Meet the 2023 JSF Winners!

One of the many incredible resources provided through the American Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS) Science Committee is access to funding to support student research. Every year, the APAGS Science Committee and Psi Chi work together to provide financial support to research-oriented graduate students in psychology programs (either in their first year or first semester of their second year) through the Junior Scientist Fellowship (JSF). This year, we are proud to announce that 16 students were awarded $1,000 in grant funding to support their psychological research endeavors from a pool of 42 applicants. Below are the recipients and their research topics.

Ann Bernhardt (Texas A&M University) plans to study the impact of ADHD and anxiety on diagnostic identification and college-level performance. Ann’s research aims to reframe anxiety as a compensatory tool to help students increase their self-efficacy and college success.

Marley Billman Miller (Auburn University) aims to assess how food insecurity influences stress levels in racial/ethnic minority women in rural populations. Findings from this study may impact our understanding of populations who experience adverse health outcomes related to food insecurity.

Rachel Brough (University of Denver) strives to continue previous research on the influence of affective and motivational states on cognitive control. Specifically, Rachel plans to investigate the relationship between uncertainty and an increased need for control.

Jonathan Doriscar (Northwestern University) will investigate the factors contributing to systemic racism and prejudice reduction. Jonathan’s work aims to bridge psychological research with societal change.

Eli Halbreich (Texas Tech University) will investigate the role of companion animals as social support for LGBTQIA+ youth and young adults. Eli’s research aims to understand the relationship between companion animals, coping with stress, and physical activity.

Elizabeth Kruse (University of Rochester) plans to evaluate the degree to which people can suppress the area of the brain allocated to focus their attention. Elizabeth hopes to use this research to inform interventions for improved cognitive performance.

Brandon Martin (Kent State University aims to understand how stigma related to weight and body image in men informs our understanding of men’s health. Brandon’s research will address a gap in existing research on weight management and stigma, which has previously focused on women.

Renee McCauley (George Mason University) strives to understand how speaking with an accent impacts an applicant’s likelihood of being hired in job interviews, and how gender further informs this relationship. Renee hopes to improve our understanding of gender and accented speech as this intersection of identities has been underrepresented in the research to date.

Maggie McCracken (University of Utah) plans to further research the interaction between multisensory cues, focusing on the benefits of auditory cues when performing tasks which require the perception of distance. Maggie hopes to investigate if the presence of sound will improve the performance on distance perception tasks for people who are visually impaired.

Charlie McDonald (Binghamton University – SUNY) aims to identify the mechanism of dissociation, or the disruption of consciousness, emotions, and other cognitive functions. Charlie hopes to use virtual and augmented reality to inform the development of treatments for dissociation.

Margaret Powers (University of Louisville) aims to examine the relationship between abstract thinking skills and understanding or engaging with information about systemic racism. Margaret further aims to incorporate the results of this study into anti-racist work in explaining systemic racism to racially privileged groups.

Krutika Rathod (University of Maine) plans to continue researching the mechanisms associating substance use, specifically regarding cannabis, to socioeconomic adversity. This research will continue to advance the fund of knowledge on the social determinants of substance use in rural communities.

Joseph Slade (Oregon State University) strives to investigate the degree to which students retain information when using artificial intelligence (AI) databases, such as ChatGPT. Joseph’s study will not only focus on the depth of student engagement with course material as they use AI to complete tasks but will also investigate the impact of learning when students believe information was generated by AI versus humans.

Nikhila Udupa (Florida State University) aims to develop and validate a measure used to examine the uncontrollability of suicidal thought. Nikhila hopes to further examine the association between uncontrollability of suicidal thought and other control-related constructs.

Marie Wild (Cornell University) will examine the impact of relocating older adults to a senior living facility on their emotion regulation abilities. This research will advance our understanding of how aging impacts our emotion regulation behaviors and inform interventions aiding in the adjustment of relocation in older adults.

Alireza Zareian Jahromi (Fordham University) aims to conduct a longitudinal study to investigate the mental health outcomes of Iranian people living in the United States following sociopolitical events in Iran. This research further aims to understand the impact of emotion regulation strategies, acculturation, and perceived social support on mental health outcomes following these sociopolitical events.

Congratulations to our winners and thank you to all who participated in the 2023 JSF process! The APAGS Science committee and Psi Chi are committed to supporting research-oriented graduate students by promoting their work in psychological sciences. Participating in the JSF allows students to gain experience in grant writing, ultimately preparing them to apply for further funding and the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship. Additional thanks to the APAGS reviewers for their time reviewing applications and providing valuable feedback to each applicant!

Posted by Sarah Kohnen, an APAGS Science Committee member and counseling psychology doctoral student at Chatham University. Feel free to reach out to Sarah with any questions you may have!

Peer Review Opportunities for the Translational Issues in Psychological Science Student Journal

Many graduate students find that participating in the peer review process helps them become better writers, readers, and collaborative researchers. To help more graduate students get involved in publishing and reviewing, APAGS and APA co-sponsored the development of a peer-reviewed journal that serves as a training ground for student publishing and reviewing, called Translational Issues in Psychological Science (TPS). 

Each issue of TPS concentrates on a single critical and timely theme in Psychology that is translational and of broad interest to scientists, practitioners, and the general public. Each article covers both scientific research and its application. TPS is uniquely positioned as a well-respected peer review journal with a specific focus on graduate student involvement at every stage of the publication process. Furthermore, graduate students can serve as authors, reviewers, editorial board members, and even associate editors. 

In the coming months, we will be opening submissions for the following 2024 special issues: Psychology and Gender/Sexual Minority Experiences, Psychology in the Age of Technology, and Modern Psychological Measurement. The special issue of Psychology & Gender/Sexual Minority Experiences will focus on both the distinct risk conferred with these populations, as well as mechanisms for promoting resilience. The special issue of Psychology in the Age of Technology calls for interdisciplinary research on technology-based psychological services and data collection. It aims to understand the role of telepsychology and tele-neuropsychology in future practice and research better via presenting multidisciplinary research on assessment, ethical consideration, real-life application, and data collection using technology in psychology and neuropsychology fields. Last but not least, the special issue of Modern Psychological Measurement will help update researchers and clinicians update their knowledge of psychological measurement methods given the rapid, continual advancements in open science, statistical methodology, “big data” availability, and analytics. Therefore, this issue aims to solicit the latest work demonstrating innovative or advanced methodological knowledge related to psychological measurements to inform researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. 

If you are interested in the opportunity of serving as a peer reviewer for any of these issues, apply today! To do so fill out the application form, and submit a two-page CV. The CV should indicate your affiliation and year of training and demonstrate your experiences with peer-review avenues such as conferences and journals (e.g., listing any manuscripts that you have submitted to a peer-reviewed outlet, highlighting any experiences you may have served as a peer reviewer). 

All eligible reviewers will complete a reviewer training, and then enter the reviewer pool for TPS. If selected to review a manuscript, you will be credited within the journal, and we encourage you to indicate your service on your CV. If you have any questions, please contact Yolanda Yang on the APAGS Science Committee.

Join the APAGS-CSOGD Mentorship Program

By Liz Deibel

Graduate students!!!

  • Are you looking for an LGBTQIA+ psychologist, professional, or advanced graduate student to support your professional development?
  • Would you like to have a sounding board to discuss the challenges and opportunities related to sexuality and gender in the professional field of psychology?
  • Have you wanted to forge connections with other psychologists who share your commitment to working with the LGBTQIA+ community?

Professionals or advanced graduate students!!!

  • Are you interested in taking an LGBTQIA+ graduate student under your wing?
  • Are you passionate about providing support to the LGBTQIA+ student community?
  • Do you want to share your experiences and expertise to help students find their professional voice?

The American Psychological Association of Graduate Students Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity (APAGS-CSOGD) offers a yearlong mentoring program (January 2024 – January 2025) for LGBTQIA+ graduate students in psychology to be mentored by colleagues who share similar interests, experiences, and goals.

The (free!) mentorship program offers unique and individualized experiences for graduate students to gain further support, advice, and perspectives throughout their professional journey. Mentees are paired with mentors in terms of clinical interests, time commitment, and intersecting identities. Mentors can offer a sounding-board for professional questions, guidance for research or clinical paths, and encouragement throughout times of higher stress levels. 

If you are interested in becoming either a mentor or a mentee, please click one of the applications below based on your position of choice. If you have any further questions, please visit the Mentoring Program webpage or email Ritu Verma.

Mentee application

Mentor application

The Argument Against P-Values

There is concern that a substantial proportion of published research presents largely false findings (Ioannidis, 2005). This problem, in part, stems from social science’s reliance on null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST) given the incentive to achieve statistical significance (e.g., publications, grant funding). Research in the social sciences has historically adopted a Frequentist perspective, primarily reporting results using a dichotomous reject or non-reject decision strategy based on whether some test statistic surpasses a critical value and results in a statistically significant p-value (usually p > 0.05). Although useful in several ways, p-values are largely arbitrary metrics of statistical significance (Greenland et al., 2016), and they are often used incorrectly (Gelman, 2016). The use of p-values encourages a binary mindset when analyzing effects as either null or real, however, this binary outlook provides no information on the magnitude or precision of the effect. P-values can vary dramatically based on the population effect size and the sample size (Cumming, 2008). This reliance on an unstable statistical foundation has been discussed in the literature (Wasserstein, 2016), and while some journals have taken matters into their own hands (for example, Basic and Applied Social Psychology banned p-values and NHST), the field of psychology has largely failed to address the concerns raised by the use of NHST.                                     

Research is moving towards adopting new statistics as best practice, relying instead on estimations based on effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis (Cumming, 2014). We, as graduate students in training, are in a position to push towards thinking in terms of estimations and away from dichotomously constrained interpretations. In contrast to the binary nature of p-values, a confidence interval is a set of plausible values for the point estimate. Although perhaps wide, the confidence interval accurately conveys the magnitude of uncertainty of the point estimate (Cumming, 2014), as well as the level of confidence in our results. For example, a 95% confidence interval that includes values for a population mean, μ, indicates 95% confidence that the lower and upper limits are likely lower and upper bounds for μ. The APA Publication Manual (APA, 2020) specifically outlines recommendations to report results based on effect size estimates and confidence intervals, rather than p-values. P-values are not well suited to drive our field forward in terms of precision and magnitude of estimates. Researchers should therefore focus on advancing the field by gaining an understanding of what the data can tell us about the magnitude of effects and the practical significance of those results. It is important for graduate students to adopt practices to produce reproducible and reliable research. One way to do so is to move beyond p-values.

How to move beyond p-values:

  • Prioritize estimation instead of null hypothesis testing or p-values
    • Formulate research questions in terms of estimation. Ex: How large is the effect of X on Y; to what extent does X impact Y?
  • Report confidence intervals and corresponding effect sizes
  • Include confidence intervals in figures (preferred over standard error bars)
  • Make interpretations and conclusions based on the magnitude of the effects rather than a dichotomous decision based on “statistical significance”

References                                                     

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association 2020: the official guide to APA style (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.

Cumming, G. (2008). Replication and p intervals: p values predict the future only vaguely, but confidence intervals do much better. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 286– 300. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00079.x     

Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: why and how. Psychological science, 25(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966

Gelman, A. (2016). The problems with p-values are not just with p-values. The American Statistician, 70(10).

Greenland, S., Senn, S.J., Rothman, K.J. et al. (2016). Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol 31, 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3                                          

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124. Retrieved from http:// www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal .pmed.0020124

Wasserstein, R.L., & Lazar, N.A. (2016). The ASA’s Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. The American Statistician, 70:2, 129-133, DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108

Written by Marianne Chirica, an APAGS Science Committee member and a third-year graduate student in the Psychological and Brain Sciences Ph.D. program at Indiana University. Feel free to reach out to Marianne with any questions you may have!

Writing Commentaries

By Samuel Accuff, PhD and Melanie Arenson, PhD

Many journals offer the opportunity to contribute commentaries, but many graduate students are uncertain about how to write one or think these are reserved for senior career scientists. This couldn’t be farther from the truth (see this call in Translational Issues in Psychological Science), so we wrote a blog post to demystify the process and help you get started! 

What is a commentary and why should I write one?

A commentary is a paper which discusses and expands upon a recently-published article in a peer-reviewed journal. Often commentaries are short (<1000 words), do not require additional data, and focus on a piece of the results or impacts that the original article did not discuss at length. 

So, why write one? Many of us are drawn to research to contribute knowledge and to engage in the conversation of science. Commentaries offer unique advantages relative to other article types to do just that. First, due to their brevity, they require less time. Second, a commentary is a product that emerges from the critical thinking that hopefully naturally occurs while keeping up with the literature. Third, commentaries are opportunities to collaborate with your research community on interesting and stimulating issues. We are in the era of team science, and advancement typically comes through the furnace of critical thinking and friendly, collegial debate. In short, this is an opportunity to engage with your scientific community and question the beliefs of yourself and others, in a brief format that engages you with the literature and results in a publication. What could be better?

What’s the process?

  1. Stay up to date with the current literature: Commentaries discuss recently-published articles (ideally published within 6 months, at most a year). You also want your commentary to reference the most up-to-date literature, and your future directions to be novel. To do so, it is important to stay up to date! 
  2. Think critically: Commentaries are fundamentally papers that critically examine an existing work. This is not to say they are critical in nature; in fact, they are often far from this. However, there is likely a result, application, implication, or future direction the authors did not touch, but you can!
  3. Express interest: Often, journals have a specific call for commentaries and may require that you reach out to express interest in writing one. Draft a brief summary and reach out before you write the commentary. You don’t want to write a commentary that the journal isn’t planning to review!
  4. Get writing: Connect with collaborators to determine the division of responsibilities and  timeline. Then, carve out time in your calendar and get writing!
  5. Go through review: After your commentary is submitted, it will go through a review process that may be slightly different than other articles to foster a faster publication timeline (e.g., involves fewer reviewers, often reviewed by editorial board members).

The nitty gritty – things that help, and things that can hurt

Journals only have so much space, and editors are picky about what they publish. Here are some tips and tricks to enhance your commentary, and some things to avoid. 

  1. Identify an idea that is impactful and builds beyond the scope of a previously published article. Identify a practical or theoretical implication not articulated by the authors, or illuminate a limitation/future direction for research (remember to be respectful). A restatement of the findings is not unique and likely won’t publish. Related, avoid vague statements and instead articulate reasons why your take is important. Be specific, and contribute something novel. Connect the paper to a bigger picture.
  • Avoid lengthy summaries of the study, and instead point readers to the published article. Lengthy summaries take space, and by their nature are not commenting on the existing article.
  • Commentaries often have greater flexibility in voice, with opportunities to show more personality. Use catchy phrases to create brief, memorable summaries of your main idea. That said, you are still a scientist. Do not make claims that cannot be empirically tested; stick to the evidence, and communicate a healthy dose of skepticism. 

This is your opportunity to join the conversation of science. You may have lost touch with this desire due to tests or the stress of managing your dissertation, but isn’t that why we are here? Find a topic or recently published paper and share your thoughts with a colleague. Push the limits of what the study found, and challenge the assumptions. Sit long enough to articulate that feeling you’ve been having about the field that you hold dear. You never know how your engagement might impact the direction of science!