Psychology 309
Fall 2012
Tuesday & Thursday 2:40 - 4:00p.m.
Instructor: Dr. Clara Wilkins
Location: FISK 101
Email : clwilkins@wesleyan.edu
Office : 400 Judd Hall
Office hours: Tuesday 1:20- 2:20 & by appointment
COURSE DESCRIPTION
This seminar aims to introduce students to theoretical and empirical social psychological research on prejudice and social stigma. The topics covered will include examinations of why individuals stigmatize: exploring cognitive, evolutionary, self, and system justification explanations. The course will examine the effects of stigmatization for low status groups
(stereotype threat, dis-identification, compensation and health outcomes). We will explore the role of stigma in intergroup interactions and variation in the experience of stigma. Finally, we will examine perceptions of bias from the perspective of high status groups (e.g. perceptions of anti-white discrimination).
REQUIREMENTS
Prerequisites: PSYC101 or 105 and PSYC260 (no exceptions)
Course reading: Course reading can be found in the Wesfiles course folder. https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/xythoswfs/webview/fileManager.action?entryName=/courses/PSY
C-309-clwilkins
Attendance and Participation:
Participation and attendance is a critical aspect of this course. You are expected to attend each class and to arrive on time. You should come to class having completed all of the readings.
Importantly, students should contribute to the group without dominating discussion and should help create a climate in which others can comfortably share their opinions.
Cell phones and laptops. Part of participation involves being actively involved in discussion, which is difficult to do with digital distractions. I ask that students refrain from using cell phones or laptops in class. Exceptions will be made for students with special learning or disability needs.
It is the policy of Wesleyan University to provide reasonable accommodations to students with documented disabilities. Students, however, are responsible for registering with Disabilities
1

Services, in addition to making requests known to me in a timely manner. If you require accommodations in this class, please make an appointment with me as soon as possible [by the
2nd week of the semester], so that appropriate arrangements can be made. The procedures for registering with Disabilities Services can be found at http://www.wesleyan.edu/studentaffairs/disabilities/index.html
.
Reaction papers: (out of 5 points)
A short reaction paper (1-2 pages typed, double-spaced) is due at the beginning of class
Thursdays (see schedule below). These reaction papers should integrate readings for Tuesday and Thursday of each week (unless otherwise stated). See “potential discussion points” section for ideas about what to write. If you must miss class on a day assignments are due, please email the assignment to me by the start of the regularly scheduled class time.
Reaction papers will be graded out of 5 points using the following scale:
 
5 points = truly superlative (a cleanly written, rare gem of insight)
 
4 points = very good (clean writing and creative, novel analyses)
 
3 points = good (shows a mastery of the course material)
 
2 points = acceptable (somewhat thin or contains significant errors)
 
1 point = marginally acceptable (very thin or contains major errors)
  0 points = not turned in, or turned in after Saturday.
Final Paper/ research proposal :
At the end of the semester, students will write a final paper/ research proposal related to social stigma. See “final paper format” section below.
EVALUATION
20% Class participation and attendance
5% Discussion questions
35% Reaction papers (6 total)
40% Final paper
Discussion:
Students will sign up to take turns providing questions for class discussion. These questions should be open-ended and should stimulate discussion for each assigned reading. A copy of these questions should be provided to me on your assigned discussion day.
Late Policy: Late reactions papers will only be accepted through the end of the day (5pm) on
Saturday of the week they are due. Each day the assignment is late, 10% will be subtracted. Late papers should be emailed to me.
No late final papers will be accepted.
HONOR CODE - Please read the Wesleyan Honor Code and abide by it closely (a copy is posted at http://www.wesleyan.edu/studentaffairs/honorboard/honorcode.html). All papers, and presentations for this class must be original -- not reprinted, excerpted, or adapted from existing work (e.g., papers for other classes, books, articles, web pages). If you are unclear about how
2

to reference something, please ask.
CLASS FORMAT
The reading will be reviewed during the first part of the class period. Discussion leaders will then present discussion questions to the class.
SCHEDULE*
(*Disclaimer: the schedule and assigned readings may be modified)
Study outline for Final paper due Thursday, November 21 st .
Extra Credit due December 5.
Final Paper due Thursday, December 12.
__________________________________________________________________
September 3 th & 5 th
Introduction/ What is social stigma?
Tuesday: Introductions
Thursday :
Dovidio, J. F., Major, B., & Crocker, J. (2000). Stigma: Introduction and overview. In
Heatherton, Kleck, Hebl, & Hull (Eds.) The social psychology of stigma . (pp. 1-9).
New York: Guilford.
Major, B., & O’Brien, L.T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma.
Annual Review of
Psychology, 56, 393-421.
__________________________________________________________________
September 10 th
& 12 th
Why do we stigmatize?
Tuesday:
Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin , 127, 187-208.
Jost, J. T. & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13 , 111-153.
Thursday: Rxn due
Greenberg, J., Simon, L., Pyszcynski, T., Solomon, S., & Chatel, D. (1990). Evidence for terror management theory II: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 , 308-318.
__________________________________________________________________
September 17 th
& 19 th
Why we stigmatize (continued) and invisible stigmas
Tuesday:
Eidelman, S., & Crandall, C. S. (2012). Bias in favor of the status quo.
Social and Personality
3

Psychology Compass, 6 (3), 270-281.
Fein, S., & Spencer, S. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31-44.
Thursday:
Frable, D.E. S., Platt, L., & Hoey, S. (1998). Concealable stigmas and positive self-perceptions:
Feeling better around similar others. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74 , 909-922.
Sibicky, M., & Dovidio, J.D. (1986). Stigma of psychological therapy: Stereotypes, interpersonal reactions, and the self-fulfilling prophecy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33 , 148-154
Cole, S.W., Kemeny, M.E., Taylor, S.E., Visscher, B.R. & Fahey, J.L. (1996). Accelerated course of human immunodeficiency virus infection in gay men who conceal their homosexual identity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 58 , 219-231.
Optional
Johnson, K. L., Gill, S., Reichman, V., & Tassinary, L. G. (2007). Swagger, sway, and sexuality:
Judging sexual orientation from body motion and morphology. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology , 93 , 321–334.
__________________________________________________________________
September 24 th
& 26 th
Gender and weight stigma
Tuesday: (in class watch: http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/11287.aspx
)
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57 , 743-762.
Heilman, M.E., Wallen, A. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416-427.
Thursday: (Guest Instructor: Dr. Joseph Wellman)
Crandall, C.S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882-894.
Quinn, D.M., & Crocker, J. (1999). When ideology hurts: Effects of belief in the Protestant ethic and feeling overweight on the psychological well-being of women. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 77 , 402-414.
__________________________________________________________________
October 1 st
& 3 rd
Within-group variation in the experience of discrimination
Tuesday:
Maddox, K. B. (2004). Perspectives on racial phenotypicality bias. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 8, 383−401.
4

Eberhardt, J. L., Davies, P. G., Purdie-Vaughns, V. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2006). Looking deathworthy: Perceived stereotypicality of Black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 17, 383-386.
Livingston, R. and Nicholas P. (2009). The teddy bear effect: Does babyfaceness benefit Black
CEOs?. Psychological Science , 20 (10): 1229-1236.
Thursday: Rxn due (in class play radiolab segment: Ally’s choice 8:45)
Kaiser, C. R. & Pratt-Hyatt, J. S. (2009). Distributing prejudice unequally: Do Whites direct their prejudice toward strongly identified minorities? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
96, 432-445.
Wilkins, C. L., Kaiser, C. R., & Rieck, H. (2010). Detecting racial identification: The role of phenotypic prototypicality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1029-
1034.
Optional:
Hebl, M.R., Williams, M.J., Sundermann, J.M., Kell, H.J. & Davies, P.G., (2012). Selectively friending: Racial stereotypicality and social rejection, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology , doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.019
__________________________________________________________________
October 8 th
& 10 th
Consequences of social stigma I
Tuesday:
Kaiser, C. R., Vick, S. B., & Major, B. (2006). Prejudice expectations moderate preconscious attention to cues that are threatening to social Identity. Psychological Science, 17 (4), 332-338.
Mendoza-Denton R., Purdie, V.J., Downey, G., Davis, A., Pietrzak, J. (2002). Sensitivity to status based rejection: implications for African-American students’ college experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 , 896-918.
Williams, D. R. (1999). Race, socioeconomic status, and health: The added effects of racism and discrimination. Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 173-188.
Thursday:
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96 , 608-630.
Miller, C.T., Rothblum, E.D., Felicio, D., & Brand, P. (1995). Compensating for stigma: Obese and nonobese women’s reactions to being visible. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
21 , 1093-1106.
__________________________________________________________________
October 15 th
& 17 th
Consequences of social stigma II
5

Tuesday:
Sinclair, S., Huntsinger, J., Skorinko, J. & Hardin, C. (2005). Social tuning of the self: Consequences for the self-evaluations of stereotype targets, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 89, 160-175.
Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
Thursday: Rxn due
Aronson, J., Fried, C.B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African
American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 38, 113-125.
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N. & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science , 313, 1307-1310.
__________________________________________________________________
October 22 nd
& 24 th
Confronting discrimination
Tuesday:
No Class Fall Break
Thursday:
Kaiser, C.R. & Miller, C.T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 , 254-263.
Czopp, A.M., & Monteith, M.J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 532-
544.
__________________________________________________________________
October 29 th
& 31 st
“Positive” stereotypes and Asian Americans
Tuesday:
Complete the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory online (5 min): http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/
Glick, P.M & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118.
Cheryan, S., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). When positive stereotypes threaten intellectual performance: The psychological hazards of “model minority” status.
Psychological Science, 11 ,
399-402.
Thursday: Rxn due
Cheryan, S., & Monin, B. (2005). Where are you really from? Asian Americans and identity denial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5) , 717-730.
6

Guendelman, M., Cheryan, S., & Monin, B. (2011). Fitting in but getting fat: Identity threat as an explanation for dietary decline among U.S. immigrant groups. Psychological Science 22(7) , 959-
967 .
Optional:
Take an online IAT to measure one of your implicit attitudes: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/
Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White?. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology , 88(3), 447-466.
__________________________________________________________________
November 5 th
& 7 th
Intergroup interactions
Tuesday:
West, T. V., Pearson, A. R., Dovidio, J. F., Shelton, J. N., Trail, T. E. (2009). Superordinate identity and intergroup roommate friendship development. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45 (6), 1266-1272.
Shelton, J. N., West, T. V., & Trail, T. E. (2010). Concerns about appearing prejudiced:
Implications for anxiety during daily interracial interactions. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, 13 (3), 329-344.
Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16 , 951-957.
Thursday: (in class watch: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-6-2013/the-r-word )
Bergsieker, H. B., Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2010). To be liked versus respected:
Divergent goals in interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99,
248-264.
Eibach, R. P., & Ehrlinger, J. (2006). “Keep your eyes on the prize”: Reference points and racial differences in assessing progress toward equality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ,
32 (1), 66-77.
__________________________________________________________________
November 12 th
& 14 th
American Indians and colorblindness
Tuesday:
Oyserman, D, Fryberg, S., & Yoder, N. (2007). Identity-based motivation and health. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1011-1027.
Fryberg, S., Markus, H., Oyserman, D., & Stone, J. (2008). Of warrior chiefs and Indian princesses: The psychological consequences of American Indian mascots. Basic and Applied
7

Social Psychology, 30 , 208-218.
Optional:
Take the online Native IQ test: http://www.understandingprejudice.org/nativeiq/
Thursday: Rxn due
Holoien, D. S., & Shelton, J. N. (2012). You deplete me: The cognitive costs of colorblindness on ethnic minorities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 562-565.
Richeson, J. A., & Nussbaum, R. J. (2004). The impact of multiculturalism versus colorblindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 , 417-423.
Optional:
Apfelbaum, E. P., Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (2012). Racial colorblindness: Emergence, practice, and implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science.
__________________________________________________________________
November 19 th
& 21 st
Mixed-race
Tuesday:
Rodeheffer, C. D., Hill, S. E., & Lord, C. G. (2012). Does this recession make me look Black?
The effect of resource scarcity on categorization of biracial faces. Psychological Science,
23,1476-1478.
Townsend, S. M., Markus, H. R. & Bergsieker, H. B. (2009). My choice, your categories: The denial of multiracial identities. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 1, 185-204.
Sanchez, D. T., Bonam, C. M. (2009). To disclose or not to disclose biracial identity: Effects of biracial disclosure on perceive evaluations and target responses. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 1,
129-149.
Optional and STRONGLY RECOMMENDED
Fryer, R. G. (2007). Guess who’s coming to dinner? Trends in interracial marriage over the 20 th century. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21 , 2, 71-90.
Thursday: Outline for final paper due (Please include: research question, brief background, study IV and DV; should be around 2 pages)
Small group discussions about final paper
__________________________________________________________________
November 26
th
& 28 th
Whites I
Tuesday:
8

Stone, J. (2002). Battling doubt by avoiding practice: The effects of stereotype threat on selfhandicapping in white athletes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1667-1678.
Lowery, B. S., Knowles, E. D., & Unzueta, M. M. (2007). Framing inequity safely:
Whites' motivated perceptions of racial privilege. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ,
33(9), 1237-1250.
Lowery, B. S., Unzueta, M. M., Knowles, E. D., & Goff, P. (2006). Concern for the in- group and opposition to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 90(6),
961-974.
Thursday: No class (Thanksgiving)
__________________________________________________________________
December 3 rd
& 5 th
Whites II: perceiving discrimination
Tuesday : Reading reaction due (<1 page).
Major, B., Gramzow, R., McCoy, S., Levin, S., Schmader, T., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of group status and status legitimizing ideology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 269-282.
Unzueta, M. M., Lowery, B. S., & Knowles, E. D. (2008). How believing in affirmative action quotas protects White men's self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes , 105(1), 1-13.
Thursday: Summary and Connections
Group activity: Choose an issue that affects the Wesleyan community that is related to social stigma. In groups (of 3-4) discuss the issue and its impact, then come up with an intervention based on class reading to improve intergroup relations.
EXTRA CREDIT due: Write a 1-2 page (double –spaced) reflection on how your understanding of social stigma has evolved over the course of the semester. Feel free to include a discussion of how the readings can inform experiences in your own life. (+5 points)
__________________________________________________________________
December 10 th
& 12 th
Tuesday: In-class writing consultations
Thursday: Final paper due
9

POTENTIAL DISCUSSION POINTS FOR REACTION PAPERS
(in no particular order)
1) What issues are confusing or need clarification?
2) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research both in terms of the methods and the validity of them?
3) Discuss alternative explanations for the findings. Do the explanations provided by the researchers make sense to you? Are there other explanations that seem compelling?
4) Under what conditions would different results be found? What are the "boundary conditions" of these ideas/findings? How might other variables (e.g., race, gender, status) qualify or change these findings?
5) Discuss connections across the readings. How does the research that you are reading relate to previous topics that we have discussed? How are the themes as represented in these readings similar or different to how they have been presented in other class readings?
6) How can these readings be applied to real life? Do they explain why a social phenomenon or problem exists?
7) What are the implications of this research -- for social interaction, for personal relationships, for public policy?
8) Provide examples of how these results are seen in everyday life.
9) Provide counter-examples of how opposing results can be seen in everyday life.
Suggest reasons why these situations may differ from those of the research. Are there conditions under which you would expect one result versus another?
10) What additional research questions does this work stimulate? What specific questions need further exploration? How would you test those hypotheses?
11) What seems important, surprising or interesting to you?
Do NOT summarize the reading as part of your reaction paper. The idea is for you to provide analysis of the topics.
10

FINAL PAPER FORMAT
The format of your final paper should be as follows.
Abstract : Goal is to provide a brief overview of your paper. It includes your research question, your methods, results, and implications. It is typically 100 – 200 words long.
Introduction: Goal of intro is to provide justification and background information about why this research should be conducted.
*Briefly explain the question that your research is addressing.
*Review previous research relevant to your question. Thoughtfully analyze the methods, findings, and interpretations of previous studies in a way that makes a persuasive argument for why the study you are proposing is important.
*Provide a general overview of the method you will use to address your question.
*State your hypotheses, along with the conceptual rationale for each.
*State briefly what your proposed research is designed to add to previous research.
Method: Goal is to convey what you would do in your study in enough detail that someone else could replicate it.
*Describe the sample of participants - e.g., age, sex, race, # of participants and how you will recruit participants.
*Describe your experimental design.
*Describe procedures in detail. How would you run the study? What measures would you use?
*If you propose to use any questionnaires or measures from previous research, cite the source and describe the measure: item content and format, instructions to participants, and evidence for reliability and validity. If you construct your own measure, present the measure either in the text or in an appendix.
Results: Goal is to clearly & concisely explain what you expect to find.
*Summarize what you expect to find -- you could use tables or graphs, if it is helpful. Present the results in a way the clearly conveys the expected results. These are hypothetical findings.
*Be clear but concise in explaining the expected results.
Discussion: Goal is to provide an interpretation of your results, suggesting limitations to your research, and proposing future research directions.
*Summarize your expected findings.
*Discuss the theoretical and applied implications of your findings.
*Discuss how your findings fit with previous research.
*Discuss possible limitations of your study.
*Make suggestions for future research.
Your paper should be 12 -15 pages in length & should follow APA conventions. For some helpful hints about using APA style, see: http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/apa4b.htm
11