Магистратура 2022/2023

Социальная психология предубеждения

Лучший по критерию «Полезность курса для Вашей будущей карьеры»

Лучший по критерию «Полезность курса для расширения кругозора и разностороннего развития»

Лучший по критерию «Новизна полученных знаний»

Статус: Курс по выбору (Прикладная социальная психология)

Направление: 37.04.01. Психология

Кто читает: Департамент психологии

Где читается: Факультет социальных наук

Когда читается: 1-й курс, 3, 4 модуль

Формат изучения: без онлайн-курса

Охват аудитории: для своего кампуса

Преподаватели: Котова Марина Викторовна

Прогр. обучения: Прикладная социальная психология

Язык: английский

Кредиты: 6

Контактные часы: 48

Course Syllabus

Abstract

Course Description 1) Pre-requisites The course is designed for first year master students and is based on the previously learned courses (“Theory and Methodology of Modern Psychology”, “Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods in Psychology”, “Cross-cultural Psychology”). 2) Abstract The course is aimed to introduce to students basic findings and new directions in the area of prejudice research. Specific topics addressed are: 1) on the nature of prejudice: “old” prejudice and modern racism; 2) prejudice formation: easy to get in touch, hard to get rid of; 3) group identity, scapegoating, and stereotype threat “assistance” in prejudice formation and enhancing; 4) prejudice reducing techniques: strengths and weaknesses. Classroom activities follow several rules: • Combination of lecture sessions (which are aimed to provide theoretical and methodological basics) with discussions, analysis of video fragments, and group work (which develop students’ abilities to analyze and compare different approaches, justify their ideas, and participate in the scientific discussion) makes the course diverse and interesting for students. • Concentrated approach to course material and studying process. Each meeting is devoted to a specific topic and includes both a lecture and a seminar session. This type of classes’ organization leads to several consequences. Foremost, students come at lecture having a background knowledge that provides in turn a base for lecture information learning. Further, there is no a time gap between lecture and seminar, that reduces time for introduction part of seminar and allows to study more in depth. • Tasks that increase student’s responsibility for the education process. For instance, students chose a particular topic, form a working group, read additional literature about this topic, and are responsible for discussion at seminar devoted to this topic. • Tasks that are aimed to set a connection between course materials and students’ research projects. This gives students an opportunity to see an alternative to their research plan, compare and evaluate its strength and weaknesses. 3) Working language of the course is English (teaching and all communications). Duration of the course is 2 modules, from January till July, 228 academic hours (5 credits) in total, including: 48 hours in class and 180 hours for self-studying. Assessment methods include activity during classes, short tasks, final test, article analysis (homework 1) and research project (homework 2, team work).

Learning Objectives

• To acquaint students with basic theories and investigations in the area of prejudice and social discrimination research.
• To develop students’ abilities to analyze and compare different research approaches; to identify prejudice reducing techniques strengths and weaknesses.
• To develop students' abilities to present their ideas, analyze research design and results, and to organize the scientific discussion.

Expected Learning Outcomes

• Students analyze scientific literature, compare different studies, and propose a set of corrections for validity increasing
• Students use modern international standards of presenting results of psychosocial research in English (in written and in oral modes)
• Students reproduce a history of research in a particular research area of prejudice studies; know what research problems were stated and what results and ideas are considered as most promising.
• Students compare different conceptions of prejudice and analyze their strengths and limitations; match examples of intergroup incidents with different subtle forms of modern prejudices.
• Students analyze and compare factors of prejudice formation and sustainability; analyze prejudice issues in local intergroup relationships based on literature discussed.
• Students design and conduct empirical psychological research using modern international standards.
• Students analyze and compare approaches to prejudice reduction; propose a set of steps for prejudice reduction in local intergroup relationships.

Course Contents

• Introduction: Overview of the course
• Differences in prejudice definitions and research methodology
• “Old” (blatant) and "new" (subtle) forms of prejudice
• Prejudice formation and categorization: easy to get in touch, hard to get rid of
• Group identity and prejudice formation and enhancing
• Stereotyping, scapegoating and prejudice
• Intergroup threat and its consequences for intergroup relations
• Prejudice reducing techniques: strengths and weaknesses
• Crossed-categorization, ‘re-‘ and ‘de-‘ categorization, dual identities and its effects
• Particular prejudice reducing practice analysis
• Research practice

Assessment Elements

• Class participation
• Short home assignments
• Article analysis
• Research project
• Final test

Interim Assessment

• 2022/2023 4th module
  0.15 * Short home assignments + 0.15 * Article analysis + 0.2 * Final test + 0.25 * Class participation + 0.25 * Research project

Bibliography

Recommended Core Bibliography

• Ashby, F. G., & Maddox, W. T. (2005). Human Category Learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070217
• Cameron, J. A., Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., & Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Children’s Lay Theories About Ingroups and Outgroups: Reconceptualizing Research on Prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 5(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_3
• Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review Of Psychology, 53, 575–604. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=mdc&AN=11752497
• Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 10(4), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
• Thomas F. Pettigrew. (n.d.). INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.E5FCBB03
• Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: the ingroup projection model. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.16D708AF

Recommended Additional Bibliography

• Binder, J. ( 1 ), Brown, R. ( 1 ), Zagefka, H. ( 2 ), Funke, F. ( 3 ), Kessler, T. ( 3 ), Mummendey, A. ( 3 ), … Leyens, J.-P. ( 4 ). (n.d.). Does Contact Reduce Prejudice or Does Prejudice Reduce Contact? A Longitudinal Test of the Contact Hypothesis Among Majority and Minority Groups in Three European Countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013470
• Brown, R. (2002). Henri Tajfel’s “Cognitive aspects of prejudice” and the psychology of bigotry. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 195. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602760060183
• Crisp, R., Ensari, N., Hewstone, M., & Miller, N. (2003). A dual-route model of crossed categorisation effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 13(1), 35–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280240000091
• Elizabeth Levy Paluck. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.C833680
• Guglielmi, R. S. (1999). Psychophysiological Assessment of Prejudice: Past Research, Current Status, and Future Directions. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 3(2), 123. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_3
• Gulker, J., Mark, A., & Monteith, M. (2013). Confronting prejudice: The who , what , and why of confrontation effectiveness. Social Influence, 8(4), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.736879
• Lai, C., Marini, M., Lehr, S., Cerruti, C., Shin, J. E., Joy-Gaba, J., … Nosek, B. (2016). Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.8EC51516
• Lamb, L., Bigler, R., Liben, L., & Green, V. (2009). Teaching Children to Confront Peers’ Sexist Remarks: Implications for Theories of Gender Development and Educational Practice. Sex Roles, 61(5–6), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9634-4
• McFarland, S. (2010). Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and Other Roots of Generalized Prejudice. Political Psychology, 31(3), 453–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00765.x
• Mummendey, A., Klink, A., & Brown, R. (2001). Nationalism and patriotism: national identification and out-group rejection. The British Journal Of Social Psychology, 40(Pt 2), 159–172. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=mdc&AN=11446222
• National identification and anti-immigrant prejudice: Individual and contextual effects of national definitions. (2009). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.121D340
• Prejudice towards Muslims in The Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. (2008). British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4). https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608x284443
• Ramsay, J. E., & Pang, J. S. (2017). Anti-Immigrant Prejudice in Rising East Asia: A Stereotype Content and Integrated Threat Analysis. Political Psychology, 38(2), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12312
• Rebels with a cause: Group identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream. (2001). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1204–1213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279012
• Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social Identity Complexity. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 6(2), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01
• Scroggins, W., Mackie, D., Allen, T., & Sherman, J. (2016). Reducing Prejudice With Labels: Shared Group Memberships Attenuate Implicit Bias and Expand Implicit Group Boundaries. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.BCCAE642
• Shi, Y., Dang, J., Zheng, W., & Liu, L. (2017). Dual Identity and Prejudice: The Moderating Role of Group Boundary Permeability. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.54EAE7C9
• Susan T. Fiske, Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, & Department Of Psychology. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.4E3159ED
• West, K., & Greenland, K. (2016). Beware of ‘reducing prejudice’: Imagined contact may backfire if applied with a prevention focus. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.AFF86C38

Authors

• KOTOVA MARINA VIKTOROVNA