syllabus social psychology of prejudice€¦ · syllabus for the course “social psychology of...

Syllabus

Social Psychology of Prejudice

(5 ECTS)

Author, lecturer (e-mail, web-page): Kotova M., PhD, [email protected],

https://www.hse.ru/staff/marinakotova

School of psychology

Meeting Minute # ___dated _____________ 2019

1. Course Description

a) 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”).

b) 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.

Working language of the course is English (teaching and all communications). Duration of the

course is 2 modules, from January till July, 190 academic hours (5 credits) in total, including: 48

hours in class and 142 hours for self-studying. Assessment method includes short quizzes, final test,

article analysis (homework 1) and research project (homework 2, team task).

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.hse.ru/staff/marinakotova

National Research University Higher School of Economics

Syllabus for the course “Social Psychology of Prejudice”

English-taught Master’s programme “Applied Social Psychology” (37.04.01 Psychological Sciences)

2. Learning Objectives

The main objectives of the course are:

to acquaint students with basic theories and investigations in the area of prejudice and

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.

3. Learning Outcomes

Course outcomes (formed competencies) are supposed to be the following:

At system level (competencies that partly formed as course outcomes):

Student is able to assess, revise, and work over mastered scientific methods, techniques, and

procedures.

Student is able to master new research methods, change professional trajectory on his/her own.

Student is able to improve and develop his/her intellectual and cultural level, work out the

trajectory of professional growth.

Student is able to assess and verify information required for professional performance and

synthesize new information if it is needed.

Student is able to conduct professional activity and scientific research at international level.

At specific professional level (competencies that partly formed as course outcomes):

Student is familiar with the core theoretical and methodological backgrounds of humanitarian

knowledge, specifically, student is familiar with the core theoretical and methodological

backgrounds in the area of prejudice research.

Student is familiar with the research methods of social psychology and their application in the

particular research field, specifically, student is familiar with the research methods application in

the area of prejudice research.

Student is able to analyze scientific literature, argue his or her point of view, and participate in a

scientific discussion, specifically, student is able to make a theoretical overview of a particular

course topic and organize a part of seminar discussion.

Student is able to use modern IT technologies for information search and analysis, specifically,

student is able to find appropriate literature in the electronic library database of HSE.

Student is able to plan and conduct an independent research project according to international

academic standards, specifically, student is able to propose the research plan based on course

materials, conduct a study, and present research results correctly.

Student is able to present the results of scientific work in a written and verbal form in English,

specifically, student is able to write a theoretical overview of a particular course topic in English

and present this work using illustrations (e.g. Power Point slides).

http://www.hse.ru/text/image/4011945.html




4. Course Plan

№ Topic Hours

in total

Auditory classes,

including: Self-

Studying Lectures Seminars

1 Introduction: Overview of the course.

Acquaintance and expectations 8 2 - 6

The Nature of prejudice

2 Differences in prejudice definitions and

research methodology 12 2 2 8

3 “Old” prejudice and modern racism 12 2 2 8

Prejudice formation and functioning

4 Prejudice formation and categorization:

easy to get in touch, hard to get rid of 12 2 2 8

5 Group identity and prejudice formation and

enhancing 22 2 4 16

6 Stereotyping, scapegoating and prejudice 12 2 2 8

7 Intergroup threat and its consequences for

intergroup relations 12 2 2 8

Prejudice reducing

8 Prejudice reducing techniques: strengths

and weaknesses 12 2 2 8

9 Crossed-categorization and its effects 12 2 2 8

10 Particular prejudice reducing practice

analysis 12 2 2 8

11 Research practice

Discussing of project proposals with

research teams 12 - 2 10

Research teams interim consultations 10 - 2 8

Research project realization 28 - - 28

Presentation of research results 14 - 4 10

TOTAL 190 20 28 142

5. Reading List

a) Required

1. Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., . . . Leyens, J. -.

(2009). 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. doi:10.1037/a0013470

2. Brown R. (2010). Prejudice. Its Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Selected

chapters

4. Devine, P.G. (2005). Breaking the prejudice habit: Allport’s “Inner conflict” revisited. In

J.F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L.A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: fifty years after Allport

(pp. 327-342). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

5. Eagly, A.H., Dickman, A.B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an attitude-in-context. In

J.F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L.A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: fifty years after Allport

(pp. 19-35). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

6. Glick, P. (2005). Choice of Scapegoats. In J.F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L.A. Rudman (Eds.), On the





nature of prejudice: fifty years after Allport (pp. 244-261). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

7. Hewstone, M., Islam, M.R., & Judd, C.M. (1993). Models of crossed categorization and

intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 779-793.

8. Pettigrew, T.P. & Tropp, L.R. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.

9. Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A

meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336-353.

doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4

10. Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Manstead, A.S.R. (2006) The social functions of ingroup

bias: Creating, confirming, or changing social reality. European Review of Social Psychology, 17,

359-396. doi: 10.1080/10463280601088773.

11. Stephan, W.G. & Stephan, C.W. (2005) Intergroup relations program evaluation In J.F. Dovidio,

P. Glick, & L.A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: fifty years after Allport (pp. 431-

445). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

12. Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup

conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 331-372.

doi:10.1080/10463280701728302.

b) Optional

Note: optional literature includes examples of articles for students’ presentations (Homework 1).

1. Bierly, M.M. (1985). Prejudice toward contemporary outgroups as a generalized attitude. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 15(2), 189-199. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985.tb02344.x

2. 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 and Social

Psychology Review, 5(2), 118-128. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_3

3. Chen, J. M., Moons, W. G., Gaither, S. E., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J. W. (2014). Motivation

to control prejudice predicts categorization of multiracials. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 40(5), 590-603. doi:10.1177/0146167213520457

4. Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and

experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 414-446.

5. Crisp, R. J., Hewstone, M., Richards, Z., & Paolini, S. (2003). Inclusiveness and crossed

categorization: Effects on co-joined category evaluations of in-group and out-group

primes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 25-38. doi:10.1348/014466603763276108

6. Cunningham, W.A., Nezlek, J.B., & Banaji, M.R. (2004). Implicit and Explicit Ethnocentrism:

Revisiting the Ideologies of Prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(10), 1332-

1346.

7. Durrheim, K., Quayle, M., & Dixon, J. (2016). The struggle for the nature of "prejudice":

"prejudice" expression as identity performance. Political Psychology, 37(1), 17-35.

doi:10.1111/pops.12310

8. Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., Mugny, G., Frederic, N., Berent, J., & Lalot, F. (2018). Motivation to

maintain a nonprejudiced identity: The moderating role of normative context and justification for

prejudice on moral licensing. Social Psychology, 49(3), 168-181. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000339

9. Guglielmi, R. S. (1999). Psychophysiological assessment of prejudice: Past research, current

status, and future directions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(2), 123-157.

doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_3

10. Henry, P. J., & Sears, D. O. (2009). The crystallization of contemporary racial prejudice across the

lifespan. Political Psychology, 30(4), 569-590. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00715.x

11. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup

differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and





Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(2), 242-256. doi:10.1177/0146167200264010

12. Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2001). Is there any scapegoat around? determinants of intergroup

conflicts at different categorization levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6),

1090-1102. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.6.1090

13. Khanlou, N., Koh, J. G., & Mill, C. (2008). Cultural identity and experiences of prejudice and

discrimination of afghan and iranian immigrant youth. International Journal of Mental Health and

Addiction, 6(4), 494-513. doi:10.1007/s11469-008-9151-7

14. Lepore, L., & Brown, R. (1997). Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice

inevitable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 275-287. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.72.2.275

15. Mack, D. A., Johnson, C. D., Green, T. D., Parisi, A. G., & Thomas, K. M. (2002). Motivation to

control prejudice as a mediator of identity and affirmative action attitudes. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 32(5), 934-964. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00249.x

16. McFarland, S. (2010) Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and Other Roots of Generalized

Prejudice. Political Psychology, 31(3), 453-477. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00765.x.

17. Michinov, N., Dambrun, M., Guimond, S., & Méot, A. (2005). Social dominance orientation,

prejudice, and discrimination: A new computer-based method for studying discriminatory

behaviors. Behavior Research Methods, 37(1), 91-98. doi:10.3758/BF03206402

18. Monteith, M. J. (1996). Contemporary forms of prejudice-related conflict: In search of a

nutshell. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(5), 461-473.

doi:10.1177/0146167296225004

19. Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ethnic identity moderates perceptions of prejudice: Judgments

of personal versus group discrimination and subtle versus blatant bias. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 550-561. doi:10.1177/0146167201275004

20. Patton, T. O., & Snyder-Yuly, J. (2007). Any four black men will do: Rape, race, and the ultimate

scapegoat. Journal of Black Studies, 37(6), 859-895. doi:10.1177/0021934706296025

21. Pehrson, S., Vignoles, V. L., & Brown, R. (2009). National identification and anti-immigrant

prejudice: Individual and contextual effects of national definitions. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 72(1), 24-38. doi:10.1177/019027250907200104

22. Prati, F., Moscatelli, S., Pratto, F., & Rubini, M. (2018). Multiple and counterstereotypic

categorization of immigrants: The moderating role of political orientation on interventions to

reduce prejudice. Political Psychology, 39(4), 829-848. doi:10.1111/pops.12445

23. Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). The role of need for closure in essentialist entitativity beliefs

and prejudice: An epistemic needs approach to racial categorization. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 50(1), 52-73. doi:10.1348/014466610X491567

24. Sanchez, D. T., Chaney, K. E., Manuel, S. K., & Remedios, J. D. (2018). Theory of prejudice and

american identity threat transfer for latino and asian americans. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 44(7), 972-983. doi:10.1177/0146167218759288

25. Schaller, M., Park, J., & Faulkner, J. (2003). Prehistoric dangers and contemporary

prejudices. European Review of Social Psychology, 14(1), 105-137.

doi:10.1080/10463280340000036

26. Shi, Y., Dang, J., Zheng, W., & Liu, L. (2017). Dual identity and prejudice: The moderating role

of group boundary permeability. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(FEB) doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00195

27. Singh, R., Yeoh, B. S. E., Lim, D. I., & Lim, K. K. (1997). Cross-categorization effects in

intergroup discrimination: Adding versus averaging. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36(2),

121-138. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01123.x

28. Stones, C. R. (2006). Antigay prejudice among heterosexual males: Right-wing authoritarianism

as a stronger predictor than social-dominance orientation and heterosexual identity. Social

Behavior and Personality, 34(9), 1137-1150. doi:10.2224/sbp.2006.34.9.1137

29. Yao, J., & Yang, L. (2017). Perceived prejudice and the mental health of chinese ethnic minority





college students: The chain mediating effect of ethnic identity and hope. Frontiers in

Psychology, 8(JUL) doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01167

30. Zagefka, H., González, R., Brown, R., Lay, S., Manzi, J., & Didier, N. (2017). To know you is to

love you: Effects of intergroup contact and knowledge on intergroup anxiety and prejudice among

indigenous chileans. International Journal of Psychology, 52(4), 308-315. doi:10.1002/ijop.12229

6. Grading System

a) Formula for the final grade

The final grade consists of several parts:

Class participation (class) – 25%

Quizzes (q) – 15%

Homework 1 (Article analysis) – 15%

Homework 2 (Research project) – 25%

Final test – 20%

Formula for the final grade:

Ofinal grade = 0.25 Oclass + 0.15 Oquizzes + 0.15 Ohw1 + 0.25 Ohw2 + 0.2*Ofinal test

Class participation, Homework 1, and Homework 2 are assessed in 10-point scale. Quizzes and Final

test are assessed in special scores that are transformed into 10-point scale (see the Table below) The

final grade is rounded off to the whole number based on arithmetic rounding (e.g. 6.45 is rounded off

to 6; 6.55 is rounded off to 7).

b) Grades revision and reexamination rules

Student has no possibility to revise grades for Class participation, Homework 1 and Quizzes after the

end of 4th

module.

In the case of unsatisfactory grades (0-3 points) for Homework 2 and/or Final test student has

possibility to revise these (one or both) grades during the reexamination period.

Rules for the reexamination. First reexamination is carried out by the course instructor(s). Formula for

the final grade on first reexamination:

Ofinal grade = 0.25 Oclass + 0.15 Oquizzes + 0.15 Ohw1 + 0.25 Ohw2reexam1 + 0.2*Ofinal testreexam1

Note: Ohw2reexam1 is equal to Ohw2 if student has satisfactory and upper grade for it. The same is true for

Ofinal test

Second reexamination is carried out by the committee of no less than three teachers. Formula for the

final grade on second reexamination:

Ofinal grade = 0.25 Oclass + 0.15 Oquizzes + 0.15 Ohw1 + 0.25 Ohw2reexam2 + 0.2*Ofinal testreexam2

Note: Ohw2reexam2 is equal to Ohw2 if student has satisfactory and upper grade for it. The same is true for

Ofinal test

As an exception the committee could deny accumulated mark and base the final grade on re-exam2

mark. It such cases student passes the oral exam and provides answer on questions.





c) Criteria of assessment

Form of the assessment Criteria

Homework (2)

1) Homework №1.

Article analysis. Students should analyze 1

scientific paper with the results of empirical

research chosen from the further reading.

Students make the presentation during the class

and then provide a post-hoc analysis of the

presentation process.

Detail assignment for the HW 1, see Appendix

A.

1. Student used all the necessary standards for the

evaluation of academic paper.

2. Student understands those standards, and can

see the strengths and weaknesses of the paper.

3. Student is able to differentiate and recognize a

good quality from poor quality research.

4. Student is able to analyse the quality of

performed presentation.

2) Homework №2.

Students’ own empirical study that is based on

course materials (one of the studied articles).

Performed in small teams of 3 or 4 people.

Students present a proposal, collect the data,

present the results and write a study report.

1. Quality of the theoretical overview.

2. Adequacy of hypotheses. Connection of

hypotheses with the theoretical overview.

3. Appropriateness of research methods chosen to

test the hypotheses.

4. Usage both course materials and student’s

research topic details.

5. Quality of the presented proposal.

6. Adequacy of data collection and analysis.

7. Quality of result interpretations and

conclusions.

8. Quality of the final presentation and written

report.

Quizzes

Three-four test questions per each quiz; nine

quizzes in sum

Each answer on question in quiz is assessed as true

(1 point) or fall (zero points). The sum score of 9

quizzes are transformed into 10-point scale and

included into the formula for the final grade

Final test

Test

80 min, 35-40 questions.

Test consists of two parts. First part includes 30-35

questions with one/multiple choice. Answer on each

question is assessed in false/true scale, i.e. 1 point

for correct answer, 0 points for incorrect answer.

Second part includes three open-ended questions.

Answer on each question is assesed in 5-point scale

from 0 (no answer) to 5 (excellent anwer).

Test grades are transformed into 10-point scale and

included into the formula for the final grade.

7. Examination Type





a) Examples of test questions from quiz

SP of Prejudice, Q_..., Current topic

Student’s Name _______________________________________

1. What are the key features of prejudice due to G.Allport’s definition?

_________________

_________________

_________________

_________________

13. Describe the core results of Pettigrew and Troop’s metaanalysis (2016) of the contact hypothesis studies

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

3. Name, please, theories of modern racism (there should be four of them):

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

b) Examples of home tasks

See Appendixes A and B.

c) Questions for final test

Questions for final exam test can’t be posted in open access syllabus file. Nevertheless it should be

mentioned that these questions are similar to those posted in the table above.

8. Methods of Instruction

9. Special Equipment and Software Support (if required)

Classrooms for lectures on the discipline enable the use and demonstration of thematic illustrations

that correspond with the program disciplines and includes:

Personal computers with Internet access (operating system, office software, antivirus software);

Multimedia projector with the remote control.

Classrooms for practical and laboratory classes of the discipline “Social Psychology of Prejudice”

should have the Internet access to the electronic informational and educational environment of the

HSE.





Software

№ Name Access conditions

1. Microsoft Windows 7 Professional RUS

Microsoft Windows 10

Microsoft Windows 8.1 Professional RUS

From the local network of HSE (agreement)

2. Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010 From the local network of HSE (agreement)

Professional data base, informational referral systems, internet sources (electronic

educational resources)

№ Name Access conditions

Professional data base, informational referral systems

1. HSE Library e-resources

From the local network of HSE (agreement)

URL: https://library.hse.ru/en/e-resources

2.

Internet sources (electronic educational resources)

1. Open education

TED Talks

Harvard University Channel

Stanford University Online Courses

URL: https://openedu.ru/

URL: https://www.ted.com/#/

URL: https://www.youtube.com/user/Harvard

URL: https://online.stanford.edu/courses


https://library.hse.ru/en/e-resources

https://openedu.ru/

https://www.ted.com/#/

https://www.youtube.com/user/Harvard

https://online.stanford.edu/courses




APPENDIX A Methodical recommendations for students

Homework (1) – Article analysis (presentation and post hoc analysis)

Deadline – presentation day + 3 days (example: if you present on Jan 24, deadline for homework is

Jan 27, 23:59). You should send to the course instructor an e-mail with two attachments: presentation

and post hoc analysis.

Homework description. Homework consists of two parts. The first part is your presentation at class

as a result of article analysis. Presentation plan:

short introduction (what problem the article is devoted to?);

key notions and statements of the theoretical overview;

hypotheses (and/or RQs), methods, and procedure of the empirical study/studies;

results and conclusions;

your critical comments, doubts, or compliments;

tasks, open-ended questions for audience, and discussion topics are highly appreciated.

Second part is your post hoc analysis of your presentation’s success/quality. This should be a short

written document (1-1.5 pages are more than enough), which contains your reasoning about:

What were the strengths of your presentation;

What should be done in a different way and why.

Individual or group work

Both options are possible. When group work is chosen (or more than one student has chosen a

particular topic):

The number of articles you analyze should be equal to the number of members in the group,

thus fair contribution and difficulty are implemented;

You can work as entire group and present united analysis or work separately;

Every student must present something so that I have an opportunity to assess his or her

work/contribution.

Please, note: before analyzing any article, check if is not chosen by another student. Then add your

name in on-line table and specify your choice, so other students would be aware of it.





APPENDIX B

Homework (2) – Research project

Deadline – June ___ (Presentation + short written report)

Homework description. This homework is a result of your own empirical study that is based on

course materials (one of the studied articles). The homework is carried out in small teams of 3 or 4

people.

Homework plan:

1. Choosing a topic.

After you form a group, you can choose any topic you like based on both core reading papers and

materials for individual presentations. It should be a topic that lets you construct a new study based on

the study described in the article. It can be an enhanced study or a new design that challenges the

findings in the article.

2. Proposal.

You will have 2 to 3 weeks to prepare a study proposal for your topic (as a presentation). Proposal

should include:

short description of the original study and additional theory you based on;

problem statement and goal of your study;

your own ideas of the original study modification and sufficient rationale for this modification

(or sufficient rationale for the critique arguments if you want to conduct a challenging study);

your hypothesis(es) that are based on theoretical background;

method section (participants, design, measures, proposed analysis method).

3. Final report.

The report is a full continuation of your project proposal (8-10 pages + in-class presentation). It should

include:

Introduction: consists of several paragraphs about the initial study you based on and the main

changes you have made and why. The goal and hypotheses of your own study should be clearly

reported here. Hypotheses have to be based on theoretical background that is described after.

Background is aimed to introduce theoretical basics of the study. Key ideas from every side,

course material and your research topic are clearly described. Concise but complete evidence is

provided for the hypotheses.

Method section should include information about participants, study design, measures, and

results (take the initial study as an example for presenting this section).

Discussion and conclusion section should include your analysis of the study results, tied in with

your hypotheses; and comparisons with the initial study that you based on. Try to think about

the limitations of the study that you carried out.





Please, note:

• be aware of timing and deadlines, we have no opportunity to change them. Keep in mind that

data collection and analysis take the most time.

• be aware of study feasibility: how many participants will you need? what statistics should you

know? etc. So: be creative but not too much!

• do not suffer alone: ask help any time you need, there will be consultations.

• do not write words in order to make your proposals or report as longer as possible. The length

itself is not valued. Try to write a thoughtful and sufficient paper!

Timetable for the homework:

No Step Time interval /

Date* Description

1 Teams formation till April (11) Form a team with 3 or 4 classmates

2 Choosing a topic till April (11) Choose a topic based on course materials

3 Making a proposal till April (25) Make a proposal (see the description below)

4 Discussion of proposals April (25) or (28) Make a short presentation

5 Conducting a study till June (14) (see the description below)

6 Consultation May (12) Ask any questions you need

7

Reporting a study

(presentation + written

report)

June (14) Make a presentation + written report of the

conducted study

* Note: precise dates will be available till the end of the 3rd

module. Dates in the timetable are

approximate.


syllabus social psychology of prejudice€¦ · syllabus for the course “social psychology of...

Documents