Sociology 727 Group Behavior: Group Processes and Intergroup Relations Spring 2012

aboriginalconspiracyΠολεοδομικά Έργα

16 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 8 μήνες)

113 εμφανίσεις

Sociology 727

Group Behavior: Group Processes and Intergroup Relations

Spring 2012


******** Update 3
/
8
/2012 ********


Instructor:

Markus Kemmelmeier, Ph.D.

Office:


304 Mack Social Sciences

Phone:


784
-
1287

Email:


markusk@unr.edu

Times:


Tuesday 2:
0
0
-
4
:
4
5 PM

Location:

345 Mack Social Sciences

Office hours:

By appointment


Course description

This course provides an overview of the extant literature on group processes and intergroup relations.

It
surveys a broad rang
e of topics, including group productivity, conformity, influence, social power,
leadership, decision making, cooperation, various approaches to intergroup biases and prejudice.

The
course is interdisciplinary in nature, drawing mainly on research in psycho
logy, sociology and
organizational behavior.

Goals

This course has three main objectives.

The first is to provide an in
-
depth examination of important
theories and findings pertaining to each research area.

The second goal is to develop an appreciation fo
r
some of the methodological approaches used in empirical investigations in these areas.

The third goal
concerns your professional socialization and includes honing your skills in critical analysis, feedback
giving and responding to other’s feedback on you
r work.

Format

This course will follow a seminar format.

This means, I will assume that you have read all of the assigned
literature prior to class, and are able to discuss it critically.

It also implies that your active participation is
essential to the
success of this course.

Indeed, I rely on your willingness to fill the room with half
-
baked
ideas, comments and criticisms that you may have had in response to the readings, as long as these
thoughts can be put into a sentence.

Depending on the topic at ha
nd, you will see me breakout into a mini
-
lecture or two, in which I offer more background to the readings or offer additional theories and research
findings.

Literature

With the exception of our textbook (see below), all readings are available via the lib
rary’s electronic
reserve system.

Please purchase the following the following textbook:

Brown, R. (2000).
Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups

(2
nd

ed.). Malden, MA:
Blackwell

This book is
not

available at the UNR bookstore because you can purchase it
substantially cheaper

via the
internet, new or used (e.g., amazon.com, ecampus.com, powells.com, bn.com). Because many readings
are included in the following collections of readers, it is recommen
ded that you purchase them:

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (Eds.). (2001).
Intergroup relations: Key readings in social psychology
.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (Eds.). (2006).
Small groups: Key readings in social psychol
ogy
.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Website/WebCampus

This course uses WebCampus, an online system that allows you to access additional course materials.

To
get access to WebCampus, go to
http://webcampus.unr.
edu/
. Check WebCampus regularly as
announcements, sample
s, syllabus updates (if any) etc
. will be posted there.


Requirements

Reaction papers
.

Every participant is required to write reaction papers on a regular basis. Recognizing
that the literature of the

day may not always speak to you, there are a total of
8 (eight) reaction papers
required over the course of the semester. The reaction papers should provide a thoughtful elaboration of
your ideas, questions, doubts, or concerns concerning the readings. Yo
u are free to write about anything
you wish, as long as you integrate at least two of the readings.
Further, it is
critical that you argue clearly

support your arguments, and present justifications, e.g., for suggested extensions of the present research.
T
he reaction papers should be one page (single
-
spaced), with a two
-
page limit, and should be turned in no
later than
12 PM

on
Monday

as an email attachment within WebCampus.
Please be sure to send your
reaction paper to
all

members of the class so that everybody can get the benefit of your insights!

Representing and critiquing an assigned article
. Regularly during the semester, you will briefly discuss
one of the assigned papers.

Since all in the room have read the paper, fo
cus on the implication of the
article, how it may relate to other literature we have read and, most of all, provide a critique of the paper
(e.g., what’s good about it, what’s bad about, what is it missing, are its assumptions warranted?).

Research proposa
l
. Over the course of the semester, every participant will write a research proposal. You
are free to pick any topic of interest to you, as long as it falls within the broad purview of the social
psychology of group behavior. I expect you to meet with me p
rior to your initial submission to discuss
your topic of interest and strategies of implementing your research question.

The format of a proposal should resemble the introduction and method section of an article in the
empirical social sciences (broadly co
nstrued). There are no specific length requirements; yet the
assumption is that your proposal is no shorter than 10 and no longer than 20 pages (counting without title
page and reference list; double
-
spaced, Times Roman, 1 inch margins).

Use APA style (6
th

ed.) or ASA
style (4
th

ed.)!

For the research proposal will use a
PEER FEEDBACK SYSTEM

that models the real
-
life review
process of professional journals and granting agencies.

Here is how it works:

1.

By
March
29
, each student will submit his or her researc
h proposal to the editor (MK). Earlier
submissions are encouraged.

2.

The editor will solicit the input of two reviewers from within the class to serve as reviewers of the
manuscript. The selection of reviewers is based on the topic of the paper and the exper
tise of the
reviewers.

3.

Every student in the class will serve as reviewer for two papers of his or her peers. Each reviewer
is expected to generate a written review that provides constructive criticism on the research
proposals. The general goal is to help
the author improve what he or she is trying to do. (This
may entail that you have to read beyond the research proposal to be able to appreciate the
proposed project.)

4.

The editor will not share the identity of the reviewers. It is recommended that the revi
ewers do
not disclose their identity to the reviewer.

5.

Authors can request a blind review, i.e. their identity will not be disclosed to the reviewers. (Note:
in a small class in which people talk about their own and other’s research interests it is hard to
guarantee anonymity.)

6.

By
April 1
3

(the latest!) each reviewer must have reviewed both papers and have returned both
reviews to the editor.

7.

The editor will generate an action letter based on the two reviews available to him or her as well
as on his or her o
wn reading of the paper. Authors will receive their action letter plus the reviews
on or before
April 2
3
.

8.

By
May 2
, final versions of the paper are due to the editor.

The editor will send out the paper to
the reviewers to solicit another review.

9.

By
May
10
, reviewers submit their 2
nd

round reviews, and grading suggestions.

10.

As soon as final reviews are available, and before the end of the semester, authors will receive
final comments and a final grade on their paper.

Unless there are extenuating circumstanc
es, each
reviewers grading suggestion will account for 25% of the research proposal grade, with the
editor’s evaluation accounting for 50%. If necessary, the editor’s judgment will serve as
tiebreaker.

11.

The research proposal grade is based on the quality of

review of relevant literature; quality of the
theoretical analysis and integration of that literature; originality of the proposed study; and the
quality of writing.


Each review should be
at least

400 words long. In essence, it should be a short essay ab
out the
manuscript, in which you provide constructive feedback.

When you criticize make sure that (a) you
provide solid arguments for your criticism; (b) you criticize the work and NOT the person; and (c) you
include suggestions for improvements. You may w
ish to respond to all aspects of the manuscript,
including substantive research idea, theory, operationalization, as well as presentation.
IN ADDITION

to
your content
-
focused review, you may wish to return an edited manuscript to the author if you feel tha
t
changes in wording, phrasing etc. are needed. (Your paper will be anonymized by the editor to make sure
that the file properties don’t give away the identity of the reviewer).


Conflict of interest.

Some type of relationships with the author of the paper

may disqualify you as
a reviewer.

Specifically, you may have commented on the work prior to submission or even helped the
author prepare the manuscript. In this case, you should decline serving as a reviewer.

Sample reviews and action letters are
available on WebCampus.


During the entire procedure I will be happy to consult with each author and reviewer, and provide input of
whatever kind is needed (i.e. you are never left alone). Please remember that deadlines are just that:
Earlier submissions a
re encouraged. The earlier you submit, the earlier you will receive your own
research proposal back. The earlier you submit your review, the earlier others will receive necessary
feedback.


Final presentation
.

All students are expected to present their re
search proposal at one of the two final
meetings of the class.

Each presentation should be 10 minutes followed by a discussion period. I strongly
recommend that you use a visual aid (PowerPoint, transparencies) for your presentation. (Do not forget
that 1
minute per slide is about the maximum speed an audience can take, and only if there is not too
much text on each slide.)


Grading

In
-
class participation

20%

Participation in review process

20%

Paper presentation

20%

Research proposal

40%

Total

100%



Course schedule and readings


January 24

Organizational meeting & Introduction to the topic

Brown, R. (2000).
Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups

(2
nd

ed.).
Chapter 1 “The reality of groups” (pp. 1
-
㈱O.


“Quiet rage” The Stanford Prison
䕸灥rim敮e


䩡湵nry″

Becoming a group member
/Formation

Brown, R. (2000).
Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups

(2
nd

ed.).
Chapter 2 “Elementary processes in groups” (pp. 23
-
㌴P⸠

e潧oⰠ䴮⁁⸬⁈潨o慮
ⰠI⸠倮Ⱐm⁒iv敲愬ag⸠䔮.E㈰O㠩⸠坨t⁤漠
敯el攠
j
潩渠
gr潵灳㼠周?e攠
m潴iv慴i潮ol⁡ 捯畮t猠fr潭⁳潣i慬⁰
獹捨潬潧y⸠
Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 2
, 1269

ㄲ㠰8

䩕gfb

坩獭慮Ⱐ䄮Ⱐa⁋o潬eⰠ匮⁌⸠.㈰〳)⸠.idi湧⁩渠t桥h捲ow携⁃慮潲tality⁳ li敮e攠灲潭潴攠
慦filiatio渠nit栠潴桥h猠睨漠潰灯獥
潮攧猠睯牬摶i敷猿
Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84
, 511
-
526.

MICHAEL

Kemmelmeier, M., Broadus, A. D., & Padilla, J. B. (2008).
Inter
-
group aggression in New
Orleans in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
.
Analyses of Social
Issues
and Public Policy, 8
, 211
-
245
. BEN

Deaux,
K.
,

Bikmen, N., Gilkes, A., Ventuneac, A., Joseph, Y., Payne, Y. A., & Steele, C.
M. (2007).
Becoming American: Stereotype threat effects in Afro
-
Caribbean
immigrant groups.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 70
, 384
-
404
.

JOE


“The Experiment: Conflict” (Part 1)


䙥扲畡ry‷

Group Cohesion
/Composition

Brown, R. (2000).
Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups

(2
nd

ed.).
Chapter 2 “Elementary processes in groups” (pp. 35
-
㘵S⸠

䕮湥btⰠ匮Iq⸬…

B慵a慮Ⱐh⸠䔮
ㄹ㤴)⸠qh攠e潮tri扵tio渠潦⁩湦l略u捥⁡ 搠獥le捴i潮⁴漠
慤潬e獣e湴⁰敥r⁧r潵瀠桯o潧敮eityW q桥⁣ s攠潦⁡摯le獣敮t⁣ig慲整t攠獭潫ing⸠
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67
, 653
-
663.

(L & M Reading
#
1
)
JULIE

Iannaccone, L. R. (1994).

Why strict churches are strong.
American Journal of Sociology,
99,

1180
-
1211.

JOE

Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1996). Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of
group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70,

295
-
309. (H & A reading #6)

BEN

Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective minds in

organizations: Heedful
interrelating on flight decks.
Administrative

Science Quarterly, 38
, 357
-
381.

MICHAEL



“The Experiment
: Order” (Part 2)



February 14

Status, power and conflict

Brown, R. (2000).
Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups

(2
nd

ed.).
Chapter 3 “Structural aspects of groups” (pp. 67
-
91).

Gruenfeld
,
D.

H. (1995). Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the U.S.
Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68
, 5
-
20. (L & M Reading #
8
)
JULIE

Kramer
, R. M., &
Brewer
, M. B. (1984)
. Effects of group identity on resource use in a
simulated commons dilemma.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 46
,
1044
-
1057.
(L & M Reading #
7
)
BEN

Fast
, N. J., & Chen, S. (2009).
When the boss feels inadequate: Power, incompetence, and
aggression.

Psychological Science, 20
,

1406
-
1413.

JOE

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A.
(
2001
)
. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal
study of intragroup conflict and group performance.
Academy of Management
Journal, 44
, 238
-
251.

MICHAEL


“The Experime
nt: Rebellion” (Part 3)


February 21

Leadership

Brown, R. (2000).
Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups

(2
nd

ed.).
Chapter 3 “Structural aspects of groups” (pp. 91
-
122).

Eagly, A. H., Johannes
-
Schmidt, M. C., &

van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational,
transactional, and laissez
-
faire leadership styles: A meta
-
analysis comparing
women and men.
Psychological Bulletin, 129
, 569
-
591.
BEN

Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., and Meindl, J. R. (2004). Charting the language
of leadership:
A methodological investigation of President Bush and the crisis of 9/11.
Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89
, 562
-
574.

MICHAEL

Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC
prison study.
British Journal of
Social Psychology, 45
, 1
-
40.
JOE

Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self
-
monitoring and trait
-
based
variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple
situations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76
, 308
-
315.

(L &

M Reading #19)
JULIE


“The Experiment: Tyranny” (Part 4)


February 28

Social influence: Conformity and Deviance

Brown, R. (2000).
Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups

(2
nd

ed.).
Chapter 4 “Social influence” (pp. 123
-
166).

Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A. & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing
what to think by knowing who you are: Self
-
categorization and the nature of norm
formation, conformity, and group polarization.
British Journal of Social
Psychology, 29,

9
7
-
119. (H & A
R
eading #16)

JOE

Weisbuch, M., & Ambady, N. (2009).
Unspoken cultural influence: Exposure to and
influence of nonverbal bias.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96
,
1104
-
1119.
MICHAEL

Marques, J., Abrams, D., & Serôdio, R. G. (2001
).
Being better by being right: Subjective
group dynamics and derogation of in
-
group deviants when generic norms are
undermined.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,

436
-
447. (L & M
Reading #
9
)
JULIE

Cacioppo
, J. T.,
Fowler
, J. H., &

Christakis, N. A. (2009).
Alone in the crowd: The
structure and spread of loneliness in a large social network.

Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology
, 97
, 977
-
991.

BEN


March 6

Group productivity

Brown, R. (2000).
Group processes: Dynamics within
and between groups

(2
nd

ed.).
Chapter 5 “Individuals versus groups”, pp. 167
-
193.

Moreland, R. L. (1999). Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups
and organizations. In L. L. Thompson, J. M. Levine & D. M. Messick (Eds.),
Shared cognitio
n in organizations: The management of knowledge

(pp. 3
-
31).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(L & M Reading #
18
)
MICHAEL

Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group
brainstorming.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

64
, 543
-
549.
JOE

Yamagishi, T. (1988). Exit from the group as an individualistic solution to the free rider
problem in the United States and Japan.
Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 24
, 530
-
542.
BEN

Plaks, J
.

E., & Higgins, E. T. (2000).

Pragmatic use of stereotyping in teamwork: Social
loafing and compensation as a function of inferred partner

situation fit.

Journal
of Personality and
Social

Psychology, 79
, 962
-
974.

JULIE


March 13

Group decision making

Brown, R. (2000).
Group
processes: Dynamics within and between groups

(2
nd

ed.).
Chapter 5 “Individuals versus groups” (pp. 193
-
224).

Sommers, S. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying
multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations.
J
ournal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90,
597
-
612.

JOE

Schulz
-
Hardt, S.,

Brodbeck, Felix C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2006).
Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for
decision quality.
Journa
l of Personality and Social Psychology, 91
, 1080
-
1093.

MICHAEL

Baron, R. S. (2005). So right it’s wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of
polarized group decision making. In M. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental
social psychology

(
vol. 37
, pp.

219
-
253
). Elsevier
.

JULIE

Miller, C. E. (1989). The social psychological effects of group decision rules. In P. B.
Paulus (Ed.),
The psychology of group influence

(2
nd

ed., pp. 327
-
355). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum. BEN


March 20

**** SPRING BREAK ****


March 27

Intergroup cooperation and conflict

Brown, R. (2000).
Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups

(2
nd

ed.).
Chapter 6, pp. 225
-
262.

Bobo, L., &

Hutchins, V. L. (1996). Perceptions of racial group competition: Extending
Blumer’s theory of group position to a multiracial social context.
American
Sociological Review, 61
, 951
-
972. (H & A
R
eading #4)
JOE

Ginges, J., & Atran
, S. (201
1
)
.
War as a moral
imperative (not just practical politics by
other means).
Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences,
278
,
2930
-
2938.

MICHAEL

Wright, S., Taylor, D., & Moghaddam, F. (1990). Responding to membership in a
disadvantaged group.
Journal of Personalit
y and Social Psychology, 58
,
994
-
1003. (H & A
R
eading #20)

JULIE

Guimond, S., & Dambrun, M. (2002).
When prosperity breeds intergroup hostility:

The
effects of relative deprivation and relative gratification on prejudice.

Personality
and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28
, 900
-
912.
BEN


March 29


*** Submit 1
st

draft of research proposal ***


Apr
il 3

Categorization & stereotyping


Brown, R. (2000).
Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups

(2
nd

ed.). Chapter
7 “Thinking about groups” (pp. 263
-
308).

Devine, P. G., &
Sharp, L. B.

(
200
9). Automaticity and control in stereotyping

and
prejudice
. In
T. D. Nelson

(Ed.),
Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and
discrimination

(pp.
61
-
87
). New York:

Psychology Press.

JOE

Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate

attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive
analysis of prejudice.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5
, 461
-
476. (H &
A
R
eading #9)
JULIE

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination.
Scientific American, 223,

96
-
102. (H & A
R
eading #10)
BEN

Tajfel, H. (1981). Social stereotypes and social groups. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.),
Intergroup behavior

(pp. 144
-
167). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (H & A
R
eading #7)
MICHAEL



April 10

The self in (inter)group relations

Brown, R. (2000).
Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups

(2
nd

ed.). Chapter
8 “Social identity and intergroup relations” (pp. 309
-
341).

Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin
-
Volpe, T.
(
2004
)
. An organizing framework for
collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality.
Psychological Bulletin, 130
,

80
-
114.

JULIE

Ethier, K., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change:
Maintaining identification

and responding to threat.

Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67
, 243
-
251.

JOE

Brewer, M. B. (1993). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19
, 245
-
253. (H & A
R
eading #14)
BEN

Iyer, A.,
Leach
, C. W., & Crosby, F. J. (2003).
White guilt and racial compensation: The

benefits and limits of self
-
focus.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29
,
117
-
129.

MICHAEL


April
13



**** DEADLINE: Reviewers to submit their 1
st

round reviews ****




April 17

The nature and underpinnings of intergroup biases

Jayartne, T. E., Ybarra, O., Sheldon, J. P., Brown, T. N., Feldbaum, M., Pfeffer, C. A., &
Petty, E. M. (2006). White Americans’ genetic lay theories of race differences and
sexual orientation: Their relationship with prejudice toward blacks, and gay men and
lesbians.
Group Process & Intergroup Relations, 9
, 77
-
94.

Navarrete, C. D., McDonald, M. M., Molina, L. E., &
Sidanius
,
J
. (2010).
Prejudice at the
nexus of race and gender: An outgroup male target hypothesis.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 98
, 933
-
945.
MICHAEL

Rydell, R. J., Hamilton, D. L., &
Devos, T. (2010).

Now they are American, now they are
not: Valence as a
determinant of the inclusion of African Americans in the
American identity.

Social Cognition, 28
, 161
-
179.

Schaller
, M., Park, J. H., & Faulkner, J.

(2003). Prehistoric dangers and contemporary
prejudices. In W.
Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.),
European revie
w of social
psychology

(vol. 14, pp. 105
-
137). Hove, England: Psychology Press.

Taşdemir, N. (2011). The relationships between motivations of intergroup differentiation as
a function of different dimensions of social identity.
Review of General Psychology,

15
, 125
-
137.



April 24

Contemporary intergroup relations

Glick
,
P., &

Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as
complementary justifications for gender inequality.
American Psychologist, 56
, 109
-
118.
BEN

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M., & Nosek, B. A. (2004).
A decade of system justification Theory:
Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo.
Political Psychology, 25
, 881
-
920.
JOE

Katz
,
I., &

Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalen
ce and American value conflict:
Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55
, 893
-
905.
JULIE

Hodson, G., Rush, J.,

&

MacInnis, C. C. (2010).
A joke is just a joke (except when it isn't):
C
avalier humor beliefs facilitate the expression of group dominance motives.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99
, 660
-
682.
MICHAEL

Effron, D. A., Cameron, J. S., & Monin, B. (2009).
Endorsing Obama licenses favoring
Whites.

Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45
, 590
-
593.



May 1

Reducing intergroup tensions

Brown, R. (2000).
Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups

(2
nd

ed.). Chapter
8, pp. 341
-
360.

Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty
-
first
Century: The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.
Scandinavian Political Studies, 30
,
137
-
174. JOE

Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethn
ic ideology:
Effects of multicultural and color
-
blind perspectives on judgments of groups and

individuals.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,

635
-
654.

JULIE

Islam, M., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup
anxiety, perceived outgroup variability, and outgroup attitude: An integrative model.
Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin
, 19
, 700
-
710. (H & A
R
eading #22)
BEN

Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2003).
'Gringos' in Mexico: Cross
-
sectional and longitudinal
effects of language school
-
promoted contact on intergroup bias.

Group Processes &
Intergroup

Relations, 6
,

55
-
75.

MICHAEL


May 2


*** Submit final draft of research proposal ***


May 8

Disaster

& Crowds

Auf der Heide, E. (2004).
Common misconceptions about disasters: Panic, the “Disaster
Syndrome,” and Looting. In M. R. O'Leary
(
Ed.
),
The first 72 hours: A community
approach to disaster preparedness

(pp. 340
-
380
). Lincoln, NE: iUniverse
Publishing.

Reicher, S. D. (1996).
'The
Battle of Westminster': Developing the social identity model of
crowd behaviour in order to explain the initiation and development of collective
conflict.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 26
, 115
-
134.

Levine
, M., & Crowther, S. (2008).
The responsive

bystander: How social group
membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95
, 1429
-
1439.

Vider, S. (2004). Rethinking crowd violence: Self
-
categorization theory and the Woo
dstock
1999 riot.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 34
, 14
1
-
166.

Schadschneider, A.
(2010).
I'm a football fan… get me out of here.
Physics World, July
, 21
-
25.

[
Helbing, D., Johansson, A.,
&

Al
-
Abideen
, H. Z. (2007).
Dynamics of crowd disasters:
An
empirical study.

P
hysical
R
eview

E 75
, 046109.
For additional explanation and
photographs
:
http://www.trafficforum.ethz.ch/crowdturbulence/

]



May 14


**** DEADLINE: 2
nd

round reviews/grade suggestions are due ****