EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY [PSYCH 305] Discussion & Participation Guidelines This course will feature discussion-based meetings. Your participation is essential and without your presence this class cannot function effectively! Earning Participation Credit: All students are expected to come to discussion having completed the readings by the date in which they are due. Each meeting you will be able to receive a participation grade which will be worth 1 point per week, for a total of 21 points based on how well you effectively adhere to the classroom discussion guidelines. A Note about These Guidelines: I adapted these guidelines from the Brown University Sheridan Center for Teach and Learning recommendations (see here). These guidelines are far from exhaustive, but they may be especially relevant as we navigate material about which we all have preconceived opinions and convictions. These guidelines will serve as the basis for how we can approach classroom discussion in an effective manner. As the semester continues, we can continue to revisit and revise our class guidelines collectively. Adhering to these guidelines will form the basis of your participation grade. The Guidelines: • Listen attentively. First and foremost, pay attention to what your classmates are trying to say someone is saying – without being distracted by your technology, side conversation, or pre-planning your response. Beginning to dismantle their point of view before they are finished not only limits your capacity to understand and learn but may leave gaps in your own arguments. • No interrupting. Speaking over someone or having a side conversation inhibits your ability to listen effectively and is disrespectful to the person sharing their ideas. • Share the room. In a discussion-based seminar, participation is a shared commodity. Accordingly, be aware of how much you are talking as compared with other voices in the room. Who else may be waiting to share their perspective? • Confidentiality. Some people may raise controversial points of view, share deeply personal information, or leave you feeling particularly emotional after class. You should not use what is discussed in this classroom in outside conversations. • Take Learning Risks. Mistakes are how we learn. Invite yourself and others to learn from mistakes by talking about their impact and how to avoid similar mistakes in the future. • Demonstrate your reasoning. How are you building connections between pieces of evidence and theory to justify your argument? Think about how this course material connects with other things you’ve learned. • Acknowledge and value that each person brings different experiences, knowledge, and levels of awareness to the discussion. How can you build off of and further contribute to what other students and the faculty have shared? • You do not need to be the sole representative of any of the identities you hold. There is significant emotional labor involved with talking about your community’s culture, and even then, you cannot speak for everyone. • Use “I” statements to own your experiences and thoughts. You cannot speak for everyone – only yourself. “I think…” “I feel…” and “I believe…” are more effective than “We think…” “They feel…” or “You believe…” • It is okay to name an idea or statement as oppressive or problematic. Discuss the concerns you have about an idea, the logic/evidence/justification used, and why you think the idea is subsequently problematic. Critique the idea using evidence and theory you think are relevant. • Seek to understand when you think something problematic or unclear was shared. Ask a question that prompts the other person to clarify what they meant. • Trust intent and name impact. Believe that your classmates are actively trying to learn, and that sometimes an idea comes out poorly phrased. Ask them to clarify what was said and share what you heard and/or felt. • Acknowledge and appreciate the effort of those that are sharing their perspectives. It takes a certain amount of bravery to share one’s perspective – especially if it is uncommon. • Acknowledge how some narratives are erased or represented from the evidence base. Raise questions about where the evidence used in class originated from and the perspectives or evidence that they may have missed. Whose voices/images are missing? Adapted from: Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Arao, B. & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brace spaces: A new way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice. In L. M. Landreman (ed.) The art of effective facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators, (pp. 135-150). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. (n.d.). Examples of discussion guidelines [Web log resource]. Retrieved from http://www.crlt.umich.edu/examples-discussionguidelines Cote-Meek, S. (2014). Colonized classrooms: Racism, trauma, and resistance in postsecondary education. Halifax, NS: Fernwood. Fox. H. (2017). “When race breaks out:” Conversations about race and racism in college classrooms (3rd ed.). New York: Peter Lang. Leonardo, Z., & Porter, R. K. (2010). Pedagogy of fear: Toward a Fanonian theory of ‘safety’ in race dialogue. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 13(2), 139-157. Testing a New Relationship Pursuit Framework: Who are We Pursuing and How are We Pursuing Them? Timothy J. Valshtein PSYCH 305: Experimental Psychology Lehman College 17 August 2023 Running head: RELATIONSHIP PURSUIT, WHO AND HOW Abstract Max 150 word abstract Research question, a bit methods, a bit about expected results, and interpretation/discussion of expected results Do this last Keywords: goals, romantic relationships, relationship pursuit, mindsets, self-regulation 1 RELATIONSHIP PURSUIT, WHO AND HOW 2 Testing a New Relationship Pursuit Framework: Who are We Pursuing and How are We Pursuing Them? Don’t write “Introduction” as a first heading. Prior research has argued that relationships fulfill basic psychological needs (Knee et al., 2014) and have been shown to be good for mental well-being (xx) and physical health (xx). Defining Stages of Romantic Relationships (participant inclusion strategy) This is where I’ll say something about research on courtship and stages of relationships It remains unknown how relationships transition from two individuals to one romantic dyad. Different Types of Motivation Mindsets in the Context of Relationship Pursuit (note: IV1) Previous work in the area of motivation says that social cognitive mindsets influence the way we pursue personal goals. For example, Gollwitzer and Heckhausen (1990) say blah blah – Take them to this conclusion point There may be important differences in how people pursue relationships depending on if they are in a selection-oriented mindset or striving-oriented mindset Gender and Courtship (note to self: IV2) Men and women pursue relationships differently. Approach Behaviors in the Context of Courtship (aka DV) The Present Research RELATIONSHIP PURSUIT, WHO AND HOW 3 In the present research we aim to investigate XXXX BLAH MY RESEARCH QUESTION. In particular, we hypothesize that XXXXX MY HYPOTHESES. Method Participants a. Is there a clear description of the participants to be recruited? b. What is the sampling method, proposed sample demographics, measures and procedure.? Measures and Procedure Our primary independent variable is motivational mindsets. Specifically, to assess the role of motivation mindsets on relationship pursuit behaviors, we developed an experimental manipulation for both selection-oriented mindset and striving-oriented mindset. After completing consent, participants were told they would be giving a test-run of a new dating application. In the profile review task, participants were given 100 profiles to evaluate. We did this because XX Mindset Manipulation Participants randomly assigned to the Selection-Oriented Condition were exposed to the following instructions: “Please focus on choosing the right partner for you, as you evaluate the pros and cons of each dating profile.” Furthermore, participants were encouraged to take notes on which profiles they liked the best in order to accentuate the effects of evaluative thinking. Participants randomly assigned to the Striving-Oriented Condition were exposed to a different set of instructions. Specifically, they were told “Please focus on coming up with an RELATIONSHIP PURSUIT, WHO AND HOW 4 effective strategy for how you will pursue a potential romantic interest after you have decided you like their profile.” To ensure these participants weren’t simply evaluating profiles, we asked them to take notes on what strategies they would employ to ensure b….all other details about the experiment were identical across condition. Gender and other Demographics We expected gender to moderate the relationship between mindsets and relationship pursuit behaviors. We collected gender and other demographic factors at the conclusion of the experiment to ensure gender was not made salient to participants as they completed the profile review task. [2 levels or 3+] Dependent Variable Design To analyze the effects of mindsets and gender on relationship pursuit behaviors, we will conduct a 2 (mindset: selection v. striving) x 3 (gender: man, woman, TGNB) between-subjects factorial ANOVA. Expected Results We expect to see a main effect of mindset, wherein blah We expect to see a main effect of gender wherein blah. Most important to our hypotheses, we anticipate an interaction between mindset and gender such that man will report BLAH and women will report less BLAH. This pattern of results can be seen in Figure 1 (or as can be seen in Figure 1) RELATIONSHIP PURSUIT, WHO AND HOW Discussion Summry of expected results Implications: This would be a huge deal if we found this out because AXDHSHDASAS However, this was a lab—in reality, dating looks more like BLAH (cite xx) Future research should examine dating in naturalistic settings, such as BLAH (xx) In Sum We proposed BLAH We developed a study to test BLAH And we anticipate finding BLAH These findings would be AWESOME because BLAH 5 RELATIONSHIP PURSUIT, WHO AND HOW References Alphabetical, O. Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., & Steller, B. (1990). Deliberative and implemental mindsets: Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1119–1127. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.59.6.1119 6 RELATIONSHIP PURSUIT, WHO AND HOW 7 Tables and Figures Figure 1. Bar plot depicting effects of selection versus striving mindsets on relationship approach intentions. 7 Men Dependent Variable 6 Women 5 4 3 2 1 0 Selection Striving Mindset Manipulation
Purchase answer to see full attachment