Syllabus

2018/2019 Fall Term
DATES: September 4 - December 23, 2018
TIME: 11:30-2:30 Tuesday
ROOM: 207 BSB

Instructor

Ward Struthers
Office: 238 BSB
Phone: (416) 736-2100 x66476 (psych office for messages)
E-mail: struther@yorku.ca
Web Site: http://struthers.info.yorku.ca
Office Hours: 11:30 am Monday or by appointment

Course Objectives and Overview

The primary aim of this course is to provide students with the necessary skills to design and carry out high quality, reproducible, empirical research in social psychology. A number of topics will be addressed including methodological challenges to social psychological research (e.g., p-hacking, replication, open science), generating ideas and research questions, manipulating independent variables, measuring dependent variables, ethics, and effective strategies for designing and publishing research. Although there are a number of important research methods used by social psychologist (e.g., qualitative, nonexperimental, quasi-experimental, and experimental), this course will largely focus on experimental and quasi-experimental research methods.

Grading and Course Requirements

Evaluation will be based on thought papers, leading class discussions, class participation, a presentation of a research proposal, and a written research proposal. You are expected to have read all assigned readings before each class and to participate in class discussions. Class attendance is therefore strongly recommended. Specifically, the final evaluation will be based on:

  • 1 page thought papers to be submitted at the beginning of each class (2% each, 16% total)
  • research proposal presentations (30%)
  • a written research proposal (40%)
  • weekly class participation + leading class discussion (2% each week, 16% total)
  • course total 16%+30%+40%+16%=102%, I will drop your lowest thought paper or participation grade to round the total grade to 100%

Thought Papers

Decide on a research question that you will develop throughout the course. Apply the weekly readings to the development of a study to answer your research question. Don’t spend a lot of time describing the readings. Instead, focus on your own ideas and intuitions that you had while you were reading the paper. You have one page to show me that you read the articles and that you were actively processing the ideas, methods, results, and implications that were presented in the papers and applying them to your study. I want to know that you did more than just read the abstract and the discussion. SHOW ME THAT YOU WERE THOUGHTFUL WHEN READING THE ARTICLES AND APPLYING THEM TO YOUR STUDY. Ways to demonstrate this as they apply to your research are:

  1. Suggest a way to extend the core findings of a paper – think of modifying the theoretical viewpoint to fit the methods better or think of a different theoretical model using the same methods, think about new methods for studying the same issue, or think about the implications of using this methodology to study this issue.
  2. Discover a plausible alternative account for the results of the study, along with a suggestion for a possible way of resolving this issue that would help rule out the alternative explanation or prove it to be correct.
  3. On a related note, describe an IMPORTANT concern that you might have with the article. This concern might be related to the theory/conceptual framework of the paper, the hypotheses/expectations, the methodology, the results, or the author’s interpretation of the results and their discussion of the implications/impact of the findings
  4. Describe how the results of the study relate to another area of research that you are interested in, and outline a study that could test your intuitions.
  5. Outline a theoretical question related to the readings that is left unexplored, and suggest a study that could investigate that question.
  6. Compare and contrast two articles assigned that week or one from the present week and a previous week. Suggest a study that might highlight your ideas about your perceptions about the two articles. These perceptions could be about the methodology or about the theory.
  7. Describe how the readings relate to your own personal real-life experiences and use your own experiences to develop a different way of testing these ideas.

Hard copies of these papers are due at the beginning of each class and I will return them at the following class with comments.

Research Proposal Presentations

Choose a topic that is dear to your heart (maybe a Thesis topic, Dissertation topic, or a pet project). This presentation should focus on research method issues/research ideas raised in this class (i.e., focusing on experimental social research methods). This is a formal presentation (i.e., like a social colloquium talk, use of powerpoint) that should take 20 minutes. I want you to present a description of one study that has a strong theoretical rationale, clearly described hypotheses that are rooted in the theoretical framework, and clearly described design (e.g., A x B, 2 x 2 between groups), research methods (e.g., experimental, quasi-experimental), materials (e.g., stimuli for manipulations and measures), and procedure (e.g., setting the stage, what will participants do, what will they be told, random assignment, experimental and mundane realism, etc.). One week before your presentation, please send me your research question, IVs, DVs, Design, procedures, etc.

  1. Start with the big picture. Situate the work theoretically and tell me how you are extending the previous work. Is your contribution theoretical, a new application, or methodological? Be specific. What is your research question?
  2. Describe the overall methodological approach. Also describe in detail what the independent variable is? What is the moderator variable is if relevant?, What is the mediator variable is if relevant?, What the dependent variable is? What is the procedure (what do the participants’ experience when they enter the lab)? What are the cover stories (what do the participants’ think each task is about)?
  3. Create simple, elegant studies. Don’t try to be overambitious. Study one simple idea in a straightforward direct way.
  4. What is the expected pattern of findings? What are the important comparisons? Use figures to illustrate your hypotheses.
  5. Describe what the implications of your expected results are? What will be the take-home message of your study?
  6. Be prepared to defend your study and the methodological choices you made. Plan on taking about 15 minutes to describe the study and about 5-10 minutes answering questions related to the theory, method, and implications.
  7. Try to be professional in your presentations. PowerPoint presentations are required and a nice, professional way of presenting research. If you have a chance to learn this skill during this class -- it will come in handy in your professional career.

Research Proposal Paper

In 10 pages or less and in APA Style (6th edition), write a research proposal based on your research proposal presentation and feedback you receive from the class. The paper will have a title page, introduction, hypotheses, method, procedure, and reference section. The title page and reference section are not included in the 10 page limit. The paper is due one week after your research proposal and should incorporate important revisions noted during your presentation. Please submit the paper to me electronically (email) and as a word document so I can use track changes to provide you with feedback.

Class Participation

It is important that you join in when we are discussing each article. I want to hear your opinions related to the topics being discussed. Your participation will affect your grade so don’t be afraid to add your thoughts and opinions and come prepared to talk about any problems, concerns, criticisms, or appreciation that you might have regarding the readings. If you say nothing during the seminar then it is impossible to earn participation grades (This grade is for participation and not attendance). All topics that are valid for the thought papers are also relevant to the discussion. Each week, students will be assigned the role of discussion leaders for each article. So if there are 3 articles then there will be 3 discussion leaders. Discussion leaders will be assigned on the first class. As a discussion leader, you should assume that everyone has thoroughly read the articles and therefore don't spend a lot of time describing the readings. Instead, you will briefly summarize the main idea(s) of the article, present the key issues, discuss its strengths and weaknesses, and raise any questions that you have. You should direct specific questions or issues to the class to answer and discuss. It is your responsibility to lead a thorough discussion of the article. You should limit your summary to 25 minutes and be prepared to raise issues and lead the class discussion for another 20 minutes or so.

Course Schedule

Articles for this course can be obtained on line or they will be available in the resource room on the first floor of the BSB and on a 2 hour reserve for you to copy. Each week there will be several key articles that are primary readings designated in BOLD (i.e., you must read them and focus your thought papers on them) as well as additional articles that I would consider secondary reading.

Class Schedule

1. September 11 – Discussion led by the instructor

Bias, Research, and Science

Introduction to social methods

What am I going to learn?
How am I going to learn it?
How will I be tested on it?

sign up for class presentations (seminar leader, research proposal presentation)

Primary Readings

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Milsap, R. E. (2008). Doctoral training in statistics, measurement, and methodology: Replicaiton and extension of Aiken, West, Sechrest, and Reno's Survey of PhD Programs in North America. American Psychologist, 63, 32-50.

Manicas, P. T., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Implications for psychology of the new philosophy of science. American Psychologist, 399-413.

Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference: Certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. Science, 146, 347-353.

Extra Readings

McGuire, W. J. (1973). The yin and yang of progress in social psychology: Seven Koan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 446-456.

Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social Psychology as History. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309-320.

2. September 18 – Discussion led by (see below for names)

Threats to social psychological research methods: Questionable and best research practices

Primary Readings

Funder, D. C., Levine, J. M., Mackie, D. M., Morf, C. C., Vazire, S., & West, S. G. (2013). Improving the dependability of research in personality and social psychology: Recommendations for research and educational practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 3-12. (Medeline)

Sakaluk, J. K. (2016). Exploring small, confirming big: An alternative system to the new statistics for advancing cumulative and replicable psychological research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 47-54. (Mohammad)

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, (11), 1359-1366. (Daniel)

Baumeister, R. (2016). Charting the future of social psychology on stormy seas: Winners, losers, and recommendations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, (Garrett)

Brant, M. J., IJzerman, L., et al. (2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217-224.

Extra Readings

Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on psychological science, 7,(6), 543-554.

Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2011). The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology Journals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 666-678.

Baumeister, R. (2016). Charting the future of social psychology on stormy seas: Winners, losers, and recommendations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66,

Brant, M. J., IJzerman, L., et al. (2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217-224.

Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, (3), 196-217.

Maner, J. K. (2014). Let’s put our money where our mouth is: If authors are to change their ways, reviewers (and editors) must change with them. Perspectives on Psychological Science.

Pashler, H., & Harris, C. R. (2013). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7,(6), 531-536.

Schonbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609-612.

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 word solution. SPSP Dialogue News Letter, Fall, 2012.

Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. Psychological Methods, 17, (4), 551-566. ()

3. September 25 – Discussion led by (see below for names)

Ideas, Theories, Hypotheses, and Research Questions

Primary Readings

Nisbett, R. E. (1990). The anticreativity letters: Advice from a senior tempter to a junior tempter. American Psychologyist, September, 1078-1082. (Alisha)

Kruglanski, A. W. (2001). That "vision thing": The state of theory in social psychology and personality psychology at the edge of the new millennium. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 871-875. (Garrett)

Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196-217. (Madeline)

Gray, K. (2017). How to map theory: Reliable methods are fruitless without rigorous theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1-11. (Daniel)

Extra Readings

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 167-203.

Chamberlin, T. C. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 15, 92-96. ( )

Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1986). Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological Review, 93, 216-229.

Klugar, A. N., & Tikochinsky, J. (2001). The error of accepting the "theoretical" null hypothesis: The rise, fall, and resurrection of commonsense hypotheses in psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 408-423.

McGuire, W. J. (1997). Creative hypothesis generating in psychology: Some useful heuristics. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 1-30. ()

Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 2-14.

Singh, S. (2005). Even Einstein had his off days. The New York Times, January 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/opinion/02singh.html.

Zanna, M.P. (2004). The Naïve Epistemology Of A Working Social Psychologist (Or The Working Epistemology Of A Naïve Social Psychologist): The Value Of Taking ‘Temporary Givens’ Seriously. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 210-218.

NO CLASS on October 2 due to medical appointment

4. October 16 – Discussion led by (see below for names)

Methods in a nutshell: Nonexperimental, experimental, quasiexperimental, and validity. Types of research questions, signatures of methods, strengths, weaknesses

Primary Readings

Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P. C., Carlsmith, J. M., & Gonzales, M. H. (1990). Methods of research in social psychology (second edition), An introduction to experiments (Chapter 1, pp. 8-39). New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.(Alisha)

Brewer, M. B. (2000). Research design and issues of validity. In H. T Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.). Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (chapter 1, pp. 3-16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Mohammad)

Extra Readings

Aronson, E., Brewer, M. B., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1985). Experimentation in social psychology (vol. 1, chapter 8, pp. 441-485.

West, S. G., Biesanz, J. C., & Pitts, S. C. (2000). Causal inference and generalization in field settings: Experimental and quasi-experimental designs. In H. T Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.). Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (chapter 3, pp. 40-84). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kerber, K. W. (1980).Rewards, costs, and helping: A demonstration of the complementary nature of experimental and correlational research. Teaching of Psychology, 7, 50-52.

NO CLASS on October 9 due to fall reading week

5. October 23 – Discussion led by (see below for names)

Designing experiments I: Setting the stage, operationalization, and independent variables (IVs)

Primary Readings

Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P. C., Carlsmith, J. M., & Gonzales, M. H. (1990). Methods of research in social psychology (second edition), Finding and creating a setting (Chapter 6, pp.183-204). New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. (Daniel)

Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P. C., Carlsmith, J. M., & Gonzales, M. H. (1990). Methods of research in social psychology (second edition), The independent variable (Chapter 7, pp.205-239). New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. (Garrett)

Extra Readings

Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P. C., Carlsmith, J. M., & Gonzales, M. H. (1990). Methods of research in social psychology (second edition), Research design (Chapter 2, pp. 17-39). New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

Smith, E. R. (2000). Research design. In H.T. Reis & C.M. Judd (Eds.) Handbook of research methodsin social psychology (pp. 17-39). New York: Cambridge University Press.

6. October 30 – Discussion led by

Designing experiments II: Moderation and mediation

Primary Readings

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological reserach: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. (Garrett)

Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845-851. (Mohammad)

Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Yes, but what's the mechanism? (Don't expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550-558. (Alisha)

Smith, E. R. (2012). Editorial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1-3.

Trafimow, D. (2014). Editorial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1-2.

Extra Readings

Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Yes, but what's the mechanism? (Don't expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550-558.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.

Smith, E. R. (2012). Editorial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1-3.

Trafimow, D. (2014). Editorial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1-2.

7. November 6 – Discussion led by (see below for names)

Conducting experiments III (procedures): Priming, bogus pipeline, small groups, deception, demand characteristics

Primary Readings

Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H.T. Reis & C.M. Judd (Eds.) Handbook of research methods in social psychology (Chapter 10, pp. 253-285). New York: Cambridge University Press. (Daniel)

Forster, J., Liberman, N., & Friedman, R. S. (2007). Seven principles of goal activation: A systematic approach to distinguishing goal priming from priming of no-goal constructs. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 211-233. (Mohammad)

Molden, D. C. (2014). Understanding priming effects in social psychology: An overview and integration. Social Cognition, 32, 243-249. (Madeline)

Extra Readings

Christensen, L. (1988). Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified? Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 14, 664-675.

Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 865-877.

Kerr, N. L., Aronoff, J., & Messe, L. A. (2000). Methods of small group research. In H.T. Reis & C.M. Judd (Eds.) Handbook of research methods in social psychology (Chapter 7, pp. 160-189). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Macrae, C.N., Bodenhausen, G.V., Milne, A.B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 808-817.

Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment. American Psychologist,17, 776-783.

Roese, N. J., & Jamieson, D. W. (1993). Twenty years of bogus pipeline research: A critical review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 363-375.

Sharpe, D., Adair, J. G., & Roese, N. J. (1992). Twenty years of deception research: A decline in subject trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 585-590.

8. November 13 – Discussion led by (see below for names)

Designing exerpiments IV: Dependent variables I-(cognition, affect, behavior, self-report, explicit, physiology, fMRI, validity, reliability)

Primary Readings

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as a science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396-403. (Alisha)

Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54,93-105. (??)

Fazio, R. H., & Olsen, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327. (Madeline)

Flake, J., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practices and recommendations. Social and personality science, 8(4), 370-378. (??)

Extra Readings

Azar, B. (2008). Psychologists debate whether the impliciit association test needs more solid psychometric footing before it enteres the public sphere. Monitor, 39, 44-46.

Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 27-41.

Blascovich, J. (2000). Using psysiological indexes of psychological processes in social psychological reserach. In H.T. Reis & C.M. Judd (Eds.) Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 117-137). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cunningham, W. A., Preacher, K. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). Implicit Attitude Measures: Consistency, stability, and convergent validity. Psychological Science, 12, 163-170. ()

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480. ()

Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Sriram, N. (2006). Consequential validity of the Implicit Association Test: Comments on Blanton and Jaccard (2006). American Psychologist, 61, 56-61.

Fiske, D. W., & Campbell, D. T. (1992). Citations do not solve problems. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 393-395.

Flake, J., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practices and recommendations. Social and personality science, 8(4), 370-378.

Gawronski, B. (2007) Special Issue on "What is an attitude". Social Cognition, 25, (5).

Hanisch, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1998). The importance of individuals' repertoires of behaviors: the scientific appropriateness of studying multiple behaviors and general attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 463-480.

Holtgraves, T. (2004). Social desirability and self-reports: Testing models of socially desirable responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 161-172.

John, O., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In H.T. Reis & C.M. Judd (Eds.) Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 339-369). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psycologist, 50, 741-749.

Nash, K. A., McGregor, I., & Inzlicht, M. (2010). Line bisection as a neural marker of approach motivation. Psychophysiology,47, 979-983.

Payne, B. K., Burkley, M. A., & Stokes, M. B. (2008). Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 16-31.

Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., Riemann, R. & Angleitner, A. (2000). On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 582-593.

Do Web demonstrations of the IAT if you've never done one before – http://www.tolerance.org

9. November 20 – Discussion led by (see below for names)

Assessing the success of your experiment and ethics

Primary Readings

Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. American Psychologist, 37, 245-257. (Mohammad)

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160-164. (Daniel)

Rosenthal, R. (1994). Science and the ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research. Psychological Science, 5, 127-134. (Garrett)

Extra Readings

Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129-133.

Albright, L., & Malloy, T. E. (2000). Experimental validity: Brunswik, Campbell, Cronbach, and enduring issues. Review of General Psychology, 4, 337-353.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (1997). External validity of "Trivial" experiments: The case of laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology, 1, 19-41.

Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P. C., Carlsmith, J. M., & Gonzales, M. H. (1990). Methods of research in social psychology (second edition), Some problems with experimentation in social psychology (Chapter 2 & 3, pp. 40-82). New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

Gorsuch, R. L., & Wallace, W. L. (2005). Giving psychology away is expensive. American Psychologist, May, 348-349.

Marjanovic, Z., Struthers, C. W, Cribbie, R., & Greenglass, E. R. (2014). The conscientious Responders scale: A new tool for discriminating between conscientious and random Responders. SAGEOpen, 4 (3), 1-10. doi. 10.1177/2158244014545964.

Marjanovic, Z., Holden, R., Struthers, C. W., Cribbie, R. Greenglass, E. (in press). The Inter- Item Standard Deviation (ISD): An Index that Discriminates Between Conscientious andRandom Responders. Personality and Individual Differences.

Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external validity. American Psychologist, April, 379-387.

Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophmores int he laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515-530.

10. November 27 – Presenters

Presentation - (Alisha)

Presentation - (Mohammad)

Presentation - (Garrett)

11. December 4 – Presenters

Presentation - (Daniel)

Presentation - (Madeline)

Presentation - ()

12. December ?? –Presenters

Presentation - ()

Presentation - ()

Presentation - ()