伊藤言の研究・教育活動について
2018/09/22 by Gen

保護中: 実践女子大学 2018年度(後期)非公開の配付資料置き場

このコンテンツはパスワードで保護されています。閲覧するには以下にパスワードを入力してください。

  •   •   •   •   •
2018/09/22 by Gen

実践女子大学 2018年度(後期)心理学概説2 授業用HP

[最終更新日 2019/01/22]

◆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=2615

 

◆質問がある場合は以下のメールアドレスまで。

m@genito.net

■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

・2018/10/03:第1回 ガイダンス・学習 (2) [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/10/10:第2回 記憶 (1):記憶の仕組み [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/10/17:第3回 記憶 (2):記憶の流動性 [実験2-1 あーその人] [実験2-1 たーんの人] [実験2-1 あーその人 結果の報告] [実験2-1 たーんの人 結果の報告]  [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/10/24:第4回 記憶 (3) [実験4-1] [実験4-2:結果の報告] [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/10/31:第5回 思考の仕組み・知能 [実験5-1 あーその人] [実験5-1 たーんの人] [実験5-2 偶数の人] [実験5-2 奇数の人] [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/11/07:第6回 動機づけ (1):食と性に関する動機づけ [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/11/14:第7回 動機づけ (2):動機づけの理論 [調査7-1] [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/11/21:第8回 感情とはなにか?(感情心理学)[リアクションペーパー]

・2018/11/28:第9回 幸せになるには?(ポジティブ心理学)[リアクションペーパー]

・2018/12/05:第10回 人によって異なる心(パーソナリティ心理学)[調査10-1 NEO-FFI] [調査10-2] [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/12/12:第11回 他者に左右される心(社会心理学1)[実験11-1 偶数の人] [実験11-1 奇数の人] [実験11-2 伝え手の人] [実験11-2 聞き手の人] [実験11-3 偶数の人] [実験11-3 奇数の人] [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/12/19:第12回 社会に埋め込まれた心(社会心理学2)[実験12-1 あーそ の人] [実験12-1 たーん の人] [リアクションペーパー]

・2019/01/09:第13回 ※補講日 メンタルヘルス(臨床心理学1)[リアクションペーパー]

・2019/01/16:第14回 精神疾患とセラピー [実験14-1] [リアクションペーパー]

・2019/01/23:第15回 まとめ(期末テスト)[さいごのアンケート]

  

■授業のテーマ・目標
この授業では,アメリカをはじめ多くの国の心理学概説の講義で標準的に用いられるテキストである『マイヤーズ心理学』にもとづいて,心理学の基礎知識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経験として体感し,また2. 心理学の知識や理論が当てはまる自分の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: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: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。心理学概説1の履修を必修とします。

  •   •   •   •   •
2018/09/10 by Gen

保護中: 帝京大学 2018年度(後期)消費者行動論Ⅱ 配付資料置き場

このコンテンツはパスワードで保護されています。閲覧するには以下にパスワードを入力してください。

  •   •   •   •   •
2018/09/10 by Gen

帝京大学 2018年度(後期)消費者行動論Ⅱ 授業用HP

[最終更新日 2018/12/22]

◆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=2591

 ※補講日:12/22(土曜日)2限(教室未定)

◆講義シラバス

・2018/09/10 第1回講義 ガイダンス [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/09/17 第2回講義 説得的コミュニケーション1 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/10/15 第3回講義 説得的コミュニケーション2 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/10/22 第4回講義 説得的コミュニケーション2・店頭マーケティング [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/10/28 第5回講義 消費とアイデンティティ [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/11/05 第6回講義 消費と家族 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/11/12 第7回講義 集団による消費 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/11/19 第8回講義 ステイタスと消費 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/12/03 第9回講義 文化と消費1 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/12/10 第10回講義 文化と消費2 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/12/16 第11回講義 消費者行動論のこれまでとこれから [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/12/22 第12回講義 解釈レベル [リアクションペーパー]

  •   •   •   •   •
2018/09/10 by Gen

保護中: 帝京大学 2018年度(後期)マーケティング・コミュニケーションⅡ 配付資料置き場

このコンテンツはパスワードで保護されています。閲覧するには以下にパスワードを入力してください。

  •   •   •   •   •
2018/09/10 by Gen

帝京大学 2018年度(後期)マーケティング・コミュニケーションⅡ 授業用HP

[最終更新日 2018/12/16]

◆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=2586

※補講日:12/22(土曜日)1限(教室未定)

◆講義シラバス

・2018/09/10 第1回講義 ガイダンス [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/09/17 第2回講義 ポジショニング [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/10/15 第3回講義 ブランディング1 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/10/22 第4回講義 ブランディング2 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/10/28 第5回講義 アカウント・プランニング [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/11/05 第6回講義 ダイレクトマーケティング1  [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/11/10 第7回講義 ダイレクトマーケティング2 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/11/19 第8回講義 ダイレクトマーケティング3 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/12/03 第9回講義 統合マーケティング・コミュニケーション1 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/12/10 第10回講義 統合マーケティング・コミュニケーション2 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/12/16 第11回講義 統合マーケティング・コミュニケーション3 [リアクションペーパー]

・2018/12/22 第12回講義 クチコミ論と総まとめ [リアクションペーパー]

 

  •   •   •   •   •
2018/04/09 by Gen

Hosei University (2018, Spring Semester) “Psychology of Morality” Lecture Homepage

Last Update. 7/14/2018

If you have any question, just email to

m@genito.net

*Notice

[VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT YOUR FINAL GRADE]

 

【Schedule】
1: 04/13/2018 Introduction to Psychology of Morality and Course Overview: Introduction to backgrounds and overview of this course and review of syllabus. [Selection Form]
2: 05/11/2018 Moral Rationalism and Intuitionism: Is morality rational or intuitive? [Survey 1] [Survey 2] [Reaction Paper]
3: 05/18/2018 Dual Process Theory of Moral Judgement: How rationality and intuition co-work in moral judgment? [Survey 3-1] [Experiment 3-1 Right Side] [Experiment 3-1 Left Side] [Reaction Paper]
4: 05/25/2018 Emotion (especially disgust) and its Influence on Moral Judgement: What is the emotional basis of moral judgment? [Survey 4-1] [Survey 4-2][Reaction Paper]
5: 06/01/2018 Moralization: When does something become moral? [Survey 5-1] [Reaction Paper]
6: 06/08/2018 Evolutional and Developmental Origins of Morality: Where does morality come from? [Survey 6-1] [Reaction Paper]
7: 06/15/2018 Morality and Punishment: Do we act moral in afraid of punishment?  [Reaction Paper]
8: 06/22/2018 Morality, Sacredness, and Religion: Is morality a foundation of religion? [Experiment 8-1] [Reaction Paper]
9: 06/29/2018 Mind Perception and Moral Judgment: Is mind perception essential to morality? [Survey 9-1] [Reaction Paper]
10: 07/06/2018 Morality and Politics (1): Do we politically diverge because of morality? [Survey 10-1] [Reaction Paper]
11: 07/13/2018 Morality and Politics (2): Can politically different people discuss and get along? [Survey 11-1] [Reaction Paper]
12: 07/14/2018 Morality and Politics (3): Can politically different people discuss and get along? [Survey 12-1]
13: 07/14/2018 Moral Neuroscience and Everyday Morality: From brain to everyday life about morality. [Survey 13-1] [Reaction Paper]
14: **/**/2018 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).
Presentation: Each student will be required to select one of the papers from the list and to present the contents of the journal (from approximately 10 to 20 minutes per person) using powerpoint. Note that there might be a change in this presentation assignment depending on class size.
Final exam: The final exam will consist of questions that will evaluate what you have learned 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, 20 of these questions will be randomly selected. Also, students are required to prepare for a presentation in the class (once per person).

【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’ presentations and discussions, paying careful attention to classmates’ presentations).
Reaction Papers (10%): Your reaction paper grade will depend on quality as well as a quantity in your reaction papers.
Presentation (20%): Your presentation grade will depend on the quality of your presentation.
Final Exam (60%)
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?

Activity: Presentation (the ones in charge)

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?

Activity: Presentation (the ones in charge)

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?

Activity: Presentation (the ones in charge)

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?

Activity: Presentation (the ones in charge)

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?

Activity: Presentation (the ones in charge)

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?

Activity: Presentation (the ones in charge)

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?

Activity: Presentation (the ones in charge)

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?

Activity: Presentation (the ones in charge)

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?

Activity: Presentation (the ones in charge)

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?

Activity: Presentation (the ones in charge)

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?

Activity: Presentation (the ones in charge)

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.
  •   •   •   •   •