Problematic research practices, such as publication bias where only positive results are published, have been pointed out in the scientific literature for over half a century. Recently, large scale replication projects have suggested that not all published scientific research is as reliable as we want it to be. Psychological science has been at the forefront of improving research practices, due to a traditionally strong expertise in statistics, combined with an interest in how people change behavior and respond to reward structures. In this presentation I will talk about some of the problematic research practices that have limited knowledge generation in the past, how to recognize them, their consequences for the reliability of research findings, and ongoing efforts towards better research practices that have been developed in the last eight years. I will summarize some easy to implement improvements in designing and analysing experimental studies.
eadership perceptions as social-cognitive constructs are a function of both the exhibited and perceived behavior of the target, as well as categorization processes determined by the fit of a target with the rater’s leader schema or implicit leadership theories. The target’s information processing can lead to systematic biases in the perception of informal leadership in leaderless teams. Although shared leadership, i.e. the magnitude and degree to which leadership in teams is exerted by multiple team-members has been prominently features in recent research on leadership in teams, the majority of studies assess leadership in terms of the team members perceptions. In this study, we determine whether Leadership Structure Schemas (LSS; DeRue & Ashford, 2010), i.e. schemas related to the distribution of leadership in groups (hierarchical vs. shared), systematically impact the perceived pattern of perceived leadership in teams across time. We analyze the leadership perceptions of student team members (Nindividuals= 106, Nteams = 41 ) across 5 measurement points covering the entire team collaboration. Furthermore, we analyze to which degree and under which conditions the effects of LSS on perceived leadership patterns are mediated by the rater’s perceived communication network in the team.
There is evidence that testosterone and cortisol levels are related to the attraction of a romantic partner; testosterone levels relate to a wide range of sexual behaviors and cortisol is a crucial component in the response to stress. To investigate this, we conducted a speed-dating study among heterosexual singles. We measured salivary testosterone and cortisol changes in men and women (n = 79) when they participated in a romantic condition (meeting opposite-sex others, i.e., potential romantic partners), as well as a control condition (meeting same-sex others, i.e., potential friends). Over the course of the romantic speed-dating event, results showed that women’s but not men’s testosterone levels increased and cortisol levels decreased for both men and women. These findings further indicate that men’s testosterone and cortisol levels were at ceiling level in anticipation of the event, whereas for women, this appears to only be the case for cortisol. Concerning the relationship between attraction and hormonal change, four important findings can be distinguished. First, men were more popular when they arrived at the romantic speed-dating event with elevated cortisol levels. Second, in both men and women, a larger change in cortisol levels during romantic speed-dating was related to less selectivity. Third, testosterone alone was unrelated to any romantic speed-dating outcome (selectivity or popularity). However, fourth, women who arrived at the romantic speed-dating event with higher testosterone levels were more selective when their anticipatory cortisol response was low. Overall, our findings suggest that changes in the hormone cortisol may be stronger associated with the attraction of a romantic partner than testosterone is.
In this presentation, I will present my PhD. research on moral cognition. How do people judge moral dilemmas? Two specific moral dilemmas are addressed: 1) How do people judge stealing, especially in the situation of physical theft versus digital theft (e.g. copyright infringement). 2) How do people judge killing; especially when killing one life can save multiple others (aka the Trolley problem). I will argue that the peculiar patterns of moral judgment that these problems elicit are best explained by the evolutionary Mismatch hypothesis. In defense of this thesis, I will showcase four dissertation chapters: 1) an EEG study on how (fast) people judge instances of theft vs. copyright infringement. 2) Behavioral studies, digging deeper into the actual determinants of the moral dissociation between physical and digital theft, 3) Similar behavioral studies on the Trolley problem. 4) Propose a symbolic logical framework as a language to formalize evolutionary aspects of moral cognition; and contemplate on potential ramifications this logical language could have for ethical philosophy: what can this research say (if anything) about what actually distinguishes right from wrong.
Citizens across the globe widely believe conspiracy theories in which powerholders or societal groups are accused of immoral and illegal conduct. In the current presentation, I highlight four basic principles that characterize belief in conspiracy theories. These four principles are summarized through the acronym CUES: Conspiracy theories are Consequential as they have a real impact on people’s health, relationships, and safety; they are Universal as belief in them is widespread across times, cultures, and social settings; they are Emotional as negative emotions and not rational deliberations cause conspiracy beliefs; and, they are Social as conspiracy beliefs are closely associated with psychological motivations underlying intergroup conflict. At the end of my talk I illuminate how the social sciences may help design interventions to reduce conspiracy theories among the public.
Effective Religious Leadership: Can leader-characteristics predict the vitality of religious communities?
Religious leaders are considered to be of great importance within their religious communities. Due to a lack of empirical data concerning the characteristics and functioning of religious leaders, it is not yet possible to define and identify the factors predicting effective religious leadership. Nevertheless, two recent studies suggest personality to be a predictor of effective religious leadership as Christian leaders working in increasing ecclesial contexts (i.e. church plants) appear to differ from leaders working in decreasing ecclesial contexts (i.e. more traditional churches) with regard to personality characteristics (Foppen, Paas, and van Saane, 2017; 2018).
In this meeting, we want to present our current project on effective religious leadership that, in the wake of our previous pilot studies, aims to carry out a thorough, large-scale, quantitative research to investigate possible predictors of effective religious leadership.
You can write your description very easily right here.
Be there, or be square
Simon Columbus will discuss the dynamics of emotions and situation perceptions in negotiations. He will present results from an initial laboratory experiment on hiring decisions in which he found that negotiators accurately infer power from unambiguous emotional reactions to outside offers. He will also present the outline of a planned large-scale real-time negotiation study in which he will manipulate structural conflict and power in dyadic negotiations to test situational effects on emotional expressions, inferences about interdependence, and negotiation outcomes