Continue reading »]]> Psychology in Action is proud to announce the second annual Psychology Interdisciplinary Events symposium, Thursday, May 23rd, 2012, from 5 to 7pm in UCLA’s CNSI Auditorium.  The discussion will focus on the intersection of music, psychology, and neuroscience.  The event is completely FREE and open to the general public!  We hope to see you there!

Featuring

- Dr. Mark Tramo, UC Los Angeles
- Dr. Sarah Creel, UC San Diego
- Dr. Petr Janata, UC Davis
- Dr. Martin Monti, UC Los Angeles
- David Rosenboom, CalArts
- Sam Torrisi, UC Los Angeles

Synopsis

Music has a near ubiquitous influence across human culture. Composers, performers, and listeners alike relish the expression of emotion and beauty through melody and rhythm.  When paired with a psychologist’s curiosity and passion for understanding human nature, these fields overlap on countless dimensions.  Whether through cross-cultural examination of musical differences and integration, the neuroscientific study of music in the brain, or exploration of the link between language and music, researchers and musicians take many paths to explore the mental and physical effects music has on humans. This event brings together several experts on psychology and music and will include brief presentations by the panelists, an interactive Q&A, and live musical performances.

Related Blog Posts

- The Psychology of Film Music

- Music Cognition

- I got chills, they’re multiplying

Continue reading »]]> Guest Author: Valentina Park

Much of our daily, personal interactions are based on how we interpret the facial expressions of people we meet. On a basic level, when a person smiles we know we made them happy and when they look angry we may have offended them. This type of facial discrimination has become so second nature that we may forget this skill once had to be learned, developed, and practiced. Our personal experiences as children play an important role in shaping the way we read and interpret faces later in life (Fox, Levitt, & Nelson, 2010).

To examine this idea, studies have been done to analyze the differences in facial recognition between children being reared in typical families and children being reared in orphanages. A child raised in an orphanage experiences chronic stress, receives minimal emotional attention, and does not have the opportunity to form secure attachments with people (Parker & Nelson, 2005). These atypical social interactions are theorized to cause deficits in the ability to understand the meaning of facial expressions later in life (Parker & Nelson, 2005). Consequently, orphanage-reared children may behave abnormally in social situations because they have difficulty interpreting characteristic cues and faces (Parker & Nelson, 2005).

Children adopted from orphanages still experience traumatic early life stress and consequently have similar difficulties interpreting emotional expressions. This is because the social bonds formed during infancy continue to shape emotional functions throughout adulthood (Fries, Ziegler, Kurian, Jacoris, & Pollak, 2005). Specifically, brain systems responsible for regulating basic social behavior are directly influenced by early life stress. This suggests that early childhood is a highly critical period for developing facial discrimination techniques and shaping human interactions in the future. (Fries, Ziegler, Kurian, Jacoris, & Pollak, 2005).

Studies also suggest a relationship between past experience with abuse and increased attention to angry faces. Children raised in abusive homes are more likely to focus their attention on an angry face and have difficulty disengaging from these faces (Pollak & Tolley-Schell, 2003). Moreover, they are more like to match any emotional situation to pictures of angry faces in experimental tasks (Pollak, Cicchetti, Homung, & Reed, 2000). Once again, this research suggests that our experiences as children shape the way we process faces later in life and thus influence how we understand social interactions and choose to behave.

Interpreting facial expressions of other people is how we are able to understand and interact with society (Fries & Pollak, 2006). It should not be underestimated how important this skill is in influencing and shaping our daily social behavior (Cicchetti, Ackerman, & Izard, 2009). Early life stress and adversity can affect the development of this skill and lead to atypical interpretations of facial expressions later in life.

Picture: “Child Faces” Growing your Baby. 2013. [http://www.growingyourbaby.com/2010/04/15/hormone-treatment-may-help-kids-with-autism/5660080-2/]

Continue reading »]]> Jean Piaget (1896-1980) was a Swiss developmental psychologist. While he made many contributions to the field, his most notable is his systematic study of cognitive development. Early psychologists assumed that infants saw the world as a “blooming, buzzing confusion” (William James); Piaget theorized that even the youngest infants were learning how to make sense of their environments. According to Piaget, knowledge is organized into different schemas, or sets of mental representations about the environment. When a new object or situation is encountered, it will either be assimilated into an existing schema (if it is consistent with that schema), or it will be accommodated by changing an existing schema (if it is inconsistent with that schema). Intellectual development occurs through a continual process of assimilation, new information, and accommodation (that is, updating existing schemas to reflect new knowledge). Piaget’s theory of cognitive development consists of four main stages, described below. 

Stages of cognitive development:

Sensorimotor (0-2 years): Piaget framed the sensorimotor stage primarily in terms of infants’ motor development (as evidenced by the name). In this stage, infants learn through interacting with the world, first with simple reflexes such as rooting and sucking (at birth), and later with more intentional movements such as reaching and using objects to achieve goals. An important milestone of this stage is that of object permanence, in which infants understand that objects continue to exist even when they are out of sight. The sensorimotor stage ends when a child acquires language, usually around age two.

Preoperational (2-7 years): In the preoperational stage, children continue to acquire motor skills; however, this stage is characterized much more by children’s patterns of play and lack of logical thinking. As in the sensorimotor stage, children in the preoperational stage engage in very egocentric thought, in which they are unable to conceptualize another person’s point of view as being different from their own (e.g., “My favorite food is macaroni, so my friend Michael’s favorite food is also macaroni!”). In this stage, children also engage in a great deal of pretend/symbolic play (e.g., pretending that a cardboard box is a racecar; having tea parties with stuffed animals or imaginary friends).

Notable cognitive characteristics of this stage are centration and, relatedly, a lack of understanding of conservation. When children engage in centration, they attend only to one property of an object, ignoring the other properties and frequently drawing false conclusions. One way to observe children’s lack of conservation in this stage is to present them with two equal-sized glasses of equal amounts of liquid and then pour the liquid from one into a taller, skinnier glass. After having seen this, children will say that the tall, skinny glass contains more liquid than the shorter, wider one, simply because the tall glass is taller.

Concrete operational (7-11 years): When children reach the concrete operational stage, they become capable of logical thought under concrete circumstances, and an adult-like pattern of thinking begins to emerge. Though they cannot yet engage in hypothetical or abstract thought, they do exhibit a greater understanding of objects’ properties and relationships than children in the preoperational stage. Children in this stage are no longer egocentric – they can take on others’ viewpoints – and no longer exhibit centration, and they now understand conservation. Additionally, they are able to classify objects based on a variety of characteristics (e.g., color, number, mass, shape). According to Piaget’s theory, while children in the concrete operational stage have trouble making deductive conclusions (using a general principle to predict a specific outcome), they are able to use inductive reasoning (using several specific instances to find an overarching rule or characteristic).

Formal operational (11-16 years to adulthood): In this stage, the ability to think about abstract concepts has developed. People in the formal operational stage use deductive reasoning and can engage in logical, methodical problem-solving.

While Piaget’s theory has certainly been influential in the field of developmental psychology, it is not without its weaknesses. First and foremost, the theory suggests that development is a smooth, forward-only process; once children exhibit patterns of thinking that are typical of the next stage of development, they no longer exhibit patterns typical of the previous stage. Anyone who has experience with children can tell you this isn’t quite true – development doesn’t happen in a steady, linear manner, and children who exhibit thought processes characteristic of the concrete operational stage one day may exhibit preoperational thought processes the next. Second, Piaget’s theory assumes that all processes are domain-general, and that the ability to reason about one domain means that one can reason about other domains just as well. This theory also neglects other environmental factors that are critical in children’s development, such as language and other sociocultural factors. For other classic developmental theories, see work by Lawrence Kohlberg and Lev Vygotsky.

Continue reading »]]> As more and more clients are entering therapy with concerns related to abuse, such as domestic violence incidents, it seems prudent to review how  these issues might play a role in mental health and treatment. The facts on domestic violence are startling. Estimates by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Bureau of Justice, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that a woman in the United States is beaten or assaulted every 9 to 13 seconds, with one-third of all reported female homicides killed by an intimate partner. Additionally, up to 10 million Americans reportedly experience some type of domestic violence annually. Sadly, data from ten countries suggests that between 55 to 95 percent of women who have been abused by partners have never contacted shelters, non-governmental organizations, or the police for help. For those that do reach out, it is suggested that one-half of restraining orders obtained against perpetrators are violated. Furthermore, this is already an expensive crime for something chronically underreported: the cost of partner violence in the United States is estimated to exceed $5.8 billion per year, which is divided into direct medical and health care services ($4.1 billion) and productivity losses ($1.8 billion) (http://www.unifem.org/campaigns/trust_fund_10th_anniversary/facts_figures.html).

Research into this domain has taken many different approaches. A review of family literature from the 1990s found several themes, such as the distinctions between types or contexts of violence, issues of control, the effects of violence on families and broader society, and mechanisms of coping (Johnson and Ferraro, 2000). Authors have suggested that there are four patterns of partner violence known as common couples violence (CCV), intimate terrorism (IT), violent resistance (VR), and mutual violent control (MVC) (Johnson, 2006). Unlike IT, CCV is noted to be less likely to escalate over time, less likely to involve severe violence, and more likely to be mutual. IT, however, is said to be motivated by one member wishing to exert control over their partner often with emotional abuse. While more often observed in men, IT has been found to exist in lesbian relationships as well. There is a lack of data on VR compared to the other areas, which suggests that some findings (e.g., almost all individuals self-defending themselves are women; VR is an indicator that a woman will soon leave her abusive partner) may not hold up. Finally, MVR is a rare pattern that involves a mutually violent and controlling couple.

Researchers have also examined different relationship types. Findings in same-sex relationships suggest that psychological abuse involves threats of “outing” their partner, and that battered lesbians are less likely to be supported by friends or social service workers due to gender stereotypes. Cohabitating couples report more violence than dating or married couples, but only among CCV couples. Of note, while CCV involves mutual acts of violence, one study suggested males were more often the aggressor in 31% of those couples compared to 8% in which the women were more frequently violent. There may also be different reasons as to why men and women become violent that should be considered within treatment (e.g., social constructs of gender models).

Additional research has investigated the types of perpetrators, such as individuals who present differently psychologically (e.g., sociopathic and violent versus deeply emotionally dependent on the relationship), or racial/ethnic and gender differences. Specifically, a 1995-1996 National Violence Against Women survey suggested that 13% of Asian/Pacific Islander, 21% of Caucasian, 26% of African American, 27% of Mixed Race, and 31% of Native American/Alaskan Native women reported physical assault by an intimate partner. However, these numbers may reflect cultural openness to reporting incidences more than actual prevalence of violence among these groups. Socio-economic status may also play a role in prevalence, as studies on low-income women suggest an extremely high level of interpersonal violence as compared to those from higher social and economic backgrounds. Yet recent work suggests that violence may be the precipitating factor for poverty and as a barrier to raising income and employment status, rather than the other way around. However, women ages 18-24 appear to be at greater risk for victimization, along with women receiving public assistance and lesbian and bisexual women (Moracco, Ruyan, Bowling, and Earp, 2007). Other risk factors have been identified among a cohort from the particularly violent South African society such as female childhood violence, female lack of education, financial concerns, status of women in society, and normative use of violence as part of exercise of power (Jewkes, Levin, and Penn-Kekana, 2002).

A related line of inquiry has examined the relationship between mental disorders and domestic violence. The National Comorbidity Survey conducted between 1990 and 1992 among 8098 people ages 15-54 consisted of in-person interviews assessing for pre-marital psychological conditions (Kessler, Molnar, Feurer, and Appelbaum, 2001). They found that premarital disorders in men but not women were predictive of subsequent domestic violence. Specifically, major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol dependence, and nonaffective psychosis positively predicted minor domestic violence while dysthymia, antisocial behavior, and again nonaffective psychosis positively predicted severe domestic violence. While completely speculative, the authors propose that these results may be explained by feelings of low self-worth from mood disorders plus perceived lack of control from anxiety disorders that then predispose those men to violence. A review article assessing the alterative side to this research highlighted that there is a high prevalence of being a victim of violence among psychiatric patients (Oram, Trevillion, Feder, and Howard, 2013). Specifically, one-third of female in-patients and out-patients reported lifetime partner violence, which is higher than prevalence among general population samples, although no study included non-psychiatric control participants.

Other approaches to psychological disorders have focused on the aftermath of violence, such as the correlation between domestic violence and post-traumatic stress disorder in women. One review study found that 31% to 84% of battered women exhibit PTSD symptoms, and were more likely to have a history of serious childhood assault, major depression, and substance abuse (Jones, Hughes, and Unterstaller, 2001). Women in domestic violence shelters were also at a higher risk for PTSD (40-84%) than victimized women who were not in shelters, but they were also at higher risk for other psychological disorders. Furthermore, the likelihood of PTSD was found to be increased among those who had multiple abuse experiences, and its intensity was correlated with the extent, severity, and type of the abuse. Given these factors, treatment of domestic violence victims must involve careful evaluation of pertinent presenting issues. Treatment for perpetrators must also be considered, although a review study suggested that treatment effects of CBT and related therapy modalities for domestically violent males were small, with minimal impact on reducing recidivism beyond police intervention (Babcock, Green, and Robie, 2004).

While domestic violence inherently involves ethical issues in treatment, such as assessing a clinician’s boundaries for directly intervening in their client’s safety, there have also been ethical guidelines proposed for research done in this area. The World Health Organization published ethical and safety recommendations (as reviewed in Ellsberg and Heise, 2002) that included ensuring research team members receive specialized training and ongoing support for themselves, since the research may be emotionally taxing for all involved, not just participants. Team members are also advised to be able to refer participants to other resources should they request or require additional support, and to possible build in those services into the study should alternatives not be available. The guidelines further stipulate that study designs must include actions aimed at reducing any distress caused by the research, that prevalence studies must add to existing literature about how to minimize under-reporting of abuse, and that all researchers and donors must ensure that findings are used to advance policy and intervention development.

The clause addressing participants’ distress and their safety is especially significant; these participants are particularly at risk for becoming distressed by things like insensitive interviewing, having to recall painful details/experiences, or concerns that the abuser might retaliate if privacy and confidentiality are not strictly upheld. Although it might be taken for granted in a country that has a governing body like the Institutional Review Board, researchers worldwide must ensure that informed consent is thoroughly and appropriately conducted. Above all, the WHO challenged researchers to carefully consider the risks and benefits of such studies and to more strongly consider the immediate social impact of their work than some other areas of research might do.

Continue reading »]]> I’m sure all of you have heard of the Big Data movement going on right now. From the Harvard Business Review to David Brooks in the NY Times, everyone seems to be talking about the power of big data to provide “insights” into the inner workings of the world. Of course as a scientist, recognizing the power of data is not news to me. But I was interested in an article in the Psychological Science Observer that talks about how Big Data might shape the future of psychology research. 

Continue reading »]]> The idea of the tabula rasa is all but forgotten. Advances in modern genetics have taught us that not only are we not a blank slate at birth, but we are not even simply the product of our genes. The environment interacts with our genes to shape our development, however, it is not only OUR environment that does so. Let me tell you about an early discovery that led to this knowledge.

In 1944, a German-blockade to the Netherlands blocked access to food the supply to a number of individuals. Calories were severely restricted during the winter of 1944-1945. Many infants died of malnutrition and related issues. Women who were pregnant during this time also suffered a shortage of calories, and, not surprisingly, their infants were born much smaller than is typical. It appeared that these babies were small due to the reduced nutritional availability in utero. These children grew up post-blockade, and physically “caught up” with their peers in size. However, when the women from this cohort had their own children, remember, these are women of typical size and had full access to food, their babies were again much smaller than is typical. Thus, the experience of these infants’ grandmothers led to these changes. These changes occurred epigenetically, such that environmental events resulted in changes in gene expression, and importantly that this occurred not only within individuals but also across generations. Their epigenetic changes programed for a calorie-restricted world.

Some may find it discouraging to realize we each carry the burden of epigenetic programming passed down from our mother or grandmother, but these changes may actually be good. You never know if you’ll need those adaptations for your environment.

Continue reading »]]> This post is part of our new ongoing series exploring classic experiments in the history of psychological research.

Over the last few decades, an ongoing debate has emerged between parents, psychologists, and the media: Do violent video games and movies cause children to become more violent? This is a question that has gained more urgency with the advent of hyper-realistic violence in games and movies, and it is a question that gets revisited every time a new shooting tragedy occurs. Many may remember the Columbine High School shooting in April 1999 as the first instance of a nationwide, intense scrutiny of popular portrayals of violence, even in stylized video games, as potential influences on children and adolescents. However, concerns about how observation of violence might shape children’s behavior a generation earlier had already led to a classic study with telling results.

Beginning in 1961, Albert Bandura of Stanford University conducted a series of studies with the goal of examining imitative violence in children between the ages of 2 and 5 years old. These studies are commonly known as the “Bobo doll studies,” because the hapless victim of aggression was an inflatable clown doll named Bobo, who had a weighted bottom that allowed him to stand up straight after being kicked, punched, or pushed to the ground. Bandura’s team brought children into the laboratory and showed them examples of model aggressors performing violent acts on the Bobo doll – for example, hitting, kicking, pummeling, pushing, and throwing him. A control group of children saw models that did not behave violently to Bobo. For some children, the models seen were live actors; for some, the models were videos of human actors; and for some, the models were cartoon-like videos with an actor in a cat costume (Bandura, 1963). Each child only saw one type of model. After each child watched the model interact with the Bobo doll for several minutes, they were taken down the hall by an experimenter and brought to a room full of appealing toys. However, as part of the study, the experimenter told the child that he or she could not play with those toys, and that they would have to go to a different room. This was intended to mildly frustrate the child. Lastly, the child was brought to a playroom including the Bobo doll with which they had seen the model interact. The playroom also included “aggressive” toys (including dart guns and peg-and-mallet pounding boards) and “non-aggressive” toys (including a tea party set, dolls, and crayons). Researchers counted the number of aggressive activities performed by each child, and then analyzed the data to determine whether there was a relationship between the type of model the child had seen and the number of aggressive acts that child performed.

Results of these studies showed that children who had viewed live-action aggression, realistic video aggression, or even cartoon aggression were more likely to act in aggressive ways toward the Bobo doll than were children in the control group, who had not seen models of aggression. Interestingly, the children’s acts of aggression were not limited to imitations of the models, although imitations of the particular aggressive behaviors they had seen were common. Children also developed their own aggressive acts toward the Bobo doll, sometimes incorporating other toys found in the room, such as the dart gun. Aggression toward other toys besides the Bobo doll was also observed. Surprisingly, having watched the cartoon video model led to child rates of aggression almost as high as the rates for the live-action model. Although rates of imitation behaviors were higher for the live-action model, there was no difference in total aggression between children in the live, realistic, and cartoon model conditions.

So what are the parallels between questions about violence in media today, and a 1963 study using an inflatable doll? At first glance, it may seem that these findings are outdated – technology-wise, we’ve come a long way in the last 50 years, and we’ve seen the advent of first-person shooter games, movie CGI, and detailed graphics. However, these findings are still extremely relevant. For one thing, they show us that even young children will imitate what they’ve seen, regardless of whether the video they’re watching seems realistic to adults. In terms of children’s reactions, cartoon violence was just as powerful as realistic violence. For another thing, these findings show that increases in aggression after watching videos of aggression aren’t limited to simple imitation. A typical argument against the idea that violent cartoons or media may lead to violent behaviors is something like the following: “If that were true, every kid would go around shooting other people/ stealing cars/ dropping large anvils onto people’s heads.” But these children didn’t only replicate what they saw the model do. Instead, children actually “owned” the aggression by creating new interpretations and acts, suggesting that while exposure to violent cartoons, films, or video games certainly doesn’t always lead to an exact replication of the circumstances portrayed, it still has the potential to increase a child’s aggression in general..

There have been many follow-up studies since the original Bobo doll studies, and certainly, violence in child-targeted media receives more attention today than it did 50 years ago. However, this classic study should remind us that it is not necessarily a child’s potential for imitation of the newest first-person shooter, set of slick graphics, or edgy action film that should cause concern. What’s more important is the finding that even basic exposure to aggression, regardless of realism, may increase the probability of generalized aggression in children.

Continue reading »]]> Israeli scientists and UCLA’s Dr. Martin Monti recently found that former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon demonstrates significant brain activity. Seven years ago Sharon suffered two strokes. The second stroke caused him to lose most of his consciousness. Sharon is in a minimally conscious state, a little more aware than a coma or a persistent vegetative state.

In 2010, Dr. Monti and several colleagues published a paper called “Willful Modulation of Brain Activity in Disorders of Consciousness” in the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Monti and the Israeli investigators used the methods developed in Monti’s 2010 study to assess Sharon.

Monti and the Israeli researchers asked Sharon to visualize playing tennis (tennis task) and to visualize walking through rooms in his home (navigation task). In healthy brains, these tasks are associated with distinctive functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) activation patterns in specified regions of the brain: the tennis task activates the supplemental motor cortex; the navigating task activates the parahippocampal gyrus. Sharon’s fMRI scans had these patterns when he was asked to do the two tasks. Because his brain activity showed the patterns of healthy adults doing these tasks, Dr. Monti and the Israeli researchers concluded that Sharon had a significant level of consciousness.

There are a variety of reasons why many patients in the study were not able to do the tennis and navigation tasks. Patients must hear instructions, remember what playing tennis looks like and remember the layout of their home, among other parts of the task. So anyone who can do the task, like Sharon can, must have  a significant level of consciousness.

Because the fMRI patterns are so recognizable for each of the tasks, healthy adults and a few patients in Monti’s study were able to answer yes or no questions by doing one of the two tasks – the tennis task for “yes” and the navigation task for “no”, or vice versa. This is a promising breakthrough, because doctors and nurses had found no other means of communication with at least one of the patients.

For Sharon’s family and the families of other consciousness-disorder patients, Monti’s research brings hope that they will be able to communicate with their loved ones again.

Continue reading »]]> This post is part of an ongoing series about applicant interview weekends in Psychology departments. Check back for posts about interviews in other areas of Psychology, and visit our Careers in Psychology section.

This post was written by social psychology graduate students who recently (and successfully) went through the process of applying, interviewing for, and selecting a doctorate program. The following is a list of our collective suggestions for social psychology graduate applicants headed off to interview weekends. We focus on things that we found helpful to keep in mind, and lessons we learned from our own interviews. We hope these tips help you!

BEFORE THE INTERVIEW

Read! This is very important. Graduate students have expressed their shock at interviewees who admit they have not read a single paper by the person they hope will mold them intellectually.

• Make sure to skim, if not read carefully, multiple articles by the person you’re interviewing with, particularly work that overlaps with yours. Focus on the most recent articles because those will give you an idea of the direction their research is heading. This is also a good question to ask your potential advisor (e.g. What direction is XXX line of research heading?)
• Be at least familiar with the work of the other people you’ll be meeting with and have a couple of well-formed questions for each of them. The faculty will talk about you to each other, so each meeting is important.

Reread your application materials before your visit. Look over your CV/resume, personal statement, and any other supporting materials. You don’t want to forget that you mentioned a particular research project or leadership experience. This is also an opportunity to decide what parts of your application to highlight and what additional information you want to bring up that you didn’t get to include in the application.

Clothing. Ask the interview weekend coordinators about how formal or casual the dress for each event is. Err on the side of being more conservative. As Oscar Wilde once said, “You can never be overdressed or overeducated.” Relatedly, check the weather for the weekend you’ll be there and prepare for it. Wear comfortable shoes. You never know when you’ll go on an impromptu tour of the entire campus. One of the authors developed blisters from the walking tour of the campus, and they had to be driven to the rest of the weekend’s recruitment events!

Create and practice a two-minute “elevator speech” about yourself and your research. You’ll say it over and over and over during the weekend.

Talk to your college advisor(s) about your potential mentor and ask for advice about how to handle your meeting with them. Ask about connections they have that can be helpful.

Know your academic family tree and the potential advisor’s family tree. Chances are your potential advisors overlap at some point and this is good information to know. One of the authors realized mid-interview with a potential advisor that he was a former student of the professor the author had just interviewed with! The realization came only after he asked how his old advisor was doing these days. Awkward. Lesson learned: Within academia, especially in your field of interest, everyone knows everyone. And they talk. They’ll definitely know if you’re going on other interviews and/or receiving offers of admission.

Relatedly, know who collaborates with whom in the department.

Brush up on relevant theory and know the authors of papers (impress people by knowing publication year and journal).

Review requirements of the program and be ready to ask questions about them. Also, be able to answer questions (about a potential minor, for instance, and be able to justify why you would make that choice).

Communicate with the planning committee about travel issues. One of the authors was stuck abroad and forced to miss her interview weekend. Communication was critical to overcoming this surprise obstacle.

If you listed multiple people on your application, clarify (to yourself, at least) who you want your advisor to be before your visit.

AT THE INTERVIEW

Sound like a social psychologist. Have one or two studies that you designed to discuss. Be able to talk about how you came up with it. “In my perusal of the literature on stereotype threat I noticed this gap and this study would be my attempt to answer _____.”

Graduate students. They are a resource. Talk to them. Ask all your questions. Just know that when you’re hanging out with graduate students, you’re still being evaluated and act accordingly.

Be aware of the way you present yourself. Avoid allowing stress or nervousness to make you appear overbearing, awkward, or super-competitive. You want to make sure that everyone can see that you’ll be a great fit in the department.

Don’t…

• …drink too much at the social events.
• …make it seem like another program is higher on your list; you don’t want to miss a potential acceptance because it seems like you definitely will not attend. BUT! If you’re definitely not interested, let them know as soon as possible so they can make admissions decisions accordingly.

Ask lots of questions, like:

• How long does it usually take to finish?
• What is your mentoring style? (hands on/off)
• How often do you meet with students?
• What is the paper writing process like?
• How collaborative are the faculty and students?
•  Are students free to join/attend other labs?
• What kinds of resources are available to students?
  • Funding (TA/RA-ships, Conference Travel, Summers, etc.)
  • Statistical resources (courses, consulting, software, etc.)
  • Sample populations (Do you want specific populations for your research? Ethnic minorities, LGBT, Children/Adolescents, etc.)
• What are the course requirements?
• What minors are offered?

Be prepared for questions, like:

•  What are your hobbies? (I know, I know, all you do is research. Come up with something to say. Don’t say Facebook. Definitely don’t say “drinking copious amounts of alcohol after stressful weeks.”)
• Where do you see yourself after completion of the program? (Regardless of how you truly feel about this question, everyone always wants to hear ACADEMIA! A tenure-track position! Even if, and let’s be real, those positions are dwindling in scary numbers.)

AFTER THE INTERVIEW

Write a thank you note to your host. It’s just good manners and can only help the impression you made.

Wait in agony until you hear back.

In the case of an offer, consider the funding carefully. Ask about it, create a sample budget, and accept that your quality of living is .

Good luck!