CARED Perspectives – Racism on our College Campuses: What can we do about it?

This blog post is a part of the series, “CARED Perspectives,” developed by the APAGS Committee for the Advancement of Racial and Ethnic Diversity. Posts in this series will discuss current events and how these events relate to graduate students in psychology. If you are interested in contributing to the CARED Perspectives series, please contact Lincoln Hill.

Racism on our College Campuses: What can we do about it?

By Ryan C. Warner

Unfortunately, racial incidents often occur frequently in today’s higher education institutions. Just recently in April 2018, a series of racial incidents transpired on the campus of DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana. A racist threat was found in a restroom on campus. A student dressed in blackface and wearing an offensive sign was seen at a local bar, and the word “nigger” was spelled out in stones at the DePauw Nature Park. During the same month, a Greek fraternity at Syracuse University in New York posted a six-minute video online showing a member saying an oath that included the statement: “I solemnly swear to always have hatred in my heart for Niggers, Spics, and most importantly the (expletive) Kykes.”

Similar to the rest of society, colleges and universities are not immune to racial discrimination. With “Blackface” party incidents and “noose” hangings making news at numerous universities all over the country, racially underrepresented students face challenges beyond the academic scope of tests, papers, and projects.

As a current graduate student of color who has attended various predominantly white universities, I can attest to the fact that racial discrimination can be displayed covertly (e.g., microaggressions) or overtly. These incidences have a profound impact of an individual’s well-being, and can impact their retention and life satisfaction. But the main question is, “what can we do about it?”

At the individual level, we need to all stand up to racial injustice when it occurs. Silence is compliance and only encourages and enhances racial injustice in the world. Individuals of all backgrounds and skin colors should point out bigotry when they see it, which will ultimately create social awareness and bring light to these issues.

At the institutional level, university leaders should make systemic changes to enhance inclusivity for students of color. One example may include requiring that all students, faculty, and staff attend diversity training focusing on racial equality and inclusion. Additionally, ensuring that campuses have a bias incident report system in place can offer a resource for students to document their experiences of racial microaggressions, which may assist with providing evidence that these incidences do in fact exist. This documentation may be useful with further presenting evidence for the need of diversity resources and inclusivity programming.

It is also important that resources be available at a professional organization level. For instance, the American Psychological Association (APA) and other organizations have various divisions/resources that can assist with supporting graduate students (e.g., Committee for the Advancement of Racial & Ethnic Diversity, Division 45, AAPA, SIP, AMENA-Psy, ABPsi, NLPA, etc.). Conducting webinars and disseminating information to academic programs may assist with providing students helpful coping strategies to use when experiencing racial stress in their programs.

For additional resources please visit:

We want to hear what you think! Please share your thoughts on this topic in the comments section below.

The Graduate Student Guide to Getting Your S**t Together

MPj04440980000[1] This is it: the time when it seems like every professor, every research conference, every supervisor has come together to plot how to make these last few weeks a mad fury of papers, projects, sweat, and tears for us graduate students.

In the midst of this chaos, it is all too easy to let certain things – the less pressing papers, the cleanliness of our apartments, our mental well-being- slip by the wayside. In an effort to alleviate some of that relentless pressure, I present tips for the graduate student to keep their s**t together.

Make a to-do list and put everything on there. The most empowering to-do lists are those which are a combination of tasks you hope to get done (write that report, make that call) and those you will get done anyway unless some catastrophic event occurs (i.e., see that patient, go to that class). With a to-do list like this, you check off more things and get a better picture of how amazingly productive you are, and that can be all the fuel you need to get more of the things done.
Break down your bigger tasks. Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither is a dissertation – when planning out your tasks don’t simply write in ‘dissertation’ but small, tangible goals that can be accomplished in 1-2 hour blocks (e.g., ‘write intro paragraph’; ‘find depression measure’; ‘draft Table 1’).
Five minutes can be a damn good start to some things. We all know what the hardest part of a task is…. Getting started. Whether it is the first draft of an abstract, writing a few emails, or starting the blog post you keep meaning to do, using small bouts of time productively can really add up.

Continue reading →

Introducing APA’s Journal Article Reporting Standards

Earlier this year the APA revised its Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS). Originally published in 2008, the 2018 revision provides much-needed updates to APA’s standards for publication and reviews timely issues of debate revolving around reproducibility and preregistration. In addition and for the first time, JARS incorporates guidelines for writing about qualitative/mixed methods research, meaning that the JARS is now specific to either the use of quantitative methods (JARS-Quant) or qualitative (JARS-Qual). Both JARS are accessible as open access publications and appear alongside an editorial introducing the standards within a recent issue of the American Psychologist:

JARS-Quant: Journal Article Reporting Standards for Quantitative Research in Psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force Report

JARS-Qual: Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Primary, Qualitative Meta-Analytic, and Mixed Methods Research in Psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force Report

Editorial: Journal Article Reporting Standards

The JARS-Quant and JARS-Qual papers are excellent resources when considered in full. Below we’ve compiled several reasons why APAGS members may be interested in considering these resources when designing and reporting results from their own research and when serving as reviewers.

JARS-Quant

Guidance on how to report non-experimental research

While the JARS-Quant was originally written to offer guidance on how to report studies with experimental manipulations, the 2018 revision offers new guidance on how to report results from studies that are observational, correlational, or which use a natural design (See JARS-Quant Table 3). This expands the scope of JARS considerably and is a much-welcomed resource for those of us who complete non-experimental research.

Inclusion of sophisticated statistical approaches

As the need for more sophisticated statistical approaches for analysis continues to grow, JARS-Quant now offers guidance on what to report when using structural equation modeling (SEM), Bayesian statistics, meta-analytic research methods, and single-case studies (e.g., N-of-1 studies). Inclusion of these diverse approaches to analyzing data offer students up-front transparency in terms of what APA considers appropriate for reporting results from these less ‘straight-forward’ approaches.

Reporting standards for replication studies

Given heightened interest surrounding issues of reproducibility in psychological science, JARS-Quant provides new guidelines for what to report when publishing a replication study. Authors should consider suitability of replication studies for their individual studies; yet, these guidelines offer a good starting point for what details to consider including in a manuscript so that your study can be considered for replication. Conversely, these guidelines are informative when attempting to replicate another scientist’s work. As new cultural shifts in our field that recognizes the importance and value of replicability, this provides helpful guidance on what information is useful and needed in published manuscripts in order to foster replication science.

JARS-Qual

Detailed discussion on what constitutes qualitative research and best reporting practices

The JARS-Qual includes a comprehensive yet basic primer for any reader interested in what constitutes qualitative research. In particular, the standards offer guidance regarding the number of participants that typically appear in qualitative research, the types of hypotheses that are tested, modes of data collection, and ways in which hypotheses may be validated. These guidelines further provide much needed clarification on what information needs to be reported and how.

Recommendations for reviewers reading qualitative research

As editorial board members for Translational Issues in Psychological Science, we often hear from student reviewers that they do not feel comfortable reviewing qualitative manuscripts given a lack of expertise in this arena. As such, we were thoroughly impressed to learn that detailed recommendations for reviewers appear within JARS-Qual (Table 1) to help these individuals better evaluate qualitative research integrity. These guidelines are written in lay language and provide examples of what sections should appear within a qualitative manuscript, thereby providing necessary details to keep handy when consuming qualitative research.

Inclusion of standards for mixed methods designs

As quantitative and qualitative research vary considerably in terms of design and analysis structure, it is particularly nice to see an entire section detailing how to integrate both methods (See section: Mixed Methods Article Reporting Standards [MMARS]). This makes the JARS-Qual a comprehensive tool for any investigator wishing to complete a stand-alone qualitative study or, alternatively, using limited qualitative data collection to help inform quantitative work.

Author Bios

Jacklynn Fitzgerald, PhD currently serves as the APAGS Member-at-Large for Research and Academic Affairs. She is a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Department of Psychology, where she studies the impact of psychological trauma on neural functioning during emotion and emotion regulation. Outside of the lab she considers ways training in psychological science can be improved, and is committed to advancing under-represented students in the sciences, particularly women. She can be contacted here.

Renee Cloutier, MS currently serves as the APAGS Science Committee Chair. She is a fifth year doctoral student in the Experimental Psychology/Behavioral Science program at the University of North Texas and is a F31 recipient from NIDA/NIH. She studies the role of anxiety and social context in substance use behaviors/cognitions among adolescents and emerging adults. In addition to her research, she seeks ways to promote science within psychology and devotes her time to mentoring younger students. She can be contacted here.

APA Responds to ASPPB about the EPPP Part 2 Exam

May 8, 2018

Dear peers,

In late 2017, the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) released more details about the EPPP Part 2 examination related to content, timing, and costs (details of which can be found here, particularly under “What’s New.”)

While the committees at APA representing graduate students and early career psychologists (APAGS, and CECP, respectively) have been advocating intensely for its constituents within APA, to ASPPB and to other stakeholders since the first announcement of the EPPP Part 2 in Spring 2016, this new information prompted our groups to request APA at large prepare an official request letter to ASPPB. The APAGS committee and CECP thoroughly advised the APA Board of Directors, to which we directly report, on several matters that were raised by our members through listservs, phone calls, and meetings.

On behalf of thousands of graduate student affiliates and early career members, and the field of psychology as a whole, the APA Board of Directors (Board) issued a letter to ASPPB on April 6, 2018. The letter highlighted three areas: The cost of the examinations, the timing of these examinations in the sequence of training, and the potential for their misuse. We summarize the concerns here:

On cost, ASPPB announced that the EPPP Part 2 would cost an up-front fee of $600. The cost of the existing EPPP, which will become Part 1 when Part 2 is implemented, will remain $600, doubling the total examination fee to $1,200. APA in turn advocated for ASPPB to consider the financial burden the test would create for students, postdocs, and ECPs with limited resources. As well, ASPPB was asked to support state-by-state efforts to count pre-internship hours for licensure, which would allow graduates to get licensed and earn a licensed psychologist’s salary sooner.
On timing, ASPPB announced that when the EPPP Part 2 is released, doctoral students from accredited programs who had completed all necessary coursework (not inclusive of dissertation or internship) would be able to take the EPPP Part 1 (the existing examination) prior to graduating. APA in turn advocated that ASPPB develop more clear guidelines about course-completion requirements for taking the Part 1 early, and asked ASPPB to do its own review to determine student eligibility in the cases where doctoral institutions may not be keen to sign off on a student’s eligibility.
On validity and potential misuse of the exam, APA named four concerns. First, APA advocated against the EPPP Part 1 being used as a criterion on internship applications or as penalty for underperforming students by their doctoral programs; no decisions have been made about these issues so our advocacy is proactive. Second, APA advocated for the Part 2 not to be used in disciplinary proceedings. Third, APA advocated the need to ensure that already-licensed psychologists would be universally and indefinitely ‘grandfathered’ in to new states where they seek licensure, specifically by not needing to take the Part 2. Fourth, APA indicated that there may or could be possible bias in test scores worthy of attention. CECP and APAGS raised with APA’s Board our concerns about test pass-rate differences by demographic groups and would like to see a more systemic analysis of the tests by groups.

Please note, APAGS and CECP anticipate that the EPPP Part 2 will be implemented into the licensure process across North America. It is the culmination of years of movement in psychology to assess professional skill and competency. There also does not appear to be momentum to take a holistic review of the EPPP Part 1 in light of the new Part 2. We are doing what we feel has strategic possibility by raising the concerns above, and we are thankful that the APA Board of Directors is working hard on our behalf. We trust that ASPPB will respond in due time, and we endeavor to keep you abreast of any announcements that affect the tests and test-takers. APAGS and CECP openly welcomes your dialogue on these matters.

Sincerely,

Justin Karr, MS, APAGS Chair

Tyson Bailey, PsyD, CECP Chair

Editor’s Note – See previous gradPSYCH Blog posts about the EPPP Part 2:

If Helplessness is Learned, Success Can Also be Learned

What is learned helplessness?

Sometimes, we set low expectations or do not try to seize new opportunities because we do not want to be faced with disappointment. While there may be reasons for such behavior, it can really limit the scope of experiences we allow ourselves to have.

When people experience failure repeatedly, they often tend to give up without trying, even if they have the ability to succeed. This is called “learned helplessness.” Learned helplessness is a phenomenon coined by Martin Seligman and Steven Maier while studying avoidance learning and formation of fear conditioning.

In 1967, at the University of Pennsylvania, Seligman and Maier separated 24 dogs into three groups. The dogs were put into harnesses and received electric shocks. In group 1 (escape group), dogs could end the electric shocks by pressing a lever with their noses. In group 2 (no-escape group/experiment group):, they did not have a lever and could not avoid the electric shocks. In group 3 (no harness control group), dogs did not receive any electric shock.

After spending 24 hours in harnesses, the dogs were placed in a different box in which they could avoid the electrical shocks by jumping over a low barrier to the other side. Here’s what happened: Dogs in group 1 and 3 avoided electric shocks by jumping over the barrier, but dogs in group 2 — the group that had no choice to avoid the shocks — crouched in the corner and received all shock. That is, the dogs in group 2 exhibited learned helplessness. Seligman found that after repeated failures of avoiding electric shocks, the dogs in group 2 learned that their behavior didn’t impact the electric shocks and the shocks were uncontrollable. Thus, the dogs gave up trying to avoid the electric shocks altogether.

Learned helplessness can be easily observed in our everyday lives. For example, if one studies hard for math exams but consistently does not earn good grades, that person may stop investing time in studying math. Or, if a person is unable to find a job even after applying and interviewing many times, they can eventually give up and discontinue their job search. Learned helplessness can be seen in politics as well. People are able to cast votes in elections but if they feel that there is no change, some will give up and stop voting. The thought, “Even if I vote, nothing changes,” becomes inscribed in their minds.

When we cannot control our external environment, we can fall into helplessness and stop trying to improve our situation.

What are the signs of learned helplessness?

Learned helplessness has three core characteristics:

When a person faces failure of learning, he or she shows the tendency to give up.
A person avoids one’s responsibility as the cause of failure.
When one’s responsibility is recognized, there is tendency to attribute the cause of failure to one’s lack of ability rather than lack of effort.

If one attributes the cause of negative events to one’s fault (internal attribution), one considers oneself more negatively than in the case of attributing the cause to environment or other people (external attribution).

The experience of repeated failure causes emotional, motivational, and cognitive harm. The resulting combination of signs include lack of confidence, depression or negative perception, lack of control, lack of persistence, and lack of responsibility. If such signs are neglected without proper treatment for an extended period of time, they could turn into disorders that threaten one’s social psychological well-being.

How can we overcome learned helplessness?

To overcome learned helplessness, we should increase the number of successful experiences by setting achievable goals. For example, if the goal is to learn a foreign language, set an attainable goal such as memorizing 10 vocabulary words in that language. Once this goal has been achieved, it will create a positive memory of success. These continued positive experiences will gradually build confidence. Later, you can set goals with a higher level of difficulty and gradually push away negative memories of failure. These small achievements can help reduce the effects of learned helplessness.

Another technique to overcome learned helplessness is to grow “failure resistance.” That is, the ability to overcome failure and maintain a positive outlook. To effectively grow failure resistance and escape from situations of helplessness, people can encourage themselves to think positively and reframe negative thoughts. For example, think about a failure as an obstacle to overcome in order to reach an ultimate success. This reframe helps to put negative experiences into perspective and will keep you from spiraling into helplessness.

If we do not give up, even in moments of pain and despair, a whole new world can open up for us. For example, persistence can help us land a new job that can lead to new, interesting paths — or lead us to friendships with people who initially did not seem to fit in our lives. These are completely unexpected experiences. But if we do not try, the opportunity for a variety of experiences will be drastically reduced.

If helplessness has been learned, success can also be learned.

Hanna Park received her Bachelor’s degree in Psychology at Columbia University and Master’s degree in Cognitive Studies in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. She currently works as a journalist for the Korean Psychological Association.