Trust at First Sight

When we meet a person for the first time, we try to form a first impression on the basis of little information and often facial cues drive our evaluations. Recent research has shown that among the various facial cues that guide our impressions, the eyes are the most relevant. Eyes attract our attention from birth and we are often convinced that we understand people's emotions and intentions simply by looking them in the eye.

Reading Meaning into Pupil Size

Everyone knows that the eyes’ pupils change size according to lighting conditions. But other factors influence pupil size as well, and people may believe that such changes indicate deeper characteristics of a person, and are not just responses to lighting. Thus, an interaction partner with larger pupils may be perceived as positive and beautiful, while one with small pupils, cold and distant. The reason is thought to be that larger pupils imply positive emotions.

But how much influence does a person’s pupils really have on how other people react? After all, such changes are typically subtle. Would bigger pupils inspire liking and trust?

To find out, we asked college students to look at faces on the computer screen. Some faces had bigger pupils (40% larger than a standard pupil)  and some had smaller pupils (40% smaller than a standard pupil), as you can see in the image below.

Closeup Images of men's eyes

With a joystick, participants could make the face appear to come closer (by getting larger) or get farther away (by getting smaller). This way, we approximated people’s willingness to interact with someone based on that person’s pupil size.

In fact, the desire to interact with the people on the screen was strongly influenced by the level of pupil dilation. Participants were less willing to “approach” faces with contracted pupils, and they  were more willing to “approach” people with dilated pupils.

In another study we found out that eye pupils of an interaction partner influenced trust and even willingness to conform to the partner’s opinions. Participants were asked estimate the number of letters displayed on a computer screen in less than 5 seconds. In doing so, participants saw the estimation provided by a stranger whose eye pupils were either large or small. People trusted others’ estimations more when their pupils were large and conformed to their responses. In other words, when looking into dilating pupils participants formed a positive impression of the interaction partner and this made them more susceptible to their judgment and conform.  

Overall, our work suggests that that subtle facial features of the people we interact with influence our behavior. This is even more surprising when we consider that at present there is no scientific evidence that shows a difference in terms of character, personality, and intentions as a function of pupil dilation. Changes in pupil size are unconscious and automatic and people believe that such changes provide a reflection of a person’s inner state even if research has not shown it yet. Our results shed light on the factors that promote interpersonal relationships and may impact upon marketing and advertising, domains that often use images of faces.


For Further Reading

Brambilla, M., Biella, M., & Kret, M.E. (2019). Looking into your eyes: Observed pupil size influences approach-avoidance responses. Cognition and Emotion, 33, 616-622doi: 10.1080/02699931.2018.1472554

Brambilla, M., Biella, M., & Kret, M.E. (2019). The power of pupils in predicting conforming behavior. Social Influence, 14, 40-49. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2019.1637775

Mattavelli, S., Brambilla, M., & Kret, M.E. (in press). It is written in the eyes: Inferences from pupil size and gaze orientation shape interpersonal liking. Social Cognition.
 

Marco Brambilla is Associate Professor of Social Psychology and Director of the Social Perception and Cognition Lab at the University of Milano-Bicocca. He investigates how people perceive, judge, and behave toward others.

 

Comings and Goings: 2021 Member Career Moves

eDialogue recently asked members to let us know about recent changes to their career status, and we have detailed those entries below. Year of Ph.D. and the Ph.D. granting institution appear in parentheses.

Sahana B, Lab Manager, University of British Columbia

(Max) Hui Bai (2021, University of Minnesota) from Ph.D. student to Postdoc, Stanford University

Paul Conway (2014, University of Western Ontario) Senior Lecturer, University of Portsmouth

Patrick Doyle (2021, University of Georgia) from Ph.D. student to Product + User Experience Researcher, Sirius + XM

Juliana French (2021, Florida State University) from doctoral candidate to Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University

Michele Gelfand (1996, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign) The John H. Scully Professor in Cross-Cultural Management and Professor of Organizational Behavior & Professor of Psychology, by Courtesy, Stanford Graduate School of Business

Jonathan Gordils (2021, University of Rochester) from graduate student to Assistant Lecturer, University of Hartford

Yael Granot (2016, New York University) Assistant Professor, Smith College

Siobhán Griffin (2020, University of Limerick) Postdoctoral Researcher, GROWTH Lab, University of Limerick

Yuen Wan Ho (2016, Chinese University of Hong Kong) Lecturer, Lingnan University

Olivia Holmes (2018, University of Illinois-Chicago) Manager, DEI, HarperCollins Publishers

Bastian Jaeger (2020, Tilburg University) Assistant Professor, VU Amsterdam

Jiin Jung (2019, Claremont Graduate University) Postdoctoral Associate, New York University

Teri Kirby (2015, University of Washington) Assistant Professor, Purdue University

Sean Laurent (2010, University of Oregon) Assistant Professor, The Pennsylvania State University

Elliott Lee (2018, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada) Unknown, but most likely user experience rsearch related to technology or behavioral science consulting

Nathan Liang, Lab Manager, Princeton University

Kira McCabe (2015, University of Groningen) Assistant Professor, Carleton University

Angela Meadows (2018, University of Birmingham) Lecturer (Assistant Professor), University of Essex, UK

Jasmine Norman (2021, University of Utah) Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina-Wilmington

Susannah Paletz (2003, University of California-Berkeley) Associate Professor, University of Maryland College of Information Studies

Evava Pietri (2013, Ohio State University) Associate Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder

Julia Prosser (2021, Colorado State University) Visiting Assistant Professor, Saint Martin's University

Alicia Puente (2017, Basque Country University) Professor, University of Salamanca

Jessica Pugel (San Diego State University) from graduate student to Research Associate, Research-to-Policy Collaboration

Miao Qian (University of Toronto) Assistant Professor, University of Detroit Mercy

Cristina Salvador (2021, University of Michigan) from Ph.D. candidate to Assistant Research Professor, Duke University

Roxane Cohen Silver (1982, Northwestern University) Vice Provost, University of California-Irvine

Milla Titova (2020, University of Missouri) Assistant Teaching Professor, University of Washington

Michael Trujillo (2018, Virginia Commonwealth University) Assistant Professor, Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University

Lisa Walsh (2021, University of California-Riverside) from graduate student to Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of California-Los Angeles

Andre Wang (2021, University of California-Davis) Assistant Professor, University of Toronto

Kaitlyn Werner (2019, Carleton University), Provost's Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Pennsylvania

Robert Wickham (2012, University of Houston) Assistant Professor, Northern Arizona University

Clara Wilkins (2011, University of Washington) University of Washington

Val Wongsomboon (2021, University of Florida) from graduate student to Postdoctoral Scholar, Institute for Sexual and Gender Minority Health and Wellness

Rex Wright (1982, University of Kansas), Professor, University of Texas Dell School of Medicine

Meltem Yucel (2021, University of Virginia) Postdoctoral Associate, Duke University

Early Career Corner: Tips and Tools for Productive Writing (Even When You Don’t Want To)

For many early career social/personality psychologists, writingwhether it is publications, grants, or reportsis one of the most important activities for career progression. But, a small minority of writing wizards aside, most academics struggle with finding the time and/or motivation for writing. This can create a lot of stress around writing which can make people feel like they are not meeting the expectations set by themselves, the job market, or the tenure process. 

So what can be done? First, recognize that you are not alone in these struggles. Although it is easy for upward social comparisons to trick us into thinking that everyone is thriving in the writing process, at the end of the day most people need a supportive nudge in one form or another. Here are some of the tips, tricks, and tools that we have used or that have come highly recommended from fellow ECs who know that the writing struggle is real.

Tools for Productivity

For some writers, it’s all about carefully curating your arsenal of writing support tools. 

Note: All of these recommendations are through personal experience or word of mouth; none of the following are paid endorsements. 

Tools for Focusing: If you sometimes find that your writing is being hindered thanks to non-stop distractions, these tools might be for you.

        Pomodoro timers let you break up your “writing” and “distraction/break” times. Some people use the classic 25 minutes of focused time, 5 minutes of break, while others opt for longer focused time. These can be great when paired with the inbox pausing or recurring meeting times suggested below. Some of the online pomodoros that we have used include Tomato Timers, and Marinara Timer which lets you share a link with others for group writing.  

        The Forest App lets you set a period of “focus time” (similar to pomodoro timers) and also has the added functionality of blocking certain websites to help inhibit distractions during that time. The more you focus, the more your little tree grows.  

Tools for Structuring Your Time: If you find that your biggest struggle is finding the time to dedicate to your writing, think about trying one of these.

        Workflowy is a minimalist nested “to do” list. Some useful tips on how to maximize this tool include using tags and dates and colour coding.  

        Trello is another “to do” list app, with slightly more complex functionality than Workflowy. This includes the ability to create team boards and assign specific sub-tasks or activities to other teammates.  

        Pausing your inbox is another way of blocking out distractions for a dedicated period of time. Many email clients or third party extensions allow you to temporarily pause the receipt of emails, including Boomerang. Boomerang also lets you schedule emails making it possible to dedicate specific “email writing” blocks. Scheduled emails can be updated before they’re sent.

        Blocking off time in your calendar, and treating it like any other appointment or meeting, helps keep precious writing times from getting eaten up by other meetings and requests. Set a recurring “meeting” in your calendar so this block of time (whether 30-60 minutes a day or 1 day a week) is protected. 

Writing Groups

Many of us can appreciate the power of the social environment. Members of the Early Career Committee have personally benefited from writing groups to help increase our writing productivity. This is something you can organize informally with colleagues and friends (e.g., meeting at a pub or cafe; going on a writing retreat together), or via co-ordinating formalized (bi)weekly writing groups like we have done in our own departments. Writing groups can help progress writing goals in a few ways:

First, they force us to reserve a dedicated time in our calendars for our writing goals on a consistent basis. Second, the presence of others holds us accountable to those goals, either by disincentivizing the desire to schedule something in place of the writing group, or by incentivizing the experience by making it a more enjoyable, social activity rather than an isolating one. In one of our departments pre-COVID, we met up fortnightly and shared cookies and tea while we worked through our goals. In the SPSP EC writing groups, we connect with ECs across the world on a weekly basis to share our struggles, ask for advice, and rejoice in one another’s successes. Here is what our EC members have to say about the benefits of these writing groups:

“I've really enjoyed being in a writing group. I like the feeling of working alongside other people and having some external accountability. Most of all, I appreciate the exchange of information, sharing of experiences, words of encouragement, and insight into other early career scholar's lives and research. The honesty and openness of each member has made the writing group feel like a community." - Heidi Vuletich 

“While I've never written a single-author paper, I often find writing to be a solitary experience. I'm a fan of the EC Writing Group for helping me to turn a lonely experience into one that advances my career while fulfilling my need to belong.” - Zachary Baker

“For me, the highlight of the ECR Writing Group has been the opportunity to get to know other ECRs over the course of the semester. We all have different areas of focus, so it’s been interesting to hear everybody’s work, and these are people who I might not normally get a chance to meet. It feels like I now have an expanded support network. They also bring a wealth of advice and perspectives.” - Angela Meadows

“I’ve really enjoyed meeting other EC researchers, and hearing their experiences and thoughts about research and writing. The writing group has also provided some much-needed structure and accountability to my summer!” - Zoë Francis

"When life gets busy work and tasks that don't have an immediate deadline get put off, and often I find what gets moved to "another" day is often my own research. By signing up to a writing group it creates a sense of accountability to show up for that time and dedicate it to your own research - you end up trying to protect that time, and although it's a short period of time, it allows you to keep working away on those projects you never have time for." - Siobhán Griffin

If you are interested in joining the SPSP EC Writing Group over the next academic year, be sure to sign up to the EC listserv on SPSPConnect and keep your eyes peeled for forthcoming updates. You can also email us ([email protected], [email protected]) if you’d like to be on the writing group mailing list or want more information.

The Writing Workshop

Related to the idea of writing groups, one resource that we have found helpful is the book, The Writing Workshop, written by Dr. Barbara Sarnecka, an Associate Professor of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California - Irvine. This book describes how to form a writing community along with strategies for being more productive and happier in your writing. It is available for free as a PDF on OSF or can be purchased as a physical copy. The OSF page also includes templates for the various tools described in the book (e.g., writing logs, individual development plans). Today, we are highlighting two of the strategies that Dr. Sarnecka recommends: rejection parties and reverse outlining. 

Rejection Parties

The idea behind a rejection party is to reframe rejections from shameful to celebratory. Rejections are part of the writing journey and everyone experiences them. In a rejection party, the writing group first chooses a target number of rejections (e.g., 100 for a group of 10 people). Each member of the writing group adds to a rejection log (see examples here) when they receive a rejection, and when the group collectively hits the target number, the group has a party. At the rejection parties that she hosts, Dr. Sarnecka makes three toasts. The first toast is a toast to yourself to celebrate the hard work you put into submitting something. The second toast is a toast to the individuals who rejected you to appreciate the time and effort they put into reviewing your work. The final toast is a toast to the person who got the thing that you wanted to celebrate the other researchers in our scientific community. Taken together, providing an opportunity to normalize and celebrate rejection as part of the writing process seems like a great way to approach writing, particularly for us early career folks.  

Reverse Outlining

The second strategy we are highlighting today is the idea of reverse outlining. Unlike in a traditional outline, you begin the reverse outlining process with a full draft of your paper. Once you have your full draft, you read through the paper and copy the topic sentence of each paragraph into a new document. Then you read over your new document to get a bird’s eye view of the organization of your paper. This strategy is helpful for closely examining your argument structure and whether the flow makes sense. Reverse outlining can also be a useful exercise in the classroom if you are teaching writing at the undergraduate or graduate level and there are many resources online for teaching reverse outlines. For example, if you are working with undergraduates, this handout from Allison Haas of the University of Minnesota Crookston Writing Center, can be a way to introduce the idea to students. 

Being OK with a “Lack” of Productivity

As mentioned earlier, there can be a lot of stress and anxiety that can build up around writing and our writing progress (or lack thereof). There is no denying that there can be a lot of unrelenting demands on early career scientists and scholars and the demoralization or worry that you are not being “productive enough” can begin to take a serious toll. 

One of our favourite pieces of advice about productivity came from an early career workshop. In this session, the panelists spent a lot of time giving advice on how to be productive, which were promptly followed by a series of questions on how to not be so lazy all the time. One panelist called us out -- can the people who were really so preoccupied and concerned about maximizing their productivity really be as lazy as they are now claiming to be? What she suggested instead is that we were not lazy, but instead so preoccupied with reaching our goals that we felt lazy whenever we weren’t moving towards them quickly enough. In these moments, we need to be kinder with ourselves. Setting smaller goals that let you feel a sense of achievement on a daily basis (e.g., crossing off our daily to-do lists) can help sustain us and highlight just how productive we are being, accepting that some things take longer than others, and perhaps identify strategies to tackle those tasks that really are getting sidelined too often without minimizing everything else you are managing to get done. 

As anyone who has experienced burnout can tell you, prioritizing productivity over all else can be a recipe for disaster. Even though the work seems endless, setting strict “end of workday” cutoffs can really help you force yourself to take the breaks we need to keep ourselves energized and motivated for the next days and weeks ahead. From our personal experience, and conversation with colleagues, many people who have forced themselves to stick to a “9-5”, Monday-to-Friday work structure-or block off 1-2 days a week as “no work” days--actually say that they have seen their productivity increase rather than decrease despite spending “fewer hours” working. The reason being? Instead of beginning to feel like every day is a non-stop sea of tasks they are able to turn off and focus on something else (friends, family, hobbies). This step back from work makes them look forward to the tasks they have set up for the next day and leaves them with enough energy to tackle those tasks. So if you are looking for a sign or permission to cut back on your work hours, here it is!

More broadly, if you find yourself struggling with writing and productivity more generally, it might also be a time to take a step back and see if you should reach out for some help. This could be a chat with a friend, trusted colleague, or mentor for social support and/or practical advice. If you have been participating in a writing group, you can also try sending a message to someone in that group. We aren’t able to conquer all writing blocks by sheer will alone and sometimes we might struggle to be productive because our bodies and brains need a break or some care. It might also be a good time to look into the mental and physical health resources available at your institution or available locally or virtually. 

For more about writing, check out the SPSP chat on academic writing and the APA book “How to Write A Lot” for more tips.

Share your tips, tricks and tools with the SPSP community. What works for you? What is something you have wanted to try? Share your thoughts and follow the conversation on Twitter with #SPSPWrites.

10 Ways to Conduct Cost-Effective Research at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions

Maintaining an active research program at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs) can be difficult, not only because we generally have more teaching and service obligations, but often because we have access to fewer resources. For PUI faculty coming out of grad school, the transition from being at a research-intensive institution with (generally) more time and resources for research can be especially daunting. It is worthwhile spending time thinking and reflecting on what research means and how it fits into your broader professional goals. Importantly, PUIs are not homogenous, and expectations for research are still going to vary widely. Regardless, how can PUI faculty advance their research program given the constraints?

  1. Classroom data. Collect data in your classes (from pilot studies to bigger projects that may need multiple semesters to increase your N), which not only may advance your research but also serve as a pedagogical tool appropriate for almost any course. Students can also advertise studies on social media accounts to help recruit participants. 
     
  2. Establish psych participant pools. If your institution does not have a participant pool, think about setting one up-and not only for gen psych courses; my program (Psychological and Social Sciences at Penn State Abington) requires students in stats and methods courses to participate in research, too. However, you also must consider administering and managing the participant pool. Sona Systems is a popular participant management tool and costs around $1-2k per year (which depends on the number of sessions you run). You can also consider offering extra credit to students instead of making research participation a requirement. 
     
  3. Using students' projects to advance your research agenda. If you have students doing independent research/theses, you can direct them to do an offshoot of your own research agenda. Although you may think there may be an issue with getting buy-in from students, some students want more direction, but even more independent students can get on board if you give them a range of ideas and enough creative license (e.g., Vasturia*, Webster, & Saucier, 2018; Webster, Morrone*, Motyl, & Ayer, 2021a; Webster, Morrone*, & Saucier, 2021b; Webster, Vasturia*, & Saucier, 2021). 
     
  4. Focus on behavioral research. If you have smaller participant pools, you may think about doing more behavioral research, which generally requires smaller ns. Behavioral research also provides really fun opportunities for undergraduates to serve as confederates. However, you do need adequate lab space to run such studies. (I also do realize that this option may not be the most appropriate right now b/c of COVID restrictions, but hopefully will be more feasible once the pandemic abates.) 
     
  5. Apply for PUI-focused grants. Applying for grants can be time-consuming, but the payoff is often worth it. For example, SPSP has its own small-grant program (up to $1,500) that is geared toward funding PUI faculty projects. NSF also has Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) and Research Opportunity Awards (ROA) (beta.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/...). NIH offers funding opportunities geared toward PUIs (grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r15.htm), too.
     
  6. Do shorter, more focused studies, especially on more cost-friendly participant recruitment platforms. Sometimes it is better to do 2-3 shorter, more focused conceptual replications (vs. one longer study/experiment) to create a multi-study paper. However, it seems like more journals are offering short report submissions, which I have taken advantage of (e.g., Vasturia et al., 2018; Webster, Vasturia, & Saucier, 2021). I will also note that Prolific offers competitive pricing and perhaps better data quality than other platforms. (Note: I am not a paid sponsor of Prolific!) 
     
  7. Reach out to colleagues. You may have existing colleagues that have larger participant pools or funds to collect data on platforms like Prolific; you may offer to help with data analysis or writing for access to their participants (or think about using each other's participant pools to complete multi-study projects). Perhaps post on this PUI forum or the general SPSP forum to foster collaborations.
     
  8. Snowball on social media. When I wanted a non-college sample and did not have funds to pay participants, our research team advertised on social media to voluntarily get participants (Fluke, Webster, & Saucier, 2014); we were able to obtain a fairly diverse sample of over 200 participants in a few weeks. 
     
  9. Meta-analyses. If you do not have access to participant pools or funds for recruitment platforms, meta-analyses are a great option because they rely on existing research and present a great pedagogical opportunity for undergraduates, too. 
     
  10. Large-scale replication projects. Lastly, PUI faculty could consider contributing to large-scale replication projects, such as those with the Psychological Accelerator, that might have limited funds available to support replication work. It's also a nice way to integrate open science and ethics into courses, too.

If you have additional ideas not mentioned here, please reply to this post; we would love to hear your ideas! Otherwise, happy researching colleagues!

Russell J. Webster, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Psychology, Psychological and Social Sciences (PSS) at Penn State Abington College.

References:

*Undergraduate co-author

*Fluke, S., Webster, R. J., & Saucier, D. A. (2014). Methodological and theoretical improvements in the study of superstitious beliefs and behavior. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 102-126. [Early View Online Article] doi: 10.1111/bjop.12008

*Vasturia, D., Webster, R. J., & Saucier, D. A. (2018). Demons with firepower: How belief in pure evil relates to perceptions and evaluations of gun violence perpetrators. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 13-18. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.037

Webster, R. J., *Morrone, N., Motyl, M., & Ayer, R. (2021). Using trait and moral theories to understand belief in pure evil and belief in pure good. Personality and Individual Differences, 173, 110584. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110584

Webster, R. J., *Morrone, N., & Saucier, D. A. (2021). The effects of belief in pure good and belief in pure evil on consumer ethics. Personality and Individual Differences, 177, 110768. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.110768

Webster, R. J., *Vasturia, D., & Saucier, D. A. (2021). Demons with guns: The effect of belief in pure evil on attributions of gun violence perpetrators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35, 809-818. doi: 10.1002/acp.3795

Teaching Emotional Resilience Across 87 Countries During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BY Ke Wang


The COVID-19 pandemic seems neverending. Can we make people more emotionally resilient? To find an answer, nearly 400 researchers around the world joined the Psychological Science Accelerator’s COVID-Rapid Project in 2020. We investigated these questions with the help of more than 20,000 participants from 87 countries, testing the effectiveness of a tactic for managing one’s emotions called “reappraisal.”

What is Reappraisal?

Reappraisal is an emotion regulation strategy. It involves changing how we think about a situation in order to influence our emotions, hopefully for the better. Using the reappraisal strategy is known to be good in various ways, such as physical health, social connections, and well-being.

There are two kinds of reappraisal. The first kind, called reconstrual, involves changing how we think about a situation from different perspectives (“Is the glass half empty? No, it’s half full!”). Instead of feeling like the pandemic is completely out of your control, you might try to view the COVID-19 situation as controllable by thinking about the many measures you can take to protect yourself and your loved ones, such as wearing masks and washing hands. You might also take a step back and consider a historical view, thinking, “I know from world history that keeping calm and carrying on gets us through tough times.”

The other kind of reappraisal, called repurposing, involves shifting focus to a potentially desirable, positive outcome from the situation. For example, you might focus on the ways that the current pandemic has prepared us to better respond to the next one. You might also recognize that there are benefits of staying at home like being able to do things that you may not have had time to do before, like cooking and spending time with family.

Both kinds of reappraisal can add up to an improvement in emotional resilience.

The Power of Reappraisal

We aimed to teach reappraisal to enhance emotional resilience in response to the pandemic. To maximize our impact, we were able to reach large, diverse populations using simple methods that might work for anyone, no matter where they lived.

Everyone in our study viewed photos of the COVID-19 crisis from various news media, depicting scenes such as people in hospital beds and funerals. Everyone reported their emotions before and after seeing the photos. But because this was an experiment, we assigned people to one of the following groups:

  • Groups 1 and 2 learned the reconstrual and repurposing kind of reappraisal, respectively. They read definitions and examples, wrote summaries, and practiced with some photos.
  • Groups 3 and 4 did not learn reappraisal and served as comparison groups. Group 3 learned that it could be helpful to reflect on one’s thoughts and emotions. Group 4 simply responded as they naturally would to the photos.

Remarkable Results

Learning either kind of reappraisal reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions. And, these emotions were not just specific to the photos of the COVID-19 crisis. They included how participants felt in general, how they felt about the COVID-19 situation, how they felt relative to the beginning of the study, and how they anticipated feeling in the future. Learning some reappraisal tactics appeared effective in nearly all the countries we surveyed, and it did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviors.

Furthermore, the emotional benefits were strong enough to potentially compensate for the emotional harms caused by lockdown or self-isolation due to symptoms. With that said, however, we don’t know how long the effects persist over time.

Learning how to reappraise a situation and its possible outcomes could potentially help essential workers, nurses and doctors, patients, students, and many other populations whose work and life are significantly affected by the pandemic, as well as help people deal with life in general.

Because teaching these tactics is low-cost and easy to do, one could teach through a variety of media and communication mechanisms, such as advertising campaigns, speeches, courses, apps, and mobile games. We hope the findings of our study inform efforts to build resilience during the pandemic and beyond.


For Further Reading

Moshontz, H., Campbell, L., Ebersole, C. R., IJzerman, H., Urry, H. L., Forscher, P. S., ... & Chartier, C. R. (2018). The Psychological Science Accelerator: Advancing psychology through a distributed collaborative network. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 501-515. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918797607

Uusberg, A., Taxer, J. L., Yih, J., Uusberg, H., & Gross, J. J. (2019). Reappraising reappraisal. Emotion Review, 11(4), 267-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073919862617

Wang, K., Goldenberg, A., Dorison, C. A., Miller, J. K., Uusberg, A., Lerner, J. S., ... & Isager, P. M. (2021). A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01173-x
 

Ke Wang is a doctoral student in Public Policy at Harvard University.

 

What Happens When Introverts Act Like Extraverts? In a Word, Leadership


Quiet, reserved, shy, unassertive. These are terms often used to describe introverts and are not usually the behaviors we think of when we think of a leader. Instead, we tend to associate leadership behavior with being bold, assertive, and outgoing—these terms are used to describe extraverts.

Why are people low in extraversion—introverts—perceived to be less leaderlike (even in their own opinion)? More importantly, what behavioral strategies can introverts use to overcome this perception?

How To Create  Leaders

Together with my colleague, Professor Peter O’Connor, we hoped to see if we could improve how introverts viewed their own leadership capability, and how others viewed them. In groups of three or four, over 600 people worked together to solve an ambiguous survival problem developed by NASA that involved a hypothetical crash-landing on the Moon. We also measured the personalities of the participants, including how extraverted they were. Before the group activity started, we selected one person within each group to enact one of the following behavioral instructions:

  • To act energetic, talkative, enthusiastic, bold, active, assertive, and sociable—this was the ‘act extraverted’ instruction
  • To act quiet, reserved, lethargic, passive, compliant, and unadventurous—the ‘act introverted’ instruction
  • No special instruction—they were free to act how they wanted during the activity

We measured the leadership of all participants both in terms of how they viewed their own leadership behaviors and how their group members viewed their leadership behaviors. We then compared how much leadership was displayed by the chosen participants in each of the three conditions. We also compared how much positive and negative emotion the chosen participants felt after the activity.

What did we find? Extraverts did indeed enjoy more leadership potential, no matter what instructions they received. Also, introverts who were instructed to act like extraverts were more likely to emerge as leaders in their group, without any damage to their positive or negative emotion.

Extraverts were another matter entirely. Extraverts who were instructed to act quiet, reserved, shy, and so forth thought quite poorly of their own leadership capability. They also felt worse emotionally. Quite simply, extraverts didn’t like acting introverted.

You may be surprised that introverts who acted like extraverts didn’t suffer emotionally, but other research also shows that introverts do quite well when they act extraverted. So, why do introverts not act extraverted more often? It seems one of the biggest barriers to introverts acting extraverted may not be the acting itself, but the expectation of the acting. Introverts think that acting like an extravert will be unpleasant, when in fact it usually isn’t.

Leadership Takeaways

First, extraverts are, on average, seen to be more leaderlike than introverts. Second—and fortunately—personality is not completely deterministic because you can engage in behaviors that are “out of character” to achieve leadership goals. And finally, for introverts, acting out of character does not appear to make them unhappy, but for extraverts it does.

But should an introvert have to act like an extravert to obtain a leadership position, or should leadership positions better adapt to allow for more introverted leaders? My answer is a little of both, although I lean more towards the former than the latter. Leadership is inherently a socially-oriented role. It doesn’t make sense that you can be effective in a leadership role without engaging in at least some of the behaviors that define extraversion, such as being assertive, bold, talkative, and energetic. Furthermore, being behaviorally flexible can be a character strength.

At the same time, there are situations where organizations should embrace introverted leadership. This can happen on teams where the members are already very proactive and like to get things done. In that case, it may be better to have an introverted leader at the helm because they are less likely to assert themselves and potentially “get in the way.”

In sum, both introverts and extraverts can be great leaders, but introverts are less likely to be viewed as leaderlike. However, introverts can adapt their behavior to enhance their leadership potential, with minimal emotional cost, even though they may not think that doing so will be much fun.


For Further Reading

Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528-550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61968043

Spark, A., & O'Connor, P. J. (2021). State extraversion and emergent leadership: Do introverts emerge as leaders when they act like extraverts? The Leadership Quarterly, 32(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101474

Zelenski, J. M., Whelan, D. C., Nealis, L. J., Besner, C. M., Santoro, M. S., & Wynn, J. E. (2013). Personality and affective forecasting: Trait introverts underpredict the hedonic benefits of acting extraverted. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(6), 1092-1108. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032281
 

Andrew Spark is a personality scientist at Queensland University of Technology and conducts research into the causes and consequences of acting out of character.

Nicholas Epley

Nicholas Epley is the John Templeton Keller Professor of Behavioral Science, and Director of the Center for Decision Research at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He studies social cognition to understand why smart people routinely misunderstand each other. He teaches an ethics and happiness course to MBA students called "Designing a Good Life" and is the author of Mindwise: How We Understand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want.


Do you have a favorite conference memory or story?

My Ph.D. advisor, Tom Gilovich, won the Ambady Mentoring Award in 2016.  Nalini was a friend of mine who admired Tom and his work. The conference awards ceremony was fantastic. To honor some of his great experiments, many of Tom’s current and former students attended the ceremony wearing Barry Manilow t-shirts fashioned as black sports jerseys with "Gilovich" and our Ph.D. graduation dates printed across the back. Later, we all attended a wonderful dinner together. To be part of a group gathering to honor such a great advisor was the best evening I expect to have at any SPSP conference.  


How has your identity affected your career?

Managing social life effectively is a major challenge and I screw up routinely, so much that it seems like part of my identity. But the mistakes I become aware of often spark research ideas.  One day on the train ride into my office at the University of Chicago, I looked around and was suddenly very cognizant that the train car was silent.  I was in the midst of writing a book describing how our ability to connect minds was a unique human capacity, essential for wellbeing and health, and yet here we were all just ignoring each other.  Why was I not being more social?  Shouldn’t I have known better?  This awareness of what seemed like a mistake sparked an idea that my colleagues and I have now been focused on for nearly a decade.  People seem not to be social enough for their own well-being.  My career has now changed my identity.  After seeing so much data about how surprisingly beneficial it is to form connections with others, I’m much more social than I used to be.
 

Do you have a favorite course to teach and why?

I created a course called “Designing a Good Life” that I teach to MBA students. The course is an ethics class focused on how to help my students design contexts within their organizations that help people be more ethical than they might otherwise be, in ways that improve organizational success and increase wellbeing.  It’s essentially an introductory social psychology class applied to ethics.  I think this class allows me to teach ethics in a way that is constructive, actionable, and very memorable.  My hope is that all business schools teach ethics with this social-psychological focus in the future.
 

Is there a recent journal article you've read that you would recommend (and why)?

I recommend, “People selectively overlook subtractive changes” (Adams, Converse, Hales, & Klotz, 2021, Nature).  Ben Converse was a Ph.D. student of ours at Booth and it’s wonderful to see your students go off and do great work.  This paper is terrific: a really interesting effect that is robust across contexts that you can instantly resonate with.  Great ideas in social psychology often have the quality of revealing an effect occurring right in front of your eyes that you never noticed until it was revealed to you, at which point you instantly wonder why you hadn’t thought of it first.  Great ideas in psychology, therefore, induce regret.  So, read this paper.  I promise you’ll regret it.
 

Outside of psychology, how do you like to spend your free time?

I have a large family with a 15-year span between our oldest son (age 20) and youngest daughter (age 5), so most of my free time for the past two decades has been spent finding activities to do with my kids.  High on the list in recent years is doing conservation work out in the woods and prairies of Illinois and Wisconsin.  My kids enjoy riding tractors, building brush piles, climbing trees, hunting for mushrooms, helping with controlled burns, and exploring in the woods. Or, at least they tolerate doing these things with me. 
 

What is something you’ve done that no one would expect?

I played four years of Division III college football as an offensive lineman.    

 

What Motivates White People to Actively Support Black Lives Matter


With the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement experiencing an unprecedented surge of support (and opposition) following the May 2020 killing of George Floyd, it is important to understand what might lead people—especially those outside the Black community—to participate in BLM. Just as previous research shows that interracial contact can improve racial opinions and encourage activism in support of other races, we find that contact with Black people can lead Whites to become involved in the BLM movement.

Being Inspired

On the most basic level, people are inspired to participate in a movement when they are directly impacted by the issues the movement addresses. For instance, women may join marches to fight oppressive laws or social norms that harm women. Immigrants might hold signs and rally in Washington, D.C. when policies threaten their ability to stay in the country. Queer folks may join local and national organizations dedicated to fighting for LGBTQ+ rights in the face of injustice.

But what about those who are not members of a population directly affected by a given movement? They, too, sometimes get involved—and research suggests that their participation can be important to the overall success of the movement. But why would they participate if they are not directly impacted? Undoubtedly, one reason is that they support the ideas of the movement, even if they themselves are not personally affected. But another reason is that they have ties with those who are directly impacted.

A longstanding idea in the social sciences known as the “contact hypothesis” argues that interracial contact can improve people’s opinions of other races. Research bears this out. But interracial contact does more than just shape people’s views of other races—it also affects their actions. In our study, we found that interracial contact—particularly contact with Blacks—increases participation in BLM among whites.

Taking Action

Building on an earlier study which showed that White people’s positive contact with Black people predicts support for the BLM movement, we wanted to understand the motivation to participate in BLM activism (for instance, attending a protest, joining BLM organizations, or writing letters to state representatives). We administered surveys to 214 college students and 108 adults from the general U.S. population to find out exactly how interracial contact—particularly contact between White folks and Blacks—can influence Whites’ participation in BLM activism.

Our survey measured social ties in the number of close personal relationships a White person has with a Black person (friends, colleagues, mentors, professors, family members, etc.). It also asked about participation in BLM. Our findings showed that the more contact a White person had with Blacks, the more likely they were to participate in BLM activism. Our findings were the same for both students and people from the general population.

Other factors associated with BLM participation included simply supporting the message and aims of the BLM movement (as suggested above). Age also mattered. Younger college students were the most likely to engage in BLM activism. But these factors were less important than contact.

The Importance of Interaction for Action

Research on interracial contact demonstrates that our connections with others can reduce prejudice and improve our opinions of other races. Everyday interactions with people of different racial groups builds understanding and humanizes the experience of those who look different or have experienced different levels of struggles. Those same interactions can also lead a person to engage in activism in support of other groups.

This is particularly important considering the BLM movement and the ongoing struggle for racial justice in the U.S. The history of Blacks in U.S. society is marked by a continual fight for equality, beginning with the push toward emancipation in the 1800s, continuing in the Civil Rights movement in the mid-1900s, and manifesting today in the BLM movement. Although Black people are at the heart of these efforts, the support and participation of others (for instance, Whites) can be critically important.

Our research shows that one of the key factors predicting support for, and participation in, the BLM movement among Whites is contact that is collaborative, friendly, and forms a mutually beneficial relationship. Consequently, as we continue to research racial relations between Whites and Blacks in the U.S., we can see how powerful social relationships are for influencing behavior—powerful to the point of inspiring action toward a more progressive future.


For Further Reading

Hong, P. M., & Peoples, C. D. (2020). The ties that mobilize us: Networks, intergroup contact, and participation in the Black Lives Matter movement. Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12230

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

Selvanathan, H. P., Techakesari, P., Tropp, L. R., & Barlow, F. K. (2018). Whites for racial justice: How contact with Black Americans predicts support for collective action among White Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations21(6), 893–912. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217690908
 

Pamela M. Hong is a Ph.D. student at Indiana University-Bloomington. She studies race/ethnicity, immigration, and movements/protests.

Clayton D. Peoples is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Nevada, Reno. He studies politics, inequality, social networks, and social movements.
 

Getting by (Better) With a Little Help From Our Friends

Stress is something that most people have to deal with at some point in their lives. In fact, a Gallup Poll from December of 2017 revealed that 8 out of 10 Americans reported sometimes or frequently experiencing stress in their daily lives—and that was before the pandemic! Whether it is a significant life event such as the death of a loved one, losing your job, getting divorced, or more minor daily hassles such as getting stuck in traffic or constantly cleaning up after your children, these stressful situations arise in our lives and can create significant problems for psychological and physical health.

The good news is that there are things that can reduce these negative consequences of stressful life events. One of these things is getting help from family, friends, and even strangers. Support from others typically results in better mental and physical health outcomes. Individuals who have more social support in their lives experience less depression and anxiety, more life satisfaction, and fewer physical health ailments. 

Not having support, however, can result in feelings of social isolation and loneliness. In fact, a study appearing over 25 years ago found that not having adequate amounts of social support carried greater health risks than cigarette smoking. These results have since been replicated by researchers at Brigham Young University in 2010!

Although social support is usually beneficial, there are some situations where it is perceived as less helpful. For example, sometimes people think they are being helpful, but their support misses the mark and is not perceived positively by the recipient (like when your friend tells you to “look on the bright side” after losing a beloved pet). Other times, receiving support may cause us to feel obligated to repay the person who helped us. This too can be negative.

Enter Gratitude

Importantly, many of these factors that decrease the effectiveness of support are mitigated by feelings of gratitude. For example, more grateful people tend to report greater relationship satisfaction and a willingness to be indebted to others. Therefore, it is possible that gratitude shuts down some of these negative factors that inhibit support’s effectiveness, thereby making it more likely that support will have its intended effect of promoting better well-being.

We designed an experiment to test this. In our study, 100 undergraduate students either wrote for five minutes about someone they were grateful for or about something neutral (the route they took to the experiment). Students then engaged in a stressful task—to prepare and give a brief speech supporting or opposing euthanasia. 

Critically, during the speech, trained research assistants provided support to some participants but not to others. This support included gestures such as nodding and making supportive statements (“Good point!”) throughout the speech. For those participants who did not receive support, research assistants sat attentively but otherwise did not interact. 

Once participants completed their speech, they were asked how stressful they found the task and how supportive they found the research assistant. As expected, compared to participants who did not receive support, participants who did reported that the speech task was less stressful and rated the research assistant as more supportive. 

Thus, individuals who received support after writing about someone for whom they were grateful reported much lower stress than those who wrote about someone they were grateful for but did not receive support. When we are grateful, social support is even more beneficial than usual. 

Why Does Gratitude Boost the Effect of Social Support?

We suggest three possible explanations. Gratitude may alter our view of the support we receive, so that we see supportive gestures as more altruistic. Or, we may see the person offering the support as being more genuine and caring. Finally, gratitude may help us be more willing to accept support from others. Taken together, all of these things help to increase the effectiveness of the support provided. 

Cultivating gratitude is something that everyone can do. Starting or ending your day by taking just a few moments to reflect on the people you are grateful for, writing a letter of gratitude, or appreciating the little things are all ways to cultivate it. Having more gratitude in your own life may, in turn, make the support you receive from others more beneficial in reducing stress and improving your own psychological and physical health. You might get by even better with a little help from your friends.


For Further Reading

Deichert, N. T., Fekete, E. M., & Craven, M. (2021).  Gratitude enhances the beneficial effects of social support on psychological well-being.  The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(2), 168-177.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1689425

Algoe, S. B. (2012).  Find, remind, and bind: The functions of gratitude in every relationships.  Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6(6), 455-469.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00439.x
 

Nate Deichert is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Black Hills State University in South Dakota.  His current research focuses on the stress-buffering effects of gratitude. 

Erin Fekete is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Interim Associate Dean and Director of Psychological Science at the University of Indianapolis.  Her current research focuses on factors that help individuals become more resilient to the negative effects of health-related stigma.

“We Need to Text This Out.” Should You Use Texting to Solve a Conflict?

Texting is becoming more and more of a common form of communication. This goes for couples too.  Many advice websites and news articles warn against this practice, particularly when it comes to sensitive issues in your relationship. But is all this concern warranted?

In every close relationship, partners may argue with each other. That is not necessarily a sign that something is wrong with the relationship. In fact, successful conflict resolution can strengthen a bond. Yet many find engaging in healthy conflict to be hard. How best can we navigate these difficult issues? Given the explosion of text-based communication, my colleagues and I wondered whether texting could be a good way to discuss relationship issues.

The Pros and the Cons

There are several reasons why texting could work. When texting, people take more time to articulate their ideas. They also focus more on the issue at hand and are not distracted by nonverbal cues.

There are also reasons why texting to resolve a conflict may not be such a good idea. Absent tone and nonverbal cues, written information is more likely to be misinterpreted. For example, a simple ‘ok’ is often interpreted as slightly negative in texting. That is why people often add emojis to short texts to convey tone. Still, this may go wrong, and people may misinterpret how their partner is feeling.

Putting Texting to the Test

Given the conflicting perspectives on texting during conflict, we decided to compare texting to face-to-face communication about a relationship problem. We recruited 100 couples who had been together for at least three months. The participants were on average 24 years old (between 18 and 57 years). Both partners individually reported issues they argue about in their relationship. We let the partners of 50 couples talk about one of these issues face-to-face. Partners in the other 50 couples had these conversations in separate rooms via text. Both groups were allowed to discuss their issue until they thought that they had at least partially resolved it. The issues couples discussed differed widely and included topics like ‘whether to leave the window open in the bedroom at night’ and ‘getting along with the partner’s friends.’

After the discussion, we asked how distressed and angry the partners were while engaging in these conversations, whether they felt understood by their partner, and how well the issue was resolved. We found no differences between the couples on any of these outcomes!

Thus, talking things out via texting may be as effective as face-to-face conversations. Even though some people may say that you need ‘an actual conversation,’ our data suggest it is fine to use your phone. It seems you can engage in conflict via texting without fear that there will be more misunderstandings than in a face-to-face discussion. For some people using texting may be easier than directly confronting your partner. So go ahead.

Remember, addressing what bothers you and resolving it together with your partner can make your relationship stronger. If texting enables those conversations to happen, then we should use technology to help us. No matter which mode of communication you use, here are some tips on how to manage conflict that have been shown to make your relationships better in the long run:

  • Stay positive. Try to de-escalate conflict and do not reciprocate your partner’s negative affect.
  • Be direct. Address what is bothering you by clearly stating it.
  • Listen. Be open to what your partner is saying and validate their view.

Studies have shown that couples that follow these guidelines have happier and more stable relationships.


For Further Reading

Drigotas, S. M., Whitney, G. A., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). On the peculiarities of loyalty: A diary study of responses to dissatisfaction in everyday life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 596-609. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295216006

Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). Regulating partners in intimate relationships: The costs and benefits of different communication strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 620-639. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012961

Pollmann, M. M., Crockett, E. E., Vanden Abeele, M. M., & Schouten, A. P. (2020). Does attachment style moderate the effect of computer‐mediated versus face‐to‐face conflict discussions? Personal Relationships, 27(4), 939-955. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12345
 

Monique Pollmann is an Assistant Professor at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. Her work focuses on interpersonal processes and how well people understand each other.

Erin Crockett is an Associate Professor at Southwestern University. Her work focuses on health consequences of different relationship processes.