University of Oregon, Fall 2005

The purpose of this graduate seminar is to give students a useful introduction to a new “crossroads” subfield of psychology: The psychology of those beliefs of a political and religious nature that can be considered to constitute a person’s “worldview.” The importance of this subfield is shown in the international social problems (ethnic conflict, ethnic cleansing and genocide, insurgencies, terrorism) that arise from the basis of worldview. This subfield is highly interdisciplinary, and readings from the seminar (which are substantial as well as wide-ranging) will draw from sociology, anthropology, and political science as well as from psychology.

Requirements of the seminar

1. Discussion questions based on readings for the current week. You are responsible for turning in sets of discussion questions based on the readings by two hours before the beginning of six different class meetings (of the nine after the first session). Late discussion questions don’t confer credit. Discussion questions are turned in via e-mail to gsaucier@uoregon.edu. You can choose the dates of your discussion questions. Discussion questions, to be worthwhile and to count, should (a) be indicative of having done the reading and (b) be instances of some degree of critical or insightful thinking. Should you ever develop a “block” about coming up with some, you might consider questions of the following form: Why is this issue important? How are you defining ? Aren’t you assuming ? Isn’t it debatable whether ? Does the evidence really support the notion that _____? Aren’t you leaving out _____? Isn’t there a limitation with regard to _____ (e.g., caused by using that methodology)? Responses to selected discussion questions turned will be a part of the class sessions, starting with week 2. Discussions in the class sessions are a very important part of this course.

2. Two brief writing assignments. Each of these should be no longer than one page (double-spaced is fine, but you can go to single-spaced if you just can’t help yourself), and they have the same due date (if this seems odd, the rationale is that one may feed interestingly into the other, but it is not clear in advance which will be the direction of effect). One is an advance outline or prospectus for the final paper, namely, an attempt to identify an important problem/issue for that paper. The other is a brief but thoughtful and well-considered essay (about you, by the greatest expert on you, namely you) on the topic of “How I Seem to Have Acquired the Worldview That I Have.” This second assignment is graded so that you get a pass for effort (is designed to be an interesting exploration relevant to the course), and you need only be as specific in identifying your worldview to the degree you wish to. These two assignments are due by October 28 (Friday) at 4 pm.

3. A final paper. You will be asked to identify a well-defined singular problem or issue (preferably one of special interest to you) as the focus for a paper. In the paper you should first make a case for the importance of the problem/issue, identify the most salient past treatments of it (in any relevant literature) analyzing both strengths and limitations of these treatments, and then propose a superior or novel approach to the problem/issue that draws (to some extent) on content in the readings of this seminar.

The final paper is due one week after the last meeting of the seminar (Tuesday, December 6, 4 pm)

4. A very brief presentation related to the final paper (or at least on your early drafts of this paper) during week 10. Your presentation should be focused on questions, difficulties, puzzles, or dilemmas you are experiencing with respect to the content of your final paper (after providing a bit of background). It is not really important to create an impressive presentation performance, but rather the brief presentation is primarily an opportunity to get some feedback. These presentations will be allotted about 5-10 minutes each; you don’t present your paper, you present something specific you are trying to resolve related to your paper.

The final grade is based on: 30% for turning in six sets of discussion questions, 5% for a generally acceptable level of in-class contribution, 15% for the two brief writing assignments (together), 10% for the brief presentation, and 40% for the final paper.

Course Calendar and Readings

September 27

* Introduction to the seminar

October 4

* Beliefs in relation to cognition and affect

Readings for this session: Gilbert (1991); Kirsch (1997); Roseman (2001); Clore & Gasper (2000)

October 11

* Empiricist approaches to worldview beliefs: Values, collectivism and individualism

Readings for this session: Rokeach (1973, ch. 1); Feldman (2003); Schwartz & Sagie (2000); Matsumoto (1997, ch. 6), Triandis (2001)

October 18

* Exploratory/structural and experimental approaches to worldview beliefs

Readings for this session: Saucier (2000, 2004); Jost et al. (2003)

October 25

* Functional approaches to worldview: Basic or core beliefs

Readings for this session: Epstein (1998), Duckitt et al. (2002); Eidelson & Eidelson (2003)

November 1

* Psychology of religion and of supernatural and magical beliefs

Readings for this session: Emmons & Paloutzian (2003); Saucier & Skrzypinska (in press); Boyer (2003)

November 8

* Sociology of religion and of the history of religion

Readings for this session: Three or four of the following (which ones TBA): Sherkat (1999); chapter from Turner (1991); Almond, Sivan, & Appleby (1995); C. Smith (1996, introduction); chapter from Mack (1995); chapter from Roy (2004)

November 15

* Political psychology; ethnonationalism

Readings for this session: Sidanius & Pratto (1999, ch. 2); A. Smith (2001, chs. 1-2 and pp. 412-415); other reading TBA

November 22

* Cultural approaches to worldview; ways of theoretically integrating concepts in previous readings

Readings for this session: Levinson & Malone (1980, ch. 12); Geertz (1964); T. Schwartz (1978); Wallace (1956)

November 29

* (Further) Applications to understanding terrorism, and ethnic cleansing and genocide

Readings for this session: Haddad and Khashan (2002); chapter from Pape (2005); Moghaddam (2005); Mann (2005, ch. 1)

Final paper is due Tuesday, December 6, 4 pm – there is no final examination for this seminar

Readings above are drawn from the following list of sources relevant to seminar:

Note: Not all of these are assigned reading for the seminar

Almond, G. A., Sivan, E., & Appleby, R. S. (1995). Fundamentalisms: Genus and species. In M. E. Marty & R. S. Appleby (Eds.), Fundamentalisms comprehended (pp. 399-424). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Boyer, P. (2003). Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 119-124.

Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society (K. Blamey, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clore, G. L., & Gasper, K. (2000). Feeling is believing: Some affective influences on belief. In N. H. Frijda, A. S. R. Manstead, & S. Bem (Eds.), Emotions and beliefs: How feelings influence thoughts (pp. 10-44). Paris: Cambridge University Press.

Duckitt, J. H., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual_process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75_93.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1998). Us and the others: The familial roots of ethnonationalism. In I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, & F. K. Salter (Eds.), Indoctrinability, ideology, and warfare (pp. 21-53). New York: Berghahn.

Eidelson, R. J., & Eidelson, J. I. (2003). Dangerous ideas: Five beliefs that propel groups toward conflict. American Psychologist, 58, 182_192.

Emmons, R. A., & Paloutzian, R. E. (2003). The psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 377-402.

Epstein, S. (1998). Cognitive-experiential self theory. In D. F. Barone, M. Hersen, & V. B. Van Hasselt (Eds.), Advanced personality (pp. 211-238). New York: Plenum.

Feldman, S. (2003). Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477-508). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Geertz, C. (1964). Ideology as a cultural system. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 47-76). New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. Psychological Review, 46, 107-119.

Haddad, S. & Khashan, H. (2002). Islam and terrorism: Lebanese Muslim views on September 11. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46, 812_828.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.

Kirsch, I. (1997). Response expectancy theory and application: A decennial review. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 6, 69-79.

Kirsch, I., Lynn, S. J., Vigorito, M., & Miller, R. R. (2004). The role of cognition in classical and operant conditioning. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 369-392.

Knight, K. (1999). Liberalism and conservatism. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes (pp. 59-158). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. (Assigned: pp. 59-75 only)

Knutson, J. N. (1977). Human needs constraining political activity. In R. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Human needs and politics (pp. 96-123). Rushcutters Bay, Australia: Pergamon.

Lane, R. E. (1973). Patterns of political belief. In J. N. Knutson (Ed.), Handbook of political psychology (pp. 83-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Levinson, D., & Malone, M. J. (1980). Toward explaining human culture: A critical review of the findings of worldwide cross-cultural research. HRAF Press.

Mack, B. L. (2001). The Christian myth: Origins, logic, and legacy. London: Continuum.

Mann, M. (2005). The dark side of democracy: Explaining ethnic cleansing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (chapter 1: Argument)

Matsumoto, D. (1997). Culture and modern life. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

McGuire, M. T., Troisi, A., Raleigh, M .J., & Masters, R. D. (1998). Ideology and physiological regulation. In I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, & F. K. Salter (Eds.), Indoctrinability, ideology, and warfare (pp. 263-276). New York: Berghahn.

Moghaddam, F. M. (2005). The staircase to terrorism: A psychological explanation. American Psychologist, 60, 161-169.

Pape, R. A. (2005). Dying to win: The strategic logic of suicide terrorism. New York: Random House.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. (chapter 1: The nature of human values and value systems)

Roseman, I. J. (2001). A model of appraisal in the emotion system: Integrating theory, research, and applications. In K. S. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 68-91). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Roy, O. (2004). Globalized Islam: The search for a new ummah. New York: Columbia University Press.

Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 366-385.

Saucier, G. (2004). Personality and ideology: One thing or two? Manuscript submitted for publication.

Saucier, G., & Skrzypinska, K. (in press). Spiritual but not religious? Evidence for two independent dispositions. Journal of Personality.

Schwartz, S. H., & Sagie, G. (2000). Value consensus and importance: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 465-497.

Schwartz, T. (1978). Where is the culture? Personality as the distributive locus of culture. In G. D. Spindler (Ed.), The making of psychological anthropology (pp. 419-441). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sherkat, D. E., & Ellison, C. G. (1999). Recent developments and current controversies in the sociology of religion. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 363-394.

Sidanius, J., & Kurzban, R. (2003). Evolutionary approaches to political psychology. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 146-181). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, A. D. (2001). Nationalism: Theory, ideology, history. Cambridge, England: Polity. (chapter 2: Ideologies plus concluding pages, pp. 142-146)

Smith, C. (1996). Correcting a curious neglect, or bringing religion back in. In C. Smith (Ed.), Disruptive religion (pp. 1-25). New York: Routledge.

Tetlock, P. E. (1993). Cognitive-structural analysis of political rhetoric: Methodological and theoretical issues. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 380-405). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Triandis, H. C. (2001). Issues in individualism and collectivism research. In R. M. Sorrentino et al. (Eds.), Culture and social behavior: The Ontario symposium, volume 10 (pp. 207-225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Turner, B. S. (1991). Religion and social theory (2nd ed.). London: Heinemann.

Wallace, A. F. C. (1956). Revitalization movements. American Anthropologist, 59, 264-281.