A few thoughts on how I became a social psychologist, and a bit of advice for those thinking of going to grad school

My path to becoming a social psychologist probably began in high school. I took a general psychology class at the high school I was attending at the time, and found that the section on social psychology, and especially the research of Stanley Milgram, really captivated my attention and imagination. The work of Milgram, especially, offered explanations for why some of the bullying behavior I had witnessed might occur, as well as for what might have driven some of the atrocities that friends of mine who had immigrated from Vietnam and Cambodia had endured in their native countries. Since then, my primary research interests boil down to a simple question: why do we sometimes harm each other?

After high school, it took me a while to get focused, and eventually I ended up double-majoring in Psychology and Philosophy. My philosophical interests were primarily driven by the work of existential-phenomenologists such as Jean-Paul Sartre, and in particular the Sartrean concepts of self and person perception were of great interest to me. I was also attracted to the very new area of social cognition, which amounted to an application of information processing approaches to social phenomena. Eventually, I would see how these perspectives could be combined in such theories as Terror Management Theory.

I wasn't the best student as an undergraduate, which meant my path to earning a Ph.D. was a bit longer than what one might ordinarily expect. One thing that helped me was that I did do a few of the right things during my last two years as an undergrad. One was to improve my grades, which meant putting in the necessary effort to earn GPAs that would get me on the Dean's list each of the last four semesters. I also got involved in an on-going research project with Dr. Stanley Woll, which led to my first poster presentation at Western Psychological Association. That was a good accomplishment to have as I finished my last semester as an undergrad. In addition, I went ahead and enrolled in an Advanced Statistics course that I knew would be required of me for a Masters program to which I intended to apply. The additional coursework, along with the undergraduate research experience and excellent GRE scores made it easier to get accepted into a Masters program in what Cal State Fullerton called Experimental Psychology. With regard to the GRE, I spent numerous hours preparing for both the General GRE and the Psychology Subjects GRE. I purchased study books, worked through sample tests, and got an idea of my likely baseline scores before I even went to the test sites. I was glad I did. I would strongly recommend going into that particular test without preparation.

My main reason for enrolling in a Masters program was to gain the necessary course work and research experiences to make me attractive for Ph.D. programs in Social Psychology. It meant I would spend a couple more years as a graduate student than I might have had I gone directly into a Ph.D. program. However, my experiences working at the Student Outcome Assessment Center as a Research Assistant, along with my other research activities and course work gave me both the skill set and confidence I needed to tackle work at the doctoral level. By the time I left that program and headed for Missouri, my Masters Thesis had been accepted by my Thesis Committee, and I had an article in press, on which I was the first author.

To get accepted to Doctoral programs, I narrowed my search of programs to those who had faculty interested in my particular set of interests, and which would offer me the chance to enhance my methodological skill set. I also made a choice to be as portable as possible. As much as I loved Southern California, I knew that the really interesting opportunities in my area would likely take me to the Midwest. Ultimately, I applied to nine programs: eight of which were ones I considered dream programs for one reason or another, and one that was my back-up if I could not get in elsewhere. All of the programs were sufficiently high quality that I felt certain I would be poised for a professional career in my field regardless of where I landed. Of the nine, I got accepted to two. I chose to go to University of Missouri-Columbia (or Mizzou, as we affectionately call it).

At Mizzou, I worked primarily in Anderson's aggression lab, as well as worked with Thayer and with Bettencourt (who would end up as my dissertation advisor). One of the great things about most social psychology programs is that they tend to prepare students to be first-rate methodologists. While at Mizzou, I took numerous advanced statistical courses (ANOVA, Regression, Meta-Analysis, Latent Variable Models, Experimental Design, and Non-Parametric Statistics), in addition to the required methods sequence (Basic Research Methods, Applied Research Methods). There were numerous content area courses that I took, and of course most importantly there was my lab work. I gained some teaching preparation from serving as a lab instructor for undergraduate-level Research Methods labs and Stats labs.

Overall, it took me roughly two years to finish my Masters and an additional five years to complete my Ph.D. By the time I was done, I was competitive for Federal-level research jobs as well as more traditional academic jobs. I was always a bit more passionate about teaching, so I have largely stuck to my first love.

My advice is to take full advantage of whatever opportunities are available to you as an undergraduate. That was one lesson I had to learn the hard way. I did learn it, however, and in the nick of time. If you have some poor grades early on, make sure that you repeat courses to improve your GPA, and make sure that you focus on getting A-averages on the courses you take during those last two years of undergraduate work. If you can get involved in undergraduate research, do it. The workload may be greater as a result, but you end up with a tangible product at the end of the experience (such as conference presentations, and perhaps publication possibilities). I would also suggest getting involved with your institution's Psychology Club, and at least one Honors Society if available (Psi Chi, for example, would be quite relevant for Psych majors). For students planning on entering the helping professions, make sure to get involved in internships prior to graduating. They look good on a resume or CV, and provide valuable networking opportunities. I cannot emphasize enough that you should take preparation for the GRE seriously. I was glad I did. Otherwise, my quantitative scores would have looked artificially low. Don't be intimidated by poor grades, especially if they happened early in your undergrad career. If you do have holes in your transcript such as poor grades or a lot of withdrawals, be open to taking a more round-about path toward getting your graduate degree. Not all of us who earn Ph.D.s were great students initially, but all of us, by the time we successfully complete our dissertations, have matured into solid students by the time we're done.

In graduate school, make sure that you and your thesis and dissertation advisor are a good fit. If you are not getting the mentoring you need to progress through the program, switch advisors. There are plenty of discreet and politically savvy ways to do so. But the bottom line is that you need to protect your own career aspirations. Some faculty at the graduate level are better at mentoring than others, and some are more interested in advancing the interests of their advisees than others. If it is taking too long to get your thesis committee assembled, or if it becomes clear that your advisor has a hard time with colleagues or a hard time attracting and keeping advisees in his or her lab, you might want to make a change. Obviously, it goes without saying that you should carefully research graduate programs before even thinking of applying. By the time you are applying, you should have a solid idea of your theoretical orientation, your research interests, and which scholars provide the best match, and of course where those scholars are currently working. Be open to relocation, especially in social psychology, and try to get into programs that offer teaching and research assistantships as well as full or partial tuition and fee waivers. Needless to say, programs willing to invest that much into each student are going to be highly competitive, but those who get in are well rewarded over the long haul.

Okay, that is just a bit of advice that I hope would be of some use. This is the sort of material I discuss with my undergraduate advisees and students, as they prepare for life after their undergraduate years.

Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Attitudes Toward Torture

Over the last few days I have been going over some recently gathered data, as well as revisiting some previously collected data examining right-wing authoritarianism and attitudes toward torture. Based upon what I know of Altemeyer's work, as well as some of my own research on authoritarianism and attitudes toward violence (e.g., Benjamin, 2006; Benjamin, in press), I would be truly surprised if there were no positive relationship between RWA and attitudes toward torture. More authoritarian individuals should show higher favorability toward torture.

A couple years back, I had some of my methods students attempt a replication of Crandall et al.'s (2009) experiment on status-quo framing and attitudes toward torture. We included some individual difference variables that in theory should serve as significant predictors in their own right, and that would hopefully interact with the status-quo frame manipulation. The smaller, less heterogeneous sample didn't yield the significant framing effect or interaction that we had hoped for (although the trends were certainly in the predicted direction), but there was evidence of a significant positive relationship between scores on Altemeyer's (1996) RWA scale and scores on Crandall et al.'s (2009) attitudes toward torture scale.

Although an intriguing finding, questions were left unanswered. In particular, I had to wonder what specifically about RWA was responsible for our initial finding. Utilizing Altemeyer's theoretical work, and his empirical work examining such variables as vigilantism and so on, I suspected that ultimately, it was the dimension Altemeyer calls authoritarian aggression that was really driving that relationship, and not so much authoritarian submission or conventionalism. However, as Funke (2005) correctly notes, Altemeyer's questionnaire measuring RWA consists almost exclusively of double-barrel and triple-barrel items: ones that measure more than one of the construct's dimensions. With the data I had available, all I could do was speculate.

More recently, I conducted a study utilizing Funke's (2005) RWA scale, which was developed to correct Altemeyer's scale's psychometric difficulties, and includes questions that are specifically measuring authoritarian aggression, authoritarian submission, and conventionalism. I had an item from Weems et al.'s (2012) Conservatism/Liberalism questionnaire that tapped into attitudes toward torture (as part of that questionnaire's Intolerance subscale). With a sample of over 200 adults, I was able to examine partial correlations between each of Funke's (2005) RWA subscales and the attitudes toward torture item from Weems et al. (2012). I used partial correlations since the RWA subscales were highly intercorrelated, and I wanted to get as pure a reading of the relationship between each subscale and attitudes toward torture, while holding variability on the other subscales constant (in other words, statistically controlling for those other subscales). As Altemeyer would undoubtedly predict, authoritarian aggression was a significant predictor of attitudes toward torture. Higher authoritarian aggression scores were associated with more highly favorable attitudes toward torture. The partial correlations between the other two subscales and attitudes toward torture yielded no significant relationships.

Some more authoritarianism data

I and some students have been in the process of analyzing the latest wave of data that we have collected on RWA, using Funke's (2005) measure of authoritarian attitudes. Among the analyses are those between RWA and various dimensions measured on Weems et al.'s (2012) conservatism-liberalism scale: economic, social, intolerance, and racial/ethnic resentment. So far, partial correlations replicate something I noticed in some pilot data collected last year: essentially a zero correlation between economic conservatism and RWA, and strong correlations between RWA and both social conservatism and intolerance. I'll need to spend a bit more time examining the various RWA subscales in relation to Weems et al.'s (2012) measure, but this initial peek looks promising. I also have some analyses by party affiliation and ideology yet to examine. Something enlightening should show up there, as well. There is something psychologically different between those who truly are authoritarian and those whose conservatism may extend merely to matters of economics.

Out of curiosity, one other analysis I have run is one in which I look at overall levels of social and economic conservatism in Little Dixie - the region in which I work, and in which my participants reside. Thus far, continuing a long-standing pattern, it appears that Little Dixie residents are still somewhat socially conservative but economically liberal/populist.

Busy

I have been rather swamped the last few months, making blogging very difficult. After my last post, I received an invitation to write a chapter on aggression for the Encyclopedia of Mental Health. I recently completed that manuscript, and it is now under editorial review.

I also completed work on another manuscript for submission to a peer-review journal, and received an acceptance letter earlier this fall. Chasing the elusive left-wing authoritarian: An examination of Altemeyer’s Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Left-Wing Authoritarianism scales will appear in print in the National Social Science Journal sometime next year. I have also been working with one of my students to complete work on a manuscript on attitudes toward torture, based upon the data we've collected, and that I presented earlier this spring. We hope to have that manuscript ready for submission at some point over the winter break. And, of course, I am already preparing for next year's academic conference, busily collecting data, and beginning that particular write-up.

All of that is in addition to my normal teaching and advising load. So, yeah, I am a bit on the busy side. As time permits, I shall return to updating this blog.

Effectiveness framing and attitudes toward torture

A few weeks ago, I got to present some data that some students and I collected last fall semester. Our main interest was to examine how the way torture was framed could influence individuals' attitudes toward the sort of enhanced interrogation methods that usually fall under the rubric of torture.

Studying framing effects on attitudes is hardly new, although studying these effects on attitudes toward torture specifically is quite recent. A few years ago, Christian Crandall and colleagues published findings supporting the hypothesis that status quo framing would lead to more acceptance of torture than novelty framing. In essence, when torture was presented as something that had already been done by our soldiers over a long period of time, respondents showed more favorable attitudes toward torture than when torture was presented as a phenomenon unique to the War on Terror.

Our main interest for our experiment was effectiveness framing. There is some political science data (the work of Gronke and colleagues comes to mind) that suggests that Americans are rather ambivalent about the use of torture, but that they will accept its use if they believe it will prevent future terrorist attacks. It isn't much of a leap to suggest that if torture is presented as effective, respondents will show more favorable attitudes toward its use than if framed as ineffective. In our experiment, we presented participants with one of two statements that were equivalent except in terms of how torture was framed: for some participants, torture was framed as effective in leading to the location of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts, whereas for other participants, torture was framed as ineffective. Afterwards, participants completed an attitudes toward torture questionnaire, and then some demographic questions, and were debriefed and dismissed. The bottom line was that participants who read the statement suggesting torture was effective were more favorably disposed to its use than those who read the statement suggesting torture was not effective.

One implication of our findings is that we need to be good consumers of how enhanced interrogation techniques are presented in mass media outlets. In the case of the story of how information leading to Osama bin Laden was presented, a number of news media outlets presented torture as the primary factor leading to a successful mission. However, a number of other media outlets deemphasized the role of torture and emphasized instead the primary role of conventional interrogation methods in leading to a successful mission. Depending on the sorts of media outlets one was viewing or reading, one could be led to a rather different set of ideas about the role torture played in obtaining crucial information about a major terrorist leader's location.

Our own research does not, of course, address the question of whether torture is actually effective. For a run-down on various opinions on that question, one might examine the work of such writers as Alfred McCoy, who published a book on the topic of torture a few years ago.

Boundaries: What is appropriate in the classroom?

Every so often, I will offer some thoughts about what I consider appropriate behavior for faculty who work in the behavioral and social sciences. One obvious truism is that we tend to assume multiple roles both within and outside our respective institutions. That is to be expected. Depending on the particular institution we may take on the role of instructors, advisors and mentors, colleagues, committee members, and potentially supervisors (depending on whether or not we have any administrative duties or if we have the ability to employ student workers in our offices). Outside of our professional lives, we of course may assume any of a number of other roles.

For today, I wish to focus on the classroom, whether in its traditional sense or the more virtual classroom of the standard online course. Regardless of setting, I view the classroom much like I view any other work setting. The overarching goal of any instructor should be to avoid creating conditions that would lead to a hostile workplace for students.

In my particular area within the behavioral and social sciences, much of the material that I might teach would be considered potentially controversial. Even in an introductory psychology course, some of what I teach within the scope of learning theory and research makes some assumptions that draw explicitly from Darwin's Theory of Evolution. And of course, there is plenty of material in social psychology that touches on sensitive topics such as prejudice, aggression, mortality salience, and whatnot. Depending on the particular brand of political correctness any individual student may subscribe to, it is quite likely that a few toes will get stepped on. It is unavoidable.

With that in mind, what I think is appropriate as a faculty member is to present the research, give examples of the research, but to avoid advocacy within the classroom students. The data presented will constrain what would be reasonable interpretations, and it is of course paramount that students are expected to understand what those limits would be. We cannot of course coerce them into explicitly adopting a set of beliefs that we ourselves may hold dearly ourselves, or to engage in behaviors that they themselves would ordinarily refrain from doing. Although there are occasions where faculty create learning environments that would be hostile, fortunately such incidents are fairly infrequent - certainly that has been the case where I have worked. Every once in a while a news story will come up that will understandably bug any of us - such as the instructor who insisted that every student in a class she was teaching sign a document promising to vote for Obama. Obviously, such behaviors on the part of any instructor would be inappropriate regardless of candidate or issue that a particular individual instructor might feel strongly about - and standard interpretations of academic freedom will not provide cover for said faculty members if and when students complain to administrators. My advice to any graduate student who is hoping to use his or her first post-grad-school position as a platform for recruiting activists and such should realize how badly they are misinterpreting the concept of academic freedom, and should ask themselves why they are even pursuing this career in the first place.