SPSP Award Encourages International Collaboration at Annual Convention

The Society for Personality and Social Psychology is committed to ensuring that our science encompasses the full range of human experience. We offer the International Bridge-Building Award as an incubator for testing innovative ideas to help build connections and collaboration around the world.

We invite proposals to create an event associated with SPSP’s annual convention whose goal is to promote communication, exchanges, and partnerships with scholars from countries currently under-represented in SPSP and in mainstream personality and social psychology.

In 2021, the award led to three compelling sessions that tackled pressing issues in personality and social psychology through an international lens:

A non-profit research organization based in Mumbai, India, Monk Prayogshala, organized a discussion that addressed phenomena specific to South East Asia that may not have theories in Western social psychological and personality science. One example covered during the session was the focus of most theories of intergroup behaviors on race. This discussion explored the role of research when countries are largely monolithic, but have other facets of intergroup violence.

The lack of freely available social psychology resources that are adapted to indigenous languages and circumstances was highlighted during a second session. An international group of researchers, representing Kenya, France, and the United States, examined how cutting-edge syllabi on open science can be created to address this challenge in Africa.

Angela Maitner, representing the American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates, designed a third session to introduce ongoing research and opportunities in the Arab Middle East. This discussion shed light on faculty who work in the region and emic perspectives on psychological processes and future research goals, as well as the challenges of conducting research throughout the region.

We are glad to offer the International Bridge-Building Award once again in 2021 and will be accepting applications until July 20 at 11:59 PM ET. To learn more about the award, click here.

From the Board of Directors

The SPSP Board of Directors met in February for a two-part meeting. One idea that came to the table was to increase transparency and enhance communication between the Board and SPSP members.  To accomplish this goal of member "in-reach", we are launching a new series of recurring articles in the monthly eDialogue member newsletter.

Our goal will be to communicate key accomplishments, positive outcomes, ongoing initiatives, and future strategic plans. Good communication will help to build trust, improve operations, enhance decision-making and develop value within the association. The board is interested in your priorities and concerns as well. If you have topic suggestions that should be covered in future articles, please email our Executive Director, Rachel Puffer at [email protected].

The SPSP Board manages the vision of the organization and guides its strategic initiatives, while ensuring the priorities of the society are managed by appointed committees and staff. The Board delegates the authority to carry out the operations and management of the organization to the Executive Director and the Central Office staff. You can find a roster of our Board members and all committees here.


by Denise Sekaquaptewa

April 1, 2021

The topic for our first installment is the SPSP Annual Convention. The 2021 Annual Convention was held virtually February 9-13. We had over 4,300 registrants, 23 professional development sessions, 1,600+ posters, over 100 research presentations, and a variety of networking events. We appreciated the over 2,000 presenters and attendees’ willingness to embark on this unique experience during unprecedented times.

Thank you to all our committee members that organized special events and sessions during the program. A special thank you to the Convention, Program and Professional Development Committees who organized the majority of the programming; Robin Edelstein, Amy Summerville, Jennifer Howell, Josh Ackerman, Neil Lewis, Jr., Kate McLean, Sara B. Algoe, Andrew L. Stewart, Richard B. Slatcher, Alexander M. Schoemann, Marina Milyavskaya, Erica Schneid, John Sakaluk and Rodica Damian.

I recall discussing, at an SPSP Board meeting a few years ago, the possibility of offering the SPSP Convention online.  We were all so skeptical about whether it could be done well, and whether people would actually attend virtually.  And now we have done it!  It was great to be able to continue our tradition of learning from and connecting with the members of our social and personality psychology community, despite the challenges brought by the pandemic.  Thanks to everyone for their participation.

We encourage speakers to share their presentations and posters on the OSF site. All meeting attendees have access to on-demand recordings through May 13.

As we reflect upon the 2021 meeting, we are also looking towards the future. The Convention, Program and Professional Development Committees are meeting now to discuss plans for the 2022 Annual Convention, February 17 – 19. At this time, we are planning for an in-person meeting in San Francisco, California, and exploring opportunities to have virtual access for remote attendees as well.  More details will be shared in the coming months as we develop a robust program that can accommodate the many needs of various audiences while balancing the fiduciary responsibility to the Society. Add these important dates to your calendar so you don't miss out!

To learn more about the SPSP 2021 Annual Convention and plans for the SPSP 2022 Annual Convention click here

SPSP Went Virtual! Impressions from the 2021 Annual Convention

Like many other academic conferences this year, SPSP 2021 went virtual! Several conference goers at different stages of their graduate and post-graduate careers shared their thoughts and perspectives on this year’s unique event.

Interviewees included Amanda Bernal (AB), a 2nd-year master's student at the University of Texas at Dallas and first-time SPSP attendee, Beverly Conrique (BC), a PhD student at the University of Pittsburg who has attended previous in-person SPSP conventions, Heidi Vuletich (HV), a postdoctoral research fellow at Indiana University and the former chair for the SPSP student committee, and Jennifer LaCosse (JL), a postdoctoral researcher also at Indiana University who is currently on the job market.

What events did you attend at SPSP 2021?

AB: I attended some poster sessions both on Thursday and Friday that were related to close relationships, individual differences, and intergroup processes. I also attended a few symposia that piqued my interest such as how cultural differences impact experiences in close relationships.

BC: Before the convention officially started, I first attended the ¡PODER! Latinx Community Retreat, which brought together SPSP Latinx graduate students for a day of encouragement with a faculty panel, fun times with a virtual game night, a supportive community, and more! I also attended the Justice and Morality preconference on the first day of the convention, and then the Presidential Plenary on the third day of the convention. Finally, I also attended several symposia on a range of topics.

HV: I attended the professional development session on the academic job market, a mentoring event for early career scholars on open science, symposia, posters, the presidential plenary, and a reunion event. I also led the student lounge on graduate school advice.

JL: I attended the Intervention Science Preconference, the Awards Ceremony, and Townhall, as well as three symposiums.

What did you like about this year’s convention?

AB: I enjoyed having access to the poster presentations and symposiums even after the conference ended so I could take a more thorough look through all the different topics. Additionally, the chat and Q&A feature on the Whova app made it possible to engage with other attendees. I feel like the stress that one would've experienced when presenting their poster in person was mitigated because I did not have to worry about giving the same spiel to everyone who looked at my poster.

BC: I really love that I can go back and watch all the talks I missed! Even though SPSP is one of the things I look forward to every year particularly because I love being around and meeting new people (I’m very extroverted), this year’s virtual adaptation of SPSP made attending multiple symposia so much easier. I also really liked that many were live tweeting this year which reinforced the fact that we’re all together apart (a nice feeling after 11 lonely months of the pandemic). Finally, I really liked that individuals from all over the world were able to attend who haven’t been able to in previous years due to accessibility.

HV: I really enjoyed being able to attend multiple sessions, even those that were overlapping. I also enjoyed the posters and being able to browse so many of them.

JL: It is great that I can watch content later instead of rushing to type up notes. I also liked that more people could attend, and no one had to stand in the back. Additionally, liked that there was a day between the preconference and the actual conference, so I was able to get some work done in between.

What did you dislike about SPSP 2021?

AB: There's nothing I disliked about the convention. I feel like SPSP was able to organize effectively a conference online! I believe that the different things the organizers implemented to increase engagement proved to be very successful.

BC: I would like to preface all this with my biggest (and only) dislike was completely outside our control due to COVID-19. At the end of my preconference, we all said “bye” to each other on Zoom and then hung up the call – and it was perhaps the one time all convention I felt a jarring sense of “now, what?” In other years, the end of the preconference (or any day at the convention, really) meant getting to meet more fellow social scientists or exploring the city we were all in (complete with local cuisine and local fun) before we did it all over again the next day.

HV: I missed seeing people in person and running into people in the hallways or lounges. Those interactions are always so much fun and rewarding.

JL: I did think that some of the symposiums were repetitive with what has been presented in previous years, BUT that happens every year at SPSP. Mostly, I just missed seeing people in person and being forced to interact and network. The networking events and splitting into small groups were intimidating in the virtual setting.

Any other thoughts or impressions of SPSP 2021?

AB: My first time attending SPSP was an enjoyable experience! I was able to find research that was related to my own research interests easily using the Whova App. The convention also gave me a lot of insight about future directions for my research as well as different ways to present my data. I would attend another SPSP conference in the future.

BC: SPSP 2021 was the best virtual conference I’ve attended since the pandemic started (which is no small feat given how big SPSP is). The Whova app had a good interface that made me feel like there was a help desk and helpers throughout the convention location pointing me in the right direction (like in previous SPSP conventions). One of the biggest differences in comparing this year to previous, in-person conventions was that there were more networking opportunities within and visibility of specific communities. For example, several joined our ¡PODER! Latinx Community Slack page by way of the communities’ message feature in Whova. It’s possible the entirely virtual aspect of the convention made groups like ours and others more visible for community-building! It was a great convention, and I sincerely want to thank everyone who made it the success it was! SPSP 2021 took Herculean efforts in coordination and planning, and it showed and paid off during the actual convention. Finally, I also appreciate how early into the pandemic the convention was moved to a virtual setting. I hope we can all see each other in person —if it’s safe of course— at SPSP 2022 (fingers crossed!).

HV: This past year has been different in so many ways. It's hard to compare this year’s convention to previous ones because the different formats almost make these different types of events. But I will say that I was very happy to attend SPSP 2021 and be part of it. I think the organizers did a great job and made the best of the situation. Overall, it was a very positive experience. Every year I attend I learn so much and grow professionally. I was not disappointed this year!

JL: In terms of being on the job market, the only real difference between this year’s convention and last year’s (when I was also on the market) was that more people could see the talk I gave at my preconference. I also appreciated not feeling like I have to be always “on.” In general, I really loved (and think it is important) that more international scholars were able to attend. I also love that I can access the talks I missed later on. It was also nice that the registration fee was less given the COVID-19 pandemic!
 

Special thanks to Amanda Bernal, Beverly Conrique, Heidi Vuletich, and Jennifer LaCosse for their responses. Responses were condensed and edited for grammar and clarity.

Don't forget to provide your feedback to the  convention planning team by completing the convention survey.  

SPSP2020: A First-Time Attendee's Perspective

For a first-year PhD student, the SPSP Annual Convention feels like a treasure trove. Conferences like this provide access to ongoing research, circumventing the two-year peer-review waiting period, and let us hear directly from the minds that are shaping the future of our field.  Many first years I spoke with appreciated the opportunity to attend panels unrelated to our primary fields of study, as attending symposia is a great way to get introduced to methods and topics that we may not have discovered by ourselves.

On the other hand, the all-inclusive nature of the convention can feel overwhelming at times. The inherent networking aspect feels foreign at first, especially as you come to realize that most attendees seem to already know each other. It is difficult to know where you fit in, and real community building is limited within the main conference. Another first-year attendee described feeling “major imposter syndrome seeing everyone networking and wondering how I’m supposed to do that.” The tough but effective advice I received was to just "throw yourself in," use openings after symposia to introduce yourself to researchers you admire, and don’t take it personally if people are in a rush. For several, careers have been jumpstarted by taking that first step and saying hello during a coffee break.

It's also a challenge determining which presentations and events you have time to attend. It takes a day or so to let go of the goal of seeing every speaker and shaking every hand, and to really lean into the experience. The best advice I can offer to the next round of first-year attendees is to let go of unrealistic expectations. Plan your day ahead of time, and be forgiving of yourself when you don’t make it to everything on your list.

As you ease into the existing social network of SPSP, you gain an introduction to a supportive and stimulating undercurrent of researchers across stages of their academic careers. This community is ready and willing to celebrate your victories and normalize your existential fears and doubts. To experience this environment, paired with the excitement and energy of New Orleans, left me exhilarated, exhausted, and ready for SPSP2021 in Austin.

See you all next year!

Why Being Agreeable Increases Relationship Satisfaction

Ever wonder the justification behind the saying, “If they’re happy, then I’m happy?” How about the saying, “Happy wife, happy life?” Are these statements really true, and if they are, to what extent and why?

One speculation is that perhaps partners who believe in the validity of these statements are responsive to their partner’s needs and interests—an indication of their understanding, validation, and care. In order to be considered a responsive person, one must meet two requirements: 1. A willingness to satisfy others’ needs and 2. Have an accurate understanding of those needs. According to personality and close relationship researchers Sherman Kwok, Joanne Wood, and John Holmes at the University of Waterloo, agreeable people fulfill both of these requirements. 

Agreeableness, one of the five main personality traits, describes agreeable people as being likable, pleasant, and harmonious in relationships. In children, agreeableness manifests in how they deal with conflicts; agreeable children are usually liked by peers and tend to be more constructive in conflicts than children who are not. As adults in the workplace, agreeable people work well with others even in competitive environments and are more likely to jump on the opportunity to help others. In romantic relationships, previous research claimed that agreeable people are satisfied in their relationships. In this presented research, Kwok and colleagues offer insight as to perhaps why being agreeable has an effect on relationship satisfaction. 

Kwok’s research conducted two separate studies in which it investigated, “Is there a connection between agreeableness, the frequency of expressing affection, and relationship satisfaction?” and, “Are affectionate behaviors that are intended to convey responsiveness effective in fostering intimacy?” The former study revealed that agreeableness was positively correlated with self-reported frequencies of expressions in affection and more specifically, uses of partner-centered affections such as providing unconditional support and non-judgmental understanding. Furthermore, Kwok added that frequencies of affection strengthen the relationship between agreeableness and satisfaction. Results of the latter study demonstrated that partner-centered acts of affection-acts focused on placing the partner’s needs first-bolstered the highest levels of intimacy than other comparable types of affection. 

Although Kwok’s research examined the effects of agreeableness and responsiveness in romantic relationships, he shared that it is a possibility that the same benefits can be achieved when it is practiced in other types of relationships as well. No matter what type of relationship agreeableness finds itself in, affections like this are set to strengthen relationships by increasing satisfaction and intimacy. 


Written By:

Katie Linh Pham, MA Candidate at Loyola Marymount University

Session:

"The Role of Agreeableness in Responsive Expressions of Affection” was part of the symposium Personal and Relational Benefits of Responsiveness in Romantic Relationships held Friday, February 28, 2020.

Speaker:

Sherman S.M. Kwok, University of Waterloo

Co-Authors:

Joanne V. Wood, University of Waterloo

John G. Holmes, University of Waterloo

SPSP Transparency Efforts for 2020 Convention

Part of my mission as convention committee chair is to improve transparency surrounding the convention. My hope is to give people a peek behind the scenes so members have a better sense of how convention is run and how decisions are made. Accordingly, the convention committee developed the following information, describing how science submissions are evaluated, the location for conference is selected, and registration costs are determined respectively. Please share this information with other SPSP members or attendees so we can spread this information widely.

1) Have you ever wondered how SPSP science submissions are evaluated? Below we describe the evaluation process in an effort to improve transparency surrounding the convention.

All submissions are evaluated by 3 independent reviewers. Who are those reviewers and how are they selected?

  • Anyone with a PhD can self-nominate to be a reviewer. During the nomination process, they indicate their areas of expertise using keywords
  • The symposia and single-resenter co-chairs of the selection panels decide on the final pool of reviewers from this self-nominated group, seeking to ensure a range of fields of expertise
  • Once the submission date has passed, there are two strategies used for assigning reviewers to specific submissions, depending on the type of submission
  • Symposia submissions are matched to reviewers using keywords, primarily matching the first keyword listed for the symposia and the first keyword listed by the reviewers, sometimes using the second keyword if necessary. During the matching process, we also attempt to give each reviewer an approximately equal review-load.
  • Single presenter submissions (e.g., posters and single presenter talks) are assigned randomly to reviewers because the quantity of these submissions is too great to use a matching process

All submissions are evaluated on a set of criteria pre-specified by the science committee. What are those criteria and how are they used?

  • Reviewers are blind to the authors’ identity when they evaluate the submission, and thus they do not evaluate the submissions based on the names of the people who are involved
  • Reviewers consider several dimensions when evaluating submissions:
    • Importance: Does this symposium address a question or set of questions that substantially advances our knowledge of a theoretical and/or applied issue in social and/or personality psychology?
    • Strength: Does this research reflect best practices in research, including issues of statistical power? Are studies well-designed to answer the research question(s)? If the session includes applied or non-empirical talks, do these present strong arguments or clear evidence toward the goals of the session?
    • Novelty: Does this symposium represent the “cutting edge” of psychological science? Will the audience feel that they have learned something new from this symposium?
    • Interest-value: Will this symposium session cut across subfields in an integrative way, have a clear impact on future conversations about social and/or personality psychology, or otherwise be likely to be well-attended?
  • Reviewers provide a single holistic evaluation on a scale of 1-4. For symposia, these levels correspond to “weaker”; “good”; “very good”; and “exceptional”, and reviewers are instructed to have 25% of their ratings fall within each category (i.e., a rectangular distribution). For single presenter submissions, these levels correspond to “unacceptable/should be rejected”, “weak”, “good”, and “exceptional”.
  • The review process is independent each year, so the reviewers only use information from this year’s submissions; the content of prior conferences does not factor into the evaluation process. The only exception is if there is a lot of feedback during the post-convention survey that people want more of a particular topic. In these instances, the committee might try to have more of that topic represented during the following years conference.
  • When making the final decision about which submissions to accept, the selection committee primarily relies on the rubric scores from reviewers. In addition, at this stage the submissions are unblinded. This allows the selection committee to ensure that a diverse range of speakers are represented in the program, both in terms of the content of the talks and the demographics of the speakers (for the demographic data we have on potential speakers). A broad goal in making the final selection is to accept high quality submissions and also create a balanced and diverse program. There are no strict quotas in place that X number of submissions from topic Y need to be accepted, although there may be general targets for specific topics to make sure various subfields are adequately represented. Beyond that, any topic-related themes that may emerge do so organically based on having a high number of high quality submissions that year.
  • Single-paper submissions that receive the highest scores from the reviewers are examined carefully. In many cases, several high-quality submissions will cluster together in terms of content; these will be collected into a symposia and the presenters will be invited to work together to select a chair, title, and description for the program. The other highest-rated submissions that don't cluster into a symposium set will be included in one of the several data blitzes scheduled during the conference (if the speaker is eligible for a datablitz).

How is the final symposium schedule determined?

  • First, the SPSP staff create a grid that doesn’t have overlap at the same time for the same primary keyword
  • Second, the convention committee looks at the grid and makes changes if they see symposia with overlapping content areas scheduled at the same time
  • The SPSP staff also sends a list of all selected symposia for that year’s conference to symposium chairs and has them indicate if there is overlap with theirs and others. They have a quick turn around to identify 2-3 that might have topic overlap. When making the final grid, we also take this information into account

What are historic rates of acceptance for prior conferences? Since we have significantly revised our submission evaluation process in recent years, we provide data for 2018 and 2019 only.

2) Have you ever wondered how the SPSP convention committee and SPSP board select the location for each conference? Below we describe the selection process in an effort to improve transparency surrounding the convention.

Selecting a location is a multi-step decision-making process that originates at the SPSP board meeting every year. The entire board (e.g., the president, president-elect, treasurer, etc) and all SPSP committee chairs have a lengthy discussion about location. They take many factors into account, described below, and vote on top locations. If needed, the SPSP staff then investigate further to get the information needed to choose between the locations that received the most votes. The convention committee then makes the final decision about where the conference will be held.

In making a decision, we take into account a million different factors! The size of our conference limits our options quite a bit right off the bat. We are large enough that many cities can’t accommodate us, but we are simultaneously too small for some of the really large venues. Out of the options that can accommodate our size, cost is also a really important factor, since this is a critical ingredient of whether people can attend. We have to consider both the cost of the conference itself (e.g., reserving the space), and the cost it will require for people to travel there. Unfortunately, sometimes those don’t match up, and a place that would be cheap to reserve would be expensive to fly to or vice versa. This also means that we don’t want to only have the conference in one location (e.g., San Diego), because that means traveling is more expensive for people on the East Coast than the West Coast. So, we try and move from west to central to east coast for this reason. Another important factor in selecting the location are the laws in each state. For example, some states have anti-LGBTQ laws in place that would directly affect LGBTQ members in attendance (e.g., bathroom bills), and we will not have a conference in a location that is unfriendly towards attendees. We also take into account (in no particular order): weather, accessibility to international members, marketability, and any special opportunities that may exist in a city.

Needless to say, once we have taken all of these considerations into place, we are left with relatively few potential options. This is a complex process, and a lot goes into the decision for each year.

3) Have you ever wondered how we determine the registration cost for SPSP? Below we describe the process in an effort to improve transparency surrounding the convention.

Registration costs are determined by a wide variety of factors as we attempt to balance affordability for members (i.e., the cost members will pay) with needs to pay for the conference itself (e.g., reserving space, catering, etc). The cost of running a conference rises every year with inflation and a booming convention industry. However, we did not raise registration rates between 2013-2019 to keep the conference as affordable as possible. We strive to keep registration rates as low as possible each year. In fact, the society often loses money each year by hosting the conference in order to keep the cost as manageable as possible for members.

Lisa Jaremka
Chair, SPSP Convention Committee

Creating Diverse Schools and Workplaces Requires Inclusion, Not Just Numbers

Atlanta, GA - New research shows when it comes to successfully engaging and including minorities in the workforce and schools, organizations need to focus on inclusion. Several social psychology researchers will share details of their results at the SPSP Annual Convention on March 2, 2018.

“Institutions tend to overemphasize numerical diversity to the exclusion of inclusion” says Erika Hall (Emory University), one of the presenters and co-chair of the symposium.

Inclusive Businesses

An organization can be diverse in numbers, yet minorities may still report feelings of discrimination. How does one go beyond this “numerical” diversity to true feelings of inclusion? Erika Hall surveyed 486 minority business owners from the National Minority Supplier Diversity Council to determine what might have an effect.

Her research showed a high combination of authenticity coupled with increased levels of perceived racial diversity significantly decreased major experiences of discrimination (B = -.17, p < .05). Without authenticity, racial diversity had no significant effect on feelings of discrimination.

“As a minority, part of the benefit of having people around you that look like you is that you may feel more comfortable enacting behaviors or discussing topics that are specific to your culture, and you may feel that you belong because other people like you are a part of the organizational culture.”

These benefits are lost however, according to Hall, “if institutional constraints restrict you from bringing your whole, true self to work and dictate that you don’t belong, numerical diversity will become obsolete.”

Organizational attempts to be inclusive can lead to feelings of exclusion for other groups.

Tessa Dover (Portland State University) looked at the effect pro-diversity messages have for those in high-status groups, in this study, white men. In a series of experiments, she and colleagues show that whites who imagined seeking a job were negatively affected by pro-diversity messages and performed more poorly in potential job interviews. They expressed concerns of being treated unfairly, and of anti-white discrimination.

Inclusive Schools

Tiffany Brannon’s (University of California, Los Angeles) research provides evidence that school settings can affirm identity among members of negatively stereotyped groups— by, for instance, incorporating diverse cultural ideas and practices within academic courses or extracurricular activities— and, in turn, afford an increased sense of inclusion.

Analyzing longitudinal datasets (N= 2,926 and N=1,255) of African American and Latino American college students Brannon’s research demonstrates that such efforts to affirm identity is related to benefits among members of negatively stereotyped groups including better problem solving, increased task persistence, higher GPAs, and more positive health and well-being outcomes.

MarYam Hamedani (Stanford University) will discuss work on how difference-education interventions can successfully educate students about social differences and improve first-generation college students’ grades.

Today’s increasingly diverse and divided world frequently requires the ability to understand and navigate across social differences. Hamedani and colleagues propose that interventions that teach students about social differences can not only foster students’ intergroup skills, but can also help disadvantaged students succeed in school.

“This study supports a growing body of work demonstrating that teaching students a contextual understanding of difference—i.e., recognizing that people’s differences come from participating in and adapting to diverse sociocultural contexts—can be leveraged to foster student success and close achievement gaps,” summarizes Hamedani.

The Moving Beyond Diversity to Inclusion: Building Inclusive Schools and Workplaces symposium takes place on March 2, at 12:45 p.m. ET. The session is one of over 80 scientific sessions at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Annual Convention in Atlanta, Georgia.


Media may email [email protected] to request an interview with the speakers.

The SPSP Annual Convention brings together pioneers in the field of personality and social psychology to network, collaborate, and celebrate their science. The meeting serves not only as a platform for presenting and discussing the most recent breakthroughs in research but also as a springboard for collaboration between our members. 

The Society for Personality and Social Psychology promotes scientific research that explores how people think, behave, feel, and interact. With more than 7,500 members, the Society is the largest organization of social and personality psychologists in the world.

The Society for Personality and Social Psychology Reaffirms its Stance against Harassment

Washington, DC - Recent news, in conjunction with the #MeToo campaign, reminds us as a professional society that we need to do everything we can to ensure that SPSP-linked events adhere to our values and policies.

Since implementing a Code of Conduct in 2015, SPSP has investigated every complaint received that was an alleged violation of the Code. Some cases have resulted in consequences being applied. Out of respect for those submitting reports, we will not go into detail but know that we take each report seriously.

SPSP also commissioned a climate survey in August of this year, to help address these issues. The survey will take place in 2018, with results to follow in the same year.

The SPSP Annual Convention has for 19 years been the premier international event for more than 3,800 social and personality psychologists who engage professionally at the convention while sharing research ideas and results, forging collaborations and professional networks, and developing skills and techniques. Attendees at all career levels come back year after year to further their careers and the field, which makes creating a welcoming and harassment-free environment a priority for SPSP. At the convention we engage in scientific discourse, and pursue our common goals of innovation, rigor, transparency, and integrity in our work, while embracing the diversity of people and ideas. These core values are at the heart of why we convene our members each year.

SPSP does not tolerate harassment of any kind at any SPSP event or during any SPSP programming. We understand events have happened in the past, and are working to improve going forward. We are committed to providing an intellectually stimulating, collegial, supportive, and harassment-free environment for all attendees and participants.  

We reaffirm the priority we place on providing all our members with an intellectually and professionally welcoming environment that is free of harassment of any kind. Our Code of Conduct, approved by SPSP’s Board of Directors, identifies expected behavior, makes clear what behaviors are unacceptable, and specifies the consequences of unacceptable behavior.  

By being proactive and specific in our expectations, SPSP Leadership is working to attain the highest possible standard of professionalism at all society events.

Winners Announced for Second Annual Q&pAy Small Grant Competition

The Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) is pleased to announce Xuan Zhao (Brown University) is the winner of this year’s Q&pAy. Q&pAy is a live small grants competition, hosted at the 2017 SPSP Annual Convention. Zhao received a $5,000 grant for her research, “Bonding in a Heartbeat: Can Feeling Others’ Heartbeat Increase Empathy and Prosocial Behavior?”

The runners-up include Stefanie Tignor (Northeastern University) and Jessica Tracy (University of British Columbia, Vancouver) for “A typology of ‘micro-transgressions’: The frequency, antecedents, and consequences of self-perceived wrongdoings” and John Sakaluk (University of Victoria) and Emily Impett (University of Toronto Mississauga) for their study, “The Sounds of Sex: A Naturalistic Study of the Function(s) of Human Sexual Vocalizations.” Both runner-up projects received $2,500.

Q&pAy showcases three small research grant finalists pitching their grant proposals to a team of social and personality experts on stage who ask questions about the grant (significance, research methods, budget, etc). During the 15-minute interrogation, audience members were also given the chance to participate in this high-stakes Q&A.

About the Grants

This program provides small grants to individuals (or a team of two) that is intended to support a relatively inexpensive, well-powered study that may be submitted for publication and for presentation at a future SPSP convention.

Award recipients submit a report of the research to SPSP within six months of the completion of the study and, if the research is successful, are expected to submit it both for publication and for presentation at the SPSP convention.


The Society for Personality and Social Psychology promotes scientific research that explores how people think, behave, feel, and interact. With more than 7,000 members, the Society is the largest organization of social and personality psychologists in the world.

SPSP Addresses Convention Poster Concerns and Outlines Next Steps

Note: SPSP is releasing two separate statements addressing concerns raised at the recent Annual Convention. Developing these statements involved careful consideration and input from various individuals. The separate release reflects the unique nature of each issue being addressed.

--

Dear SPSP Members,

On behalf of SPSP's leadership, we would like to share an update about a poster that was accepted for presentation at the recent SPSP Annual Convention but did not meet our scientific standards.

Many attendees raised concerns about this poster after seeing the abstract on our online convention platform. In response, the poster abstract was reviewed. Based on that review which revealed a lack of scientific rigor in the reporting of the results and a disconnect between the claims made in the abstract and the evidence provided in the data set, SPSP retracted the poster. While SPSP removed the poster from our convention platform and did not display the presentation onsite, it had already been viewed by convention attendees, members, as well as others in our community. 

We sincerely apologize to convention attendees. Acceptance of that poster suggests that we must review our processes to try to ensure acceptance of rigorous scientific content. We would like to share details about the submission review process:

Single presenter podium submissions (such as this one) are evaluated by three volunteer reviewers, who are SPSP members with a PhD. Reviewers receive around 30 submissions to review. Reviewers score three scientific criteria during evaluation: strength and rigor, contribution, and interest value. Separately, reviewers score the diversity, equity, inclusion, and/or anti-racism statements. More details about each of these criteria are available on the SPSP website.

SPSP accepts roughly 44% of single presenter submissions, on average. Submissions that do not score highly enough to be accepted as a single presenter talk are then considered for poster submissions (if the submitter indicated they wished to be considered for a poster). Single presenter submissions that score high enough to clear the threshold for acceptance as a poster are then added to the program. SPSP accepts 99% of poster submissions, on average. In the weeks leading up to the convention, SPSP imported this presentation alongside the other posters (roughly 1,800) to the online convention platform.

The SPSP Convention Committee is actively reviewing and discussing potential changes to the process above to minimize similar incidents in the future. SPSP members can expect an update about any adjustments to the review process before we begin accepting submissions for the 2025 Annual Convention.

We are striving to cultivate a more rigorous review process at future conventions. If you have any feedback, questions, or recommendations, please contact [email protected].

Best,
The SPSP Executive Committee

Cynthia Pickett, President
Dolores Albarracin, Past President
Diana Sanchez, President-Elect
Camille Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer
Rachel Puffer, Executive Director