PSY1064 Advanced Social Cognitive Psychology Continuous Assessment 2, 2026 | DCU

PSY1064 Continuous Assessment 2

Module Details
Short Title:		Advanced Social Cognitive Psychology
Full Title:		Advanced Social Cognitive Psychology
Module Code:	PSY1064		NFQ Level:	9		ECTS edits:	5

Description:

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 ASSIGNMENT ARTICLE.pdf

SOCIAL COGNITION – AN EXAMPLE 2 OF AN OPINON PIECE..pdf

SOCIAL COGNITION SLIDES.pdf

Learning Outcomes:

On successful completion of this module the learner will be able to

• Critically consider and evaluate key conceptual, theoretical, research and methodological advances, at, or informed by, the forefront of social cognitive psychology.
• Demonstrate a critical awareness of social cognitive components of individual and group construal.
• Critically identify and consider key factors influencing typical and atypical social cognitive function, including affective and motivational factors.
• Critically appraise the neuroscientific approach to social cognition.
• Critically consider implicit and explicit approaches to profiling attitudes.

Module Content And Assessment

Indicative Content And Learning Activities

• Conceptual, theoretical and methodological approaches to studying social cognition.
• Understanding social cognitive components of individual and group construal: social information encoding, representation.
• Affect and motivational factors in Social Cognition; regulation of social cognitive processes.
• Social Neuroscience: Theory of mind; mirror neuron system; social cognitive disorders.
• Controversies in Attitude research: implicit and explicit approaches to understanding and measuring attitudes.

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.

Get Answer of PSY1064 Advanced Social Cognitive Psychology CA2 Assignment before Deadline

Pay & Buy Non Plagiarized Assignment

PSY1064 Advanced Social Cognitive Psychology CA 2 Proposal And Interactive Oral

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

WEIGHTING: 70% OF MODULE CREDIT

Students are required to develop a hypothetical grant submission (PROPOSAL) 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 student will receive feedback from the module coordinator about their pitch, and must demonstrate later in the interactive oral that they have considered it.

The Proposal will be a 800 word count limited proposal, worth 15%.

Ideate (What is the problem-intervention scenario? What is the extent of the problem at a population level?)

Rationale (What evidence will you use to support your scenario mapping?) Impact Prediction (What will be the direct and indirect impact of employing such an intervention to this social cognitive problem?)

Use of Open AI (outside word count):  Detail what open AI tools were employed in Ideate, Rationale, Impact Prediction.

The interactive oral conversation weighted 55% will be 10 minutes long, synchronous and face to face by recorded zoom (TBC). The module coordinator will be the Senior research manager at Futures Charity, acting as an assessor.  For assessment purposes, this conversation will be recorded (assessment grading and moderation), and then deleted.  It will be an interactive conversation where the student will submit a proposed intervention study to address a social-cognitive competence/deficit in a specific patient cohort.  A research grant call brief will be shared with the student as a companion ‘preparation for the assessment’ document, which will outline the key focus points of the call.

Key learning outcomes and prompts will support the interview conversation, based on the following:

• Critically consider and evaluate key conceptual, theoretical, research and methodological advances, at, or informed by, the forefront of social cognitive psychology.
• Critically identify and consider key factors influencing typical and atypical social cognitive function, including affective and motivational factors.
• 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.

Grading Rubric For The Pitch (15%)

Performance Level	Poor (<39%)	Fair (40-49%)	Good (50-59%)	Very Good (60-69%)	Excellent/Outstandi ng (>70%)
Ideate (30%)	The problem scenario is unclear or poorly defined. There is little to no understanding of the social competence/social cognition deficit.	The problem scenario is somewhat defined but lacks depth. The extent of the problem at a population level is minimally addressed.	The problem scenario is clear, with a basic understanding of the social competence/social cognition deficit. Some population-level context is provided.	The problem scenario is well-defined, demonstrating a solid understanding of the social competence/social cognition deficit. The extent of the problem at a population level is adequately addressed.	The problem scenario is exceptionally clear and insightful, demonstrating a deep understanding of the social competence/social cognition deficit. The extent of the problem at a population level is thoroughly analyzed and contextualized.

Rationale (30%)

rationale is weak or unsupported by evidence. There is little to no reference to relevant literature or data.

rationale is present but lacks sufficient evidence or references. Some relevant literature is mentioned, but it is not well-integrated.

rationale is mostly clear and supported by some evidence. Relevant literature is referenced, but the integration may be superficial.

rationale is well-articulated and supported by strong evidence. Relevant literature is effectively integrated to support the proposal.

rationale is exceptionally well-articulated, thoroughly supported by robust evidence, and integrates a wide range of relevant literature to convincingly support the proposal.

Impact Prediction (30%)

impact prediction is vague or poorly articulated. There is little to no consideration of direct and indirect impacts of the intervention.

impact prediction is somewhat clear but lacks depth. Some direct and indirect impacts are mentioned, but they are not well-explained.

impact prediction is clear, with a basic understanding of the direct and indirect impacts of the intervention. Some relevant examples are provided.

impact prediction is well-defined, demonstrating a solid understanding of both direct and indirect impacts of the intervention. Relevant examples are effectively used to illustrate points.

impact prediction is exceptionally clear and insightful, thoroughly analyzing both direct and indirect impacts of the intervention. The proposal includes compelling examples and predictions that are well-supported by evidence.

Use or non-use of Open AI (10%)	use or non-use of Open AI tools is not mentioned or poorly detailed. There is no clear connection to how these tools contributed to the proposal.	use or non-use  of Open AI tools is mentioned but lacks detail. The connection to the proposal is minimal or unclear.	use or non-use of Open AI tools is adequately detailed, with some connection to how they contributed to the proposal.	use or non-use of Open AI tools is well-detailed, clearly explaining how they contributed to the ideation, rationale, and impact prediction sections of the proposal.	use or non-use of Open AI tools is exceptionally well-detailed, providing comprehensive insights into how they were employed in each section of the proposal, demonstrating a high level of integration and innovation.
Overall   Presentation (10%)	The proposal is poorly organized, with numerous grammatical errors and unclear language.	The proposal is somewhat organized but contains several grammatical errors and lacks clarity in some areas.	The proposal is mostly well-organized, with minor grammatical errors. The language is generally clear.	The proposal is well-organized, with few grammatical errors. The language is clear and professional.	The proposal is exceptionally well-organized, with no grammatical errors. The language is clear, professional, and engaging.