Rob Chavez

Rob Chavez is an assistant professor at the University of Oregon and director of the Computational Social Neuroscience Lab. He studies how information about the self and social cognition are represented in distributed systems within the brain. He received his B.S. in Psychology from the University of New Mexico and Ph.D. in Cognitive Neuroscience from Dartmouth College.
 

In what ways do you feel your background in personality and social psychology makes the biggest impact in your career?

I like to think of myself as an “applied” personality and social psychologist. My application, however, is directed at the study of the brain. Thus, rather than thinking of neuroscience as a method, I feel like I am the personality and social psychologist on a team of scientists all trying to understand how the brain works. There is so much we don’t know about how social processes are instantiated within our brain, and the biologists aren’t usually asking those questions.


What has been your biggest challenge as a social or personality psychologist?

Psychology is becoming increasingly technical and interdisciplinary. As someone who does interdisciplinary work, it can be hard to keep up with both the latest theories and cutting-edge methods in multiple domains. That said, the fun part is being able to bridge and make fresh connections by mixing methods and ideas across domains to generate new insights.
 

What are you most proud of in your career?

My bachelor's degree. I went to 1.5 years of community college before transferring to the state university in my hometown. I worked full time throughout my five years of college and paid 100% of my own rent and bills; I’ve never worked harder for anything in my life. Despite getting my PhD from a more ‘elite’ university, I am the proudest of my undergraduate degree.
 

Do you have a favorite course to teach and why?

I love teaching my large Intro to Psychology course. Because my interests are so broad, I have a lot of genuine enthusiasm for all areas of psychology which helps when you are the gateway to many peoples’ interest in the field. Although some people don’t like big lecture courses, I love the performative aspects of keeping the attention of 500 students at a time. It brings me back to my days of playing bass in a band in front of the crowd.
 

What career path would you have chosen if you had decided to not pursue psychology?

As a faculty member, I don’t get the chance to get behind the terminal and code as much as I wish I could. I also love working with diverse kinds of data and problems. Although I would still long to answer psychological questions, a career in data science, software engineering, or data visualization would have also kept me busy and happy.

 

Tosen Nwadei

Tosen Nwadei is a fourth-year PhD Candidate at Emory University's Goizueta Business School.  He earned his bachelor's degree in Finance from the University of Pittsburgh.  Tosen's research sits at the intersection of identity and intergroup relations.  In his primary research stream, he studies hair as a medium for ameliorating, or exacerbating, inequality.  In a second research stream, he studies creativity from a social identity perspective. 
 

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

I’m a pretty big fan of Latin dance.  I’ve done salsa for the last 5 or so years, and I’ve also had the opportunity to dance in clubs and bars across the country and around the world.  Prior to the pandemic, I was looking forward to starting a hip-hop dance class.  I’ll be signing up for one of those as soon as it’s safe to do so!  That’ll be a little newer to me, but it’ll definitely be a lot of fun.  Aside from dance, I’m a breakfast enthusiast, so I love finding new spots for brunch on the weekend. I also spend my weekends doing some recreational writing, so I try and save some of my mental energy for that after a long week of grad school stuff. 


What period in the academic year do you enjoy or look forward to the most?

I’ll be honest with you: I like the summer because nobody is on campus, haha.  More generally though, there’s just a sense of limitless possibilities that I get once the academic year is over.  As a PhD student, it means you survived.  It means you have the summer to recharge, get some sunshine, and regroup for the next academic year.  Maybe it’s the little kid in me, but there will always be something special about the academic year ending and the summer beginning.      


How has your identity affected your career?

Ha!  A lot.  I think one of the big reasons I tend to gravitate towards identity related research questions is because my identity, as a Nigerian American immigrant, has been a huge part of my lived experiences.  That’s true for my journey in America in general as well as in the academy in particular.  So, what’s really cool about this profession (to me), is that it gives me a formalized, rigorous way of testing my curiosity and intuitions about the world.  I was puzzling over a lot of these questions long before I knew what a PhD was, which I think is true for a lot of people.  I was curious about my experiences, and the experiences of those like me.      


What do you want to grow in next?

I think this is a profession marked by a great deal of uncertainty.  You work really hard on studies, grant proposals, journal submissions, etc., and sometimes you have very little, if anything, to show for the work that you put in. It just comes with the territory, although it can be a bit hard to adjust to early on. So, I definitely say that’s something I’m seeking to grow in as I progress deeper into my career. I don’t really think it gets easier, per se, you just develop a higher tolerance for it.     


What is the best book you’ve read or TV show or movie you’ve watched recently?

Prior to the pandemic, I didn’t really watch many shows, BUT, I watched the first season of Never Have I Ever (it’s a new show, so there’s only one season out currently), and it was soooo stinkin’ good!!  Mindy Kaling is an exceptionally talented artist and writer, and she tells the story of her life as an awkward, Indian-American high school girl growing up in California.  That show gives me all the feels.  We’re the same person, basically.  She’s a little bit prettier though.    

 

 

Dolores Albarracín Elected 2023 SPSP President

WASHINGTON, DC—Dolores Albarracín, a professor of psychology and business at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has been elected the 2023 president of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP). She will serve as president-elect in 2022 and past president in 2024.

An SPSP fellow and acclaimed scholar in the fields of attitudes, communication and behavior, Albarracín’s research is a unique blend of basic and applied psychology. She has authored six books and roughly 170 journal articles and book chapters in major science outlets. She has also served the field of psychology in various capacities, including as Editor in Chief of Psychological Bulletin from 2014 to 2020.

SPSP recognized Albarracín’s work with the Award for Outstanding Scientific Contributions to Research on Attitudes and Social Influence in 2018, as well as the 2020 Diener Award for Outstanding Mid-Career Contributions in Social Psychology.

“As a renowned researcher, author and educator, Dr. Albarracín has demonstrated her commitment to understanding how people affect and relate to one another,” says SPSP Executive Director Rachel Puffer. “SPSP will continue to thrive under her leadership and guidance.”

Albarracín received her Ph.D. at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and has served as a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Florida. Her 2021 book, Action and Inaction in a Social World: Prediction and Change of Attitudes and Behaviors, was published in February by Cambridge University Press. Her book Creating Conspiracy Beliefs: How Our Thoughts are Shaped will be published by Cambridge University Press in 2022.

“It will be truly an honor to serve as president of SPSP,” says Albarracín. “The organization has a critical mission and will continue to advance the impact of personality and social psychology within and outside of academia. I much look forward to working with my outstanding colleagues to make a positive contribution and elevate the stature of our discipline.”

Camille Johnson of San Jose State University was elected as Treasurer. Newly-elected Board Members at Large include Julie Garcia of California State University, San Luis Obispo for Outreach and Advocacy, Lisa Brown of Austin College for Primarily Undergraduate Institutions and Julie O’Brien of WW (formerly Weight Watchers) for Application. Each will serve three-year terms.


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.

Steve Neuberg

Steve Neuberg is Foundation Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology at Arizona State University. His research has appeared in outlets such as PNASPsychological ReviewAdvances in Experimental Social PsychologyJPSPPsychological Science, and the Handbook of Social Psychology; has been supported by the NSF and NIH; and has received the Gordon Allport Intergroup Relations Prize and the Daniel M. Wegner Theoretical Innovation Prize. He has received several teaching honors, including his university’s Outstanding Doctoral Mentor Award. He has proudly served in multiple roles for SPSP and has never missed an SPSP conference.

Can you recall a moment, experience or person that influenced you or led you to decide that personality and social psychology was the path for you?

I was a sophomore, hating my bio and chem courses but liking the labs—being able to ask questions and discover answers. I had always been really interested in people, and a friend suggested I take Intro Psych. One day mid-semester, sitting among the hundreds of students watching clips from the Milgram experiments (and the Candid Camera television show!), it struck me that I could ask questions and discover answers about people’s social behavior… and maybe even get paid for doing so. My recollection of the moment: The roof of Bailey Hall cracked open, rays of sunshine streamed down to warm my face, angels began to sing… and, in that very moment, I “became” a social psychologist. All it took from there was focus and great mentoring, for which I remain forever grateful: Tom Gilovich’s willingness to take on a mediocre undergrad as an honors student, Susan Fiske’s forever commitment and professional example, a wonderful post-doc year with Mark Zanna (may his memory be a blessing), and the ongoing mentorship of my ASU colleagues Bob Cialdini, Steve West, and Doug Kenrick. I’m a very lucky man.
 

What are you most proud of in your career?

I feel very good about my research contributions, and I think they will have a positive impact on our science and, hopefully, beyond. But my gratitude for the incredible mentoring I’ve received has motivated me to pass that forward—and I’m proud of the small roles I’ve been able to play in the professional and life successes of my grad students and the more than 20 undergrads who have come through my lab and are now contributing professionals in our field. Nothing in my professional life makes me feel better than when I get it right with my students… and nothing makes me feel worse than when I screw up!
 

Do you have a favorite course to teach and why?

I teach a senior-level course on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. I love teaching this course not only because it’s my primary research interest but also because of the effects I see it having on the students. They come into the course with a very simple view of these phenomena—as my former student, Oliver Sng, likes to say, they “stereotype stereotyping.” They leave the course with a much greater appreciation for the complexities and nuances—and thus the challenges—as well as with conceptual tools to better understand and positively engage their social worlds.


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

“Free time”?  Ha!  I’m a department chair. Actually, I like to cook; I try to put together something new once per week. And I’m into cocktail mixology. Walk over and say hi at the next face-to-face SPSP conference and I’ll talk you through my margatini recipe (the no-longer-secret ingredients: mole bitters, orange bitters, cilantro, and serrano pepper).
 

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

As a high school trumpet player, I once jammed (poorly!) for 10 minutes with Dizzy Gillespie—one of the greatest of all time.

 

What Makes an Excellent Review?

In the Fall 2006 issue of Dialogue—the original print version of the SPSP member newsletter—the editors reached out to the editors of its journals at the time, along with a group of former journal editors, to ask them to write in their own words, what makes for good (and bad) practice in peer-review writing. As demonstrated in the depth and breadth of the responses submitted by the editors who participated (including Harry Reis, John Cacioppo, Brenda Major, Chet Insko, Cindy Pickett, John Jost, and Sonja Lyubomirsky), there was much to be shared in terms of insights and suggestions for the benefit of both future and current reviewers, but also for the paper authors who aspire to have their research elevated and shared through the publication process.

It's been nearly 15 years since Dialogue posed that question to its journal experts, so eDialogue wanted to see how much had changed and how much had stayed the same. eDialogue reached out to a group of current and recent journal editors and asked them to answer the same question in 2021—what makes an excellent review

Tessa West

Past Co-Editor (2017 – 2020), Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

The best reviews are the ones that hit on a few main themes: What is the contribution, how solid is the method, and is there a disconnect between what the authors say they are testing, and what they actually test? In my experience as an editor, papers usually get rejected for one of these three reasons. Maybe the method is solid but the contribution is incremental. Or perhaps the ideas are grand and exciting, but the method doesn't actually test them. Broad strokes comments are fine, but as an editor and an author I love detail. And if the authors are leaving out a big important chunk of the literature, references help too! 

Chris Crandall

Past Editor (2016 – 2020), Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

What makes an excellent review? Is it different in the “era of open science?” It certainly depends upon who’s doing the judging of excellence.  Authors are biased evaluators of the quality of a review, and vary in their receptivity to negative decisions. The editor's decision communicates clearly to the author, explain/justifies the decision, and helps improve the author(s) manuscripts. The reviewer’s job is to help them. What makes the editor think a review is “excellent?”

1. Editors want good judgment—there are no simple recipes for an excellent review. At PSPB I’ve read hundreds of reviews in the last four years. So many of them were excellent! But most of them were merely good or adequate. Keep in mind that a handful of good/adequate reviews, and a good independent reading by the editor and their synthesis can make for an “excellent” decision process even if the individual contributions are not excellent in themselves.  An insufficient review was actually rare, but they did happen. If an editor gets two insufficient reviews, they are in trouble.

2. A good review must be readable, clear. It should state what the reviewer thinks is in the paper. It should make clear what they think is good about the manuscript, and what they think needs improvement. A good reviewer states their standards, and compares the manuscript to these standards. It is often good to state whether the manuscript can be improved to the standard of publication, and what that might look like.

2a. Go ahead and number your main points. Indicate which are main issues, and which are minor issues.

3. A good review is not a decision letter. In our field, the action editor has near complete authority in making acceptance/rejection/revision decisions. At PSPB, in four years and over 2,500 manuscripts, I think we changed decision on two papers (after resubmission and re-review and re-revision). The reviewer has two audiences—one writes directly to the action editor, but one knows the author will be “reading over the editor’s shoulder.”

4. Should a reviewer sign the review? It’s an open question, and some people are committed to the practice. If the reviewer might edit themselves, worry about what the author(s) will think of them, soften their tone, or shade their recommendations, then they should feel free to review anonymously. A reviewer should never be a jerk, and never be insulting; it undermines their legitimacy to the author, and it’s never necessary.  A strongly negative review can be written kindly, and should be done virtually every time.  

5. Judge a manuscript on its own merits—does it do what it sets out to do? Then judge whether such a task is worthwhile. No one really cares if the manuscript isn’t the one you would have written.

6. What’s different in the era of open science? Not very much. There is now more information, and a reviewer can read a preregistration and compare it to the finished manuscript. The discrepancies are far more common than the explicit acknowledgment of them. Reviewers sometimes re-analyze data, or check code—this is very, very uncommon at the moment; it is certainly welcome. It is hard to require this burden of time, effort and skill—until we pay such reviewers or make it their specific role it is too much to expect, even as a standard of excellence. The largest change I’ve observed so far is for the open science registration of manuscripts, data, and code, is to undo the double-blind nature of the review, which increases biased evaluation due to gender, age, institutional status, reputation, and so on. I cannot say that this is A Good Thing.

Colin Wayne Leach

Past Co-Editor and Associate Editor, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; Editor, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Peer review is yet another cardinal skill—like ethics, writing, and teaching—that most of us are expected to intuit or learn on the job. This is likely why there is so much idiosyncrasy in the style and content of peer reviews. Of course, it is now all the more clear that our field’s continuing lack of consensual standards for the conduct, reporting, and interpretation of research further fuels idiosyncrasy in peer reviews. The ongoing discussion of best practice for open science has likely introduced new, and perhaps greater, idiosyncrasy in the standards by which peers review research.

Until we can all agree on basic standards for conducting, reporting, and interpreting research, we must all agree on how to productively discuss our (idiosyncratic) views.  Thus, as a journal editor, my main wish is that reviews engage in principled and civil evaluation grounded in standards that the reviewer makes explicit with specific details and supporting references (see Leach, 2020).  Making explicit one’s standards of evaluation in a review empowers all involved to cooperate in informed exchange regarding the legitimacy of those standards and whether those standards have been met by the argument and evidence presented.

Firstly, principled and civil evaluation based in explicit standards empowers the handling editor to more appropriately weight a review and to adjudge whether the evaluation is line with that of other reviewers and with the stated aims and standards of the journal.  Reviews that offer a great deal of (idiosyncratic) evaluation with little explicit statement of the standards behind the evaluation amount to statements of liking.  Liking is a poor basis of principled and civil scholarly discourse and can instead invite distrust and rancor. 

Secondly, principled and civil evaluation based in explicit standards empowers the author(s) to better understand reviewer’s evaluations.  This can ultimately translate into more honest self-reflection and improvement by the author(s).  It can also disseminate information to all involved and thus is a step in moving us toward more consensual standards.  Importantly, principled and civil evaluation also conveys greater procedural justice to authors, which can make it easier for authors to accept reviews and to gain from them. 

Lastly, principled and civil evaluation based in explicit standards empowers the reviewer themselves to be more self-reflective regarding their evaluation, especially as it concerns its legitimacy and its importance to the evaluation.  Having to substantiate one’s evaluation by making one’s standards explicit should make reviewers more accountable to all involved, and thus make them more careful and conscientious.  I am sure that many of us would withdraw at least some of our most damming evaluations if we had to root them in explicit standards to voice them.

The APA Publication Manual is an under-utilized source of basic standards for the conduct and reporting of research.  The related, and publicly accessible, APA reporting standards are another under-utilized source: Journal Article Reporting Standards for Quantitative Research in Psychology; Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Primary, Qualitative Meta-Analytic, and Mixed Methods Research in Psychology.  I’ve listed some helpful guides to reviewing below.

Nature

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03394-y
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06991-0

APA

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/how-to-review-manuscripts

JPSP: IRGP

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/psp-pspi0000226.pdf
https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/editor-spotlight/psp-irgp-leach

Introducing the 2021-2022 Student Committee

What does the SPSP student committee do? The student committee is responsible for the various events geared towards students at the annual convention (e.g., mentor lunches, student poster awards, Outstanding Research Award). Beyond the events at the convention, the student committee also works hard to make year-round resources available to committee members. One example is the technical report aimed at demystifying the academic job market that was compiled by the 2019-2020 student committee. The 2020-2021 committee is finalizing a parallel report on the non-academic job market. They are also responsible for the articles appearing in the monthly SPSPotlight newsletter. Although this may not be an exhaustive list of the various responsibilities of the student committee members, it provides a glimpse of the yearly accomplishments of the committee members.

Who are the SPSP student committee members? The student committee is composed of 10 elected members, each occupying different roles. Below we introduce the incoming student committee.
 

H. Annie Vu headshotChair – H. Annie Vu, Rutgers University

Hi everybody! I'm a second-year Ph.D. student at Rutgers University-Newark and I work in Dr. Luis Rivera's Rutgers Implicit Social Cognition Lab. I'm interested in (1) how different implicit and explicit self-concepts affect a person's tendency toward prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination and (2) what interventions could be created and implemented to reconcile interpersonal and intergroup conflicts. I'm really excited to continue to serve you on the student committee!

Fun fact: My advisor was away on a professional fellowship in D.C. during my first year in the Ph.D. program and then at the end of my first year the COVID-19 pandemic broke out so I guess I have never had a full normal Ph.D. year.

Stylianos-Syropoulos headshotVice Chair – Stylianos Syropoulos, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Hi everyone! I'm a third-year Ph.D. student in the psychology of peace and violence program, in the social psychology division at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, working under the supervision of Dr. Bernhard Leidner. 

My research interests focus on understanding the antecedents of peace and violence. Specifically, I am interested in how individual differences in perceived safety, worldviews, and ideologies can perpetuate conflict. I am also interested in how high-quality close relationships can potentially exert positive downstream intergroup effects and promote conflict resolution. Currently, I am conducting my Master's Thesis on the potential of harmonious worldviews to promote constructive national identification. I am honored to have the chance to serve the student body of SPSP as a member of the Student Committee, and I am looking forward to meeting and interacting with everyone.

Fun fact: I love otters! In fact, once I traversed 10 miles while in Copenhagen so I could get the chance to see one at their aquarium.

Fernanda Andrade headshotPast Chair –  Fernanda Andrade, Duke University

Hello everyone! I'm a third-year Ph.D. student in the social psychology program at Duke University, working with Dr. Rick Hoyle. I am interested in the role of individual differences in self-regulatory capacity and skills in the pursuit of health goals. I'm also interested in how our salient and valued identities influence the valuing and pursuit of health goals. Serving on the SPSP student committee has been one of the most fulfilling experiences of graduate school, and I look forward to serving you for another year!

Fun fact: I’ve been playing with watercolors and bullet journaling since the pandemic started, and it’s been my favorite self-care activity since then!

Katie Austin headshotSPSPotlight Co-Editor – Katie Austin, University of Texas at Dallas

My name is Katie White Austin and I'm a PhD candidate at the University of Texas at Dallas. I'm in my 4th year of the Psychological Sciences Doctoral Program where I work with Dr. Heidi Kane. My research interests primarily center around social support experiences in close relationships. My current research focuses on the use of affectionate touch to promote positive health behaviors and adaptive coping behaviors across different kinds of close relationships. I have thoroughly enjoyed my role as SPSPotlight co-editor this past year, and I'm looking forward to another wonderful year ahead. If you have suggestions or ideas for what you'd like the student newsletter to cover, don't hesitate to reach out!

Fun fact: I have 6 siblings, and I love my big and tight-knit family!

Sharlene-Fernandes headshotSPSPotlight Co-Editor – Sharlene Fernandes, Georgia State University

Hey everyone, I’m Sharlene! I’m currently a PhD student at Dr. Eyal Aharoni’s Cooperation, Conflict, and Cognition Lab at Georgia State University. My research interests include studying how people’s emotions and personality traits shape their reactions to unfairness. I use economic games to understand punishment of fairness violations. I’m also currently working on projects that examine how moral values and psychopathic traits contribute to criminal behavior. I’m excited to work as a co-editor for the (SPSPotlight) newsletter this year! If you have any ideas or suggestions for the newsletter, please feel free to send me an email. I’d be happy to hear from you.

Fun fact: I love beaches and trying cuisines from different cultures and countries. A more superficial fact: I recently found out that I have genetic markers for hair photobleaching (and my hair does actually get lighter when I spend time in the sun!).

Abdo-Elnakouri headshotMember-at-Large – Abdo Elnakouri, University of Waterloo

Hey everyone! I'm a third-year PhD student at the University of Waterloo. Much of my research tries to understand how people's mundane everyday goals work to subtly shape their broader moral, political, and religious commitments. For example, in a line of work with Dr. Abby Scholer and Dr. Ian McGregor, we find that people attempt to deal with hard life decisions by steering towards particular ideological commitments.  I'm excited to serve on the Student Committee this year; please feel free to reach out with any comments or suggestions. :)

Fun fact: I won a speech competition in grade 4 for a talk on dinosaurs. Some say that was my career peak.

Martha Berg headshotMember-at-Large – Martha Berg, University of Michigan

Hello everyone! I am a 4th year PhD student in Social Psychology at the University of Michigan, where I work with Shinobu Kitayama and Ethan Kross to study how cultural and relational dynamics influence our judgments and decisions, particularly moral decisions. Before this, I was at Duke University, where I completed a BS in Psychology and an MS in Global Health. I'm looking forward to getting started on the Student Committee!

Fun fact: The new pandemic-friendly hobby I've picked up recently is knitting! I've been enjoying knitting lots of hats and sweaters to keep me warm during the long, cold Ann Arbor winter :)

Christian-Kotoye headshotMember-at-Large – Christian Kotoye, Oakland University

Hey y'all! I am a third-year doctoral student and research assistant at Oakland University. I'm currently working in both the Cognition and Behavior (CAB) Laboratory, with Dr. Martha Escobar and in the Personality and Evolutionary Psychology (PEP) Laboratory with Dr. Melissa McDonald. My research is focused on furthering the investigation of intergroup conflict and bias from a social psychological perspective while also understanding the evolved psychology that underlies these phenomena. Specifically, I am interested in how race drives biases in social relationships, in policing, and in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics fields. 

I am looking forward to serving as the first member-at-large that is responsible for Diversity Initiatives. 

Fun fact: I am an avid traveler and a foodie. I have perfected my ramen, sushi, fufu, and stew, and my fried chicken wing recipes. 

Andres-Gvirtz headshotMember-at-Large – Andrés Gvirtz, University of Cambridge

Hi everyone, I’m a Ph.D. student in the Personality and Social Dynamics Research Group at the University of Cambridge and a Visiting Fellow within the Organizational Behavior Program at Harvard University. I am interested in understanding behavior through an interactionalist lens, combining personality and environmental information. One of my latest projects used, e.g. Yelp data in combination with a large-scale personality survey to link neighbourhood personalities and local amenities. In the past, I worked on advanced analytics- and organizational behavior projects for a range of management consulting firms, including McKinsey & Company and the Boston Consulting Group.  I really love the SPSP spirit and family and am happy to contribute to the Student Committee’s professional development effort.

Fun fact: When I was younger, I had an Axolotl as a pet, it’s a salamander with gills and lungs!

Zaviera-Panlilio headshotMember-at-Large – Zaviera Panlilio, University at Buffalo, SUNY

I am a fourth-year Ph.D. student interested in goal-motivated behavior. More specifically, I am interested in examining construal level and progress effects on persistence in a variety of domains from health to social justice-related behaviors. 

Fun fact: I love to give talks and have presented on everything from Japanese kawaii culture to emotion regulation strategies.

Eliot Smith

Eliot R. Smith is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington. He moved to Indiana in 2003 after 21 years on the faculty at Purdue University. His research interests include prejudice and intergroup relations, especially the role of group-based emotions; person perception and stereotyping; and computational modeling. He has served as Editor of Personality and Social Psychology Review and JPSP: Attitudes and Social Cognition, and is currently Associate Editor of Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

Do you have a favorite conference memory or story?

At the third SPSP conference, in Savannah in 2002, I met with the executive committee to present a plan for a Summer Institute in Social Psychology.  The idea was based on, frankly, the envy that some of us felt for the overwhelmingly successful biennial Summer School sponsored by the European Association for Social Psychology, which has played a huge role in both transmitting knowledge and building friendship and collaboration networks among European social psychologists.  The plan was accepted and some of us wrote a grant proposal that SPSP submitted to the National Science Foundation. That funding began the now ongoing series of Summer Institutes (now SISPP), with the first held at the University of Colorado in 2003.  Graduate students, consider attending SISPP! 

Do you have a favorite course to teach and why?

Besides specialized graduate courses, my favorite has been an advanced undergraduate course on the social psychology of public opinion. I designed it based on a course that I TA’d for in the early 1970s taught by Tom Pettigrew, my PhD advisor.  It lets me combine methodological material like writing questions, the science of self-report, and survey sampling with substantive content from social psychology like social influence and the role of ideology in judgments. I also present and critique current polling data in virtually every class session. Teaching this course makes me realize how much fascinating work on political psychology is going on in our field today.

What are your current research interests?

My long-time collaboration with Diane Mackie on emotions and intergroup relations continues, and we are working together on two papers right now (to be submitted or resubmitted this summer).  In a relatively new direction, my colleague Selma Šabanović and I have an NSF-funded project examining human-robot interaction within the theoretical framework of intergroup relations.  That has led to a number of publications, the most recent being Smith, Sherrin, Fraune, and Šabanović (PSPB, 2020)—a paper examining whether positive or negative emotions are stronger predictors of willingness to interact with robots.  I also have major research interests in person perception and social cognition, illustrated by a recent paper by Smith and Mackie (PSPR, 2016), a novel model of social influence.

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

I retired at the end of 2018, imagining that I would have plenty of free time to garden, travel, visit family, and enjoy music (perhaps brush up my rusty piano skills).  In reality, I am keeping as busy as ever.  I am still doing a lot of research and writing—perhaps even more given my freedom from teaching and administrative responsibilities.  Many days are still filled with working on manuscripts with colleagues, as well as some journal editing and reviewing duties.  In the pandemic I do find time to maintain a small garden, and hope to get to that piano playing someday.

Congratulations to the 2020 Awards Winners

The Society of Personality and Social Psychology has announced winners in its annual Awards of Excellence program.

Senior Career Contribution Awards

Block Award:  William Revelle, Northwestern University

Campbell Award:  Dale Miller, Stanford University

Career Contribution Award:  Jennifer Eberhardt, Stanford University; Jeff Greenberg, University of Arizona, Tom Pyszczynski, University of Colorado, Sheldon Solomon, Skidmore College

Distinguished Scholar Award:  Judith Harackiewicz, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Janet E. Helms, Boston College

Methodological Innovator Award:  Sam Gosling, University of Texas, Austin

Application of Personality and Social Psychology Award:  Jeffrey Fisher, University of Connecticut; William Fisher, Western University

Mid-Career Awards

Diener Award in Personality Psychology:  Iris Mauss, Stanford University

Diener Award in Social Psychology:  Dolores Albarracín, University of Illinois

Early Career Awards

SAGE Young Scholars:  Sylvia Perry, Northwestern University; Sarah Gaither, Duke University; Rodica Damian, University of Houston; Diana Tamir, Princeton University; Neil Lewis, Jr., Cornell University; Steven O. Roberts, Stanford University; Ana Gantman, Brooklyn College (CUNY); John Rauthmann, Bielefeld University

Teaching and Mentoring Awards

Ambady Award For Mentoring ExcellenceJennifer A. Richeson, Yale University

Undergraduate Teaching and Mentoring Award:  Benita Jackson, Smith College

Prizes for a Single Outstanding Contribution

Cialdini Prize:  Sherry Jueyu Wu (UCLA) and Betsy Levy Paluck (Princeton University) - Participatory practices at work change attitudes and behavior toward societal authority and justice

Wegner Theoretical Innovation Prize:  Alex Haslam (University of Queensland), Stephen Reicher (University of St. Andrews), and Jay Van Bavel (New York University) - Rethinking the nature of cruelty: The role of identity leadership in the Stanford Prison Experiment; Rebecca Neel and Bethany Lassetter (University of Toronto) The stigma of perceived irrelevance: An affordance-management theory of interpersonal invisibility

Media Awards

Book Prize:  Jennifer Eberhardt, Stanford University - Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think, and Do

Excellence in Science Journalism:  Thomas Edsall, "Why Trump Persists, President Trump Is a Very Political Animal, and The Contract With Authoritarianism"

Diversity Awards

Jenessa Shapiro Award for Contributions to Diversity and Inclusion:  Adrienne R. Carter-Sowell, Texas A&M University; Eden King, Rice University

Service Awards

Service to the Society:  Ivuoma Onyeador, Yale University; Evelyn R. Carter, Paradigm

Service on Behalf of Social and Personality Psychology:  Project Implicit

Student Awards

Student Publication Prize:  Amanda Ravary, McGill University; Angie LeRoy, Rice University; Pelin Gul, Iowa State University; Sarah Humberg, University of Müenster; Xian Zhao, University of Toronto

Heritage Dissertation Research Awards:  Adriana Germano, University of Washington; Arvin Jagayat, Ryerson University; Isidro Landa, Washington University in St. Louis; Katharine Scott, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Stephanie Cardenas, John Jay College of Criminal Justice; Thomas Costello, Emory University

Jenessa Shapiro Graduate Research Award:  Adaora Ubaka, University of Illinois at Chicago; Ariana Munoz-Salgado, University of Michigan; Danielle Parra, University of Michigan; Derek Brown, UC Berkeley Haas School of Business; Jordan Wylie, City University of New York; Joyce He, University of Toronto Rotman School of Management; Katlyn Lee Milless, The Graduate Center, CUNY; Kimberly Martin, UCLA; Michael Perez, Texas A&M University; Mikaela Spruill, Cornell University; Mitchell R. Campbell, University of Wisconsin - Madison; Shauna M. Bowes, Emory University; Tyler Jimenez, University of Missouri

Early Career Committee Reports on 2020 Initiatives and Achievements

It’s October, apparently. Your Early Career (EC) Committee is a little confused because it feels like March went on forever and then suddenly the autumn leaves are falling, but here we are. That said, even if we feel like the time has jumped by, when we look at what we’ve achieved in our first year of this inaugural committee, we must have been hard at work! EC academics have been hit especially hard by the global crisis, and we ourselves have been struggling over this year trying to maintain our research, move our teaching online, and even just meet the basic requirements of carrying on when faced with a global health crisis that has fundamentally changed the world as we know it. But carry on we must, and as the popular phrase in our co-Chair Jim’s native England goes, we have done our best to “keep calm and carry on.”

When we started this committee a year ago, we had a few aims. Generally, we wanted to build community among all EC members and to increase awareness of EC scholarship (more on that later!). But more specifically, our first co-chair, Sarah Gaither, was particularly keen on changing the definition of what an EC member at SPSP is, and the implications this has for their dues and conference registration. Our second co-chair, Jim Everett, was particularly focused on reforming the current Early Career Awards. 

We are ecstatic to report progress on both of these goals! At the most recent SPSP Board Meeting, there was huge support for voting to officially change the current Early Career definition of being 3 years post PhD or less, to now being up to 6 years post PhD! These changes will come into place with the 2022 membership dues cycle. We hope that this definitional change encourages more SPSP Conference participation with the financial savings you will all receive while also motivating all EC scholars to build a more vibrant and awesome EC community too! 

At this same SPSP Board Meeting, we also were successful in launching changes for the current Early Career Awards too! First, we have renamed the SAGE Young Scholars Award to the SAGE Early Career Trajectory Award to be more identity inclusive. Second, the stipulation that people must be in a faculty position has been removed, replaced by a requirement that someone is between 3 and 6 years post-PhD. This allows people in post-docs or industry positions who are still making important contributions to be recognised for their work. Third, to recognise the diversity of contributions that scholars can make, we have expanded the requirements so that recipients will be honored for their individual and collaborative contributions to social and personality psychology, including via research, teaching, open science, and service-related efforts.. Fourth, we have created a new Early Career Award named the SAGE Emerging Scholar Award, open to individuals who are 0-3 years Post-PhD to be awarded in addition to the SAGE Early Career Trajectory Award. We are still finalizing the details with SPSP, but are very excited about these new changes that we hope will widen the acknowledgement of EC scholarship across one’s career!

Thus, from the very first meeting we had as a new committee, we wanted to make strides on these issues, and we’re glad we have. But of course, if you hadn’t heard, in March the world flipped on its head with a global pandemic. This created new concerns for EC members and exacerbated others, and we wanted to do our part to support you. You were concerned about maintaining productivity and connections when isolated; you were concerned about applying for jobs and promotion in these difficult times; you were concerned about how you can do your part as an EC member to foster a diverse and inclusive community. To this end, we started a number of new initiatives. We started a Summer EC Writing Group that was so successful we’ve extended it to the Fall term where we meet twice a week still (let us know if you want to join!).  We are hosting a professional development session at the SPSP Virtual Convention focusing on hiring, promotion and tenure as EC scholars and we’ve also prioritized EC mentoring tables at SPSP that focus on the new issues EC scholars are now facing. We are hosting Free-Form Friday webinars about repayment of NIH loans and applying for academic jobs in the United Kingdom and we’re also hosting a webinar on Fostering Inclusive and Diverse Research and Teaching Environments as EC leaders. 

We are proud of the work we’ve done together as a committee, but we’re not done. There is still so much more that we’ll do to support EC members, but you’ll have to wait until the next update for that!

As we sign off, we’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate the 2020 SAGE Young Scholars Awardees for their excellent achievement. These are very well deserved, and we were pleased to see the number of BIPOC recipients. But we’d also like to congratulate all our EC members, just for doing what they can to move forward in these difficult times. We see you, we recognise you, and we appreciate you.

Yours on behalf of the whole committee,
Jim A.C. Everett and Sarah Gaither

 

2020 SPSP & APA Division 8 Fellows Announced

Congratulations to the 2020 SPSP and APA Division 8 Fellows! We applaud your extraordinary, distinctive, and longstanding contributions to the science of personality and social psychology.
2020 SPSP Fellows
Evan P. Apfelbaum

Evan P. Apfelbaum

Photo of  Claudia Brumbaugh

Claudia Brumbaugh

Photo of Joseph Cesario

Joseph Cesario

Photo of  Paul Eastwick

Paul Eastwick

Photo of Martin Hagger

Martin Hagger

Photo of  Crystal C. Hall

Crystal C. Hall

Photo of Marie Helweg-Larsen

Marie Helweg-Larsen

Photo of Charles T. Hill

Charles T. Hill

Photo of Crystal L. Hoyt

Crystal L. Hoyt

Photo of Michael W. Kraus

Michael W. Kraus

Photo of Kristin Lane

Kristin Lane

Photo of Sher R. Levy

Sher R. Levy

Photo of  Heather C. Lench

Heather C. Lench

Photo of Debra Lieberman

Debra Lieberman

Photo of Arthur G. Miller

Arthur G. Miller

Photo of Kristin Pauker

Kristin Pauker

Photo of William Pedersen

William Pedersen

Photo of Jason Plaks

Jason Plaks

Photo of Brad Sagarin

Brad Sagarin

Photo of Sunita Sah

Sunita Sah

Photo of Simone Schnall

Simone Schnall

Photo of Mark Seery

Mark Seery

Photo of Richard B. Slatcher

Richard B. Slatcher

Photo of Christopher J. Soto

Christopher J. Soto

Photo of Tessa West

Tessa West

Photo of Cynthia Willis Esqueda

Cynthia Willis Esqueda

Photo of Robb Willer

Robb Willer

 
2020 APA Division 8 Fellows
Photo of Adrienne Carter-Sowell

Adrienne Carter-Sowell

Photo of Douglas Gentile

Douglas Gentile

Photo of Margaret Kovera

Margaret Kovera