I was honoured to be named a Rising Star by the Association for Psychological Science, an award presented to outstanding psychological scientists in the earliest stages of their research careers. I was particularly proud and grateful to be named alongside my peers and friends, including my colleague at the University of Melbourne Pete Koval. This award means all the more to be able to share it with people I admire.
I really enjoyed taking part in a symposium organised by Serena Does and Margaret Shih on the 2016 US Presidential Election.
Michael Slepian presented data on why and how people kept their votes secret, and the implications of this for emotional well-being. I presented data showing that political group identification – usually a source of perceived personal agency – did not predict perceived personal control among Democrats 24 hours following the Election (although this relationship re-emerged 72 hours following the Election). Serena Does presented data on the implications of Trump’s election for perceived gender equity.
This was a great opportunity, providing a chance to debrief on the 2016 Election which, in addition to being a fascinating event in its own right, can teach us a lot about human psychology more broadly.
I’m excited to be presenting my research in a symposium organised by Pete Koval at the Society of Australasian Social Psychologists in April. The symposium covers recent advancements in the study of emotion regulation, and features a great line-up of speakers, including Luke Smillie, Cindy Harmon-Jones, Sean Murphy, Carolyn MacCann, Pete Koval, and Brock Bastian.
While at SASP, I feel extremely honoured to be accepting the Early Career Award, which recognizes an emerging scholar who has made an outstanding contribution to the field of social psychology in Australasia.
I will present in a symposium at the upcoming European Association for Social Psychology conference in Granada, Spain in July 2017.
Context both produces emotion and shapes emotion: how it is expressed, regulated, and perceived. However, in practice, research often examines emotion processes without considering the important contextual factors that shape them, missing nuance that is vital to a deeper understanding of these phenomena. This symposium showcases emerging research demonstrating how context fundamentally shapes the way people express and regulate their emotions, and the personal and social outcomes of these processes. We begin by exploring the role that context plays in perceptions of emotion expression. Manstead demonstrates that context influences how trustworthy people appear when they express regret or pride. Van Kleef presents evidence that context influences how persuasive people are when they express happiness or sadness. Greenaway explores how context influences social ratings of people who express and suppress positive emotion. Widening the field to consider emotion regulation, Netzer demonstrates how context guides people’s attempts to regulate the emotions of others. Finally, Kalokerinos outlines how context shapes the emotion regulation strategies people use in daily life. Taken together, the talks reveal that the personal and social effects of emotion expression and regulation are not fixed, but are highly malleable; shaped and changed by key contextual factors. These findings show the role played by contexts across diverse domains, including economic decision-making, attitude change, social relationships, conflict resolution, and well-being.
1. Social context moderates the impact of emotional expressions in mixed-motive games
Tony Manstead, Cardiff University
2. Contextual Influences on Emotional Persuasion: The Roles of Message Framing, Emotion Relevance, and Information Processing
Gerben van Kleef, University of Amsterdam
3. Exploring the contexts in which expressing positive emotion has social costs
Katharine Greenaway, University of Queensland
4. Toying with the Enemy’s Emotions: The Social Factors that Moderate Motivated Intergroup Emotion Regulation
Liat Netzer, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
5. Mapping the role of context in emotion regulation choice and effectiveness
Elise Kalokerinos, KU Leuven
I will chair a symposium at the upcoming European Association for Social Psychology conference in Granada, Spain in July 2017.
An impressive body of work now shows that strong social connections—and the social identities they afford—have significant health and well-being benefits. Yet practitioners and policy makers are often at a loss for how to translate this research into effective interventions designed to leverage shared identity. This symposium presents five applications of these research findings in significant populations, and interventions built around their conclusions. Haslam introduces a social intervention designed for use in vulnerable populations, Groups 4 Health, that leads to significant improvement in mental health and loneliness at program completion and 6-months later. Bentley discusses the results of a sister intervention designed for application in the educational domain, Groups 4 Education, that leads to greater empowerment and intentions to continue studying among university students. Working with Public Health England, Ntontis presents the results of field research with community residents affected by flooding, finding that shared identities can be the basis of mobilizing social support, contributing to community resilience. Tarrant discusses the results of a group-based intervention designed to increase shared identity among patients experiencing aphasia after a stroke. Finally, Steffens presents a leadership development intervention, the 5R Program, that builds group-based organisational capacity and enhances employees’ well-being. Together, the talks introduce promising interventions with the potential to improve social and health outcomes in a diverse range of domains, from mental health treatment to emergency response, stroke recovery, and educational and organisational support.
1. Groups 4 Health: An intervention to increase social connectedness in clinical samples
Cath Haslam, University of Queensland
2. Groups 4 Education: An intervention to increase social connectedness in academic samples
Sarah Bentley, University of Queensland
3. Developing community resilience through social identities
Evangelos Ntontis, University of Sussex
4. Development and evaluation of a group-based singing intervention in new patient groups
Mark Tarrant, University of Exeter
5. The 5R Program: A leadership intervention to promote engagement and health in organizations
Niklas Steffens, University of Queensland
I will co-chair a symposium with Christopher Begeny at the upcoming Society for Personality and Social Psychology conference in San Antonio in January 2017.
What makes us healthy? This symposium showcases new frontiers in the social determinants of health. Four talks illustrate how our psychological connections to groups—social identities—have the power to both enhance and harm our health. Beginning with identity’s potential to harm health, Smart Richman shows that construing unhealthy behaviors as part of one’s ethnic identity increases unhealthy eating under stress. Branscombe shows how perceived lack of belonging in the U.S. undermines Arab Americans’ mental and physical health. Turning to identity’s power to enhance health, Begeny shows across four groups that subtle cues conveying value and acceptance shape identity in ways that promote mental health. Haslam reveals how identities can treat mental illness in one of the first longitudinal interventions of its kind. Overall, this symposium presents new ways of understanding what makes us healthy, outlining identity’s dual power to harm and to heal.
Effects of Discrimination on Health-Related Behaviors: An Identity-Based Motivational Model
Laura Smart Richman, Duke University
Where do I fit in? Arab Americans’ Identity and Health
Nyla R. Branscombe, University of Kansas
Everyday Interactions Turn Strength of “Me” into Strength of “We”
Christopher T. Begeny, University of California, Los Angeles
Unlocking the Social Cure: Groups 4 Health
S Alexander Haslam, The University of Queensland
I will chair a symposium on The Upside of Deception at the upcoming meeting of the Society of Experimental Psychology in Santa Monica. Our symposium will be on Friday 30 September from 3:35 – 4:45pm.
A philandering spouse, a habitual liar, a secretive friend; the concept of “deception” conjures up an image of people at their worst. In line with this image, the psychological literature tends to focus on negative personal and social consequences of deception. In addition to incurring a cognitive cost and a well-being tax, deception has been shown to hurt relationships and undermine interpersonal trust. In this symposium we take a novel perspective by showcasing emerging work on the upside of deception. We show that not only can detecting deception yield personal and social benefits, but so can engaging in deception. Levine discusses the benefits of prosocial lies, demonstrating that lying for altruistic reasons increases interpersonal trust. Slepian examines how keeping secrets can be good for you, revealing that keeping positive secrets improves well-being. Kalokerinos explores the social benefits of keeping positive emotions hidden in order to protect another person’s feelings. Carney discusses the benefits of detecting deception and the conditions under which deception is most likely to be successful. The talks reveal that deception—both by omission and commission—can be good for you and your relationships, with diverse consequences for personal well-being, performance, and economic outcomes as well as the formation and maintenance of social relationships. By highlighting the unexpected upsides of being deceitful, this symposium brings nuance to the psychological understanding of deception—why it exists, when it should be used, and how people can engage in and detect it effectively.
Deception: The Trust Benefits of Prosocial Lies
Emma E. Levine, University of Chicago
Concealment: The Personal Benefits of Keeping Secrets
Michael L. Slepian, Columbia University
Suppression: The Social Benefits of Hiding Emotions
Elise K. Kalokerinos, KU Leuven
Dishonesty: How to Catch a Liar
Dana R. Carney, University of California, Berkeley
This week the Social Identity and Groups Network is hosting the third International Conference on Social Identity and Health at Customs House in Brisbane, Australia. I will be presenting this Friday at 4:20pm in a session on Mechanisms and Assessment. We know that social groups make us happier and healthier – by why? And how? Those are the questions we’ll be answering on Friday.
I’m really looking forward to the EASP Medium Sized Meeting on Promoting a Social Approach to Emotions at the University of Cologne, where I’m presenting with my partner in crime, Elise Kalokerinos. We’re discussing recent work that takes a new approach to positive emotion expression and suppression.
9:15 – 9:45, Kalokerinos & Greenaway: Context shapes social judgments of positive emotion expression and suppression.
9:45 – 10:15, Greenaway & Kalokerinos: How to lose friends and influence people – expressing positive emotion can increase perceived status in competitive contexts.
I’ll be presenting at the 2016 SPSP Emotion Preconference in the data blitz session. The session will take place from 11:20 – 12:00 on Thursday 28 January in room 6C of the San Diego Convention Centre.
Abstract: We generally think being positive is a good way to win friends and influence people. Yet, there are many contexts in which it is inappropriate to express positive emotion. To avoid social condemnation in such situations, it may be better to regulate one’s emotions by suppressing positive emotion. However, the majority of past research has found suppression to be a maladaptive strategy with personal and social costs. We argue this is because past research has not considered the moderating role of social context. We hypothesized that positive emotion expressions would be inappropriate when the valence of the emotion (e.g., positive) did not match the valence of the context (e.g., negative). Six studies show that in the case of an emotion-context mismatch, targets who suppress positive emotion are rated more positively than targets who express positive emotion. This provides the first evidence that suppression can be a socially useful regulation strategy in contexts that call for it.