Modiwl PSP-3004:
The Social Brain
The Social Brain 2023-24
PSP-3004
2023-24
School Of Human And Behavioural Sciences
Module - Semester 1
20 credits
Module Organiser:
Paul Downing
Overview
We consider the social brain from the point of view of the kinds of "questions" that it must be asking about others around us. What are the brain processes that answer those questions? E.g.
- Is someone there? (person detection)
- Who is there? (person recognition)
- What are you looking at? (gaze perception)
- How are you feeling? (emotion perception)
- What are you doing? (action perception)
- What are you thinking? (mentalising)
- How do I feel about you? (trust)
- How will you react? (social prediction)
Assessment Strategy
-threshold -D Adequate answer to the question, largely based on lecture material. Limited elaboration of arguments.
-good -B Reasonably comprehensive coverage. Well organised and structured. Good understanding of the material.
-excellent -A Comprehensive and accurate coverage of the area clarity of argument and expression. Depth of insight into theoretical issues.
Learning Outcomes
- Be able to think and write critically about current research in human social-cognitive neuroscience.
- Have an understanding of major questions, theoretical perspectives, and debates in human social-cognitive neuroscience.
- Understand some of the key evidence on how the brain supports social-cognitive processes in humans.
Assessment method
Essay
Assessment type
Crynodol
Description
Review of Journal Article This is a 500 word (maximum) review of a journal article. Students will critically review a single published journal article (chosen from a provided set). This assessment is aimed at all 3 learning outcomes, in particular “Be able to think and write critically about current research in human social-cognitive neuroscience.” Guidance In your review, you should begin with a brief summary of the article. This should really be 100 words maximum (but I am not going to count). Note that this means you won’t need to report a lot of technical detail about the methods or p values, etc. Also, you don’t need to talk about all of the results – you can feel free to focus on one or two main results and ignore sidelines. Next, and most important, you should follow with a critical review of the article. This review should address the contents of the study, not the style! When you read the paper, think about questions like these: Is this a clear research question? (what might have made it better?) Are assumptions made that aren’t justified? (what are they?) Do the methods suit the question? (are there better ones?) Are there other explanations for the data? (they didn’t control for X…) What else could they have done with their data? (a different kind of analysis?) Could they have collected different data with their methods? Do the data say anything about the questions? (if not, why not?) Did we learn about social cognition in “real life”? (if not, why not? How to improve?) Your review will be marked based on: • The summary (10%) A strong summary will be thorough, accurate, concise, and clear. Imagine that it will be read by a smart psychologist who has not read the paper before! • Clear scientific writing (10%) Good style includes making points clearly and concisely, using academic / scientific terminology appropriately, using grammar correctly, and organising your thoughts in a clear structure. • The critique (80%) There isn’t a single “right” answer I’m looking for in each paper. This is about making a critique and then supporting that with logical arguments and/or evidence. It’s important to focus on a critique that engages with the content of the paper rather than the style. (More guidance is provided in the module syllabus).
Weighting
15%
Due date
23/10/2023
Assessment method
Essay
Assessment type
Crynodol
Description
Review of Journal Article This is a 500 word (maximum) review of a journal article. Students will critically review a single published journal article (chosen from a provided set). This assessment is aimed at all 3 learning outcomes, in particular “Be able to think and write critically about current research in human social-cognitive neuroscience.” Guidance In your review, you should begin with a brief summary of the article. This should really be 100 words maximum (but I am not going to count). Note that this means you won’t need to report a lot of technical detail about the methods or p values, etc. Also, you don’t need to talk about all of the results – you can feel free to focus on one or two main results and ignore sidelines. Next, and most important, you should follow with a critical review of the article. This review should address the contents of the study, not the style! When you read the paper, think about questions like these: Is this a clear research question? (what might have made it better?) Are assumptions made that aren’t justified? (what are they?) Do the methods suit the question? (are there better ones?) Are there other explanations for the data? (they didn’t control for X…) What else could they have done with their data? (a different kind of analysis?) Could they have collected different data with their methods? Do the data say anything about the questions? (if not, why not?) Did we learn about social cognition in “real life”? (if not, why not? How to improve?) Your review will be marked based on: • The summary (10%) A strong summary will be thorough, accurate, concise, and clear. Imagine that it will be read by a smart psychologist who has not read the paper before! • Clear scientific writing (10%) Good style includes making points clearly and concisely, using academic / scientific terminology appropriately, using grammar correctly, and organising your thoughts in a clear structure. • The critique (80%) There isn’t a single “right” answer I’m looking for in each paper. This is about making a critique and then supporting that with logical arguments and/or evidence. It’s important to focus on a critique that engages with the content of the paper rather than the style. (More guidance is provided in the module syllabus).
Weighting
20%
Due date
20/11/2023
Assessment method
Essay
Assessment type
Crynodol
Description
Review of Journal Article This is a 500 word (maximum) review of a journal article. Students will critically review a single published journal article (chosen from a provided set). This assessment is aimed at all 3 learning outcomes, in particular “Be able to think and write critically about current research in human social-cognitive neuroscience.” Guidance In your review, you should begin with a brief summary of the article. This should really be 100 words maximum (but I am not going to count). Note that this means you won’t need to report a lot of technical detail about the methods or p values, etc. Also, you don’t need to talk about all of the results – you can feel free to focus on one or two main results and ignore sidelines. Next, and most important, you should follow with a critical review of the article. This review should address the contents of the study, not the style! When you read the paper, think about questions like these: Is this a clear research question? (what might have made it better?) Are assumptions made that aren’t justified? (what are they?) Do the methods suit the question? (are there better ones?) Are there other explanations for the data? (they didn’t control for X…) What else could they have done with their data? (a different kind of analysis?) Could they have collected different data with their methods? Do the data say anything about the questions? (if not, why not?) Did we learn about social cognition in “real life”? (if not, why not? How to improve?) Your review will be marked based on: • The summary (10%) A strong summary will be thorough, accurate, concise, and clear. Imagine that it will be read by a smart psychologist who has not read the paper before! • Clear scientific writing (10%) Good style includes making points clearly and concisely, using academic / scientific terminology appropriately, using grammar correctly, and organising your thoughts in a clear structure. • The critique (80%) There isn’t a single “right” answer I’m looking for in each paper. This is about making a critique and then supporting that with logical arguments and/or evidence. It’s important to focus on a critique that engages with the content of the paper rather than the style. (More guidance is provided in the module syllabus).
Weighting
25%
Due date
11/12/2023
Assessment method
Coursework
Assessment type
Crynodol
Description
Brief Written Discussion Points In alternate weeks (5 total submissions), each student will be required to submit 3 “bullet points” about the preceding week's materials. Each bullet point should be up to max 3 sentences in length. The bullet point topics are the same for each submission: 1. Briefly describe one of the key experimental findings or concepts from the topic of the week, using your own words, as if explaining to a layperson (a non-scientist). 2. Briefly describe an unanswered (to you) psychological or neuroscientific question that is related to the topic of the week and suggest a way that it might be possible to explore that in an experiment. 3. Briefly consider how the week's findings might relate to a real-life setting, or else might have ethical or societal implications. The best 4 out of 5 marks for each student on this assessment will be retained for the final module mark. Guidance 1. For point 1, use everyday language and avoid jargon. It might help to envision a specific person you know who is not a psychologist and imagine explaining this finding or idea to them. Make sure to note why this finding / idea might be important. 2. For point 2, think about what’s missing – what kinds of questions are still left open by the findings from that week? Maybe there are other kinds of tasks you could imagine, or control conditions, or using different methods, or testing different kinds of participants, or adding other measures? Don’t worry excessively about what is feasible or expensive, but do try to stay in the boundaries of what would be ethical! 3. For point 3, think about possible ethical or societal implications of one of the ideas or findings from the week's material. Use your imagination to think about how those findings might be extended in new ways in the future. As we learn more about how the social brain works, in what ways might those findings be used? By whom might they be used? Would they be used for others' benefit, or to their detriment (or both)?
Weighting
20%
Assessment method
Individual Presentation
Assessment type
Crynodol
Description
In alternate weeks (5 total), students will make a brief oral presentation within their small group session, answering three questions about the previous week's materials. These are the same each week, and are the same as the questions that form the basis of the Brief Written Discussion Points. 1. Briefly describe one of the key experimental findings or concepts from the topic of the week, using your own words, as if explaining to a layperson (a non-scientist). 2. Briefly describe an unanswered (to you) psychological or neuroscientific question that is related to the topic of the week and suggest a way that it might be possible to explore that in an experiment. 3. Briefly consider how the week's findings might relate to a real-life setting, or else might have ethical or societal implications. The best 4 out of 5 marks for each student on this assessment will be retained for the final module mark. Guidance 1. For point 1, use everyday language and avoid jargon. It might help to envision a specific person you know who is not a psychologist and imagine explaining this finding or idea to them. Make sure to note why this finding / idea might be important. 2. For point 2, think about what’s missing – what kinds of questions are still left open by the findings from that week? Maybe there are other kinds of tasks you could imagine, or control conditions, or using different methods, or testing different kinds of participants, or adding other measures? Don’t worry excessively about what is feasible or expensive, but do try to stay in the boundaries of what would be ethical! 3. For point 3, think about possible ethical or societal implications of one of the ideas or findings from the week's material. Use your imagination to think about how those findings might be extended in new ways in the future. As we learn more about how the social brain works, in what ways might those findings be used? By whom might they be used? Would they be used for others' benefit, or to their detriment (or both)?
Weighting
20%