•  to critically evaluate theories, empirical studies, and their own and each others’ ideas
•  to extract the most important information from journal articles
•  to write about their ideas and critical evaluations in a clear, cogent, and creative manner
•  to better express their ideas orally
•  to engage in productive small group and class discussions
•  to respond to others’ ideas in a constructive way

• write 3 "thought papers"
• write 3 article summaries
• participate in one debate (presentation and written materials)
• participate in every class

 Thought papers
Each week, about 1/4 of the class will write "thought papers." At the beginning of the term, you will select the weeks for which you will write papers.  When it is your turn to write one, you should prepare a paper after reading that week’s readings.  You should not summarize the readings.  Rather, pose a question, critique the readings, outline a study to address an important problem, offer a resolution of a controversy, etc.  Ideally, your paper will integrate points from more than one of the readings with your own ideas.  Your paper must consist of your own thoughts and ideas; plagiarism will result in failure.  Please discuss any concerns about the originality of your work with me.

 Your papers must be typed, double-spaced, between 1 and 2 pages (not more than 2 pages long), typed in no smaller than 12-point font (i.e., the size of this font).  Your paper is due no later than Monday of that week at 3:00 p.m.   Please send it by email as an attachment to:  cschwen@watarts.uwaterloo.ca.  The thought papers will be available for all class members to pick up outside my office (PAS 3042) on the file cabinet by Tuesday morning at 9:30 a.m.

Article summaries
Each week, about 1/4 of the class will write article summaries. Please follow the form attached to this outline. Your summary is due no later than Monday of that week at 3:00 p.m.  Please send it by email as an attachment to:  cschwen@watarts.uwaterloo.ca.  One of these summaries will be copied and distributed to class members.

Debates
You will choose the debate in which you wish to participate, but be randomly assigned to position (Pro vs. Con).  Each debate will involve 2 teams of 2 to 3 people. Your team will be randomly assigned to the Pro or Con side.  When debating, try to be clear, informative, and entertaining.  Make use of overheads or PowerPoint, demonstrations, etc.  The debates will proceed as follows:  Person 1 from the Pro team will present the strongest research evidence that supports a Pro position (15 min maximum).  Person 1 will present the evidence as clearly as possible, describing research methods and results. Then Person 1 from the Con side will present the strongest evidence for the Con position (15 minutes maximum).  Then Person 2 on the Pro sidewill present further evidence for own side and attack other side (15 minutes maximum).  The attacks can be based on logic and research evidence.  Be very clear to the class about whether a point is based on research evidence or on someone’s point of view.  Then Person 2 on the Con side will present further evidence for his/her own side and will attack the other side (15 minutes maximum).  You will have a few minutes between each speaker to plan strategy.  The remaining class time should be planned by the group; you may continue with the debating format, have one person present a reconciliation, describe a study that needs to be conducted, or something else.  At the end of the debate, the class will have the opportunity to cross-examine the debaters and then will vote to determine which side won the debate.

Finally, each side will turn in a complete set of references for the articles they included in the debate, as well as article summaries for the 5 best empirical studies that support their point of view.  Use APA style for references.  Bring the reference list and article summaries with you to the debate.
Consult with me well ahead of time regarding relevant research.  Start your research early.
Debates will be graded by teams (sides in the debates) based on quality, clarity, and accuracy of presentation, as well as quality of reference list and article summaries.

Debate Topics and Dates
May 30—Debate 1:  People (Westerners, at least) are driven more by
                                 self-verification motives than by self-enhancement motives
June 20—Debate 2:  Positive illusions are beneficial to mental health
July 11—Debate 3:  Compared to North Americans, Asians have lower self-esteem
            and are less motivated by self-enhancement
July 25—Debate 4:   Self-esteem is unimportant to mental health/psychopathology

Note:  Your thought papers, article summaries, and debate participation should occur in different class sessions.
 Class participation.  You are expected to read all of the week’s readings, the discussion questions, and the other students’ thought papers before class.  Also, you should be well prepared to discuss them.  Your class participation is essential to the success of this class, and it will figure into your course grade.  Grades for class participation will be based on the quantity and quality of your contributions.  Be careful about quantity; if it is too discrepant from the quality of your comments, or if it is high quality but monopolizes class time, it will work against you.  High-quality comments focus not on one’s personal experiences, but on research evidence.  If your personal experience seems to conflict with something you read or heard, focus your comments on identifying shortcomings in the research that may explain why it is discrepant from your own experience, or describe what research needs to be conducted to reconcile your experience with existing research.

Because class participation is essential in a seminar course of this type, class attendance for the entire class session, for all class sessions, is mandatory.  If you are ill or have a serious family emergency, please phone me at x2085 as soon as you know that you cannot make it to class.  I will require documentation (e.g., a physician’s note).  Unexcused absences for entire class sessions will result in a docking of 30% off your participation mark.  For every 10 minutes that you are late for class or leave early, you will be docked 2% from your participation mark.  For either excused or unexcused absences, you are responsible for finding out what material was covered in class and any changes in assignments or due dates that were announced.  (I realize that sometimes you may be asked to commit to other things during class time (e.g., meetings concerning a job).  Please do not ask me to excuse you for such absences.  Rather, it will be your decision as to whether you will attend class or attend to some other important matter and thereby forfeit the participation marks.)

Weighting for grades:

• thought papers 30%
• debates 30%
• article summaries  30%
• class participation 10%

Note on avoidance of academic offenses: All students registered in the courses of the Faculty of Arts are expected to know what constitutes an academic offense, to avoid committing academic offenses, and to take responsibility for their academic actions.  When the commission of an offense is established, disciplinary penalties will be imposed in accord with Policy #71 (Student Academic Discipline).  For information on categories of offenses and types of penalties, students are directed to consult the summary of Policy #71 which is supplied in the Undergraduate Calendar (section 1; on the Web at http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infoucal/UW/policy_71.html).  If you need help in learning how to avoid offenses such as plagiarism, cheating, and double submission, or if you need clarification of aspects of the discipline policy, ask your course instructor for guidance.  Other resources regarding the discipline policy are your academic advisor and the Undergraduate Associate Dean.
 Plagiarism definition from Policy #71: "...the act of presenting the ideas, words, or other intellectual property of another as one’s own.  The use of other people’s work must be properly acknowledged and referenced in all written material....Use of [source material] without complete and unambiguous acknowledgment...is an offence under this policy."

Heather Smith passes along the following information:

Note on computer accounts:
All undergraduate students in the Faculty of Arts may obtain free computer accounts on Waterloo Polaris (other faculties have similar accounts). The accounts give students free access to all Polaris applications (e.g., word processing, electronic mail, spreadsheets, statistical and graphic packages, and access to the Internet). Students may purchase printing privileges at PAS 1080 using their WATCARDs. Note that library catologue searches as well as journal article searches are available on the Internet (http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca).

Note on Psychology Undergraduate Newsgroup:
There is a newsgroup on the computer for Psychology undergraduate students (uw.psychology.ugrad). A newsgroup is a bulletin board on the computer. Examples of postings include information on colloquia, changes to course offerings, career information, deadlines for applying for scholarships, tips for applying to graduate school or faculties of education, exam preparation workshops, and available research assistant positions. Anyone (on or off campus) can read the news postings and anyone can post news that will be of interest to Psychology students. Psychology majors are strongly encouraged to read the Psychology Undergraduate Newsgroup at least once a week.

Tips for thought paper writers:

•  Don’t summarize or review the readings.  Say only enough about the papers to set the stage for your arguments or ideas.  Use the space instead to develop your arguments.  Even noticing a common theme that runs through the articles, while better than summarizing each article piecemeal, still often may amount to merely reviewing the articles.
• You have a lot of freedom concerning paper  topics.  Here are possible things you could do:  critique a study, offer an alternative explanation for a finding, present the outlines of a new study that is needed on this topic, identify mechanisms that underlie phenomena that you read about, bring in another literature to elucidate the current readings, talk about what you were hoping to learn from the readings, but did not.
•  If you are critiquing a study, don’t describe problems that would have merely obscured the results (that is, problems that would have made it more difficult for the researchers to have obtained the effects; if they obtained the effect despite those obscuring factors, you cannot make a strong case that the problem is really a problem.)  Instead, make sure that you mention problems that introduce alternative explanations for the findings, and make it clear how your alternative explanation could have accounted for the results obtained.  If this distinction between obscuring results and accounting for results is unclear to you, ask me to talk about it in class or meet with me separately.
•  Don’t feel that you have to mention every article for that week.
•  Cite references where appropriate.  Make it clear which ideas are yours and which are other authors’.  Given the page limitations, feel free to use "et al." for citations with multiple authors, even when you cite the paper the first time.
•  Writing style, grammar, and so forth will be considered as your paper is marked.  Typically, you’ll need to revise several times to make your ideas come across clearly.

•  If there are multiple studies in the paper, just summarize the first one.
•  Stick to the very most important points.  Leave out details such as numbers of Ss and manipulation checks.
•  Use your own words, rather than the author’s
•  First, state the conclusion that the researchers drew.
•  Give only minimal information about background research or theoretical rationale—just enough to show why the issue is important.
•  State what the independent or predictor variables were, and what the dependent or outcome variables were.
•  You need not go into detail about the operationalizations.
•  If you have important criticisms to make about the study, such as good, plausible reasons why the conclusions are jeopardized, by all means mention them.  If you have no such criticisms, don’t feel that you have to come up with some.
•  One way to think about this task is to think of how you would describe the study to someone who is not in psychology.  For example, how would you tell someone who is intelligent, educated, but who does not know anything about psychology (e.g., your grandfather) about the article?
•  Again, focus only on the most important points.
• Try the following format, but feel free to adapt it to suit your article.
• Article reference: (e.g., Rosenberg et al., 1995—you don’t need to include the rest of reference)
• Article summarizer:
• Authors’ conclusion:
• Why this issue is important:
• Main independent or predictor variables (brief descriptions):
•  Conceptual level—
•  Operational level--
• Main dependent or outcome variables (brief descriptions):
•  Conceptual level—
•  Operational level--
• Brief overview of method:
• Most important finding (or two):
• Strengths (focus on most important; can be presented in form point)
• Weaknesses (focus on most important; can be presented in form point)

Week 2 Motivations
May 9
    Blaine, B. & Crocker, J.  (1993).  Self-esteem and self-serving biases in reactions to positive and negative events.  In R. F.   Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem:  The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 55-86).  New York:  Plenum.
    Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Hutton, D. G. (1989).  Self-presentational motivations and personality differences in self-esteem.  Journal of Personality, 57, 547-579.
*    Ross, M., & Wilson, A. E.  (2002).  It feels like yesterday:  Self-esteem, valence of personal past experiences, and judgments of subjective distance.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 792-803.

Week 3 What is Self-Esteem?
May 16
    Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F.  (1995).  Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem:  Different concepts, different outcomes.  American Sociological Review, 60, 141-156.
    Brown, J. D.  (1993).  Self-esteem and self-evaluation:   Feeling is believing.  In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self (Vol. 4, pp. 27-58).  Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*    Kernis, M. H., Paradise, A. W., Whitaker, D. J., Wheatman, S. R., & Goldman, B. N.  (2000).  Master of one’s psychological domain?  Not likely if one’s self-esteem is unstable.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1297-1305.

Week 4 Self-Esteem and Mood
May 23
*    Brown, J. D., & Mankowski, T. A.  (1993).  Self-esteem, mood, and self-evaluation:  Changes in mood and the way you see you.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 421-430.
    Heimpel, S. A., Wood, J. V., Marshall, M., & Brown, J.D.  (2002).  Do people with low self-esteem really want to feel better?:  Self-esteem differences in motivation to repair negative moods.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 128-147.
    Tesser, A.  (2000).  On the confluence of self-esteem maintenance mechanisms.  Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 290-299.

 Week 5    Debate 1:  People (Westerners, at least) are driven more by
self-verification motives than by self-enhancement motives
May 30
    De La Ronde, C., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1993).  Caught in the crossfire:  Positivity and self-verification strivings among people with low self-esteem.  In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem:  The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 147-166).  New York:  Plenum.
*    Wood, J. V., Giordano-Beech, M., Taylor, K. L., Michela, J. L., & Gaus, V.  (1994).  Strategies of social comparison among people with low self-esteem:  Self-protection and self-enhancement.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 713-731.

Week 6 Self-Esteem and Personality, part 1
June 6
    Digman, J. M.  (1989).  Five robust trait dimensions:  Development, stability, and utility.  Journal of Personality, 57, 195-214.
*    Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C.  (1998).  A multimodal analysis of personal negativity.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1580-1591.

Week 7 Self-Esteem and Personality, part 2
June 13
    Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M.  (2002).  Approach-avoidance motivation in personality:  Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804-818.
    Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W.  (1994).  Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem):  A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063- 1078.
*    Roberts, J. E., Gotlib, I. H., & Kassel, J. D.  (1996).  Adult attachment security and symptoms of depression:  The mediating roles of dysfunctional attitudes and low self-esteem.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 310-320.

 Week 8 Debate:  Positive illusions are beneficial to mental health
June 20
    Taylor, S.E., & Brown, J.D. (1988).  Illusion and well-being:  Some social psychological contributions to a theory of mental health.  Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
*    Shedler, J., Mayman, M., & Manis, M.  (1993).  The illusion of mental health.  American Psychologist, 48, 1117-1131.

Week 9   Who is more defensive—HSEs or LSEs?
June 27
    Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996).  The relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression:  The dark side of high self-esteem.  Psychological Review, 103, 5-33.
*    Arndt, J., Schimel, J., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T.  (2002).   The intrinsic self and defensiveness:  Evidence that activating the intrinsic self reduces self-handicapping and conformity.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 671-683.
    Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P.  (in press).  "I love me... love me not":  Implicit self-esteem, explicit self-esteem, and defensiveness.  In S. J. Spencer, S. Fein, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.).  Motivated Social Perception: The Ontario Symposium.  Vol. 9. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Chapter 6.
 

Week 10  Self-Esteem in Interpersonal Relationships, part 1
July 4
*    Collins, N.L., & Feeney, B.C. (2000).  A safe haven:  An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1053-1073.
    Leary, M. R, & Downs, D. L. (1995).  Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem motive:  The self-esteem system as a sociometer.  In M.H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, Agency, and Self-Esteem (pp. 123-144).  New York:  Plenum.

 Week 11  Debate:  Compared to North Americans, Asians have lower self-esteem
 and are less motivated by self-enhancement
July 11
*    Kityama, S., Markus, H.R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunit, V. (1997).  Individual and collective processes in the construal of the self:  Self-enhancement in the U.S. and self-criticism in Japan.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245-1267.
    Kwan, V. S.Y, Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M.  (1997).  Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction:  Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1038-1051.

Week 12 Self-Esteem in Interpersonal Relationships, part 2
July 18
    Murray, S.L., & Holmes, J.G.  (2000).  Seeing the self through a partner's eyes:  Why self-doubts turn into relationship insecurities.  In A. Tesser, R.B. Felson, & J.M. Suls (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on self and identity (pp. 173-198).  Washington:  APA Press.
*    Downey, G., Freitas, A., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships:  Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545-560.

Week 13 Debate:   Self-esteem is unimportant to mental health/psychopathology
July 25
*    Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Burling, J., Simon, L., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Lyon, D., & Pinel, E.  (1992).  Why do people need self-esteem?  Converging evidence that self-esteem serves an anxiety-buffering function.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 913-922.
    Kirkpatrick, L. A., Waugh, C. E., Valencia, A., & Webster, G. D.  (2002).  The functional domain specificity of self-esteem and the differential prediction of aggression.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 756-767.

Note:
*the starred articles are the ones that the article summarizers should summarize.
**students who volunteer to write article summaries for this first time will have the opportunity to discard their mark for this first one
***students who volunteer to write thought papers for this first time will have the opportunity to discard their mark for this first paper