The Decolonial and Indigenous Social Psychology Syllabus
The Decolonial and Indigenous Social Psychology Syllabus
Last updated: January 2026
Recommended Citation: Decolonial and Indigenous Social Psychology Collective (in no particular order: Delos Santos, J. J. I., Flores, J. D. R., Robles, A. M. Q., Domingo, P. R. C., Montilla Doble, L. J., & Bries, F. S. M). (2025). Decolonial and Indigenous Social Psychology [Syllabus]. Department of Psychology, University of the Philippines Diliman. https://sites.google.com/up.edu.ph/decolonialsocialpsych
If you are interested in implementing this syllabus, please get in touch with us:
DISCo Project Lead:
Francis Simonh M. Bries, University of the Philippines Diliman
fmbries@up.edu.ph
DISCo Project Coordinator:
James Montilla Doble, University of the Philippines Diliman
jmontilladoble@up.edu.ph
By the end of this course, you would be able to:
Describe key theories, concepts, and methodologies from different social psychological traditions;
Critique social psychological knowledges through cultural, indigenous, critical, and decolonial approaches;
Integrate knowledges from social psychology and parallel disciplines to understand Filipino behaviors and social issues, and;
Appreciate social psychology’s potential to promote equality, well-being, and positive social change.
By the end of this module, you would be able to:
Explain how cultural, historical, and political contexts inform the development of key ideas in social psychology.
Branscombe, N. R., & Baron, R. A. (2022). Social psychology (15th ed.). Pearson. [Chapter 1: Social Psychology, pp. 17–36]
Hamamura, T., Clemente, J. A. R., English, A. S., Ishii, K., & Siddiqui, R. N. (2024). Internationalising imperatives and decolonising aspirations: Navigating social psychology teaching in Asia. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 27(4), 911–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12647
By the end of this module, you would be able to:
Explain how cultural, historical, and political contexts inform the development of key ideas in social psychology.
Adams, G., Estrada‐Villalta, S., Sullivan, D., & Markus, H. R. (2019). The psychology of neoliberalism and the neoliberalism of psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 189–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12305
Readsura Decolonial Editorial Collective (in random order: Adams, G., Ratele, K., Suffla, S. & Reddy, G.). (2022). Psychology as a site for decolonial analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 78(2), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12524
By the end of this module, you would be able to:
Describe the importance of cultural, indigenous, critical, and decolonial approaches in social psychology; and
Recognize the potential of intersectional and discursive methodologies in social psychological research for positive social change.
Greenfield, P. M. (2002). Three approaches to the psychology of culture: Where do they come from? Where can they go? Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 223–240. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/1467-839X.00066 [pp. 223–226]
Parker, I. (2007). Critical psychology: What it is and what it is not. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2007.00008.x [pp. 1–3]
Decolonial Psychology Editorial Collective. (2021). General psychology Otherwise: A decolonial articulation. Review of General Psychology, 25(4), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211048177 [pp. 339–340, 342–345]
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564 [pp. 170–171, Table 1 on p. 171]
By the end of this module, you would be able to:
Connect social psychological theories of social in/equality to relevant Filipino behaviors and social issues; and
Reflect on how social psychological knowledges can be used to advocate for ginhawa and social justice in one’s communities.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25(6), 845–880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00401.x [pp. 845–848]
Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x [pp. 260–261]
Sycip, L., Asis, M. M., & Luna, E. (2008). The measurement of Filipino well-being: Findings from the field. In C. J. Paz (Ed.), Ginhawa, kapalaran, dalamhati: Essays on well-being, opportunity/destiny and anguish (pp. 13–29). University of the Philippines Press.
By the end of this module, you would be able to:
Critique different approaches to the social psychological study of social class;
Explain how classism re/produces social inequalities in the Philippines on individual, interactional, institutional, and societal levels; and
Reflect on how social psychological knowledges can be used to promote well-being and class justice among poor and working class Filipinos.
Kraus, M. W., & Stephens, N. M. (2012). A road map for an emerging psychology of social class. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(9), 642–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00453.x
Tuason, M. T. (2010). The poor in the Philippines: Some insights from psychological research. Psychology and Developing Societies, 22(2), 299–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/097133361002200204
By the end of this module, you would be able to:
Critique different approaches to the social psychological study of sex/gender and sexuality;
Explain how cisgenderism and hetero-/endo-/sexism re/produce social inequalities in the Philippines on individual, interactional, institutional, and societal levels; and
Reflect on how social psychological knowledges can be used to promote well-being and gender justice among women and LGBTQIA+ FIlipinos.
UP Rainbow Research Hub. (n.d.) Anong bet mo – girl, boy, bakla, tomboy? A SOGIE training. https://rainbowresearchhub.up.edu.ph/resources/anong-bet-mo-girl-boy-bakla-tomboy-a-sogie-training/
Riley, S., & Evans, A. (2025). Gender. In B. Gough (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of critical social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 449–471). Palgrave Macmillan Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-80533-2_22 [pp. 449–455]
Clarke, V., Ellis, S. J., Peel, E., & Riggs, D. W. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer psychology: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1017/CBO9780511810121 [pp. 25–35 of Chapter 2]
By the end of this module, you would be able to:
Critique different approaches to the social psychological study of health and dis/ability;
Explain how ableism re/produces social inequalities in the Philippines on individual, interactional, institutional, and societal levels; and
Reflect on how social psychological knowledges can be used to promote well-being and disability justice among sick Filipinos and Filipinos with disabilities.
Sins Invalid. (n.d.) 10 principles of disability justice. https://sinsinvalid.org/10-principles-of-disability-justice/
Hammoudeh, W., Kienzler, H., Meagher, K., & Giacaman, R. (2020). Social and political determinants of health in the occupied Palestine territory (oPt) during the COVID-19 pandemic: Who is responsible?. BMJ Global Health, 5(9), e003683. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003683
Lasco, G., & Curato, N. (2019). Medical populism. Social Science & Medicine, 221, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.12.006
Bautista, V. B. (2025). Ang halaga at hamon ng pagdalumat sa ginhawa. In V. B. Bautista & D. L. A. Salvador (Eds.), Ang ginhawa bilang hangaran at balangkas (pp. 1–11). National Commission for Culture and the Arts/Pambansang Samahan sa Sikolohiyang Pilipino.
By the end of this module, you would be able to:
Compare hegemonic and contextualized definitions of and approaches to selfhood and social relations;
Appreciate one’s dynamic selves in changing contexts; and
Examine belonging in the context of Filipino social interactions using key concepts and theories in interpersonal processes and prosocial behavior.
Yacat, J. A. (2005). Making sense of being and becoming Filipinos: An indigenous psychology perspective. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 38(2), 19–37.
Finkel, E. J., Simpson, J. A., & Eastwick, P. W. (2017). The psychology of close relationships: Fourteen core principles. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 383–411. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044038 [Table 1 on p. 387, and pp. 388–401]
Galano, C. P. (2017). Ang loob at pakikipagkapwa sa kagandahang-loob: Pagsusuri sa pagpapakahulugan at mga pagpapahalaga ng kabataan. DIWA E-Journal, 5, 108–125. https://www.pssp.org.ph/diwa/diwa-5/
By the end of this module, you would be able to:
Compare the different facets of power proposed by relational and resource perspectives; and
Examine social power in the context of Philippine politics using social influence processes and Filipino cultural values.
Turner, J. C. (2005). Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.244 [pp. 5–8]
Pratto, F., Lee, I., Tan, J., & Pitpitan, E. (2011). Power basis theory: A psychoecological approach to power. In D. Dunning (Ed.), Social motivation (pp. 191–222). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203833995 [Table 10.1 on p. 197]
McDonald, R. I., & Crandall, C. S. (2015). Social norms and social influence. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.04.006
Cornelio, J., & Lasco, G. (2020). Morality politics: Drug use and the Catholic Church in the Philippines. Open Theology, 6(1), 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0112
By the end of this module, you would be able to:
Articulate the relationships between democracy, political beliefs and behaviors, and good citizenship;
Demonstrate the utility of attitudes and media theories in understanding the state of Philippine political and information ecosystem fragmentation; and
Assess the effectiveness of persuasion techniques, conflict resolution methods, and collective action in achieving positive social change.
Bries, F. S. M., & Labor, P. D. P. (2025). It’s complicated: The contradictions of Filipinos’ conceptions of democracy. ISEAS Perspective, 2025/95.
Wilson, A. E., Parker, V. A., & Feinberg, M. (2020). Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.005
Lanuza, J. M. H., Sanchez II, F. L., Berizo, R. M., Agapia, C., Fallorina, R., & Ong, J. C. (2025). Imperfect allies: Influence operations in the 2025 Philippine midterm elections. Sigla Research Center. [pp. 9–11, p. 45–51]
Voelkel, J. G., Stagnaro, M. N., Chu, J. Y., Pink, S. L., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., ... & Willer, R. (2024). Megastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity. Science, 386(6719), eadh4764. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh4764 [Research Article Summary, Table 1 on p. 4]
Montiel, C. J., & Wessells, M. (2001). Democratization, psychology, and the construction of cultures of peace. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 7(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327949PAC0702_03