Last Update. 04/19/2019

If you have any question, just email to

m@genito.net

*Notice

None.

【Schedule】
1: 04/12/2019 Introduction to Psychology of Morality and Course Overview: Introduction to backgrounds and overview of this course and review of syllabus. [Reaction Paper]
2: 04/19/2019 Moral Rationalism and Intuitionism: Is morality rational or intuitive? [Survey 2-1] [Survey 2-2] [Reaction Paper]
3: 04/26/2019 Dual Process Theory of Moral Judgement: How rationality and intuition co-work in moral judgment?
4: 05/10/2019 Emotion (especially disgust) and its Influence on Moral Judgement: What is the emotional basis of moral judgment?
5: 05/17/2019 Moralization: When does something become moral?
6: 05/24/2019 Evolutional and Developmental Origins of Morality: Where does morality come from?
7: 05/31/2019 Morality and Punishment: Do we act moral in afraid of punishment?
8: 06/07/2019 Morality, Sacredness, and Religion: Is morality a foundation of religion?
9: 06/14/2019 Mind Perception and Moral Judgment: Is mind perception essential to morality?
10: 06/21/2019 Morality and Politics (1): Do we politically diverge because of morality?
11: 06/28/2019 Morality and Politics (2): Can politically different people discuss and get along?
12: 07/05/2019 Acts vs. Person, Intention vs. Consequences of Morality: Do we judge morality by others’ action or by their personality? Do we judge by actors’ intention or by consequences of their acts?
13: 07/12/2019 Moral Neuroscience and Everyday Morality: From brain to everyday life about morality.
14: 07/19/2019 Final Examination & Wrap-up: You are obliged to be available throughout the final exam period.

【Outline and objectives】

Thinking about good and evil seems to be the essential characteristic of human beings. We often discuss the rights and wrongs of another person and their acts in everyday life. Novels, comics, TV shows and movies are nearly always about ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys.’ Why are we so moral all the time? What are the psychological properties of our moral sense? Is moral sense a genetically determined innate instinct, independent of culture? Alternatively, does it depend on socialization? Why are there disagreements about what is right and wrong?

Recently there has been a renaissance of scientific research about human morality. This course will provide an introductory overview of the major theoretical debates and empirical findings in the area of moral psychology. They will be from a variety of disciplines including philosophy, neuroscience, economics, animal behavior, and almost every field of psychology (cognitive psychology, social psychology, developmental psychology, and evolutionary psychology).

The aim of this course is to offer an introduction to the psychology of morality. At the same time, we want to discuss with you: “What can scientific facts about human morality tells us about how we should live.”

【Goal】
By the end of the course, students should be able to do the following:
・Recognize and recall major terms and concepts in the psychology of morality,
・Describe and explain major methods and theories,
・Compare and contrast alternative theories or approaches,
・Apply theories or findings to everyday life and personal situations.

【Method(s)】
This course is mainly lecture-style. However, students are expected to participate, to comment, and to discuss with classmates.

Reaction paper: Students are expected to submit reaction papers in response to contents and questions posed in each lecture (i.e., You are required to submit reaction papers after each lecture).
Essay Assignment: Each student will be required to choose one topic from the lecture topic, or formulate your own topic. Papers should present a thesis and support for that thesis rather than review/summarize the literature. At least one academic journal paper (which is on the lecture homepage) should be carefully read and cited in your essay.

Final exam: The final exam will consist of questions that will evaluate what you have learnt from this course. You are obliged to be available throughout the final exam period. Do not make any vacation, travel, or other commitments during this time.

【Work to be done outside of class (preparation, etc.)】
At the end of each lecture, students will receive 10 questions regarding the content of that class. For the final exam, approximately 20 of these questions will be randomly selected.

【Textbooks】
None.

【References】
Joshua Greene (2014). Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them (English Edition), Penguin Books.

【Grading criteria】
•Participation (10%): Participation is worth 10% of your grade. Your participation grade will depend on quality as well as a quantity of your involvement in class sessions (including punctuality, eagerness to participate and comment, showing respect to others’ discussions).

•Reaction Papers (10%): Your reaction paper grade will depend on quality as well as a quantity in your reaction papers.

•Essay Assignment (40%): Your essay grade will depend on the quality of your essay.

•Final Exam (40%) 

•Social Media Bonus (up to 5%): This is your opportunity to bolster your grade. You should email a link or a copy of your bonus assignments by the due date to ensure you receive credit.
Twitter (1%): Compose and post one tweet about a published article related to the content we have treated in class (which is presented in the course calendar). Your tweet must include the core point of the paper, provide a link to the paper, and include the hashtag
#HoseiMoralPsych
Blog (1 to 2%): Compose and email me a blog post about a published article related to the content we have treated in class (which is presented in the course calendar). Your blog posts must include the core point of the paper, provide a link to the paper. You get one point for doing a decent job, two points for doing a great job.

【Changes following student comments】
None.

【Prerequisite】
None.

【Course Calender (including paper list)】

Week 2. Moral Rationalism and Intuitionism

Is moral rational or intuitive?

Readings (basic): 

Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H. (1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory Into Practice, 16, 53-59.

Cushman, F., Young, L., & Hauser, M. (2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: Testing three principles of harm. Psychological Science, 17, 1082-1089.

Readings (advanced): 

Haidt, J., Koller, S. H., & Dias, M. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613-628.

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

Class Assignment: Reaction Paper

Week 3. Dual Process Theory of Moral Judgement

How rationality and intuition co-work in moral judgment?

Readings (basic):   

Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105-2108.

Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Damasio, A. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments. Nature, 446, 908-911.

Readings (advanced):

Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107, 1144-1154.

Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment. Neuron, 44, 389-400.

Class Assignment: Reaction Paper

Week 4. Emotion (especially disgust) and its Influence on Moral Judgement

What is the emotional basis of moral judgment?

Readings (basic):   

Chapman, H.A., Kim, D.A. Susskind, J.M. & Anderson, A.K. (2009). In bad taste: Evidence for the oral origins of moral disgust. Science, 323, 1222-1226.

Wheatley, T., & Haidt, J. (2005). Hypnotic Disgust Makes Moral Judgments More Severe. Psychological Science, 16, 780-784.

Zhong, C. B., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing Away Your Sins: Threatened Morality and Physical Cleansing. Science, 313, 1451-1452.

Bentin, S. (2008). Angry, disgusted, or afraid? Studies on the malleability of emotion perception. Psychological Science, 19, 724-732.

Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., & Clore, G. L. (2012). The Faintest Speck of Dirt: Disgust Enhances the Detection of Impurity. Psychological Science, 23, 1506-1514.

Readings (advanced):

Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999) The moral-emotion triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral ethics (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 574-586.

Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G., & Jordan, A. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1096-1109.

Class Assignment: Reaction Paper

Week 5. Moralization

When does something become moral?

Readings (basic):    

Rozin, P. (1999). The Process of Moralization. Psychological Science, 10, 218-221.

Rozin, P., Markwith, M., & Stoess, C. (1997). Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological Science, 8, 67-73.

Bloom, P. (2010). How do morals change? Nature, 464, 490.

Readings (advanced):

Rozin, P., & Singh, L. (1999). The Moralization of Cigarette Smoking in the United States. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8, 321-337.

Nucci, L. P., & Nucci, M. S. (1982). Children’s Responses to Moral and Social Conventional Transgressions in Free-Play Settings. Child Development, 53, 1337-1342.

Class Assignment: Reaction Paper

Week 6. Evolutional and Developmental Origins of Morality

Where does morality come from?

Readings (basic):   

Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science, 311, 1301-1303.

Fehr, E., Bernhard, H., & Rockenbach, B. (2008). Egalitarianism in young children. Nature, 454, 1079-1083.

Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature, 405, 557-560.

Hepach, R., Vaish, A., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Young children are intrinsically motivated to see others helped. Psychological Science, 23, 967-972.

Readings (advanced):

Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., Bloom, P., & Mahajan, N. (2011). How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 19931-19936.

Class Assignment: Reaction Paper

Week 7. Morality and Punishment

Do we act moral in afraid of punishments?

Readings (basic):

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Homo reciprocans. Nature, 415, 125-127.

Dreber, A., Rand, D. G., Fudenberg, D., & Nowak, M. A. (2008). Winners don’t punish. Nature, 452, 348-351.

Fehr, E. & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137-140.

Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., … & Ziker, J. (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312, 1767-1770.

Herrmann, B., Thöni, C., & Gächter, S. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319, 1362-1367.

Readings (advanced):

Cushman, F., Dreber, A., Wang, Y., & Costa, J. (2009). Accidental outcomes guide punishment in a “trembling hand” game. PloS One, 4, e6699.

Class Assignment: Reaction Paper

Week 8. Morality, Sacredness, and Religion

Is morality a foundation of religion?

Readings (basic):

Norenzayan, A., & Shariff, A. F. (2008). The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality. Science, 322, 58-62.

Valdesolo, P., & Graham, J. (2014). Awe, Uncertainty, and Agency Detection. Psychological Science, 25, 170-178.

Atran, S. & Ginges, J. (2012). Religious and sacred imperatives in human conflict. Science, 336, 855-857.

Readings (advanced):

Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 1-16.

Sheikh, H., Ginges, J., Coman, A., & Atran, S. (2012). Religion, group threat and sacred values. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 110-118.

Roth, A. E. (2007). Repugnance as a constraint on markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21, 37-58.

Class Assignment: Reaction Paper

Week 9. Mind Perception and Moral Judgment

Is mind perception essential to morality?

Readings (basic):

Gray, H. M., Gray, K. & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception, Science, 315, 619.

Readings (advanced):

Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 101-124.

Gray, K., Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2012). The Moral Dyad: A Fundamental Template Unifying Moral Judgment. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 206–215.

Pizarro, D.A., Tannenbaum, D., & Uhlmann, E.L. (2012). Mindless, harmless, and blameworthy. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 185-188.

Moran, J. M., Young, L. L., Saxe, R., Lee, S. M., O’Young, D., Mavros, P. L., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2011). Impaired theory of mind for moral judgment in high-functioning autism. PNAS, 108, 2688–2692.

Class Assignment: Reaction Paper

Week 10. Morality and Politics (1)

Do we politically diverge because of morality?

Readings (basic):

Haidt, J. (2007). The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology. Science, 316, 998.

Jost, J. T. (2012). Left and right, right and wrong. Science, 337, 525-526.

Oxley, D. R., Smith, K. B., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, M. V., Miller, J. L., Scalora, M., Hatemi, P. K., & Hibbing, J. R. (2008). Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits. Science, 321, 1667-1670.

Readings (advanced):

Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807-840.

Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults. Current biology, 21, 677-680.

Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046.

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., & Haidt, J. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PloS One, 7, e50092.

Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D., Iyer, R., & Haidt, J. (2012). Disgust sensitivity, political conservatism, and voting. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 537-544.

Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 184-194.

Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 496-503.

Class Assignment: Reaction Paper

Week 11. Morality and Politics (2)

Can politically different people discuss and get along?

Readings (basic):

Helzer, E. & Pizarro, D.A. (2011). Dirty Liberals!: Reminders of cleanliness promote conservative political and moral attitudes. Psychological Science, 22, 517-522.

Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2012). The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes. Psychological Science, 24, 56-62.

Readings (advanced):

Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Xu, X., & Peterson, J. B. (2010). Compassionate Liberals and Polite Conservatives: Associations of Agreeableness With Political Ideology and Moral Values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 655-664.

Day, M. V., Fiske, S. T., Downing, E. L., & Trail, T. E. (2014). Shifting Liberal and Conservative Attitudes Using Moral Foundations Theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1559-1573.

Kidwell, B., Farmer, A., & Hardesty, D. M. (2013). Getting Liberals and Conservatives to Go Green: Political Ideology and Congruent Appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 350-367.

Cohen, F., Ogilvie, D. M., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2005). American Roulette: The Effect of Reminders of Death on Support for George W. Bush in the 2004 Presidential Election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5, 177-187.

Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Baldacci, K. G. (2008). Mapping moral motives: Approach, avoidance, and political orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1091-1099.

Week 12. Acts vs. Person, Intention vs. Consequences of Morality

Do we judge morality by others’ action or by their personality? Do we judge by actors’ intention or by consequences of their acts?

Readings (basic):

Goodwin, G. P. (2015). Moral Character in Person Perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 38-44.

Uhlmann, E. L., & Zhu, L. (2014). Acts, Persons, and Intuitions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 279-285.

Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., & Diermeier, D. (2015). A Person-Centered Approach to Moral Judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 72-81.

Cushman, F. (2013). Action, Outcome, and Value: A Dual-System Framework for Morality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 273-292.

Readings (advanced):

Young, L., & Saxe, R. (2011). When ignorance is no excuse: Different roles for intent across moral domains. Cognition, 120, 202-214.

Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108, 353-380.

Gray, K., Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2012). The Moral Dyad: A Fundamental Template Unifying Moral Judgment. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 206–215.

Pizarro, D.A., Tannenbaum, D., & Uhlmann, E.L. (2012). Mindless, harmless, and blameworthy. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 185-188.

Class Assignment: Reaction Paper

Week 13. Moral Neuroscience and Everyday Morality

From brain to everyday life about morality.

Activity: None

Readings (basic):

Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D. C., Brandt, M. J., & Skitka, L. J. (2014). Morality in everyday life. Science, 345, 1340-1343.

Greene, J. & Haidt, J. (2002) How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 517-523.

Readings (advanced):

Moll, J., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Eslinger, P. J., Bramati, I. E., & Mourão-Miranda, J. PA (2002). The neural correlates of moral sensitivity: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of basic and moral emotions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 2730-2736.

Young, L., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., Saxe, R. (2007). The neural basis of the interaction between theory of mind and moral judgment. PNAS, 104, 8235-8240.

Shenhav, A. S., & Greene, J. D. (2010). Moral judgments recruit domain-general valuation mechanisms to integrate representations of probability and magnitude. Neuron, 67, 667-677.

Cushman, F. & Young, L. (2011). Patterns of moral judgment derive from nonmoral psychological representations. Cognitive Science, 35, 1052-1075.

Van Bavel, J.J., FeldmanHall, O., & Mende-Siedlecki, P. (2015). The neuroscience of moral cognition: From dual process to dynamic systems. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 167-172.

Class Assignment: Reaction Paper

Week 14. Final Examination & Wrap-up: You are obliged to be available throughout the final exam period.

[最終更新日　2019/04/17]

◆Googleにクロールされたくない配布資料を公開する場合は，以下の場所から配布する。

http://genito.net/?p=2798

◆質問がある場合は以下のメールアドレスまで。

m@genito.net

◆みなさんが答えた内容が自動的にメールで届かない場合は，次のアドレスを，迷惑メールフィルタから除外してください。

forms-receipts-noreply@google.com

■その他のリンク

・respon（スマホアプリ）の初期設定方法

・responのインストール [iPhoneの人]  [Androidの人]

・manaba.jissen.ac.jp

■授業日程と講義関連資料

・2019/04/17：第1回　心理学概説についてのオリエンテーション【対応範囲：序章・第1章】[リアクションペーパー]

・2019/04/24：第2回　心理学の歴史と方法論【対応範囲：序章・第1章】

・2019/05/08：第3回　生物学的な存在としての心【対応範囲：第2章】

・2019/05/15：第4回　脳と心【対応範囲：第2章】

・2019/05/22：第5回　意識・無意識・注意【対応範囲：第3章】

・2019/05/29：第6回　心は育ちか？遺伝か？（行動遺伝学）【対応範囲：第4章】

・2019/06/05：第7回　動物から連続する人間の心（進化心理学）【対応範囲：第4章】

・2019/06/12：第8回　子どもから大人へと発達し続ける人間の心（発達心理学）【対応範囲：第5章】

・2019/06/19：第9回　一生涯発達し続ける人間の心（生涯発達心理学）【対応範囲：第5章】

・2019/06/26：第10回　感覚・知覚に共通する原理（感覚・知覚心理学1）【対応範囲：第6章】

・2019/07/03：第11回　なぜ・どのように見えるのか（感覚・知覚心理学2）【対応範囲：第6章】

・2019/07/10：第12回　学習はどのように生じるか？1（行動分析学）【対応範囲：第7章】

・2019/07/17：第13回　学習はどのように生じるか？2（認知と動機づけ）【対応範囲：第7章】

・2019/07/24：第14回　記憶の仕組み（認知心理学1）【対応範囲：第8章】

・2019/07/31：第15回　まとめ （期末テスト）

■授業のテーマ・目標
この授業では，心理学の成り立ちや人の心の基本的な仕組みおよび働きを活き活きと学びます。心理学についての知識や理論をいわゆる「お勉強」として味気なく学ぶのではなく，1.授業中のミニ実験やリアルタイム調査を通じて心理学的知識を自分自身の生の経験として体感し，2.心理学の知識や理論が当てはまる日常生活での経験を繰り返し思い出してもらうことを通じて，心理学のレンズを通せば私たちの日常経験や生活を新鮮な形で捉え直せる驚きを伝える授業を目指します。その中で，心理学に関する基礎的な知識を体系的に身につけてください。

■授業における到達目標

私たちが動物から進化した生物学的な存在であること，しかしどのように考えるかに応じて行動を変化させることもできる心理学的な存在であること，また他者の存在や時代・文化などから避けがたい影響を受ける社会的な存在であることを理解し，自らの経験として体感する（美の探究）。そして，自己や他者の「心」について根拠がある形で考えようとしたとき，つねに【生物-心理-社会】の3つの視点から考えられるようになり，自らの人生における課題を心理学の道具立てを通じて捉え直すことができるようになる（研鑽力）。

■事前・事後学習
◆事前学修（学修時間週2時間）：教科書の熟読（全員）。教科書を発表可能な形でプレゼンテーション形式でまとめ準備すること（指定された発表者）
◆事後学修（学修時間週2時間）：公開された試験問題を解けるようにする（全員）。小テストのための教科書の復習（全員）。授業時間外に実験や調査への参加，および動画の視聴を求めることがある（全員）

　
■テキスト・教材
『カラー版マイヤーズ心理学』（マイヤーズ著・村上郁也監訳・西村書店，2015）定価10,260円

　
■成績評価の方法・基準とフィードバック
　◆試験70％（試験の回答について，誤答が頻出したポイントについてメーリングリストを通じたフィードバックを行う）
　◆授業への取り組み30％
（授業内での発表・授業内での発言・提出物や小テストによる予習復習の確認・実験や調査への参加・事前の動画視聴）

　
■注意事項
毎回その講義の範囲内の試験問題を公開するので必ず復習してください。また指示に従って各回の授業に必要な事前準備・予習を行うよう注意してください。これらを行っているかぎり，単位を取得できるよう配慮します。慣れないうちは大変かもしれませんが，一緒に歩んでいきましょう。

[Last Update: 04/08/2019]

Course Overview

Statistics is the art of using data to make a quantitative interpretation of problems. Descriptive statistics is the art of summarizing data. Inferential statistics is the art of making valid generalizations from samples. In today’s information economy, there is a great need for persons who can handle statistical data and produce statistically valid conclusions.

In this course, you will learn some fundamental analytical methods and the way to interpret statistical results with the SPSS statistical software.

Each student must bring a PC installed with SPSS. As SPSS provides single-user licenses for students, if you don’t already have SPSS, you need to install the IBM SPSS Statistics StandardGradPack 12 month (about ¥10,000) beforehand. Any SPSS version is allowed.

http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/spss-stats-gradpack,

Course Structure

The course consists of the following two phases:

1. Descriptive statistics: you will learn how to summarize data. Specifically, you will learn representative value, frequency distribution, and
2. Inferential statistics: you will learn the fundamentals of inferential statistics and statistical methods: t-test, χ2-test, analysis of variance and regression analysis.

Teaching Method

In the same day, you will learn both the theoretical backgrounds and practical analytical procedures using SPSS. You will analyze the actual data on your PCs and be required to interpret the data. In most cases, you should submit some assignments in each class.

Evaluation

The course is graded by class attendance (50%) and assignments (50%). Your grade will depend on quality as well as a quantity of your involvement in class sessions.

【Schedule】
1: 

[最終更新日：2019/01/22]

■連絡事項

・授業用の資料置き場（パスワード付き）

・不明な点、わからない点などは m@gento.net まで連絡してください。

■授業日程と講義関連資料

・2018/10/03：第1回　ガイダンス・「調査」とは何か・さまざまな調査技法 [初回調査] [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/10/10：第2回　サンプリング・HADを用いたデータ分析技術の習得 (1)　記述統計 [ 授業課題] [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/10/17：第3回　HADを用いたデータ分析技術の習得 (2)　推測統計 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/10/24：第4回　ウェブ調査の方法論と調査技術の習得（Googleフォームを用いた演習）[リアクションペーパー]

・2018/10/31：第5回　先端調査技術の習得 [HAD小テストの提出箱] [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/11/07：第6回　仮説の構築 (1)　疑問から仮説へ[自由記述の分析結果を報告しよう] [来週のテキストマイニング用の仕込み] [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/11/14：第7回　仮説の構築 (2)　先行研究を踏まえた仮説の改良，中間発表会 [Googleフォームの使い方の説明（サイト1）（サイト2）（サイト3）（サイト4）] [Googleフォーム例題課題]  [リアクションペーパー]　[検索のコツ（先行研究調査）]

・2018/11/21：第8回　仮説を質問項目に置き換える・調査倫理 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/11/28：第9回　予備調査を踏まえた調査票の改良 (1)　妥当性と信頼性 [リアクションペーパー] [質問紙法にもとづく社会調査データベース]

・2018/12/05：第10回　予備調査を踏まえた調査票の改良 (2)　因子分析 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/12/12：第11回　調査票の完成  [研究倫理審査委員会に提出する申請書の例] [研究への参加同意書の例]  [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/12/19：第12回　コーディングと統計的処理 [リアクションペーパー]

・2019/01/09：第13回　※補講日　調査報告書の作成に向けて [リアクションペーパー]

・2019/01/16：第14回　成果報告会 (1) [リアクションペーパー]

・2019/01/23：第15回　成果報告会 (2)，まとめ [さいごのアンケート]

■授業のテーマ・目標
私たちは他者を必要とし，他者から大きな影響を受けます。他者とともにある「心」を調べる学問である社会心理学には，実験・調査・観察・インタビュー等のさまざまな「調べる」ための技法がありますが，本講義ではその中でも「調査」の手法を学びます。自分たちの興味のあるテーマを選び，問題意識・仮説を設定し，調査票の作成・実施・集計・分析，および成果の報告会を行います。また，ウェブ調査，テキストマイニング，経験サンプリング法，Pythonを利用したSNSデータの自動収集などの最先端の調査技法の習得も，受講生の可能な範囲で目指します。

■授業における到達目標

身の周りを含めた「社会」で起こっていること・行われていることを把握するためのツールとして，社会調査を使えるようになるための知識・技術・自信をつけ，水準の高いITスキルを習得する（研鑽力）。また，自らの感情をコントロールして他者と協力しながら一つの目的（調査）に向けて作業する能力を身につける（協働力）。

■事前・事後学習
◆事前学修：指示された文献に目を通しておくこと。（学修時間＝週2時間）
◆事後学修：配布資料等をもとに，授業で扱った調査の手続きや分析の方法について復習し，指示された課題を完成させること。（学修時間＝週2時間）
◆フィードバックはメーリングリストを通じて行う。

　
■テキスト・教材
配付資料を主に用いる。

■参考書
『質問紙調査と心理測定尺度』（サイエンス社）
『心理学マニュアル 質問紙法』（北大路書房）
『社会調査のための計量テキスト分析』（ナカニシヤ出版）

■成績評価の方法・基準
　◆平常点：40％

（毎回の実習に積極的に取り組んでいるかどうか、課題の提出状況と完成度）

　◆学期末のレポート（成果報告書）：40％

（実習によって得られたデータを用いた調査研究の報告書を全員に1本提出してもらう。フィードバックは授業用メーリングリストを通じて行う。）

　◆グループ内での業務担当度20%

（各人のグループ内での貢献度を，グループの合計が100になる形で学期末に申告してもらい，それを成績評価に用いる。）

　
■注意事項
グループ単位での活動が多いので遅刻せず出席することを求める。