Written by Jamal Tillman
Victims of Bullying
Bullying (the act of intimidating others) has been a hot topic issue for the past two decades (Wang, Iannotti, Nansel, 2009). It appears in our current society, we are playing catch-up with mitigating an uncontrollable fire within the social parameters of our K-12 schools. Bullying is a problem. However, there seems to be another branch on the proverbial tree: sexual violence. Discussions are occurring regarding a potential connection between bullying and sexual violence; researchers are attempting to find a link between bullying behavior (i.e., relational, cyber, or physical) and increased perpetuation of sexual violence (Basile, Espelage, Rivers, McMahon, & Simon, 2009). Regarding the bullying problem, one can see that certain elements can be overtly sexist and/or homophobic in nature (Daley, Solomon, Newman, & Mishna, 2007). Bullying, in this regard, may be connected to sexual violence (Basile et al., 2009).
Prevalence of Bullying and Sexual Harassment
Basile and colleagues (2009) state that bullying perpetration by both girls and boys occurs more frequently than sexual harassment perpetration; additionally, no significant difference exists between girls and boys regarding sexual harassment perpetration in the form of bullying (i.e., inappropriate verbal abuse, derogatory terms or slander, or forced inappropriate contact; Basile et al., 2009). However, students who identify as gay, bisexual, lesbian, or transgender report higher instances of sexual harassment and bullying victimization (Basile et al., 2009). The study by Basile and colleagues (2009) mentions that there are several factors that bullying and sexual violence perpetration have in common: avoidant attachment styles, rape myth beliefs, gender biases and conformity to gender-based roles/stereotype. However, the article (Basile et al., 2009) also points out that even though these factors are shared by both bullying and sexual violence perpetration, this does not mean that the factors are congruent regarding both bullying and sexual violence perpetration.
Some of those factors previously mentioned can be related to sexism and toxic masculinity (i.e., a critique of the way society has created men to be dominant, aggressive (sexually and otherwise), and unemotional, both collectively and as individuals); toxic masculinity can create unhealthy societal standards for boys and men, as well as plant the seeds of misogyny and overtly sexist ideals (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). If we believe that bullying can lead to sexual violence in males, then can we also assume that the root behavior itself (bullying) has connections to perceived masculinity? It is no secret that the victims of bullying are often those who are seen to be at the lower ends of the social hierarchy. The usual targets are often racial and ethnic minorities, females, “unpopular” kids, and those who fail to conform to society’s ideals of sexuality (Vervoort, Scholte, & Overbeek, 2010) and gender conformity. Bullying behavior is a unified combination of negative attitudes and the power that the bully has over the victims. Further inquiries could bring eye-opening results and provide the general population with additional insight into the bullying epidemic, as well as provide possible solutions that could help us mitigate such behavior and potentially create safer environments in our schools.
Basile, K. C., Espelage, D. L., Rivers, I., McMahon, P. M., & Simon, T. R. (2009). The theoretical and empirical links between bullying behavior and male sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 336-347. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2009.06.001
Daley, A., Solomon, S., Newman, P., & Mishna, F. (2007). Traversing the Margins: Intersectionalities in the Bullying of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 19(3-4), 9-29.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School Bullying Among Adolescents in the United States: Physical, Verbal, Relational, and Cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368–375.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity rethinking the concept. Gender & society, 19(6), 829-859.
Vervoort, M. H., Scholte, R. H., & Overbeek, G. (2010). Bullying and victimization among adolescents: The role of ethnicity and ethnic composition of school class. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(1), 1-11.
Written by Mandi Ryan
Early childhood years are a fundamental time in an individual’s formative development. Between the ages of 3 and 6, gender stereotypes become more abundant and strict (Coyne, Linder, Rasmussen, Nelson, & Birbeck, 2016). For example, boys are taught to be tough, and girls are taught to be nice. The media that children are exposed to during this time, including books, television programs, and social media, may affect how they internalize gender stereotypes. The Disney Princess line, which consists of clothing, toys, movies and more, is among some of the most popular children’s media today and has been popular for quite some time. As the years go by, should we be questioning the messages these materials could be sending to children?
Disney Princesses and Female Stereotypes
Today, it is not uncommon to see female engineers and doctors or male makeup artists and nannies. Yet, the Disney Princess line typically portrays women as damsels in distress and men as heroes. These movies make implications that women are to uphold certain beauty standards. The characters in these movies often are young and attractive with large eyes, small noses and chins, moderately large breasts, prominent cheekbones, and lustrous hair (Coyne et al., 2016). This combination of physical characteristics would be considered quite unrealistic and may be harmful to a girl’s self-image (Coyne et al., 2016). Furthermore, the princesses in Disney movies portray female characters as unrealistically thin, similar to the impossible beauty expectations in real life. This portrayal can have negative effects on young children who find themselves admiring these characters. One study surveying 969 third graders revealed that 35% of girls and 25% of boys wanted to lose weight (Robinson, 2001). This early exposure to a thin ideal and a high standard of beauty may teach kids that attractiveness is essential to one’s identity (Coyne et al., 2016).
Long Term Effects on Children
Female stereotypes, such as those concerning careers, abilities, and roles in the home, conveyed through the media influence both male and female attitudes about gender (Coyne et al., 2016). Coyne and colleagues (2016) examined the longitudinal associations between exposure to Disney Princess media and gender-stereotypical behavior, body esteem, and prosocial behavior. They found that higher Disney Princess engagement through media and toys was related to an increase in female stereotypical behavior in both boys and girls, even one year later (Coyne et al., 2016). This behavior included their characteristics, toy preferences, and activities. While there is nothing wrong with expressing femininity and gendered behavior, it is potentially harmful if girls believe they are limited in their opportunities due to preconceived assumptions concerning gender.
In conclusion, today, both men and women can be either strong or weak, thick or thin, and affectionate or emotionless. They do not have to be tied to their gender stereotypes. Some children’s media and the way its portrayal separates genders may impact boys’ and girls’ behavior and self-esteem. Although Disney Princess movies are becoming more progressive over time, many of the classics, such as Cinderella or Beauty and the Beast, are still popular with children today. It may be important to consider the messages these movies may potentially send to children and make sure they are balanced with explanations that children are not obligated to adhere to a predetermined role in life. Girls should not be afraid of getting dirty from playing outside, as exploring the world is an integral part of development (Coyne et al., 2016). Boys should also feel free to show their emotions without being criticized. Children simply should not be limited by the world’s expectations of who they should or shouldn’t be.
Coyne, S. M., Linder, J. R., Rasmussen, E. E., Nelson, D. A., & Birkbeck, V. (2016). Pretty as a princess: Longitudinal effects of engagement with Disney princesses on gender stereotypes, body esteem, and prosocial behavior in children. Child Development, 87, 1909-1925. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12569
Robinson, T. N., Chang, J. Y., Haydel, K., & Killen, J. D. (2001). Overweight concerns and body dissatisfaction among third-grade children: The impacts of ethnicity and socioeconomic status. The Journal of Pediatrics, 138(2), 181-187. doi:10.1067/mpd.2001.110526
Written by Janet Giron-Legarda
Bipolar Disorder (BD) and related disorders, which include Bipolar Disorder I, Bipolar Disorder II, Cyclothymic Disorder, Substance/Medication-Induced Bipolar and related disorder, Bipolar and related disorder due to another medical condition, other Specified Bipolar and related disorder, and Unspecified Bipolar and related disorder, involve individuals experiencing mild to extreme episodes of manic and depressive moods (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Each of the disorders has its own set of criteria for diagnosis. The criteria include how many episodes an individual experiences in a set amount of time, how severe the episode is, how long the episode lasts, and which type of mood episode the individual experiences. These changes in mood may cause difficulties in many areas of an individual’s life. By informing oneself of the warning signs of an impending episode, you can prepare for the coming mood cycles and get your partner the help they may need. Relationships involving at least one partner with BD are more likely to “experience relationship distress and dissolution” (Rowe & Morris, 2012, p. 328). We will be focusing primarily on the general effects that Bipolar Disorder I and Bipolar Disorder II have on relationships. Information about diagnostic criteria and other facts about BD can be found at this link.
Defining Characteristics of Bipolar Disorder
Recognizing symptoms of BD will help to understand the impact of the disorder on a romantic partnership. Mood swings are either hypomanic or manic, mild to moderate or severe depressive, or mixed episodes. Hypomanic or manic episodes consist of “hyperactivity, euphoria, talkativeness, grandiose ideas, irritability, reckless behavior, marked distractibility, loss of normal inhibitions and decreased need for sleep” (Tranvåg & Kristoffersen, 2008, p. 6). Hypomania is more commonly associated with Bipolar Disorder II. These episodes include “distinct period of abnormally and persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable mood and abnormally and persistently increased activity or energy, lasting at least 4 consecutive days…(with) a noticeable change from usual behavior” (APA, 2013, p. 132). Bipolar Disorder I is more commonly associated with manic episodes. In order to meet the criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) for a manic episode, an individual will be “abnormally, persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable…and (have) persistently increased activity or energy that is present for most of the day, nearly every day, for a period of at least 1 week, accompanied by at least 3 additional symptoms” (APA, 2013, p. 127). During manic episodes, the individual may be unable to engage in ordinary communication, which can affect relationships with others (Tranvåg & Kristoffersen, 2008).
Major depressive episodes must have 5 or more of the symptoms identified in the DSM-5 for a 2-week period and “represent a change from previous functioning,” including either “depressed mood or loss of interest or pleasure” (APA, 2013, p. 125). Depressive episodes can range from mild to severe and are “characterized by lowering of mood, reduced activity and energy, tiredness, sleep disturbances, reduced self-esteem, ideas of guilt or worthlessness, reduced capacity of interest and enjoyment, psychosomatic symptoms, suicidal thoughts and acts” (Tranvåg & Kristoffersen, 2008, p. 6). During depressive episodes, individuals who suffer from BD may experience starvation, dehydration, and, in extreme cases, suicide (Tranvåg & Kristoffersen, 2008). In situations involving both manic and depressive episodes, an individual diagnosed with BD may experience symptoms of psychosis, including delusion and hallucinations. Mixed episodes are when an individual experiences symptoms of hypomania, mania, or depression at the same time. According to the DSM-5 (APA, 2013), the “mixed features specifier can apply to the current manic, hypomanic, or depressive episode in Bipolar I or Bipolar II Disorder” (p. 149).
Bipolar Disorder and Relationships
The behavior of an individual diagnosed with BD can affect his/her partner’s behavior; a BD-related episode can cause significant strain on the relationship and the individual’s partner. Individuals diagnosed with BD have difficulty maintaining healthy relationships with family, friends, and intimate partners. Problems arise in many important areas of life when coping with BD such as financial problems, difficulties in sexual relations, poor communication, and loss of stability and security (Rusner, Carlsson, Nyström, & Brunt, 2012; Sheets & Miller, 2010; Tranvåg & Kristoffersen 2008). The mood swings and symptoms associated with a diagnosis of BD can have aversive effects on close relationships. For instance, stress can lead to a number of physical problems, such as body aches and depression. Additionally, partners of individuals diagnosed with BD may grow to resent their partners for the disorder (Rusner et al., 2012).
The quality of the relationship changes as an individual goes through mood episodes and as his/her partner adjusts to life with a partner diagnosed with BD. Relationship distress is common with either manic or depressive episodes; however, according Sheets and Miller’s (2010) article, “patient depressive symptoms were significantly associated with patient perception of family and couple functioning” (p. 375). The effects of manic symptoms experienced by individuals diagnosed with BD are highly correlated with poor intimate relationship functioning for their partners (Sheets & Miller, 2010).
Bipolar Relationships and Managing Life
According to Rowe and Morris (2012), mood changes experienced by both partners are linked to overall relationship quality; therefore, partners must pay attention to not only the individual diagnosed with BD, but their own mental health and wellness, too. Understanding both partners’ mental health has the potential to increase quality of the relationship, assists in coping with BD, and provide a better understanding of the onset of an episode.
In conclusion, learning the signs of an oncoming episode can help to prevent extreme symptoms and allow adequate time to get help. Educating oneself about BD and communicating with your partner can be beneficial to the relationship. Being knowledgeable about what your partner experiences with BD and ways you can help him/her during times of need can help reaffirm your commitment to your relationship and partner. Also, partners should not treat individuals diagnosed with BD if they are incapable of living a normal life. Individuals diagnosed with BD are more than the disorder itself and should be treated with respect.
More information about BD can be found at this link.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.
Rowe, L., & Morris, A. (2012). Patient and partner correlates of couple relationship functioning in bipolar disorder. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 328-336.
Rusner, M., Carlsson, G., Nyström, M., & Brunt, D. (2012). The paradox of being both needed and rejected: The existential meaning of being closely related to a person with bipolar disorder. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 33, 200-204.
Sheets, E., & Miller, I. (2010). Predictors of relationship functioning for patients with bipolar disorder and their partners. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 372-375.
Tranvåg, O., & Kristoffersen, K. (2008). Experience of being the spouse/cohabitant of a person with bipolar affective disorder: a cumulative process over time. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 22(1), 6-10.
Written by Bishop Noble
Bullying is an aspect of growing up that many individuals either experience themselves or witness at some point in time. Typically, the victim is left to fend off the bully, with no help from other individuals. According to Amelia Kohm (2015), witnesses to bullying only defend the victims between 12% and 25% of the time, regardless of how they feel about the actual bullying victimization experiences or the victims themselves. Social dilemmas often stand in the way of bully bystanders from coming to the aid of the victim. (Kohm, 2015). Even cliques into which individuals group can come into play. In this blog, the purpose is to discuss bullying bystanders and examine how social dilemmas and cliques can keep them from defending victims of bullying.
What are social dilemmas, and how do they affect the bystander?
Social dilemmas occur when individuals make decisions with only themselves in mind; they are based in the belief that individuals do not have the confidence that others will join them in their cause to support a belief or an individual. (Kohm, 2015). A good example of a social dilemma is the public goods dilemma, in which an individual will not assist in a public service if she/he believes others will refuse to contribute or if the individual believes assistance will be a waste of his/her time (Kollock, 1998). This concept shows that many individuals believe that any act defending victims may lead to their own victimization. In other words, if they defend victims, then they too may be victimized (Adler & Adler, 1995).
How do cliques influence a bystander?
Cliques are usually highly influential on those who witness bullying victimization. For instance, most individuals will only side with the popular clique (Kohm, 2015). The bully usually falls on the popular side of the two groups while the victim is on the other side with the unpopular individuals (Kohm, 2015). Pro-bullying behavior is related more closely to popular groups, in general, when it comes to defending behaviors (Kohm, 2015). Individuals will naturally side with popular groups before they try to defend victims. Individuals who are less popular may even begin to harass other less popular individuals in order to boost their own statuses and become a part of popular cliques.
Findings from Kohm’s (2015) Study
Kohm (2015) examined how attitudes, group norms, and social dilemmas influence individual behavior in bullying situations. The sample included 292 participants between the ages of 11 and 14 who attended a private residential school in the United States. Results revealed that both individual (e.g., protecting the victim and withdrawing from the bullying event) and group factors (e.g., encouraging bullying and trying to stop the bulling) were associated with behaviors in bullying situations. Additionally, anti-bullying attitudes were good predictors of behaviors in bullying situations. As anti-bullying behaviors increased, pro-bullying behaviors and support for the bullying decreased (Kohm, 2015). Social dilemmas were only found to predict behavior in bullying situations at the group level.
In conclusion, social dilemmas and cliques both can influence individuals of all ages, from kindergarten to high school. Social dilemmas and cliques both include strong social factors and group influences. In order to understand bystander behavior, they must both be taken into account. In the Kohm (2015) article, her research, which used student surveys, was able to show that individual (social dilemmas) and group factors (cliques) both influence individual behavior in bullying situations. It is important that we learn to understand how social dilemmas and cliques influence bystander behavior among individuals within schools so that teachers, parents, school counselors, and even principals may be able to counsel individuals who are having to deal with these bullying behaviors on a daily basis.
Adler, P., & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion of preadolescent cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(3), 145-162.
Kohm, A. (2015). Childhood bullying and social dilemmas. Aggressive Behavior, 41(2), 97-108.
Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183-194.
Written by Jess Brink
Being in a long-distance relationship is a phenomenon that many individuals experience at least once in their lives. When embarking on this journey, many tend to cite the saying “absence makes the heart grow fonder,” for both comfort and motivation. Research suggests that this saying may hold some truth, and many individuals in long-distance relationships report higher trust levels and better communication than those of closer proximity (Jiang & Hancock, 2013). Although face to face contact is of vast importance in relationships, research suggests that long-distance partners more commonly report greater satisfaction in their relationships than geographically close couples (Stafford & Merolla, 2007). One explanation for this may be increased “romantic idealization” in long-distance couples; romantic idealization refers to describing and thinking of the relationship and one’s partner in unrealistic positive ways (Stafford & Merolla, 2007). Long -distance relationships seem to be the key to happiness, better communication, and increased trust, but once the members of the couple move closer geographically, these effects may change (Stafford & Merolla, 2007). Stafford and Merolla (2007) also considered what happens when long-distance couples move closer geographically.
Does distance make the heart grow fonder?
Laura Stafford and Andy J. Merolla of Ohio State University decided to look at romantic idealization in long-distance relationships, in comparison to geographically close relationships. In the first study, they hypothesized three different outcomes: 1) long-distance couples idealize the relationship more than geographically close couples; 2) long-distance couples think of their conversations more positively than geographically close couples; and 3) long-distance couples experience less face to face communication than geographically close couples do (Stafford & Merolla, 2007). In a study containing 122 heterosexual couples, with 58 being long-distance, the researchers had participants fill out several surveys examining idealization, partners’ perceptions of romantic love, communication satisfaction, and the amount that the couples think and talk about their shared pasts (Stafford & Merolla, 2007). Through this study, Stafford and Merolla (2007) found that long-distance couples do tend to think of their relationships in unrealistic positive ways, particularly in relationships with less face-to-face communication. More recent studies (e.g., Jiang & Hancock, 2013) have concluded that long-distance couples express a higher level of intimacy than geographically close couples. Stafford and Merolla (2007) found that couples in long-distance relationships report higher satisfaction than those in geographically close relationships. Texting, video chats, and scheduling to see one another in person can aid satisfaction in these long-distance relationships. As it was previously mentioned, face to face contact can be extremely important to maintaining a relationship. Although many long-distance couples report higher levels of satisfaction while apart, what happens when the couple members move closer together?
Does the heart stay fond when couples move closer together?
In a second study, Stafford and Merolla (2007) reached out to the individuals who participated in the first study. Participants were asked to complete additional surveys, addressing if they had moved closer to their partners and if they were still involved with the same partners. The study revealed that couples who went from long-distance relationships to residing in similar locations were twice as likely to break up, compared to couples who remained in long-distance relationships (Stafford & Merolla, 2007). They also found that couples with the highest levels of idealization were most likely to break up upon becoming geographically close (Stafford & Merolla, 2007). One explanation for these break ups is that individuals do not live up to the impossible standards that were held by their partners while separated (Merolla, & Castle, 2006; Sahlstein, 2006; Stafford, Stafford & Reske, 1990). Another explanation for the demise of long-distance couples when they reconcile is that the couple members are strangers in some ways. During the time that the couples were separated by distance, they may have grown to believe that they had a deep understanding of their partners. The distance allowed them to ignore potential flaws and to remain unaware of changes in their partners (Stafford & Merolla, 2007). Upon moving closer to a long-distance partner, it may be useful to have a discussion about what to expect. Discussing expectations of the relationship with a partner can help negate any negative feelings that could possibly occur if those expectations are not met. Additionally, one should try to let one's partner know about any new, important changes in one's life. The more a partner is aware of personal changes, the less likely it will be that these changes will have a negative impact on the relationship at a later time.
What does this mean for long-distance couples?
In long-distance relationships, the lack of face to face communication can make the relationship stronger and happier, provided that the couple remains long-distance. However, more time spent face to face can be vital in keeping a long-distance relationship successful once the couple moves closer together. Although a high level of relationship idealization can be the kiss of death for long-distance couples once brought together, a certain level of idealization in any relationship is considered necessary for growth and satisfaction (Murray & Holmes, 1997). Long-distance relationships can be difficult, and moving closer together can be more difficult on the couple in the long run. Therefore, if you find yourself in a long-distance relationship, it is important to spend as much time with your partner as possible. It is also important to try to stay positive, but not overly positive, about the relationship. Perceptions of the relationship should be kept within realistic bounds, with just a little bit of fantasy sprinkled in.
Jiang, C, L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Absence Makes the Communication Grow Fonder: Geographic Separation, Interpersonal Media, and Intimacy in Dating Relationships. Journal Of Communication, 63(3), 556-577.
Sahlstein, E. (2006). The trouble with distance. In D. C. Kirkpatrick, S. D. Duck, & M. K. Foley (Eds.), Relating difficulty: The process of constructing and managing difficult relationships (pp. 119–140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 37-54.
Stafford, L., Merolla, A. J., & Castle, J. (2006). When long-distance dating partners become geographically close. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(6), 901–919.
Stafford, L., & Reske, J. R. (1990). Idealization and communication in long-distance premarital relationships. Family Relations, 39, 274–279.
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 586–604.
Written by Mallorie M. Smith
Although not a readily celebrated type of research, reproducibility has become exceedingly important in the progress of psychological science. If you are unfamiliar with the term, reproducibility, or direct replication in this case, is attempting to duplicate a research experiment and its results (Open Science Framework, 2015). To break it down, an experiment will typically consist of an antecedent, or predictor variable, that experimenters attempt to link to an outcome, with the intention of eventually finding the formula that leads to the desired result. If the predictor does lead to a significant effect, it gives support to the idea that the predictor leads to the outcome in some way. However, even if the experiment yields a significant effect, there is still a chance (about 50%) that this effect occurred randomly or was found accidently. It is, therefore, essential to replicate experiments to provide stronger support for or against the effects by determining if the effects keep occurring. Now, this brings up several questions, such as, “How closely do the experiments need to be alike?” and “How do you know when the antecedent really does lead to an outcome?” I intend on discussing these questions, and more, in a later post (so stay tuned!).
Further Evidence of the Importance of Reproducibility and Transparent Research
Reproducibility research helps to protect the ethics and reputation of psychological research. Most notably, the case of Diederik Stapel illustrates this best. An interim report was published by Tilburg University (2011) noted that Stapel had fabricated a large amount of his own data, as well as several datasets of his colleagues and graduate students (unbeknownst to them), since 2004. He was a renowned scientist at the time; however, this information indicated that his large vitae of work was based on false data. According to Retraction Watch, as of 2015, 58 retractions of his research from major psychological research journals, including the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Journal of Experimental Social Psychology have been made (Palus, 2015). In the case of Stapel, the repeated replications of his work would likely have revealed consistent non-significant findings, indicating the misleading results of his studies. Likewise, his refusal to share his data and the secrecy of his methods likely helped Stapel continue to fabricate data for so long. This, along with some other instances (see here and here for examples), led the psychological community to place higher importance on reproducibility and transparent science. Organizations, such as the Center for Open Science and the Association for Psychological Science, now work to promote these components in psychological research.
Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science
The Center for Open Science, or COS, is also responsible for a big contribution to reproducibility with their 2015 article, “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science” (also called The Reproducibility Project). The Social Relations Collaborative, in conjunction with over 250 other contributing researchers from around the world, replicated one of 100 studies from three different psychological journals (for our specific contribution, see Revisiting Romeo and Juliet, 2014). One important aspect of this study is that it was preregistered, meaning that aspects of the study, such as analysis and hypotheses, were listed publicly before the study began. All protocols, reviews, and write-ups associated with it are publicly available, promoting the transparency and open research advocated strongly for by the COS.
Synopsis and (Some) Implications of The Reproducibility Project
The Open Science Framework (2015) sought to give basis to some of the uncertainties of reproducibility, such as the lack of a percentage of replication successes. By using a fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated effect sizes, researchers were able to compare the significances of the original and replication studies. Results showed a significant decrease of significance between the original and their (full) replications, with only 36% (less than half!) of original studies being successfully replicated. As you can imagine, these results made a large impact on the psychological community, leading many to question the validity of psychological research. This publication was the topic of 300+ blogs and news articles and placed in the top 10 scientific breakthroughs of 2015 by both Science and Discover magazines (to see the full impact, please visit here).
While this is a significant study in the progression of psychological research, The Reproducibility Project (2015) is merely a starting point for further research into the complexities of scientific reproducibility. It is for this reason that my thesis and dissertation will be focused on answering important questions such as, “What is a standard rate of reproducibility?” and “Is there a publication bias against reproducibility in psychological research?” If the topic of reproducibility interests you as much as it does me, I urge you to check back to this blog regularly for monthly discussions of topics in replication research as well as updates on progress of my own project on reproducibility (as well as several other posts from my colleagues relating to relationship and bullying research)!
Altmetric –Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. (2017). Altmetric.com. Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com/details/4443094
Carpenter, S. (2017). Harvard Psychology Researcher Committed Fraud, U.S. Investigation Concludes. Science | AAAS. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/09/harvard-psychology-researcher-committed-fraud-us-investigation-concludes
Enserink, M. (2012). Rotterdam marketing psychologist resigns after university investigates his data. Science. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/rotterdam-marketing-psychologist-resigns-after-university-investigates-his-data
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716-aac4716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Palus, S. Diederik Stapel Now Has 58 Retractions. (2015). Retractionwatch.com. Retrieved from http://retractionwatch.com/2015/12/08/diederik-stapel-now-has-58-retractions/
Sinclair, H., Hood, K., & Wright, B. (2014). Revisiting the Romeo and Juliet Effect (Driscoll, Davis, & Lipetz, 1972). Social Psychology, 45(3), 170-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000181
Tilberg Univeristy. (2011). Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. Retrieved from https://errorstatistics.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/tilberg-report-stapel-final-report-levelt1.pdf
Verfaellie, M. & McGwin, J. (2011). The case of Diederik Stapel. http://www.apa.org. Retrieved January 2017, from http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011ca/12/diederik-stapel.aspx
Written by Chelsea Ellithorpe
Researchers have found that certain brain regions are associated with both physical and social pain and that there may be a gene that is linked to both physical pain and how sensitive a person is to rejection (e.g., Kross, Berman, Mischel, Smith, & Wager, 2011). Kross and colleagues (2011) found that the same neurons fired for both physical and social pain by either invoking social pain by showing participants a picture of a recent ex partner and asking them to think about the rejection or invoking physical pain by eliciting an uncomfortably hot sensation on the participant's forearm, similar to the feeling of spilling hot coffee on one's self. Similar brain regions were activated when participants thought of the recent rejection that were activated during the physical pain task. Could painkillers be used to alleviate both types of pain?
Use of Painkillers to Alleviate Social Pain
The researchers had participants receive Tylenol or a placebo and write about either dental pain or thoughts about death and what would occur after death. They then read a story about a prostitute being arrested and were asked to set a bail price. Finally, they viewed a surrealist video and video that portrayed rioting. Those who had received Tylenol, rather than a placebo, were less affected by the anxiety-inducing tasks and were less harsh in judging the rioters, and those who had received Tylenol and wrote about death or those who wrote about dental pain were more lenient in assigning a bail amount (Randles, Heine, & Santos, 2013).
DeWall and colleagues (2010) also found that those who took acetaminophen, rather than a placebo, reported less social disappointment and fewer hurt feelings, along with higher levels of resilience to social disappointments, over the span of three weeks. Using fMRIs, they also found that participants who took acetaminophen, rather than a placebo, over the span of three weeks had reduced neural responses to social rejection in regions that were associated with physical and emotional pain after playing a computer game that was used to create an environment of social exclusion (DeWall, MacDonald, Webster, Masten, Baumeister, Powell, Combs, Schurtz, Stillman, Tice, & Eisenberger, 2010). Those who had only taken a placebo had more active brain regions that were associated with physical pain when they were rejected in the computer game.
But Are Social and Physical Pain Really the Same?
Meyer, Williams, & Eisenberger (2015) found that reliving emotional, rather than physical, pain led to higher self-reported pain and more activity in brain regions that were associated with feelings of pain, and the amount of self-reported pain was positively correlated with this brain activity. Reliving physical pain led to increased activity in a separate sensory brain system that did not correlate with the self-ported pain that was relived. These different findings show that different pathways are associated with the two types of pain when the pain is relived. Reliving social pain led to activity in brain regions that were associated with mental state processing, which was correlated with response in the affective pain system; whereas, reliving physical pain led to activity in brain regions that were associated with body state processing, which was correlated with response in the sensory pain system. Therefore, although the mechanisms that lead to feelings of social and physical pain may be similar and overlap, different mechanisms are activated when mentally generating thoughts of the pain and reliving the pain. The existence of these different pathways may aid explanations of why reliving the different types of pain led to enhanced social pain but reduced physical pain. Additionally, Woo and colleagues (2014) found that there are exceptions to the overlap between neural networks for physical pain and social pain when using a finer grained analysis. Pain relievers may help lessen social pain that is felt immediately after a social rejection, but it is unclear how they would help alleviate the pain of relived social rejection.
DeWall, C. N., MacDonald, G., Webster, G. D., Masten, C. L., Baumeister, R. F., Powell, C., Combs, D., Schurtz, D. R., Stillman, T. F., Tice, D. M., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2010). Acetaminophen reduces social pain behavioral and neural evidence. Psychological Science, 21(7), 931-937.
Kross, E., Berman, M. G., Mischel, W., Smith, E. E., & Wager, T. D. (2011). Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(15), 6270-6275.
Meyer, M. L., Williams, K. D., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2015). Why Social Pain Can Live on: Different neural mechanisms are associated with reliving social and physical pain. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0128294. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128294
Randles, D., Heine, S. J., & Santos, N. (2013). The common pain of surrealism and death acetaminophen reduces compensatory affirmation following meaning threats. Psychological Science, 24(6), 966-973.
Woo, C. W., Koban, L., Kross, E., Lindquist, M. A., Banich, M. T., Ruzic, L., Andrews-Hanna, J. R., & Wager, T. D. (2014). Separate neural representations for physical pain and social rejection. Nature Communications, 5, 5380-5405.
Written by Makeela Wells
Cliques are structures found in school settings that organize and influence the social world of students. The purpose of this blog post is to provide a brief overview of the impact of cliques in a school setting. First, the blog post will discuss the components of a clique. Second, the post will explore the techniques of inclusion and exclusion that are used by cliques. Lastly, the post will examine the role of cliques in influencing the relationship between an individual’s social status, aggression, and prosocial behavior.
What is a clique?
Cliques can be defined as circles of power whereby leaders rely on various mechanisms to attain, maintain, and influence followers, both by building them up and cutting them down. Leaders draw followers into their circles, “allowing them to bask in the glow of popularity and acceptance” (Adler & Adler, 1995, p. 145). Leaders then subject followers to a position of dependence within the group. The way that students create feelings about themselves, establish friendships, and participate in certain activities (i.e., sports) is influenced by the organization of cliques. For example, jocks, or those who engage in sports, are more likely to align and establish relationships with others who also participate in sports. A distinguishing feature of cliques is that they tend to have a hierarchical structure that is dominated by one or more leaders. Cliques are also exclusive; only a few of the individuals who desire membership are accepted (Adler & Adler, 1995).
Research shows that cliques thrive more in certain schools than others. McFarland and colleagues (2014) analyzed both classroom-level and school-level data about friendships and found that a school’s network ecology, or the organizational setting within the school, influences whether or not a clique thrives within the school setting. They found that schools that offered students more choice, such as more elective courses and more freedom in seat selection, were more likely to establish cliques and that these cliques were more likely to thrive. Cliques were less prevalent in schools where choice was limited and formats of interaction were prescribed (McFarland, Moody, Diehl, Smith, & Thomas, 2014). Smaller schools were also less likely to have thriving cliques because the choice range of friends was smaller and the cost associated with excluding an individual from a group was greater.
The Inclusion and Exclusion Processes of Cliques
Cliques rely on the techniques of including and excluding individuals from that particular group. The process of inclusion involves recruitment, which occurs when one is solicited by clique members to become a part of the group, with leaders having the most influence over the recruitment process (Adler & Adler, 1995). Leaders decide if they like or dislike potential members, and the group members follow the leader’s decision. Potential members are granted a probationary period of acceptance into the group. If accepted during this period, potential members remain in the group. If rejected, they are required to leave the group (Adler & Adler, 1995). A second method of gaining entry into a clique is through the process known as application, whereby students actively seek entry into a group. Application for clique entry is easier to accomplish for a single individual than for a group (Adler & Adler, 1995). Successful applicants receive a great deal of immediate popularity due to their entry requiring approval from clique leaders.
Once accepted into the clique, new members align with others in the group. Those who are close friends with the leaders are more popular than those who are not. Members often work hard to maintain and improve their position within the group (Adler & Adler, 1995). Certain members experience a realignment of friendship within the clique, with some members abandoning friendships with certain clique members and establishing new friendships with other clique members. Members are more susceptible to being wooed by those in the group who are more popular than themselves (Adler & Adler, 1995). Due to the hierarchical structure, friendship loyalty tends to be less reliable in cliques than in other groups.
The techniques utilized in the exclusion process allow clique members to enhance the status of the group while, at the same time, maintaining hierarchy inside and outside of the clique. Those people who are not members of the group are subjected to rejection and ridicule, which provide entertainment for clique members (Adler & Adler, 1995). Leaders of cliques tend to treat outsiders badly and convince clique members to engage in similar behavior. A defining feature of the exclusion process is the use of gossip, which clique members use to spread rumors about particular outsiders. This process is used to ensure that clique entry by an outsider is highly unlikely (Adler & Adler, 1995). Engaging in gossip and the rejection and ridicule of outsiders solidifies the unity of the clique and displays the power that the clique has within the school setting.
How Do Cliques Influence Adolescent Social Status, Aggression, and Prosocial Behavior?
Pattiselanno and colleagues (2015) explored the role of clique hierarchy in influencing adolescent social status, aggression and prosocial behavior. The sample for the study included approximately 2,700 adolescents from over 120 Dutch schools (Pattiselanno, Dijkstra, Steglich, Vollebergh, & Veenstra, 2015). Cliques in this study were divided into girls only, boys only, and mixed-gender. Results revealed that aggression was strongly related to individual social status in girls’ cliques where there were more high status adolescents in the clique than low status adolescents. Boys’ cliques tended to be physically aggressive, while girls’ cliques tended to be relationally aggressive. Clique status, which refers to the popularity of the clique within the school, was positively related to physical aggression in all of the three types of cliques. However, clique status was only positively related to relational aggression in mixed-gender cliques (Pattiselanno et al., 2015). Higher status within the clique was associated with a greater level of aggression within the clique. Prosocial behavior was found to have a significant relationship with individual social status, with boys in mixed-gender cliques providing less emotional support than girls in similar cliques. Additionally, the relationship between clique status and emotional support was positive for girls’ clique (Pattiselanno et al., 2015). Higher status within a girl’s clique was associated with more emotional support given by the girls in that clique.
In conclusion, cliques can be found in elementary, middle, and high schools across the United States. Cliques have the potential to shape a student’s outlook on life, and the processes that are used to include and exclude certain individuals can be found in many of the major institutions in U.S. society (e.g., government, politics, and religion). It is imperative to understand the dynamics surrounding the formation and maintenance of cliques within schools so that parents, legal guardians, and school officials are better capable of assisting students in handling situations that may arise from school-based cliques.
For more information on cliques in schools, visit Teaching Tolerance at http://www.tolerance.org/lesson/cliques-schools.
Adler, P., & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion of Preadolescent Cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(3), 145-162.
McFarland, D.A., Moody, J., Diehl, D., Smith, J.A., & Thomas, R.J. (2014). Network Ecology and Adolescent Social Structure. American Sociological Review, 79(6), 1088-1121.
Pattiselanno, K., Dijkstra, J.K., Steglich, C., Vollebergh, W., & Veenstra, R. (2015). Structure Matters: The Role of Clique Hierarchy in the Relationship Between Adolescent Social Status and Aggression and Prosociality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2257-2274.
Written by Mandi Ryan
When an individual violates what would be considered a norm or expectation within their relationship with another individual, this violation is referred to as a betrayal (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002). Forgiveness includes the set of changes someone experiences when they become less motivated to retaliate and more motivated to reconcile with the wrongdoer (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997). Do you ever wonder why certain people seem to continuously forgive their significant other when they’ve been wronged? A victim’s initial response after a betrayal incident is often vengeance and resentment (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002). The likelihood that one might move past these impulses and learn to forgive relies on a few different factors.
Is the victim or perpetrator more responsible within the forgiveness process?
Does forgiveness lie in the hands of the victim, or do perpetrators ultimately control whether or not they will be forgiven? Researchers found that the presence of positivity in one of these particular roles (i.e., victim or perpetrator) is critical during the forgiveness process (Hannon, Rusbult, Finkel, & Kamashiro, 2010). This process involves a victim's change in emotion and attitude towards an offender (American Psychological Association, 2006). In part one of their study, researchers examined whether the perpetrator’s positive behavior following a betrayal predicted increases in the victim’s positive behavior or whether the opposite was true. They found that when the perpetrator apologizes and offers amends soon after the wrongdoing, victim forgiveness is more likely to occur (Hannon, Rusbult, Finkel, & Kamashiro, 2010). However, the victim’s positive behavior after a betrayal did not seem to increase the chances of the perpetrator offering amends. The perpetrator’s apology may not always need to be verbal, or explicit. If the amends seem insincere to the victim, the actions tend to backfire. For example, if Jesse violates a relationship norm within a marriage to Jamie, Jesse would need to respond in a loving and caring manner in order to be forgiven. Responding with defensiveness or hostility may cause Jamie to be less forgiving. On the other hand, once Jesse offers a clear and sincere apology, this effort will likely reduce Jamie’s uncertainties and promote forgiveness (Hannon, Rusbult, Finkel, & Kamashiro, 2010).
What is the next step after forgiveness?
Will the relationship survive, or will resolving the betrayal be more difficult than Jesse and Jamie originally believed? Researchers found that the process of betrayal resolution is highly interpersonal. Regardless of the role, a partner’s perceptions of whether or not a betrayal has been resolved is shaped by their partner’s behavior (Hannon, Rusbult, Finkel, & Kamashiro, 2010). For example, if Jamie decides to forgive Jesse, the couple will need to decide to move past the issue. After forgiveness has occurred, the behavior that Jesse exhibits may be judged more harshly and be subject to more scrutiny while Jamie is identifying whether or not the betrayal has been successfully resolved.
What happens if the betrayal is left unresolved?
When amends are offered and forgiveness is granted, complete reconciliation is still uncertain. The individuals may not return to their prior functioning as a couple. How one acts in the wake of betrayal may reveal a lot about how much that person values the relationship (Holmes & Rempel, 1989). A couple's actions after a betrayal can reveal meaningful information about each person’s dispositions, values, motives, and act as predictors for future behavior (Hannon, Rusbult, Finkel, & Kamashiro, 2010). For example, Jesse may assert that the betrayal will not occur again, apologize for the pain that it caused, and begin to behave in ways that compensate for the betrayal. As a result, Jamie may believe that Jesse now has a better understanding of Jamie’s expectations and values regarding their relationship. On the other hand, Jesse may instead claim that Jamie’s expectations are unreasonable following the betrayal and attempt to belittle Jamie. Both of these patterns of behavior would reveal important information regarding Jesse’s attitude and feelings toward the relationship, which may have remained hidden if the betrayal had not occurred.
In conclusion, both the victim’s behavior and the perpetrator’s behavior influence the manner in which betrayals are experienced and resolved. The perpetrator’s amends promote the victim’s forgiveness, and both of these play a key role in the resolution of betrayal incidents. Subsequently, the study revealed that betrayal resolution is beneficial to relationships from the viewpoint of both the victim and the perpetrator. Therefore, if you ever betray your significant other, offering an apology sooner will allow your partner to begin the transition from vengeance to forgiveness more quickly. If your apology is accepted, and you are forgiven, your actions thereafter will determine whether or not the betrayal was successfully resolved.
American Psychological Association, (2006). Forgiveness: A Sampling of Research Results. Washington, DC: Office of International Affairs. Reprinted, 2008.
Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 956–974.
Hannon, P. A., Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., & Kamashiro, M. (2010). In the wake of betrayal: Amends, forgiveness, and the resolution of betrayal. Personal Relationships, 17(2), 253-278. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01275.x
Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 187–220). London, England: Sage.
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.
Written by Haley Hembree
Social media use among young adults has changed relationship dynamics over the last 10 years. Increases in social media use may change interpersonal interaction in the future. Most studies on social media impact focus on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram (e.g., Utz, Muscanell, & Cameran, 2015). However, one recently popular platform has been excluded from most media research. Snapchat is becoming increasingly popular among teenagers and young adults. Snapchat is an app that allows users to send pictures or quick videos to another user (usually accompanied by a short text), with the picture or video disappearing soon after being sent. These quick messages, or “snaps,” can only be saved if a screenshot is taken, and the sender of the snap will be notified. Most of the sent pictures include images of funny and mundane material. Most young adults report using Snapchat to send funny images, pictures of themselves, and pictures of what they are currently doing (Utz et al., 2015).
Snapchat's Role in Romantic Partner Jealousy
There are both advantages and disadvantages to this app. The advantage that Snapchat has over its competitors is the illusion of privacy and the disappearance of content, which many enjoy. Public content on social media is often posted for a large audience, while many send individual snaps on Snapchat. More intimate conversation and more raw content can be sent with a degree of confidence that it will not be viewed by others. Self-disclosure and maintenance are important factors in romantic relationships (Yang, Brown, & Braun, 2014). Jealousy among romantic partners increases with Snapchat use, which may be its greatest disadvantage (Utz et al., 2015). The “Best Friends” feature, the list of the top three people one snaps the most, added tension to romantic relationships when a partner found out that they were not included on this list. A worse situation that evokes jealousy occurs when a partner adds his or her ex-partner. Adding previous romantic partners or attractive competitors to a network is generally unsettling for current romantic partners, and distrust occurs. “This makes sense in the context that snaps can be made to disappear in a matter of seconds, leaving little evidence of extra-relational communication” (Vaterlaus, Barnett, Roche, & Young, 2016, p. 430). Additionally, a few have been concerned that disappearing pictures would increase sexting. However, only 13% say that they use Snapchat for sexting in general, and less than two percent of Americans say that they use Snapchat primarily for sexual content (Roesner, Gill, & Kohno, 2014).
Generational Differences in Snapchat Use
One interesting aspect of Snapchat use is the “youth culture” that has developed. Vaterlaus and Tuane (2015) discuss generational differences surrounding media use. This new media culture “(a) includes shared rules, beliefs, and meaning around media use and (b) is often invisible to adults” (Vaterlaus & Tuane, 2015, p. 6). A common thread of unwritten rules governs what is considered to be appropriate use on Snapchat. These unspoken beliefs clearly dictate a generational difference, as youth often express annoyance at the older generation, particularly parents, who break these norms. Young adults frequently stated that their parent did not see the value in this technology (Vaterlaus & Tuane, 2015). Most of the discord centers around the functionality of snaps and the frequency of Snapchat use.
How does Snapchat affect different types of relationships?
The type of person to whom a snap is sent tends to be a person with whom the sender is in some type of close relationship. A young adult is less likely to snap a random individual. This conclusion stems from the functionality of Snapchat. Snapchat is often compared to text messages (Yang et al., 2014). The advantage that snaps have over text messages is the inclusion of context within the content. A short text message may be easily misinterpreted, but a snap that contains a picture allows for the presence of nonverbal cues, which facilitates communication within friendships, romantic relationships, and familial relationships. The ease of communication is especially important for long-distance relationships. One study by Veterlaus, Barnett, Roche, and Young (2016) explores young adults' behavior on Snapchat and its effects on interpersonal relationships. One individual believes that Snapchat helps her keep in touch with family while she is away at college. Emily (21) stated, “I think it's kind of good that my parents have Snapchat because then [my mom] will send me like these goofy ones sometimes. It kind of makes you laugh a little bit and it's good that you still see [your parents] when their far away” (Vaterlaus et al., 2016, p. 6). Snapchat is more often used to deepen existing connections, rather than to create new ones. Complications arise when romantic partners experience jealousy when “too many” snaps are sent by their partner to a romantic competitor. Mariana (21) disclosed, “I have a friend and on her boyfriend's phone she found out that he was cheating on her because of snapchats. Because she kept seeing this girl's name pop up and she went through his messages and he was talking to her about inappropriate pictures…” (Vaterlaus et al., 2016, p. 5).
Importance of Researching Snapchat
Social media platforms that have gained a large number of users, such as Facebook, have gained the most recognition among researchers. The study of social media needs to include more recent forms, such as Snapchat, in order to help researchers understand the true impact that this technology has on society and relationships. The use of Snapchat is growing at a much faster rate than researchers are studying its effects. For example, 17% of people are now using Snapchat, with 41% of them being young adults (Duggan, 2015). Snapchat comes with both positive and negative effects. Few social media platforms promote both relationship maintenance and jealousy to such a degree, which makes Snapchat a unique platform and a viable contender for further study.
Duggan, M. (2015). Mobile messaging and social media 2015. The Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/mobilemessaging-and-social media-2015-main-findings/.
Roesner, F., Gill, B. T., & Kohno, T. (2014, March). Sex, lies, or kittens? Investigating the use of Snapchat's self-destructing messages. Paper presented at the 18th annual Financial Cryptography Conference, Barbados.
Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Cameran, K. (2015). Snapchat elicits more jealousy than Facebook: a comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(3), 141-146.
Vaterlaus, J. M., & Tulane, S. (2015). Digital generation differences in parent-adolescent relationships. In C. J. Bruess (Ed.), Family communication in the digital age (pp. 426-446). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Veterlaus, J. M., Barnett, K., Roche, C., & Young, J. A. (2016) “Snapchat is more personal”: An exploratory study on Snapchat behaviors and young adult interpersonal relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 594-601.
Yang, C. C., Brown, B. B., & Braun, M. T. (2014). From Facebook to cell calls: layers of electronic intimacy in college students' interpersonal relationships. New Media & Society, 16, 5-23.
Dr. H. Colleen Sinclair
Social Psychologist, Relationships Researcher,
Ms. Chelsea Ellithorpe
Lab Manager of the Social Relations Collaborative and Blog Editor