Discussion Roundtables

Repository

Discussion Roundtable Instructions

Each student will come to class prepared with a thoughtful, evidence-based analysis of and response to the assigned discussion topic (approximately 500 words). You will be required to submit your written notes at the end of class, but you must bring notes or an outline to guide your contributions during the roundtable. Your insights should reflect course concepts, relevant research, and critical thinking. During the discussion, you will be expected to:

  • Present your perspective clearly and concisely.
  • Engage respectfully with your classmates by asking follow-up questions, offering thoughtful insights, and building on others’ ideas.
  • Make at least two substantial contributions that go beyond surface-level agreement (e.g., “I agree with that” is not sufficient).

Remember: This is a college-level discussion, not a casual debate. Treat your peers as collaborators in learning—listen actively, speak thoughtfully, and strive for clarity and insight. Participation will be evaluated based on preparation, the depth of your contributions, your ability to reference course material, and the respect you show for differing viewpoints.

Discussion Roundtable Topics

Initia et Ratio Cognitionis: Ethical Research

Prompt:

  • Read:
    • King, Chapter 2, Section 5: “Conducting Ethical Research”
    • “Ethical Responsibilities in Psychology” Information Sheet (Brightspace – Additional Online Materials)
  • Watch:
  • Respond:
    • Watson and Rayner did not reverse Little Albert’s conditioned fear response, leaving him with a newly acquired phobia. If they had attempted to undo this effect, would that have made the study more ethically acceptable? Explain your reasoning.
    • The APA Handbook of Ethics in Psychology (Vol. 2) defines vulnerable populations as those “relatively or absolutely incapable of protecting their own interests through negotiations for informed consent.”
      1. What is informed consent?
      2. Given that Little Albert was an infant, how should this have influenced the researchers’ approach?
      3. How can informed consent be properly obtained for a participant who cannot consent themselves?
    • It is unclear whether Watson and Rayner formally debriefed Little Albert at the end of their sessions.
      1. Why is debriefing a crucial component of the APA ethics code?
      2. What additional challenges arise when debriefing vulnerable populations?
    • Your textbook warns against exposing participants to “greater-than-usual harm and discomfort.”
      1. Did Watson and Rayner adequately protect Little Albert from harm or distress?
      2. If not, what steps could they have taken to minimize harm?
      3. If so, what criteria would you use to define “greater-than-usual harm” in this context?

Nucleus Sui: Sleep-Debt Marketplace

Prompt:

Some companies let employees “bank” unused vacation days.

  • Design a workplace policy that treats sleep as a traded commodity.
  • Include a metric for earnings (e.g., verified hours slept) and predicted gains in productivity or well-being.
  • Debate its practicality and fairness.

 

Corpus et Mens Sui: AI Co-Pilot or Back-Seat Driver?

Prompt:

Reflect on a recent interaction with or a social media discussion concerning generative AI (ChatGPT, image generators, etc.).

  • Argue whether the tool extended your fluid intelligence, crystallized knowledge, or merely automated low-level tasks.
  • Respond to classmates by comparing experiences and citing relevant cognitive theories.

 

Motus Sui: Generational Time Capsule

Prompt:

Imagine you can send one short message (150–200 words) to yourself at:

  • Age 10
  • Age 30
  • Age 70
  • Compose each note informed by a different developmental theory (e.g., Piagetian stage for 10, socioemotional selectivity for 70). Give yourself advice based on that developmental stage.
  • Discuss the appropriate fit and limitations of each with your classmates.

 

Communitas Sui: Algorithmic Allies & Enemies

Prompt:

Analyze how recommender algorithms (like on social media or music apps) might amplify or dampen ingroup bias and outgroup derogation.

  • Design a subtle UI change you think would foster more inclusive online discourse.
  • Then, speculate about unintended consequences.