Social Psychology Research Project Grading Rubric W18 CATEGORY 5 4 3 2 1 Introduction, thesis statement & social psych relevance Strong introduction of topic’s key question(s), terms. Clearly delineates subtopics to be reviewed. Specific thesis statement. Relevant to social psych. Conveys topic and key question(s) adequately. Clearly delineates most of the subtopics to be reviewed. General thesis statement. Mostly relevant to social psych. Conveys topic, but not key question(s). Describes some of the subtopics to be reviewed. General thesis statement. Some relevance to social psych. Problems in two of the following areas: the articulation of the topic, the key questions, subtopics or the thesis statement. Minor relevance to social psych. Does not adequately convey topic. Does not describe subtopics to be reviewed. Lacks adequate thesis statement. Not a social psychology topic. Focus & sequencing in the body of the paper All material clearly related to subtopic, main topic. Strong organization and integration of material within subtopics. Strong transitions linking subtopics, and main topic. Borrowed material is clearly explained. All material clearly related to subtopic, main topic and logically organized within subtopics. Clear, varied transitions linking subtopics, and main topic. Some of the borrowed material is not adequately/clearly explained. Most material clearly related to subtopic, main topic. Material may not be organized within subtopics. Attempts to provide variety of transitions. Some problems with borrowed material not being adequately/clearly explained leading to some gaps or confusion. Only some of the material is logically organized into topic, subtopics. Some of the material is related to the main topic/thesis. Some transitions are unclear or nonexistent. Many theories, terms, concepts & studies are left unexplained Little evidence material is logically organized into topic, subtopics or related to topic. Many transitions are unclear or nonexistent. Significant portions of borrowed material are not clearly/adequately explained, leading to reader confusion. Conclusion Strong review of key conclusions. Strong integration with thesis statement. Insightful discussion of impact of the researched material on topic Good review of key conclusions. Good integration with thesis statement. Good discussion impact of researched material on topic. Review of key conclusions. Some integration with thesis statement. Discusses impact of researched material on topic Some review of key conclusions. Minor integration with thesis statement. Little discussion of impact of researched material on topic. Does not summarize evidence with respect to thesis statement. Does not discuss the impact of researched material on topic. Assessment Rubric for Social Psych Group Research Project PG2 CATEGORY A (5) B (4) C (3) D (2) F (1) Quantity of sources Document cites 5 academic sources. Document cites 4 academic sou.

1. Social Psychology Research Project Grading Rubric W18
CATEGORY
5
4
3
2
1
Introduction, thesis statement & social psych relevance
Strong introduction of topic’s key question(s), terms. Clearly
delineates subtopics to be reviewed. Specific thesis statement.
Relevant to social psych.
Conveys topic and key question(s) adequately. Clearly
delineates most of the subtopics to be reviewed. General thesis
statement. Mostly relevant to social psych.
Conveys topic, but not key question(s). Describes some of the
subtopics to be reviewed. General thesis statement. Some
relevance to social psych.
Problems in two of the following areas: the articulation of the
topic, the key questions, subtopics or the thesis statement.
Minor relevance to social psych.
Does not adequately convey topic. Does not describe subtopics
to be reviewed. Lacks adequate thesis statement. Not a social
psychology topic.
Focus & sequencing in the body of the paper
All material clearly related to subtopic, main topic. Strong
organization and integration of material within subtopics.
Strong transitions linking subtopics, and main topic. Borrowed
material is clearly explained.
All material clearly related to subtopic, main topic and logically

2. organized within subtopics. Clear, varied transitions linking
subtopics, and main topic. Some of the borrowed material is
not adequately/clearly explained.
Most material clearly related to subtopic, main topic. Material
may not be organized within subtopics. Attempts to provide
variety of transitions. Some problems with borrowed material
not being adequately/clearly explained leading to some gaps or
confusion.
Only some of the material is logically organized into topic,
subtopics. Some of the material is related to the main
topic/thesis. Some transitions are unclear or nonexistent. Many
theories, terms, concepts & studies are left unexplained
Little evidence material is logically organized into topic,
subtopics or related to topic. Many transitions are unclear or
nonexistent. Significant portions of borrowed material are not
clearly/adequately explained, leading to reader confusion.
Conclusion
Strong review of key conclusions. Strong integration with thesis
statement. Insightful discussion of impact of the researched
material on topic
Good review of key conclusions. Good integration with thesis
statement. Good discussion impact of researched material on
topic.
Review of key conclusions. Some integration with thesis
statement. Discusses impact of researched material on topic
Some review of key conclusions. Minor integration with thesis
statement. Little discussion of impact of researched material on
topic.
Does not summarize evidence with respect to thesis statement.
Does not discuss the impact of researched material on topic.

3. Assessment Rubric for Social Psych Group Research Project
PG2
CATEGORY
A (5)
B (4)
C (3)
D (2)
F (1)
Quantity of sources
Document cites 5 academic sources.
Document cites 4 academic sources.
Document cites 3 academic sources.
Document cites 2 academic sources.
Document doesn’t cite any academic sources.
Quality /Reliability of Sources
All sources cited can be considered reliable and/or trustworthy;
all sources are from academic journals/texts published within

4. the last 5 years.
Most sources (4) cited can be considered reliable and/or
trustworthy; 4 sources are from academic journals/texts
published within the last 5 years.
Some sources (3) can be considered reliable and/or trustworthy;
3 sources are from academic journals/texts published within the
last 5 years.
Few sources (2) cited can be considered reliable and/or
trustworthy; 2 sources are from academic journals/texts
published within the last 5 years.
Little or no reliable and/or trustworthy sources cited; sources
are from popular texts or none of the sources are from academic
journals/texts published within the last 5 years.
APA
Documentation, style and formatting
Citations are formatted correctly in the document and reference
page. Paper correctly adheres to the APA requirements for style
and formatting.
There are a few formatting errors in the document’s citations.
There are only a few mistakes in the APA style and formatting.
There are some formatting errors in the document’s citations.
There are some mistakes in APA style and formatting.

5. There are many and/or frequent formatting errors in the
document’s citations. There are many mistakes in APA style
and formatting.
There is little or no adherence to APA format in the document.
There are substantial errors in writing, formatting and/or style
which greatly interfere with comprehension.
Assessment Rubric for Social Psych Group Research Project
PG3
CATEGORY
A (5)
B (4)
C (3)
D (2)
F (1)
Spelling, grammar and writing
There are no spelling, grammar or writing problems.
There are only a few spelling, grammar and/or writing errors.
There are some spelling, grammar and/or writing errors.
There are many spelling, grammar and/or writing errors.
There are substantial spelling, writing and/or grammar errors
that interfere with comprehension.
Additional Material
Y
N

6. Students submitted a reference list
We are unable to grade papers without a reference list.
Late penalty for above material: 5% off per day late
Total Score: /35; converted to /300
Deductions:
Final Score= /300
1
Tracy Truong & Cynthia Martinez
Annotated Bibliography
Social Psychology
2/19/18
Self-Enhancement
Self-enhancement techniques, particularly the better-than-
average effect, self-serving
beliefs, and downward social comparison, can positively or
negatively influence individuals to
behave a certain way in different socio-cultural contexts. These
techniques can be effective as
demonstrated by several studies because it can potentially
improve the development of your

7. self-concept and enhance self-esteem.
Self-concept is the idea that an individual can bring about who
they are based on the
actual self and imagined self (Kassin, Fein and Markus, 2017, p.
55). This can be based on one’s
experience because of the acquired knowledge one has about
themselves (Kassin, Fein &
Markus, 2017, p. 57). This can be correlated to self-esteem, the
idea that an individual may
experience a positive or a negative attitude towards oneself
based on characteristics (Kassin, Fein
& Markus, 2017, p. 76)). In other words, a person will evaluate
themselves based on how
satisfied they may be about who they are (Kassin, Fein &
Markus, 2017, p. 76). Self-concept and
self-esteem can intertwine with one another. Based on the
individual’s awareness to one’s own
self-evaluations, this may lead individuals to have a positive
self esteem in an unconscious way.
For instance, a person may experience positive self-esteem and
believes that the skills are above
and beyond people’s expectations. Kassin, Fein and Markus
(2017) explains how there are
several self-enhancement techniques to help maintain or

8. enhance their self-esteem.
2
The first technique includes the better-than-average effect. This
is described by the
tendency of a person to think themselves as better than average
(Kassin, Fein & Markus, 2017,
p.89). This can be a good technique, as it is a way for one’s
highly positive self criticism to be
modified in a way to boost one’s self-esteem. Kim, Kwon and
Chiu (2017) puts this mechanism
to the test, by grabbing participants to measure what their
ability in comparison to another person
that is considered average. Some of the abilities measured
included types of writing, organization
and cognitive thinking. The results indicated that the students
actually scored average or below
average, depending on how easy or difficult the ability was.
However, Kim, Kwon and Chiu still
interpret the better-than-average effect as a self-enhancement
mechanism, because the results
show that the participants interpret the word “average”
differently. therefore each ability,

9. whether easy or difficult, scored medium or a little below
medium (Kim, Kwon & Chiu, 2017).
There were three findings that supported this theory to be a
form of self-enhancement. First,
Kim, Kwon and Chiu find that the participants in each group
define the the word “average” as a
below medium score. One example that was used is when
someone criticizes a professor to be
just an average teacher. Due to this, most participants only
scored below-medium, but in their
minds, they believe that is a true definition of “average.” The
next factor is how the participants
rated the task itself. For instance, if the task given seemed easy,
this boosted their self-esteem,
scoring close to average. Lastly, Kim, Kwon and Chiu
examined the gender differences (even
though this was no intention to do so) and how most men in the
study scored slightly higher than
average on the science based abilities/skills.
The better-than-average effect also has been implied into the
Implicit Association Test
(IAT). The IAT measures on association between two things
(Kassin, Fein & Markus, 2016). In

10. 3
other words, this test will view how an individual will quickly
affiliate two ideas and this
measure will determine how one is thinking in an unconscious
way (Kassin, Fein & Markus,
2016, p. 163). Howald and Ratliff (2016) experiment two types
of studies where participants will
be using the IAT to determine stereotyping and prejudice. The
first study included adult
participants taking the IAT with the category, thin people vs. fat
people (Howald & Ratliff,
2016). In order to test this theory, Howald and Ratliff changed
the wording in the questions, so
the participants would answer preferences on an individual
perspective and the world’s
perspective. For example, the participants answered in a way to
make themselves seem as they
are not discriminating in any type of way compared to the
average population. When asked what
the world prefers, the majority answered that the world prefered
thin people, and the individual’s
answered that they preferred thin people and fat people equally
(Howald & Ratliff, 2016).

11. The second study shows the similar situation, but with other
IAT tests including
stereotyping (Howald & Ratliff, 2016). One thing that was
added was an agree to disagree
question regards on how their thoughts were affected based on
the topics of the IAT (Howald &
Ratliff, 2016). This resulted that many participants showed a
slight significance in offense, which
shows how well the better-than-average theory was implied due
to the results from the IAT being
neutral and showing stereotype behavior.
Serving belief is another form of how one’s self-esteem can
boost, because a person will
attribute a scenario to favor themselves based on behavior or
cognitive thinking. Self-serving
beliefs may have a positive and negative factor. Both factors
will figure out ways to explain how
this is benefitting the self. There have been a few studies
proving how self-serving beliefs look
like (Palmeira, Spassova & Keh, 2015, p. 90). The studies
included the participants
4

12. (decision-makers) opinions based on whether or not advisors are
offering good or bad advice,
and being questioned who has been more responsible to taking
the advice in effect (Palmeira,
Spassova & Keh, 2015). This has been observed by surveying
both groups on questionnaires in
relation to how knowledgeable they may feel (Palmeira,
Spassova & Keh, 2015). The results turn
out that the decision makers felt that the advisors overall gave
positive advice which lead to
positive outcomes in the questionnaires, which gained the
decision makers a positive self-serving
belief in themself, although (Palmeir, Spassova & Keh, 2015).
The reason is due to the
trustworthiness in advisors which creates a boost in self-
enhancement.
Another mechanism of self-enhancement that people often
subconsciously partake in is
the downward social comparison. Downward social comparison
is defined as the defensive
tendency to compare ourselves with others who are worse off
than we are (Kassin, Fein &
Markus, 2016). More often than not, downward social
comparison is commonly used in all

13. aspects of our everyday life occurring in school, work,
volunteer organizations, and many more.
Comparing ourselves to others could potentially harm us or
encourage us to be and do better;
however, researchers demonstrated that in particular, downward
social comparison uplifts
people’s mood and shifts their perspective in life (p.93).
Social Comparison on Facebook: Motivation, affective
consequences, self-esteem, and
Facebook fatigue by Cramer, Song, and Drent focuses on
research examining individuals who
constantly and consistently participate in using social media.
Currently, millennials and future
generations are absorbing Facebook content as soon as they
wake up in the morning. Without
even realizing it, they are developing their own self-assessments
in comparison to their peers
who may seem more successful than they are. Facebook users
are able to share their life with
5
others by updating their status, post pictures and videos that
they may or may not spend time

14. editing, and comments.
Recent research showed that self-esteem is negatively correlated
with the time spent on
Facebook and other social media activity such as Instagram,
SnapChat, or even Twitter (Cramer
et. al, 2016). People only spend time posting exciting events or
successes on their social media -
hiking, traveling, graduating, job promotion, milestones (getting
married, buying a car, or a
home). People post what they want to post and they want others
to know, and more often times
than not, to think, that their life is incredible, and they are not
struggling. In a sense, individuals
already know what they see on social media may not always be
the true predicament of that
person’s life or character. However, they are still affected by it
and is negatively comparing
themselves to others. Helgeson and Mickelson’s (1995)
functional approach model was used in
this research which focused on motives rather than social
comparisons (upward and downward)
(Cramer, Song & Drent, 2016). When people realized that they
are comparing themselves to
others who are in a less fortunate situation than they are, they

15. use it as a learning lesson - to not
make the same mistakes they did.
In terms of social comparison regarding individuals with higher
self-esteems (HSEs),
they are more prone to partake in downward social comparison
(self-enhancement) compared to
those with lower self-esteems (Cramer, Song, & Drent, 2016).
Researchers collected data of
participants using a Likert Scale, asking them questions such as,
“Do you compare yourself to
others on Facebook”? In addition to those questions, researchers
also conducted a social
comparison perception test, motivates for social comparison,
facebook fatigue test, self-esteem,
and positive affect using the Likert Scale which ranges in
values from 1-5 (Cramer et. al, 2016).
6
Results show that some people may have a higher preference of
using Facebook less to increase
their self-esteem instead of participating in social comparisons.
Social media may be a negative influence in our lives -
affecting us emotionally and

16. psychologically. The previous article focuses on downward
social comparison in relation to
social media activity. Relationship social comparison
interpretations and dating relationship
quality, behaviors, and mood by Marian Morry and Tamara
Sucharyna focuses on social
comparison in dating relationships. When individuals choose
their partners, most already have a
high standard that he/she would have to meet. They would have
to fulfill the “lists” that would
make them a great partner. People often compare their own
relationships in relation to their
friend’s relationship with their partners. Focusing on downward
social comparison, individuals
may overprioritze or overexemply their own relationship in
order to make themselves feel better
about what they may be going through. Morry and Tamara states
that social comparisons are one
source of information individuals use to make sense of their
relationships (p. 554).
After an upward or downward social comparison, people must
interpret what they want to
do with their relationship - hope for the future or realizing that
their relationship is not going

17. anywhere. Researchers created a Relationship Social
Comparison Interpretation Scale (RSCI) to
further understand the interpretations and correlations with
relationship quality, self-reported
behaviors, and mood (Morry and Tamara, 2016). According to
the article, people only partake in
any form of social comparison when they are unsure, stressed,
or unsatisfied with their current
relationship. Participants (N = 206) around the age of 21 years
old who are in a relationship with
their partner for at least 37 months were randomly assigned to
make an upward or downward
social comparison to their friend’s relationships. Qualtrics, an
online assessment, collected the
7
participant’s results. Using these results to differentiate
between secure and insecure individuals,
people interpret their comparisons differently depending on the
social contexts. The three self
enhancement techniques: better-than-average effect, self-
serving beliefs, and downward social
comparison are a few of the many ways individuals are

18. influenced to change in behavior. Studies
have been proven how effective these techniques work. One
thing to come to mind is how this
may work both consciously and unconsciously, in order to help
enhance or maintain self-esteem.
8
References
Cramer, E. M., Song, H., & Drent, A. M. (2016). Social
comparison on Facebook: Motivation,
affective consequences, self-esteem, and Facebook fatigue.
Computers in Human
Behavior, 64739-746. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.049

19. Fein, S., Kassin, S., Markus, H.R. (2017). Social Psychology.
Cengage Learning. (p.88-93).
Howel, J. L., Ratliff, K. A. (2016). Not your average bigot: the
better-than-average effect and
defense responding to implicit association test feedback. British
Journal of Social
Psychology, 56(1), 125-145. Doi: 10.1111/bjso.12168
Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2017). Social psychology
(10th ed.). Boston, MA:
Cengage Learning.
Kim, Y-H., Kwon, H., Chiu, C-Y. (2017). The better-than-
average effect is observed because
“average” is often construed as below-medium ability. US
National Library of Medicine,
8, 898, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00898
Mory, M. M., & Sucharyna, T. A. (2016). Relationship social
comparison interpretations and
dating relationship quality, behaviors, and mood. Personal
Relationships, 23 (3),
554-576. doi: 10.1111/pere.12143
Palmeira, M., Spassova, G., Keh, H. T. (2015). Other-serving
bias in advice taking: when

20. 9
advisors receive more credit than blame. Organizational
Behavior and Human decision
processes, 130, 13-25.