Delivered at:: School of Psychology

Course type:: Elective course

When:: 2 year, 1, 2 module

Instructor

Jurcik, Tomas

Full Syllabus Ask Question

Abstract

This course examines highly cited or frequently discussed topics and articles that have been the source of considerable controversy in the fields of social, cognitive, and clinical psychology. That is, findings or observations that have led the scientific community to debate the interpretations and implications, methodology or replicability, the ethics of the study protocol, or even biases of the researchers. The list of research topics covered will be broad. Examples include Milgram's "shock experiment" and Zimbardo's prison study, Loftus' research on false memories, as well as topics related to the efficacy of antidepressants and psychotherapy. We will also discuss the nature vs. nurture debate on intelligence, multiculturalism, issues related to social neuroscience, and even precognition. The course is in a seminar format and will require presentations and active participation. Students will be asked to debate the advantages and disadvantages of study methodologies, underlying theories, assumptions, and ethical implications. There are no course prerequisites, although students are expected to show interest in a broad range of topics in psychology.

Learning Objectives

To familiarize students with controversies in psychology
To develop an appreciation for how ethical, design, replicability, and political issues may influence what is considered controversial
To foster critical thinking, open-minded discussions and respectful debate
To develop students' capacities to be able to present controversial scientific research and examine the advantages and disadvantages from a research design, statistical, sociocultural and political perspective

Expected Learning Outcomes

Students will also develop openness to feedback during discussions, and develop debating skills
Students will become familiar with common social and psychological preconditions for the presence of controversies, and will develop an appreciation of how to critically evaluate the empirical evidence base to come to their own conclusions
Students will become familiar with the essence of some controversial topics in psychology, the conflicting issues which might be related to those controversies (ethical, methodological, interpretive, and otherwise), and their role in contemporary social, clinical, and cognitive psychology
Students will develop skills to synthesize and report information, as well as to understand better the core issues of controversial topics and critically discuss the scientific foundations of controversial research.
Students will develop their presentation skills as well as their skills to synthesize and report information, as well as to understand better the core issues of controversial topics and critically discuss the scientific foundations of controversial research.

Course Contents

Introduction
Authority and conformity research
Military Psychology and Psychological Operations
Controversies in Clinical Psychology: Diagnosis, Assessment and Treatment
Nurture vs. Nature
Social Priming
Cognition: False Memories
Precognition
Social and Cognitive Neuroscience
Bias in Psychology
Multiculturalism and Acculturation
Religion, Spirituality and Paranormal Science
Debate
Conclusions

Assessment Elements

Debate
Attendance
Student Presentations
Mid-Term Exam
Final Exam

Interim Assessment

2024/2025 2nd module
0.1 * Attendance + 0.05 * Debate + 0.35 * Final Exam + 0.25 * Mid-Term Exam + 0.25 * Student Presentations

Bibliography

Recommended Core Bibliography

9781433812392 - Dunn, Dana - Controversy in the Psychology Classroom : Using Hot Topics to Foster Critical Thinking - 2013 - American Psychological Association - https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=989417 - nlebk - 989417
Bale, J. (2007). Political paranoia v. political realism: on distinguishing between bogus conspiracy theories and genuine conspiratorial politics. Patterns of Prejudice, 41(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313220601118751
Cosgrove, L., & Krimsky, S. (2012). A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members’ Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.582988A8
Daryl J. Bem. (n.d.). This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record. Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.9F703811
John A. Bargh, Mark Chen, & Lara Burrows. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.A6944E5C
King, S. B. (2004). PSYOP and Persuasion: Applying Social Psychology and Becoming an Informed Citizen. Teaching of Psychology, 31(1), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3101_7
Loftus, E. (1993). The Reality of Repressed Memories. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edscog&AN=edscog.600
Patihis, L., Ho, L., Tingen, I., Lilienfeld, S., & Loftus, E. (2014). Are the “Memory Wars” Over? A Scientist-Practitioner Gap in Beliefs About Repressed Memory. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.CECA0578
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Jeong-Yeon Lee, & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X48998
Ritchie, S. J., Wiseman, R., & French, C. C. (2012). Failing the Future: Three Unsuccessful Attempts to Replicate Bem’s ‘Retroactive Facilitation of Recall’ Effect. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.3BC0287A
Rod Bond, & Peter B. Smith. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using asch’s. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.15607A17
Scott O. Lilienfeld. (2012). Public skepticism of psychology. Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.F78D81F7
Stephen Reicher, S. Alex, & Er Haslam. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The bbc prison study. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.63751587
Timothy B. Baker, Richard M. Mcfall, & Varda Shoham. (2009). Current status and future prospects of clinical psychology: Toward a scientifically principled approach to mental and behavioral health care. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.6203F5FB
Vul, E., Harris, C. R., Winkielman, P., & Pashler, H. (2009). Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.D2CF0727
Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: the case of psi. (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 426–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022790
Zimbardo, P. G. (2006). On rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X81720

Recommended Additional Bibliography

A Response To Wagenmakers, Van Der Maas, Daryl J. Bem, Jessica Utts, & Wesley O. Johnson. (n.d.). Must Psychologists Change the Way They Analyze Their Data? Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.55847967
Chambless, D. L., & Ollendick, T. H. (2001). EMPIRICALLY SUPPORTED PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS: Controversies and Evidence. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 685. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.685
John T. Jost, Jaime L. Napier, Hulda Thorisdottir, Samuel D. Gosling, Tibor P. Palfai, & Brian Ostafin. (2007). Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity? Personality and. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.C0F736CC
Kerry Kawakami, John F. Dovidio, & Ap Dijksterhuis. (2003). Effect of social category priming on personal attitudes. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.D830864B
Rudmin, F. W. (2006). Debate in science: The case of acculturation. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.22481D83
Turner, M. (2015). Can the Effects of Religion and Spirituality on Both Physical and Mental Health be Scientifically Measured? An Overview of the Key Sources, with Particular Reference to the Teachings of Said Nursi. Journal Of Religion And Health, 54(6), 2045–2051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-014-9894-3

Authors

CHEKLINA EKATERINA MIKHAYLOVNA
Iurchik TOMAS
KAZANKOV VITALIY IGOREVICH

Master’s Programme 'Applied Social Psychology'

Controversies in Psychology