socialjudgments

Social judgments

Back to teaching.

Since its beginnings, social psychology has investigated interpersonal judgment, uncovering many biases in the way we evaluate other people or ourselves. More recently, cognitive psychologists as well have started to develop theories of how we understand and judge other people. This class will be at the crossroad of these two traditions, looking into cognitive models of how we judge other people, and how we use similar mechanisms to judge ourselves.

The class will be research oriented. We will discuss the formulation of psychological theories and their testing, as well as the more prosaic matters of searching the literature and reading (with a critical eye) psychology papers.

Grades will be accorded following these points:

Participation 25%

Paper presentation 25%

A final paper 40%

Presentation of the final paper 10%

The final paper will be 6-8,000 words long (approx. 15 to 20 pages), due by the last (or next to last) class of the semester (so a little earlier than for most other classes). The topic will have to be decided early so that the bibliographical research, hypothesis formulation and general development of the ideas can be discussed during the course of the class. It should be possible to work in groups, the details will then be discussed on a case by case basis.

Below is a non exhaustive list of the topics that will be covered, and some of papers that will be discussed. This class will be as much 'à la carte' as possible: depending on the interests of the students, a variety of topics dealing with social psychology in one way or another can be broached (hence there are more topics below than classes).

Only one or two papers will be mandatory reading for each class, they will be presented by students and discussed by the group. The other students will be expected to contribute questions and criticisms (cf. the 25% for participation above). The other books and papers mentioned below will either be presented in the general presentation starting each class or are here as indications in case you would like to pursue the issue further. The papers will be accessible in electronic format on this page when possible, and a paper copy will be distributed the week before they are going to be discussed.

The paper presentations for each class will last 15 to 20 minutes (at least, there is no upper bound). They should both quickly summarize the ideas present in the paper and, more importantly, try to offer criticisms, suggestions for further research, links to other results, or applications to other domains. If further research has been done—to clarify the results in the paper, to look at more recent results, etc.—it will obviously be welcome.

The last class (or, depending on the number of students, the last couple of classes) will be dedicated to presentations and discussions of the research papers written by the students.

Office hours: Thursday, 2pm to 4pm

It's always possible to get an appointment at some other time if it’s more convenient; just send me an email (hugo.mercier@gmail.com).

My office is 313 Cohen Hall (on the left further down the corridor from the PPE main office).

The slides for each class will be available online, on this webpage.

You can find a few tips for bibliographical research here, and for writing here.

Introduction

The mind is a set of mechanisms that can be studied through different means. We will quickly review these means—from introspection to neuroimaging—and stress the classical experimental method, illustrating its strengths and weaknesses with famous studies from social psychology. The overall argument to be made during this class will also be presented: most of the cognitive abilities that separate us from our cousins the apes have to do with communication and cooperation. This means not only the apparatus that allows us to communicate effectively, but also all the adaptations necessary to ensure that we listen to the right people and are not easily misled. It is on these later mechanisms that this class will mostly dwell.

Further reading

Dual-process theories

Carruthers, P. (in press). An architecture for dual reasoning. In J. S. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In Two Minds. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692-731.

Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107(1), 101-126.

Fundamental ideas and methodology in evolutionary psychology & basics of human evolution

Boyd, R., & Silk, J. B. (1997). How Humans Evolved. New-York: W.W.Norton & Company.

Byrne, R. W., & Whiten, A. (1997). Machiavellian Intelligence. In A. Whiten & R. W. Byrne (Eds.), Machiavellian Intelligence II: Extensions and Evaluations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

On the web:

Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1997). Evolutionary Psychology: a Primer.

Here are the slides:

Methods

Classic experiments

The cognitive unconscious

Modularity

Principles of evolutionary psychology

Plan

The social life of non-human primates

Primate species display an amazing variety of social systems, from the cooperative breeders [name] to the fiercely competitive baboons. They are endowed with a variety of cognitive mechanisms that allows them to cope with their complex social environment. We will see however that our closest cousins also show some striking cognitive limitations which can be explained by their relative lack of cooperation the little need they have for cooperation.

Paper to be discussed

de Waal, F. B. M. (1982). Chimpanzee Politics. New York: Harper & Row. [Chapter 2]

Further reading

Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2004). Chimpanzees are more skillful in competitive than in cooperative cognitive tasks. Animal Behaviour, 68, 571-581.

Silk, J. B. (2007). The adaptive value of sociality in mammalian groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 539-559.

Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Varieties of altruism in children and chimpanzees. Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

Goodall, J. (1986). The chimpanzees of Gombe: patterns of behavior. Cambridge, MA.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (2007). Baboons Metaphysics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Warneken, F., Chen, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Cooperative activities in young children and chimpanzees. Child Development, 77(3), 640-663.

Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). How Monkeys See the World. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and Others. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515-526.

Maestripieri, D. (2007). Macachiavellian intelligence: how rhesus macaques and humans have conquered the world: University Of Chicago Press.

On the web:

Susan Savage-Rumbaugh on apes

Slides:

Primates slides 1

Primates slides 2

Human communication

Human communication is in many respects unique in the animal world, and certainly played a central role in our evolution. It is, by far, our most important tool when it comes to understanding other people. Besides its uniquely linguistic elements—such as syntax—human communication relies on an array of devices related to social cognition at large that play, arguably, an even greater role in its working. It is these mechanisms—the object of pragmatics and of sociolinguistics—that will be discussed here.

Paper to be discussed

Sperber, D. (1994). Understanding verbal understanding. In J. Khalfa (Ed.), What is Intelligence? (pp. 179-198). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Further reading

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. P. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New-York: Seminar Press.

Tannen, D. (1992). That's not what I meant!: how conversational style makes or breaks your relations with others: Ballantine Books.

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cognitive dissonance & coherence checking

Paper to be discussed

Cooper, J. Cognitive Dissonance, Fifty Years of a Classic Theory. London: Sage Publications. [Chapters 1, 2 & 3]

Further reading

Gawronski, B., & Strack, F. (2004). On the propositional nature of cognitive consistency: Dissonance changes explicit, but not implicit attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 535-542.

Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R., & Bonoma, T. V. (1971). Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle. American Psychologist, 26(8), 685-695.

Festinger et Carlsmith 1959 Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.

DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(5), 979–995.

DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74-118.

Slides

Cultural variations in cognitive dissonance

Papers to be discussed in the next classes:

Kay, A. C., Jost, J. T., Mandisodza, A. N., Sherman, S. J., Petrocelli, J. V., & Johnson, A. L. (2007). Panglossian ideology in the service of system justification: How complementary stereotypes help us to rationalize inequality. Advances in experimental social psychology, 39, 306.

Explains who we use stereotypes to maintain the status-quo.

Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. W. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in experimental social psychology, 40, 151.

An interesting model of the determinants and cognitive consequences of power in human relations.

Weber, J. M., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Normal acts of irrational trust: Motivated attributions and the trust development process. Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, 26, 75–101.

Why high levels of trust can be risky but still rational. [cf. note on next paper]

Yamagishi, T. (2003), Trust and Social Intelligence in Japan, In Schwartz, F. J. & Pharr, S. J. (Eds.) The State of Civil Society in Japan, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 281-297 (the paper can be found here)

Describes two types of trust, and the way they can explain patterns of cross-cultural differences. [this paper and the one before are rather short, and so will be presented by the same student]

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2006). Moral emotions and moral behavior.

Shame, guilt, embarassment and the like.

Leary, M. R. Motivational and emotional aspects of the self.

Defends the idea that motives and emotions related to the self serve an underlying social function.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834.

Defends the psychological primacy of intuitions and emotions in the domain of morality.

Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 414-446.

Presents a view of prejudice in which people try to repress prejudiced reactions unless they can justify them.

Ross, L., & Ward, A. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. Values and knowledge, 103–135.

How slightly disfunctionning psychological mechanisms can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts, and how to fix it.

Pronin, E. (2009). The introspection illusion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 1–67.

Why introspection is often incorrect but still yields confident answers.

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in experimental social psychology, 24(20), 1–243.

Develops and tests an interesting theory of when our behavior is guided by norms.

Potential topics for the next classes:

The development of the social mind

Gergely, G. (2003). What should a robot learn from an infant? Mechanisms of action interpretation and observational learning in infancy. Connection Science, 15(4), 191-209.

Surian, L., Caldi, S., & Sperber, D. (2007). Attribution of Beliefs by 13-Month-Old Infants. Psychological Science, 18(7), 580-586.

Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. (2005). The role of social cognition in early trust. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 457-459.

Rakoczy, H. (2006). Pretend play and the development of collective intentionality. Cognitive Systems Research, 7(2-3), 113–127.

Pathologies of the social mind

Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21, 37-46.

Bellugi, U., Wang, P., & Jernigan, T. L. (1994). Williams syndrome: an unusual neuropsychological profile. In S. Broman & J. Grafman (Eds.), Atypical Cognitive Deficits in Developmental Disorders: Implications for Brain Function (pp. 23–56): Erlbaum.

Blair, R. J. R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 57(1), 1-29.

The self, self-esteem and self-presentation

Leary, M. R. (2005). Sociometer theory and the pursuit of relational value: Getting to the root of self-esteem. European Review of Social Psychology, 16(1), 75-111.

Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-Presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal Behavior. Boulder: Westview Press.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentationf of the Self in Everyday Life. Garden CIty: Doubleday Anchor.

Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego. American Psychologist, 35(7), 603–618.

Kurzban, R., & Aktipis, A. (2007). Modularity and the Social Mind: Are Psychologists Too Self-ish? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 131.

Mead, G. H. (1913). The social self. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 374–380.

Judging others

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-83.

Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 201–271). New York: Academic Press.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. C. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256.

Stereotypes and prejudice

Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 414-446.

Bodenhausen, G. V., Macrae, C. N., & Sherman, J. W. (1999). On the dialectics of discrimination: Dual processes in social stereotyping. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: The Guilford Press.

Banaji, M. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7(3), 136–141.

Moral judgments

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834.

Baumard, N. “A naturalist and mutualist theory of morality”

Attribution processes

Uleman, J. (1999). Spontaneous versus intentional inferences in impression formation. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: The Guilford Press.

Gawronski, B. (2004). Theory-based bias correction in dispositional inference: The fundamental attribution error is dead, long live the correspondence bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 15(1), 183-217.

Malle, B. F. (2006). The Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Attribution: A (Surprising) Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 25.

Malle, B. F. (2004). How the mind explains behavior: Folk explanations, meaning, and social interaction: The MIT Press.

Cross-cultural considerations

Gawronski, B., Peters, K. R., & Strack, F. (2008). Cross-cultural differences vs. universality in cognitive dissonance. In R. M. Sorrentino & S. Yamagushi (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition Across Cultures (pp. 297-314). New York: Elsevier.

Krull, D. S., Loy, M. H. M., Lin, J., Wang, C. F., Chen, S., & Zhao, X. (1999). The fundamental fundamental attribution error: Correspondence bias in individualist and collectivist cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1208.

Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 60-79.

Sperber, D. (1990). The epidemiology of beliefs. The Social Psychological Study of Widespread Beliefs.

Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An “experimental ethnography.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 945–960.

Norms

Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1053-1060.

Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms: Cambridge Univ Pr.

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in experimental social psychology, 24(20), 1–243.

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026.

Persuasion and attitude change

Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 323–390). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Introspection

Wilson, T. D. (2002). Strangers to ourselves: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Wilson, T. D., & Dunn, E. W. (2004). Self-knowledge: Its limits, value, and potential for improvement. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 493–518

Pronin, E. (2009). The introspection illusion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 1–67.

Pronin, E., & Kugler, M. B. (2007). Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4), 565–578.

Interaction

Deutsch, M., & Krauss, R. M. (1962). Studies of interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 6(1), 52–76.

Levinson, S. C. (1995). Interactional biases in human thinking. Social intelligence and interaction, 221–260.

Levinson, S. C. (2006). On the human ‘interaction engine’. Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Human Interaction. Berg, Oxford.

Pentland, A. S. (2008). Honest signals: how they shape our world: The MIT Press.

Social learning

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and social Psychology, 63(3), 575–582.

Tomasello, M. (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

Trust

Sperber, D. (2001). An evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. Philosophical Topics, 29, 401-413.

Harris, P. L. (2007). Trust. Developmental Science, 10, 135-138.

Clément, F. (In Press). To trust or not to trust? Children’s social epistemology. Review of Philosophy and Psychology.

Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675-682.

Social emotions

Connolly, T., & Zeelenberg, M. (2002). Regret in decision making. Current directions in psychological science, 11(6), 212–216.

Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1-72.

Fessler, D. M. T. (1999). Toward an understanding of the universality of second order emotions. Biocultural approaches to the emotions, 75.

Fessler, D. M. T. (2004). Shame in two cultures: Implications for evolutionary approaches. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(2), 207–262.

CV Main Page Projects Colleagues Blog Teaching