Revised January 26, 2015

Send questions to Prof. Uleman

jim.uleman@nyu.edu
PSYCH-UA.32 Social Psychology
Spring, 2015
lectures M, W, 12:30 1:45 pm
121 Meyer (Psych) Bldg.
see below (Secs:) for recitation locations

(sections 1-7)
Professor: James S. Uleman
411 Lafayette St., Rm. 344
Office Hrs: M, W, 2:00-3:00
phone (212) 998-7821
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/uleman

Text:

Gilovich, T., Keltner, D., Chen, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2013). Social psychology (3rd ed.). New York: W. W.
Norton.
Note that you can buy this book as an e-book at about a third the price compared to the hardcover. Go to
http://www.nortonebooks.com/. The NYU Book Center may sell the e-book too. There is also an
international student edition paperback, cheaper than the hardcover, and available from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Social-Psychology-3rd-Gilovich/dp/039392081X/ref=sr_1_3?
s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357171019&sr=1-3&keywords=social+psychology+gilovich+3rd+edition

TAs:

TA1
TA2
TA3

Zahra Kadkhdaie
Jen Park
Daniel Yudkin

Wed., 2:30-4:30; Room 346, 411 Lafayette St.; zk388@nyu.edu

by appointment; Room 346, 411 Lafayette St.; jen.park @nyu.edu
by appointment; Room 464, Meyer (Psych) Bldg.; day235@nyu.edu

Secs:

002
003
004
005
006
007

M
M
T
T
W
W

2:00-3:15; GCASL (Global Center, 238 Thompson St.), rm 379

3:30-4:45; Meyer Bldg., rm 157
11:00-12:15; Meyer Bldg., rm 157
12:30-1:45; Meyer Bldg., rm 102
2:00-3:15; GODD (Goddard Hall, 70 Wash. Sq. E.), rm B02
4:55-6:10; GCASL (Global Center, 238 Thompson St.), rm 384

Jen
Daniel
Zahra
Jen
Daniel
Zahra

Grades are not curved in that everyone could get an A, or a C, so your success does not affect anyone elses
grade. Grades are expressed in points out of 100, where A = 93+, A- = 90 to 92.99, B+ = 87 to 89.99, B = 83 to
86.99, B- = 80 to 82.99, C+ = 77 to 79.99, C = 73 to 76.99, C- = 70 to 72.99, D+ = 67 to 69.99, D = 60 to 66.99, F is
< 60. They appear on NYU Classes under Gradebook.
Course grades are based on 3 papers, 4 quizzes, a final exam, and participation in discussion and research.
The 4 quizzes have 15 questions and count 7% each for a total of 28%, the final exam has 60 questions and counts
30%, and both quizzes and final are multiple choice. The quizzes are not cumulative but the final exam is. Quizzes
and the final include questions about the Research Readings, but not the Optional Readings. Your lowest quiz grade
will be dropped from your course average, which means you can miss one quiz (and only one quiz) without penalty.
If you know in advance that you must miss a quiz for some reason, notify your TA as soon as possible. There are no
make-up quizzes.
Paper 1 is limited to 1 page (at least 12 point font, New Times Roman, 1 margins, double spaced) and
counts 4% of your course grade. Paper 2 is limited to 2 pages and counts 9%. Paper 3 (6 pages) counts 25%. See
the end of this syllabus for more details. Papers are due when noted on the syllabus below. Late papers will be
penalized 3 points (out of 100) for every day they are late, down to a minimum of 50 points if you turn in the paper
at all. We posted some good and bad examples of paper 3 on NYU Classes under Resources, to give you a better
idea of what we are (and are not) looking for. If you use track changes in MS Word, please remove all editing
marks (accept changes) before you turn in your paper.
Plagiarism will not be tolerated. If you use long strings of words written by others (including copy-andpaste excerpts from the internet) without giving crediting to your source, you will receive an F in the course. We
have copies of student papers from previous semesters, so we can compare yours with them. We also use Turnitin

to check for plagiarism from previous papers or the internet. We adhere to the college (CAS) policy on this, whether
or not you are in CAS. Read it carefully at http://cas.nyu.edu/page/ug.academicintegrity. If you are still unsure what
plagiarism is, please consult with your TA or professor, and look at the two handouts on plagiarism under Resources
on NYU Classes.
Participation counts 3% of the course grade, and is based on amount of participation during recitations and
lectures. Participation will be credited by TAs on NYU Classes before the final exam.
This course also includes a research participation requirement, consisting of either participating in 2 hours
of studies in the department or writing a paper on methodology. You will get an Incomplete if you dont do this
requirement. You may also do 1 additional hour of participation for 1% credit. It is perfectly possible to get an A
without this extra research credit, since it counts only 1% and As run from a course grade of 93% to 100%. Details
are available at http://www.psych.nyu.edu/research/required.html.
Please note that after two unexcused no-shows, you will be locked out of the Sona system so you cannot
sign up for more studies, until you either reschedule the studies or get excused, or write the paper on methodology.
Be sure that the hours that you earn on Sona are credited to the course(s) you want them to be credited to. You may
Reassign credits on Sona.
Attendance will not be taken in lecture or recitations, although it will inevitably affect your participation grade.
As an adult, you are responsible for how you use your time. But both lectures and recitations are designed to help
you learn, and to be fun and interesting. Data from past courses shows that people who cut get poorer grades. Its
your call.
NYU Classes (the new Blackboard) has most materials for this class, through your NYU Home web site. (Thats at
<http://home.nyu.edu>. If you havent activated your home page, go to <http://start.nyu.edu>.) If you are officially
registered for this course, it should show up on your NYU Home page under Academics, then NYU Classes.
Going to the links for this course will give you access on-line to:
1. The class syllabus (i.e., this document), as an MS Word document, under Resources.
2. The PowerPoint version of each lecture, under the Assignment for that day.
3. Optional and Research Readings, as pdf files under the Assignment for that day.
4. Announcements about the course, as needed.
5. Various other Resources.
6. Your grades on papers and exams.
7. Anything else we discover we want to use it for.
The Web for Research: Generally, information available on the web is no more reliable than information in
The National Enquirer. You have to know the something about the sources reliability. Part of learning to be a
critical thinker is learning to tell the difference between reliable and unreliable sources. Some sources, such as
scholarly references accessed through PsycInfo, a database on the Bobst Library website, are great. (I use this all
the time myself.) Others, like Wikipedia, are adequate if you really dont care that much if everything is accurate,
but you just want to know something (often right but sometimes wrong) about the topic. So dont use Wikipedia for
research for this course. Google and Google Scholar are fine if you know what youre looking for and at, but if
you cant tell the garbage from the gems, sometimes youll come up with garbage. Caveat emptor.
W. W. Norton (the textbook publisher) Websites have several useful features.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/psych/social-psych3
is a free website with review materials, quizzes, and video podcasts for each chapter. There are links to current news
items and book reviews, and other material designed to connect the chapter materials to things of interest. We
encourage you to use this stuff, because it will consolidate your learning and raise interesting questions.
http://www.nortonebooks.com/ is where this textbook can be found as an e-book, at about a third the
price!
Tutorial help: Additional assistance for this class is available to you free of charge at the College Learning Center.
For information on one-on-one and group peer tutoring, please stop by the CLC or go to their website:
www.nyu.edu/cas/clc or (212) 998-8085. They have 2 locations: CLC@University Hall (specializes in math, social
sciences, humanities, languages and writing), at 110 East 14th Street (btwn 3rd and 4th Ave).

CLC@Weinstein Hall (specializes in science and calculus), at 5-11 University Place, 1st Floor (btwn Waverly Pl and
8th St.). Both are probably useful, depending on which parts of the course you need help with.
Lecture, Reading, and Recitation Schedule: Application Modules 1 through 4 are found at the end of the
textbook, and they apply social psychology to four areas of professional specialization: health, business, education,
and law. They are assigned reading throughout the semester (not at the end), and are covered in quizzes.
Note that there is roughly one recitation for each pair of lectures. Therefore, depending on the schedule of
holidays and which day of the week your recitation meets, there may be a time lapse between lecture topics and
related recitation activities. Check the syllabus below for details. There are 14 recitations for all sections. Listed
recitation activities take place after the lecture time and date shown.
Quizzes and papers due dates are highlighted in bold, and appear on the course Calendar in Classes.
Required readings should be read before the lecture, so they can be discussed. Optional readings are marked with an
asterisk (*). These and the Research Readings are posted on NYU Classes for the Assignment date shown. Two of
the first ten numbered Research Readings (your choice) are the topics of your first two papers. All Research
Readings were selected to give you experience reading the actual research literature (rather than just a necessarily
over-simplified and snappy textbook), and to serve as models for your own term paper in which youll propose
research (more below). Demos in lecture and activities in recitations are also usually described.
Date

Lecture topic, readings, and recitation activities (by section, 2 through 7, and weekday, e.g., W5 =
section 5 which is on Wednesday)

Jan. 26

Introducing social psychology (lecture 1)

Characterizing, situations, and construal
Preface (pp. vii-xii)
Ch. 1, pp. 3-19, up to Automatic vs. Controlled
* Optional Reading: Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to
authority. Human Relations, 18, 57-76. the original report of the classic study
Recitation 1 (M2, M3, T4, T5,): Introductions, quiz and photos

Jan. 28:

Introducing social psychology, cont. (lecture 2)

Automaticity, evolution, and culture
Ch. 1, pp. 19-37, and then review chapter
Recitation 1 (W6, W7): Introductions, quiz and photos

Feb. 2:

The methods of social psychological research (lecture 3)

Why research? How research, useful concepts, ethics
Ch. 2, pp. 40-61 (whole chapter), and then review
* Optional Reading: Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Helping physicians understand screening tests will
improve health care. APS Observer, 20, 37-38. how physicians misunderstand stats.
* Optional Reading: Richard, F.D., Bond, C.F. Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J.J. (2003). One hundred years
of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331-363.
-- read the abstract, introduction, discussion, and skim Appendix for future reference; a
summary of major findings in the field.
Recitation 2 (M2, M3, T4, T5): Research Methods - 1

Feb. 4:

The social self (lecture 4)

Its nature, self-knowledge
Ch. 3, pp. 64-88, up to Motives driving Self-Evaluation
Research Reading 1: Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., &
Matsumoto, H. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North
America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 599-615. -- read introduction, study 1, and
general discussion; skip studies 2-4 for now; see p. 87 of text.
Recitation 2 (W6, W7): Research Methods - 1

Feb. 9:

The social self, cont., and social psychology and health (lecture 5)
Motives driving self-evaluation, etc.; Social psychology and health
Ch. 3, pp. 89-103, and then review
Application Module 1, pp. 562-572, and then review
* Optional Reading: Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego depletion Is it all in
your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological
Science, 21, 1686-1693 see p. 97 of text.
Recitation 3 (M2, M3): Research Methods 2, and some on Paper 1, Research Reading 1
Recitation 3 (T4, T5): Research Methods - 2

Feb. 11:

Quiz #1 on chapters 1-3 and Module 1, at the start of class. So be on time.

Social cognition (lecture 6)
Info available, how info is presented, how we seek it
Ch. 4, pp. 106-124, up to Top-Down Processing
Research Reading 2: Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences
of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623-1626. see p.
112 of text.
Recitation 3 (W6, W7): Research Methods - 2

Feb. 16

NYU holiday (Presidents Day)

Feb. 17

Recitation 4 (T4, T5): Discuss Paper 1 and the Research Readings 1 and 2

Feb. 18:

Social cognition, cont. (lecture 7)

Top-down processing; reason, intuition, and heuristics
Ch. 4, pp. 124-149, and then review
Application Module 2, pp. 574-587, and then review
Research Reading 3: Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty:
Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131. a classic paper and basis for behavioral
economics.
* Optional Reading: Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on
intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel Prize Lecture, December 8, 2002. Available at
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2002/kahnemann-lecture.pdf
Demo: The Dollar Auction
Recitation 4 (W6, W7): Discuss Paper 1 and the Research Readings 1 and 2

Feb. 23:

Paper #1 is due by noon.

Social attribution (lecture 8)
From acts to dispositions, causal attribution
Ch. 5, pp. 152-168, up to Errors and Biases
* Optional Reading: Grling, T., Kirchler, E., Lewis, A., & van Raaij, F. (2010). Psychology,
financial decision making, and financial crises. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 10, 1-47.
Demo: The Quiz Show
Recitation 4 (M2, M3) & Recitation 5 (T4, T5): Causal Attributions

Feb. 25:

Social attribution, cont., and social psychology and finance (lecture 9)

Errors and biases, culture and attribution, beyond internal-external; financial decisions
Ch. 5, pp. 168-192, and then review
* Optional Reading: Na, Grossmann, Varnum, Kitayama, Gonzalez, & Nisbett (2010). Cultural
differences are not always reducible to individual differences. PNAS (Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences), 107, 6192-6197.
Recitation 5 (W6, W7): Causal Attributions

Mar. 2:

Emotion (lecture 10)

Characterizing, universality, social relations

Ch. 6, pp. 194-216, up to Emotions and Social Cognition
* Optional Reading: Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and
aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 297-314. a descriptive study of the
emotion of awe; awesome.
Recitation 5 (M2, M3) & Recitation 6 (T4, T5): Heuristics and Biases, and review for Quiz 2
Mar. 4:

Emotion, cont. (lecture 11)

Emotions and social cognition, happiness
Ch. 6, pp. 216-229, and then review
* Optional Reading: Sheldon, K. M., Gunz, A., Nichols, C. P., & Ferguson, Y. (2010). Extrinsic
value orientation and affective forecasting: Overestimating the rewards, underestimating
the costs. Journal of Personality, 78, 149-178.
Recitation 6 (W6, W7): Heuristics and Biases, and review for Quiz 2

Mar. 9:

Quiz #2 on chapters 4-6 and Module 2 at the start of class.

Attitudes, behavior, and rationalization (lecture 12)
Predicting behavior from attitudes, and vice versa
Ch. 7, pp. 232-257, up to Self-Perception Theory
Research Reading 4: Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social
behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244. -- read introduction, study 1, and
general discussion; skip studies 2-3 for now, but not for Paper 2; see p. 205 of text.
For an update on the replicability of priming studies, http://chronicle.com/article/Power-ofSuggestion/136907/
Recitation 6 (M2, M3) & Recitation 7 (T4, T5): Self-knowledge and predicting your behavior

Mar. 11:Attitudes, behavior, and rationalization, cont. (lecture 13)

Self-perception, broader rationalizations
Ch. 7, pp. 257-269, and then review
* Optional Reading: Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007).
Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature Neuroscience, 10,
1246-1247.
Recitation 7 (W6, W7): Self-knowledge and predicting your behavior
Mar. 16-20

holiday Spring Break!

Mar. 23:

Persuasion (lecture 14)

Basics, functions, attitude change
Ch. 8, pp. 272-294, up to The media and persuasion
Recitation 7 (M2, M3 & Recitation 8 (T4, T5): Zimbardo video on Stanford Prison Study

Mar. 25:

Persuasion, cont., and social psychology and education (lecture 15)

The media, resistance to persuasion; social psychology and education
Ch. 8, pp. 294-305, and then review
Application Module 3, pp. 589-600, and then review
* Optional Reading: Franz, M. M., & Ridout, R. N. (2007). Does political advertising persuade?
Political Behavior, 29, 465-491.
* Optional Reading: Fowler, J. H., Baker, L. A., & Dawes, C. T. (2008). Genetic variation in
political participation. American Political Science Review, 102, 233-248. shows
genetic contribution to involvement in politics.
Recitation 8 (W6, W7): Zimbardo video on Stanford Prison Study

Mar. 30:

Paper #2 is due by noon.

Social influence (lecture 16)
What it is, conformity

Ch. 9, pp. 308-327, up to Obedience

Recitation 8 (M2, M3) & Recitation 9 (T4, T5): review for Quiz 3, discuss Paper 3 plans
Apr. 1:

Social influence, cont. (lecture 17)

Obedience, compliance
Ch. 9, pp. 327-351, and then review
Research Reading 5: Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?
American Psychologist, 64, 1-11. (You may also be interested in comments on this article
that appeared immediately after it: American Psychologist, 64 (January, 2009), pp. 12-45.
see pp. 298-299 in text.
Recitation 9 (W6, W7): Review for Quiz 3, discuss Paper 3 plans

Apr. 6:

Quiz #3 on chapters 7-9 and Module 3, at the start of class.

Relationships and Attraction (lecture 18)
Proximity, similarity
Ch. 10, pp. 354-378, up to Physical Attractiveness
Recitation 9 (M2, M3) & Recitation 10 (T4, T5): Speed dating and physical attractiveness

Apr. 8:

Relationships and Attraction, cont. (lecture 19)

Physical attractiveness, romantic relationships
Ch. 10, pp. 378-403, and then review
Research Reading 6: Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human
behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.
see p. 388 in text.
Research Reading 7: Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting
when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
62, 737-745. -- see p. 398 in text
Recitation 10 (W6, W7): Speed dating and physical attractiveness

Apr. 13:

Rough draft of term paper is due.

Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination (lecture 20)
Intergroup bias, economic and motivational perspectives
Ch. 11, pp. 406-428, up to Cognitive perspective
* Optional Activity: go to https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/research and play around with the
Implicit Association Test (IAT)
Recitation 10 (M2, M3) & Recitation 11 (T4, T5): Stereotyping and prejudice

Apr. 15:

Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination, cont. (lecture 21)

Cognitive perspective, being stigmatized, reducing stereotyping
Ch. 11, pp. 428-449, and then review
Research Reading 8: Eberhardt, J. L. (2005). Imaging race. American Psychologist, 60, 181-190.
* Optional Reading: Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual
identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629. an early paper on
stereotype threat.
* Optional Activity: go to http://www.understandingprejudice.org and check out the videos,
reading, etc. on major kinds of prejudice
Recitation 11 (W6, W7): Stereotyping and prejudice

Apr. 20:

Groups (lecture 22)

Social facilitation and group decision making
Ch. 12, pp. 452-476, up to Leadership and power
Recitation 11 (M2, M3) & Recitation 12 (T4, T5): Group decision making

Apr. 22:

Milgrams Obedience study film and discussion

Recitation 12 (W6, W7): Group decision making

Apr. 27:

Groups, cont. (lecture 23)

Leadership and power, deindividuation
Ch. 12, pp. 476-493, and then review
* Optional Reading: Simpson, D. (18 Nov., 2010). Because We Could: Review of J. Phillips None
of Us Were Like This Before: American Soldiers and Torture. London Review of Books,
32 (22), 27-28.
* Optional Reading: Kuziemko, I., & Stantcheva, S. (2013). The Great Divide: Our Feelings
About Inequality; Its Complicated. The New York Times, April 21, 2013
Recitation 12 (M2, M3) & Recitation 13 (T4, T5), Political psychology

Apr. 29:

Aggression (lecture 24)

Situational determinants, construal processes
Ch. 13, pp. 496-513, up to Culture and aggression
Recitation 13 (W6, W7): Political psychology

May 4:

Aggression, cont., and social psychology and the law (lecture 25)
Culture, evolution, conflict and peacemaking; social psychology and the law
Ch. 13, pp. 513-525, and then review
Application Module 4, pp. 602-619, and then review
Recitation 13 (M2, M3): News of the day (aggression, politics, law, etc.)
Recitation 14 (T4, T5): Review for final exam.

May 6:

Quiz #4 on chapters 10-13 and Module 4, at the start of class

Altruism and Cooperation (lecture 26)
Altruism
Ch. 14., pp. 528-551, up to Cooperation
Research Reading 9: Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on others
promotes happiness. Science, 319, 1687-1688. see p. 549 of text.
Research Reading 10: Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological
consequences of money. Science, 413, 1154-1156. the dark side of money
Recitation 14 (W6, W7): Review for final exam

May 11:

Paper #3 is due by noon. Last day of classes and recitations.

Altruism and Cooperation, cont. (lecture 26)
Cooperation
Ch. 14, pp. 551-559, and then review
Research Reading 11: Watters, E. (2013). Why Americans are the WEIRDest people in the world.
Pacific Standard Magazine
* Optional Reading (a longer version of WEIRD): Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A.
(2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33:2/3, 1-75.
* Optional Reading: Henrich, J., Ensminger, J.,McElreath, R., Barr, A., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A.,
Cardenas, J. C., Gurven, M., Gwako, E., Henrich, N., Lesorogol, C., Marlowe, F., Tracer,
D., & Ziker, J. (2010). Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness
and punishment. Science, 327, 1480-1484.
Recitation 14 (M3, M4): Review for the final exam

May 13:

Final Exam; 12:00-1:50 pm; counts 30% of grade.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information on the papers:

First paper (1 page maximum length, at least 12 point font, double-spaced New Times Roman; 4% of course grade)

Check the Reading listing above for specific notes on Research Reading 1 and 2. When you submit your
paper electronically, name it with the last name of the author of the paper its about, your TAs last name, your last
(family) name, and your first name, e.g., Bargh_??_Uleman_Jim.
Use Research Reading 1or 2 for this paper, due February 23. If there is more than one study in the paper,
select the first one to write about. In your own words, answer the following questions with regard to one of the
studies. You dont have to use complete sentences, but please number your answers, 1 through 7. Youll have to be
concise, which is a virtue. The paper should be turned though Turnitin.by noon of the due date.
1. What is the central question(s) behind this research?
2. What are the variables?
3. How are they measured, or manipulated?
4. What relationships between these variables did the authors discuss, as possibilities?
5. How might these relationships shed light on the central question(s)?
6. What are the empirical results? That is, what were the variables actual relationships?
7. How were these results interpreted?
Second paper (2 pages maximum length; 9% of course grade)
Use Research Reading 3 or 4 for this paper, due March 30. Review it critically in a 2-page essay with
complete sentences. After summarizing it very briefly, describe any weaknesses you see in presenting what is
known (the introduction), in the method (measures, manipulations, controls), in the results (statistical analyses, size
of effects, etc.), and in the discussion (interpretation of the results, especially concerning what they tell us that we
didn't know before, and about the hypotheses). Note major strengths of the article as well as the weaknesses in your
review. Be as specific as you can. The paper has more than one study, so critique the studies as a group.
Your critique can focus on any of the following questions. Is the theory clear, or ambiguous and
inconsistent? Did the authors operationalize the theoretical concepts well, or do the measures and/or manipulations
actually get at different concepts than the theory treats? Are the control groups adequate or sufficient to rule out
alternative explanations? Would other theories explain these results, or are there findings and/or control groups to
rule these out? Are the results over-generalized? Are directions for future research spelled out, clearly enough that
someone could extend this work? Do the authors describe the studys important limitations, and what questions
remain open? In other words, your critique should be largely conceptual, focusing on the adequacy of the theory
and how it was translated into manipulations and measures, and on what the results imply in turn about the theory.
One of the hardest things to learn about any new field is not the facts but the concepts and theories, and
what they mean and how to use them. So this (and the third paper) is your chance to start using the concepts in the
field to start paying attention to what counts as an explanation in social psychology, theoretically, vs. whats just
nit-picking and trivial. Re-reading some of the Research Readings, esp. their introductions and discussions, will
give you good examples of doing this well. This also requires developing a sense of what the field assumes, and
what it thinks is worth investigating. (Of course, if you can come up with good alternative assumptions, and a
way to test them and thereby challenge the assumptions of the field, so much the better. But you have to know what
these assumptions seem to be first.) So focus on the concepts, the ideas, and how theyve been investigated in the
study youre critiquing.
Also be sure to explain how and why your criticism is a good one; make an argument. Dont just say,
theres no control group. What kind of control group(s) should there have been, and why? What alternative
explanations would they control for? In general, how could your alternative explanation explain the data obtained?
Be specific.
Third paper (6 pages maximum length; 25% of course grade)
In this six-page paper, propose a study to answer a question that's of interest to you, and that falls within the
subject matter of this course. This term paper is due May 11, and a rough draft is due April 15. The draft need only
be a few pages. Use the research articles that you've read as models, particularly the Introduction, Method, and
Discussion sections. Consult the additional guidelines under Resources on NYU Classes. State the question or
hypothesis as clearly as possible, putting it in the context of what is known so that its importance is clear. Re-state
the question in terms of the variables you've chosen and their possible relations to each other. Describe how you

would measure or manipulate these variables. (Assume that appropriate measuring instruments, research assistants,
archival data bases, means to carry out manipulations, etc. are all available.) Be sensitive to ethical concerns in your
design. Describe what relations between variables you'd expect, and how you would interpret them if you found
them. (Don't describe the statistical analyses in any detail; that's beyond the scope of this course. But do say
whether you expect a positive or negative correlation between which variables, or expect one group to score higher
than another on some variable, etc.) Describe how some unexpected results might also be informative, about either
your research question or the method you used to study it.
It is most common for people to base their proposals on research thats already been done. Its rare for
people to come up with completely new procedures (the way Asch or Milgram did). Using old procedures to test
new questions is fine, and actually a good idea when youre really doing research. Science normally proceeds by
small, cumulative steps. But dont propose a mere replication of an existing study. As in the second paper, the
emphasis should be on your ideas. So your variation on whats already been done should pose a new or interesting
question, even if it uses established methods to study it. Make it interesting. Ask yourself, why would anyone care
how this study came out? And if you cant answer that, have more thoughts. Dont spend time worrying about
whether your proposal is original because a) you probably dont have enough expertise in the field to tell whether
its original or not, and b) all good studies build off of other studies. (Obviously, plagiarism is forbidden. But were
talking ideas here, not text.)
Remember that a research study must include at least two variables and a theory (or 2 or 3) about how you
think theyre related. If your research question takes the form, I wonder if X? or I wonder whether Y? then
you dont have a good question. It should have the form, I wonder whether X affects [correlates with] Y,
because[some theory]. On the other hand, [some other theory] would make the same prediction based on Z, so
Ill get evidence on that alternative as follows If the question is interesting to you, it will probably be interesting
to us. If its dull and trivial to you (e.g., Would this replicate? or What do people think of Hillary?), then it will
probably be dull and trivial to us.
Well also review the rough draft of your term paper, with your TAs comments, when we grade this paper.
We want to know where you started in judging your final paper.