| Module Details | |||||||
| Short Title: | Advanced Social Cognitive Psychology | ||||||
| Full Title: | Advanced Social Cognitive Psychology | ||||||
| Module Code: | PSY1064 | NFQ Level: | 9 | ECTS Credits: | 5 | ||
| Module Co-ordinator: | Dr. Lorraine Boran | ||||||
The aims of this module are to provide an advanced overview of theoretical, conceptual, research and methodological advances, at, or informed by, the forefront of enquiry within social cognitive psychology. Particular focus will be on social cognitive components of individual and group construal. Critical consideration will be given to factors influencing social cognition, affect and motivation. A social neuroscientific approach will also be critically considered within the module in terms of theory of mind.
SOCIAL COGNITION ASSIGMENT ARTICLE.pdf
SOCIAL COGNITION – AN EXAMPLE 2 OF AN OPINON PIECE..pdf
On successful completion of this module the learner will be able to
| Assessment Type | Description | Learning Outcomes/Weighting |
| CA1 Op Ed. for Frontiers in Psychology | Choose one thematic area – Attitudes and Beliefs; Individual and Group Construal. | 2,5 /30% |
| CA2 Research Proposal and Interactive Oral | Students are required to develop a hypothetical grant submission to the Futures Charity about a proposed intervention for a chosen patient group that can address a specified social competence/social cognition deficit, with a focus on either developmental/ adolescent/emerging adult or older adult issues. The proposal is weighted 15%. The interactive oral conversation based on the proposal is weighted 55% and will be 10 minutes long, synchronous and face to face or by zoom (TBC). The module coordinator will be the Senior research manager at Futures Charity, acting as an assessor, and her team (at least one other) will comprise the assessment team. For assessment purposes, this conversation will be recorded (assessment grading and moderation), and then deleted. It will be a psycho-social-based interactive conversation where the student will submit a proposed intervention study to address a social-cognitive competence/deficit in a specific patient cohort. The key learning outcomes and prompts will support conversation on the following: 1. Critically consider and evaluate key conceptual, theoretical, research and methodological advances, at, or informed by, the forefront of social cognitive psychology. | 1, 3-4/70% |
| 2. Critically identify and consider key factors influencing typical and atypical social cognitive function, including affective and motivational factors. 3. Critically appraise the neuroscientific approach to social cognition. The focus is on Social Cognitive Theoretical Framework; Disorder and Intervention. Within this interview, some consideration must be given to affective and motivational factors related to social cognitive functioning; and also the neuroscientific approach to social cognition. |
| MODULE: | PSY1064 Advanced Social Cognitive psychology |
| COURSE: | MPC Masters in Psychology (Conversion) |
| YEAR: | 1 |
| EXAMINERS: | Dr. Lorraine Boran (Internal) |
Prof. Gerry Molloy (External)
January Release Date v.1.
SUBMISSION DATE: XXX
Opinion pieces are an opportunity for you as an author to contribute your reasoned and evidenced viewpoints on the interpretation of the state of the art in a research area (Beliefs and Attitudes; Self and Group Construal), value of the methods used (e.g. measures: implicit and explicit; generative artificial intelligence), as well as critical consideration of strengths and challenges to theoretical frameworks and theories (including but not limited to extremism and attitude; modifiability of attitude; mis- and dis-information; construal of in- and out-groups; cognitive flexibility and attitudinal stance). The following guidelines and instructions are important to follow below. Please note that you will be given a companion preparation guide document with key resources from the OP ED project; the Harvard Kennedy School of Communications;
Students will be invited to read the following paper, and critically consider the constructs of relevance (e.g. moral conviction, mental health, affect, cognitive bias, cognitive inflexibility, extremism, neuroscience of decisionmaking etc.), and draft an original opinion piece pivoting from this published paper. The opinion piece can be anchored in theory, methods, and so on.
Cao, Q., Cohen, M. S., Bakkour, A., Leong, Y. C., & Decety, J. (2025). Moral conviction interacts with metacognitive ability in modulating neural activity during sociopolitical decision-making. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 25(2), 291-310.
This succinct guide provides a structured approach to drafting an opinion piece suitable for submission to the journal Frontiers in Psychology. It outlines the key headings, suggested content for each section, and recommended word counts to help ensure clarity, coherence, and adherence to academic standards.
1. Title (10-15 words)
2. Introduction (150-200 words)
3. Background and Context (200-250 words)
4. Main Argument (300-400 words)
5. Implications and Applications (200-250 words)
6. Conclusion (150-200 words)
7. References (not included in word count)
8. Optional: Figure/Table (if applicable)
| Section | Suggested Word Count |
|---|---|
| Title | 10–15 words |
| Introduction | 150–200 words |
| Background and Context | 200–250 words |
| Main Argument | 300–400 words |
| Implications and Applications | 200–250 words |
| Conclusion | 150–200 words |
| References | Not included in word count |
| Total | 1200–1500 words |
By following this structured guide, you can effectively draft an opinion piece that contributes meaningfully to the discourse in psychology and arguably, should meet the standards of Frontiers in Psychology!
| Performance Level | Poor (<39%) | Fair (40-49%) | Good (50-59%) | Very Good (60-69%) | Excellent (>70%) |
| Content and Focus (25%) | The piece lacks a clear focus and does not adequately address the topic. Background reading is minimal or irrelevant, and the information presented is poorly organized. | The topic is addressed but lacks depth and relevance. Background reading is present but limited, with some information being off-topic or not well integrated. | The topic is mostly focused, with relevant background reading. Information is generally well-organized, but some areas may lack depth or clarity. | The topic is well-focused, with a good range of relevant background reading. Information is organized logically, and most points are well-supported. | The topic is exceptionally focused, with extensive and relevant background reading. Information is presented in a highly organized manner, with clear and compelling support for all points. |
| Knowledge and Understanding (20%) | Demonstrates minimal understanding of key concepts, principles, and theories. Lacks depth and breadth in the discussion. | Shows some understanding of key concepts and principles, but lacks depth in analysis. The discussion may be superficial or incomplete. | Demonstrates a good understanding of key concepts and principles, with some depth in analysis. The discussion is mostly clear but may miss some critical aspects. | Shows a very good understanding of key concepts and principles, with depth and breadth in analysis. The discussion is clear and insightful. | Demonstrates an exceptional understanding of key concepts, principles, and theories, with comprehensive depth and breadth in analysis. The discussion is insightful and thought-provoking. |
| Critical Evaluation (30%) | Lacks critical evaluation of concepts, principles, and theories. Arguments are poorly synthesized and lack analysis. | Provides some critical evaluation, but arguments are weakly synthesized and lack depth. Analysis may be superficial or unclear. | Offers a good level of critical evaluation, with some synthesis of arguments. Analysis is mostly clear but may lack depth in some areas. | Provides a very good critical evaluation, with strong synthesis of arguments and clear analysis. Most points are well-supported and insightful. | Offers an exceptional critical evaluation, with comprehensive synthesis of arguments and deep analysis. All points are well-supported and contribute to a compelling discussion. |
| Criterion | Poor (<39%) | Fair (40-49%) | Good (50-59%) | Very Good (60-69%) | Excellent (>70%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structure (15%) | The structure is unclear, making it difficult to follow the argument. There is little coherence in the opinion presented. | The structure is present but lacks clarity. The argument may be difficult to follow in places, and coherence is inconsistent. | The structure is mostly clear, with a logical flow of arguments. The opinion is generally coherent but may have minor lapses. | The opinion is coherent and easy to follow. The structure is clear and logical. | The structure is exceptionally clear, with a seamless flow of arguments. The opinion is highly coherent and compelling. |
| Presentation (10%) | The piece contains numerous errors in expression, APA style, and citations. The use (or non-use) of Open AI tools is not mentioned or poorly integrated. | The piece has several errors in expression, APA style, and citations. The use or non-use of Open AI tools is mentioned but lacks detail or relevance. | The piece is mostly well-presented, with minor errors in expression, APA style, and citations. The use or non-use of Open AI tools is adequately detailed. | The piece is well-presented, with few errors in expression, APA style, and citations. The use or non-use of Open AI tools is clearly detailed and relevant. | The piece is exceptionally well-presented, with no errors in expression, APA style, or citations. |
Many DCU students find the PSY1064 CA1 opinion piece challenging because it requires advanced critical thinking, theory integration, and a journal-style academic tone. Linking social cognition theories with neuroscience, attitudes, and moral decision-making can be difficult within a strict word limit. You don’t need to stress—Ireland Assignment Helper provides expert PSY1064 opinion piece support aligned with DCU marking criteria and Frontiers in Psychology standards. You can also review our assessment sample to understand structure, argument flow, and evidence use and view PSY1064 CA2. Order today to receive a custom, plagiarism-free, human-written PSY1064 CA1 Op-Ed written exclusively for you.
Get Free Assignment Quotes