Advanced Cognitive Psychology Page
Professor Will Langston


News/Notes Week of 11/20/17
Discuss unit 10 readings
  1. Petrocelli, J. V., Rubin, A. L., & Stevens, R. L. (2016). The sin of prediction: When mentally simulated alternatives compete with reality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1635-1652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167216669122
  2. Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 549-563. http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf
  3. Dalton, C. (2016). Bullshit for you; transcendence for me. A commentary on "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit". Judgment and Decision Making, 11, 121-122. http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923ac/jdm15923ac.pdf
  4. Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2016). It's still bullshit: Reply to Dalton (2016). Judgment and Decision Making, 11, 123-125. http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923ac/jdm15923acr.pdf
  5. Rapp, D. N. (2016). The consequences of reading inaccurate information. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 281-285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721416649347
  6. Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721416654436
Exam 2 due
Reasoning lecture
Syllabus Advanced Cognitive Psychology Syllabus
Exams (These become live as we get to them.)
  • Exam 1
  • Exam 2
  • The Final Exam
Course Notes Check my Cognitive Psychology page for background information on each topic.
Links
Reaction Papers Weekly reaction reports may not exceed one typed, double-spaced page in length. You should cite sources and include references as relevant, references will not count in your page total. All papers should be submitted electronically. Please title your paper "LastnameWRR#.doc" For example, my second paper would be "LangstonWRR2.doc" I can only email graded papers to MTSU email addresses, so please submit from your MTSU email addresss.

What will get me excited about a reaction paper: 
  • React based on something else you've learned in the class ("when we discussed language, you said...but this article said..." or "here's another example of..."). Bring things together in a new and interesting way.
  • React based on something you know about your discipline that relates to Cognitive Psychology.
  • Find a link between Cognitive Psychology and your discipline (how can something we've discussed apply to your field?).
  • How does this idea lead to new research questions?
  • Make me say "this person is insane, but that's a really cool idea." Explore absurd places to take the research.
What won't get me excited about a reaction paper: 
  • "This article was really easy/hard to read/understand."
  • A personal anecdote; overturning data with an anecdote
  • "There were only five participants in the study which seems like too few." I don't want a showboating critique, talk to me about ideas.
  • Two pages of summary followed by "I really liked this article."
  • A "reflection." In fact, calling it a reflection report will piss me off.

Advanced Cognitive Psychology Page
Will Langston

Back to Langston's Home Page