY: Plenum.

March 10: Perceptions of personal risk

Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychologica, 47, 143-148.

Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won't happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychology, 2, 11-20.

Beyth-Marom, R., Austin, L., Fischhoff, B., Palmgren, C., & Jacobs-Quadrel, M. (1993). Perceived consequences of risky behaviors: Adults and adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 29, 549-563.

March 15: Consequences of inaccurate perceptions of risk

Larwood, L., & Whittaker, W. (1977). Managerial myopia: Self-serving biases in organizational planning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 194-198.

Tyler, T., & Hastie, R. (1991). The social consequences of cognitive illusions. Research on negotiation in organizations, 3, 69-98.

Klein, W. M., & Kunda, Z. (in press). Exaggerated self-assessments and the preference for controllable risks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

March 17: Overconfidence in judgment and prediction

Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dunning, D., & Story, A. L. (1991). Depression, realism, and the overconfidence effect: Are the sadder wiser when predicting future actions and events? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 521-532.

Gilovich, T., Kerr, M., & Medvec, V. H. (1993). Effect of temporal perspective on subjective confidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 552-560.

March 22 & 24: SPRING BREAK

March 29: Risky choice and framing effects

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.

McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., & Tversky, A. (1988). On the framing of medical decisions.

Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., Martin, C. D. (1993). The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 408-433.

March 31: ESP, Alternative medicine, and other beliefs

Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn't so. New York: The Free Press. Pages 125-182.

April 5: Escalation of commitment and the perseverance effect

Bazerman, M. H. (1990). Judgment in managerial decision making. New York: John Wiley. Ch. 4.

Larrick, R. P., Morgan, J. N., & Nisbett, R. E. (1993). Teaching the use of cost-benefit reasoning in everyday life. In R. E. Nisbett (Ed.), Rules for reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nisbett & Ross, Ch. 8

April 7: Understanding our preferences

Nisbett & Ross, Ch. 9 (pp. 216-227)

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.

Gavanski, I., & Hoffman, C. (1987). Awareness of influences on one’s own judgments: The roles of covariation detection and attention the judgment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 453-463.

April 12: The role of motivation in reasoning

Nisbett & Ross, Ch. 10

Larrick, R. P. (1993). Motivational factors in decision theories: The role of self-protection. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 440-450.

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.

April 14: Justification, compromise, and regret in decisions

Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1994). Decision under conflict: Weighing reasons for choice. Unpublished manuscript.

Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.

Gilovich, T., & Medvec, V. H. (1994). The temporal pattern to the experience of regret. Unpublished manuscript.

April 19: Hindsight biases

Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight _ foresight: The effects of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288-299.

Fischhoff, B. (1982). For those condemned to study the past: Heuristics and biases in hindsight. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

April 21: Rationality in negotiation

Bazerman, M. H. (1990). Judgment in managerial decision making. New York: John Wiley. Ch. 6, 7.

Loewenstein, G. F., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 426-441.

April 26: Making important decisions

Dawes, R. M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist, 34, 571-582.

Fischhoff, B. (1990). Making decisions about AIDS. In V. M. Mays, G. W. Albee, & S. F. Schneider (Eds.), Primary prevention of AIDS: Psychological approaches. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

April 28: How inaccurate are people really?

Nisbett & Ross, Ch. 11

Funder, D. C. (1987). Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 75-90.

Miller, G. A., & Cantor, N. (1982). Review of Nisbett & Ross. Social Cognition, 1, 83-93.

May 3: Improving reasoning

Nisbett & Ross, Ch. 12

Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C., & Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 339-363.

Fong, G. T., Krantz, D. H., & Nisbett, R. E. (1986). The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday life. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 253-292.

May 5: Research presentations

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY: DEPARTMENT POLICY

It is our belief that the serious, hard-working student is cheated by unwarranted extensions of deadlines and postponements of examinations given to the non-serious, non-hard-working student. Any assignment could be improved by having more time to prepare it; any student who turns in a paper on time could undoubtedly have done a better job, given a few more days. To allow some, but not all, students extra time is unfair. To extend deadlines at the last minute, after some have already turned in an assignment, is equally unfair. By the same token, unwarranted postponement of examinations for some is unfair to those who have prepared as best they can, given their other activities and obligations. In order to treat all students as equitably as possible, the Department has adopted the following policy:

Examinations. Hourly and mid-term examinations will be scheduled at least a week in advance. They will be taken at the scheduled time. Only medical excuses, documented personal catastrophes (such as a death in the family), and religious observances (see below) will be accepted as reasons not to take an exam as scheduled. Having a lot of work to do, several exams in a few days, or being generally unprepared are not acceptable excuses. If you are, for legitimate reasons, unable to take an exam when it is scheduled, notify the instructor in advance of the exam time. If you are unable to contact the instructor because you have had to leave campus, notify him or her within 24 hours of your return of your desire to take a make-up exam, and present any documentation at that time.

Term Papers. Term paper deadlines will be announced well in advance. Late papers may not be accepted and, if accepted, will be subject to a substantial grade penalty. If you feel that extenuating circumstances should be considered in your case, you may petition the department for an extension. In general, the same policy discussed above for examinations applies to term paper deadlines. The appropriate style for papers is described in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 3rd edition. A copy is on reserve in Miller Library. We also recomend that you purchase Rosnow and Rosnow’s Writing Papers in Psychology, 2nd edition, available at the bookstore under PS 214. The department keeps on file original copies of all papers submitted. Papers with the instructor's comments will be available for perusal, but they become the property of the department. If you wish to retain a copy for your files, make and retain a copy on computer disk or a photocopy.

Religious Observances. Practitioners of a religious tradition requiring time apart from the demands of the normal work schedule on a particular day (or days) may contact their professors in advance to make alternative arrangements for academic events that conflict with a religious observance.

Incompletes. The grade of incomplete will be assigned only in the case of documented emergencies with departmental approval of a written petition.

Academic Honesty. The department abides by the following college policy as stated in the Colby College Catalogue: Plagiarism,cheating, and other forms of academic dishonesty are serious offenses. For the first offense, the instructor may dismiss the offender from the course with a mark of F and will also report the case to the department chair and the dean of students, who may impose other or additional penalties, including suspension or expulsion... A second offense automatically leads to suspension or expulsion.

Class Attendance. We call attention to the College policy on attendance, as described in the Colby College Catalogue and the Colby Student Handbook.

(revised 8/93)