JCCAP FDF/2021/Day 3

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Information below is a placeholder for the 2021 meeting.

Most of the information below is up to date, however, some sections are missing completed notes and awardees.

YouTube Videos with recordings from the 2021 virtual conference can be found here.

Day 3: Workshops[edit | edit source]

Workshop #1 (1:00pm - 2:30pm EST): Previously Rejected Manuscripts for Publication[edit | edit source]

Dr. Andres De Los Reyes, Ph.D.[edit | edit source]

Dr. Andres De Los Reyes is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training at the University of Maryland at College Park. His publications have appeared in such journals as the Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Review, Psychological Assessment, and the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. He recently released his book, The Early Career Researcher's Toolbox: Insights into Mentors, Peer Review, and Landing a Faculty Job. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology (JCCAP), and Founding Program Chair of JCCAP's Future Directions Forum.

Description[edit | edit source]

The acclaimed boxing trainer Whitey Bimstein famously said, “Show me an undefeated fighter and I’ll show [you] a guy who’s never fought anybody.” If you were to ask a room of 100 successful researchers if they regularly get their manuscripts rejected, and 95 researchers raised their hands, know that the other 5 lied to you. Rejection happens to everyone and it happens throughout one’s career. The experience is also normatively disorienting. When you get a manuscript rejected for publication, doesn’t it feel like you fell down unexpectedly, and you don’t quite know how to get back up? If you’re new to publishing and you regularly find yourself on the ground, you’re probably doing it right, but you could also use some advice on what to do next. This workshop will cover strategies for learning from rejection, revising your manuscript, and carving a new path toward publication.

Workshop Materials[edit | edit source]
Notes[edit | edit source]
Click "Expand" for notes

Workshop #2 (1:00pm - 2:30pm EST): Navigating Problematic Mentoring Relationships[edit | edit source]

Description[edit | edit source]

As a trainee, working with a mentor is like learning from a “research caregiver.” Unlike the caregiving environments you were used to before your research training, you actually get to choose the caregiver(s) who raise you! Here’s the thing though: Mentors and trainees create “family environments” like any other family unit. That is, they can create environments that range from supportive and nurturing, to the opposite of those two things! Are you running into “family issues” surrounding work with one or more of your mentors? We assembled a team of experienced colleagues who can help you with strategies for navigating these very kinds of relationships.

Workshop Materials[edit | edit source]
Notes[edit | edit source]
Click "Expand" for notes
  • “Politics” are prevalent in every field, but not every mentor follows this path
  • There are different career stages, which makes managing problematic mentorship slightly easier as students often expand to different labs, professors, and mentors.
  • Talking to current and postgraduate students is an excellent method of understanding the mentor beforehand without speculated pressure or distracting influences.
  • Another strategy of understanding the mentorship style is viewing social media of the mentor and lab.
    • Specifically, reading the language and writing style to grasp a general understanding of how they tend to communicate with others.
    • Their posts may be a sign of how they communicate to students in person.
  • Researching previous publications of the mentor to see if any current or post research students are cited is a personal indicator of how likely students can publish papers.
  • Although mentorship styles are heavily dependent on the student, a few general warning signs include (This information is subjective, which may not be reliable or applicable to everyone):
    • “Mentor is hands off.”
    • “The lab is a work hard, play hard environment.”
    • Minimal alumni continuing the profession is listed within the research lab website despite numerous years in the field of work
    • If current students are reluctant or insecure of openly sharing concrete experiences.
  • A critical component in the interview process and selection of a mentor is understanding your own values, communication needs, and expectations.
    • The mentorship process is a two-way street, in which both parties are cooperating to achieve maximum performance and guidance.
  • Sample questions students may ask mentors are:
    • What is your mentorship style?
    • What are your expectations in response to lab assignments, feedback, etc?
    • What is your publication criteria?
    • Are there any particular journals you tend to publish?
  • Within the program, try to formulate a trusted support group.
    • Other mentors are a great source of building connections and managing problematic mentors.
    • These people can be in or out of the psychology department, and can assist you in personal matters, technical topics, or further guidance.
  • If the mentorship experience is unbearable, switching out of the lab may be a temporary solution.
    • In this process, think of a scientific explanation to leave the research lab, such as gaining a new research interest.
    • Meet with the graduate program director to discuss your options.
  • Maintaining social connections is the ideal route.
    • However, in the instance where there are burned social bridges, it is important to remember that it is not the end of your career or education.
  • Every situation is different, which is why it is significant to be cautious of topics mentioned previously. Although each mentor is unique, always having an open source of communication with a trusted person is preferred.

Day 3: Poster Q & A[edit | edit source]

Poster Q&A (2:30pm - 4:00pm EST)[edit | edit source]

Poster Presenters[edit | edit source]

Allman, M., Battaglia, L., Buchanan, M., Canella, R., Cannova, E., Cohen, K., Cárdenas, E., Dahiya, A., DeLuca, J., DuBois, C., Eadeh, HM., El Haddad, S., Garcia, K., Grazioli, M., Guzick, A., Hager, K., Hansen, C., Harmon, J., Hollinsaid, N., Jacobs, W., Jacques, K., Jensen, E., Khurana, S., Kim, H., Kim, J., Kitt, E., Lawrence, H., Lazo-Salmeron, W., Little, G., Lu, B., López Jr., R., Malloy Spink, K., Maultsby, K., Mitchell, E., Murphy, C., Norris, L., Parungao, D., Ramsey, K., Ricker, B., Ridge-Anderson, A., Santos, JM., Seager van Dyk, I., Shah, N., Shin, KE., Shive, C., Shroff, D., Smith-Ayala, A., Suarez, SM., Szekely, E., Toth, S., Vannucci, A., West, C., Workman, A., Zhang, Y., Zhao, X.

Description[edit | edit source]

Before the Forum, early career scientists submit abstracts of their research, and at the Forum, they make poster presentations of this research in an all-digital, virtual environment. In advance of the Forum, we prompt presenters via email to upload a single-slide PowerPoint file of their presentation.  Additionally, the presenters have an option to upload a short video about their research.  During the Poster Q&A, the poster presenters and attendees have the opportunity to ask questions and further discuss research.

Workshop Materials[edit | edit source]
Notes[edit | edit source]
Click "Expand" for notes

Day 3: Address[edit | edit source]

Future Directions Address (4:00pm - 6:00pm EST): Future Directions in Peer Relations[edit | edit source]

Dr. Mitch J. Prinstein, Ph.D.[edit | edit source]

Description[edit | edit source]

Dr. Mitch Prinstein discusses the future directions in peer relations

Workshop Materials[edit | edit source]
Notes[edit | edit source]
Click "Expand" for notes
  • Old frontiers
    • 1960s and 1970s
      • Cowen
      • Compared those registered for psychiatric treatment or not.
        • Measured everything
        • IQ, teacher ratings, peer nomination measure
          • Peer nomination → popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, average
        • 11-13 year follow-back study using grade 1-3 school records
        • Class play nomination procedure
    • Looks at the association between peer relations and psychopathology.
  • New Frontier
    • N=7889, ages 12-19 from ADDhealth
      • Followed 12 years later
    • N= 863 ages, 25-64 from MIDUS
      • Followed 9 years later
    • N=4323 ages 50 and up from HRS
      • Followed biennially for 8 years
    • N=1572, ages 57-85 from NSHAP
      • Followed 5 years later
  • Peer (and family) relationships
    • Frequency of interaction with:
      • Friends, peers in community organizations, religious services, romantic relationships, family.
    • Quality of social relationships
      • Including social support
  • Do good peer relations protect health?
    • C-reactive protein
      • 40% more likely to have c-reactive protein with poor peer relations.
      • Later adulthood and middle adulthood is a little less. Elderly and adolescence has a prominent effect, which increases the risk of these health outcomes.
    • Hypertension
      • High levels
    • Obesity
      • High levels
    • Unique to look at poor peer relations in young adulthood and adolescence as it had a stronger effect
  • Meta-analysis
    • 149 studies, N-308,849
      • 51% from North America
      • 37% from Europe
      • 11% from Asia
      • 1% from Australia
    • Baseline age 6-85 years old
    • Followed participants from 3 months to 58 years.
    • Measured peer contact and quality of peer (including romantic)
    • Increased risk of death.
      • Few social relationships is related → almost equivalent to 6+ more alcoholic drinks a day and poor quality social relationships → 20 or more cigarettes a day.
        • More likely to experience increased risk of death.
  • Peers and Health
    • Three potential mechanisms
  • Peers and Health Risk Behaviors which can have a risk of morbidity or mortality.
  • Health Risk Behaviors
    • Substance Use:
      • Adolescents use of alcohol and marijuana is linked with substance use in adulthood
      • Significant implications for adolescent injury and adult health, including cardiovascular disease and cancer
    • Sexual Risk Behaviors:
      • Nearly 500,000 teenage pregnancies annually
        • (Cost to US Healthcare system = 9.4 Billion)
      • 9 million new STIs reported youth annually
        • (Cost to US Healthcare system = 8 Billion)
      • Rate of HIV infection is growing fastest among adolescents and young adults
        • Approximately 10,000 new HIV cases each year in the U.S.
      • Early engagement in sexual intercourse predicts lower use of STI protection, increased number of STIs, and higher rates of cervical cancer in adulthood
  • Weight Management Behaviors
    • Body dissatisfaction
      • 46% of girls
      • 26% of boys
    • Unhealthy behavior to manage body shape
      • 50% of girls
      • 38% of boys
    • Fasting
      • 18.7% of girls
      • 7.4% of boys
    • Diet pills
      • 6.6% of girls
      • 3.4% of boys
    • Vomiting
      • 6.6% of girls
      • 2.2% of boys
    • Steroids
      • 2.2% of girls
      • 4.0% of boys
  • Factors that affect health risk behaviors
    • Peer problems and deviant peer group affiliation
    • Peer’s engagement in similar behaviors
      • Best friends
      • High status peers
      • Romantic partners
      • Low status peers via anti-conformity
  • Normative Adolescent Development
    • Greater social sensitivity
      • Gonadal hormones activate socioaffective circuitry (i.e., amygdala, striatum, and medial prefrontal cortex).
      • Increased oxytocin receptors in same limbic regions (linked to social orientation).
      • Increased dopamine (D1 and D2) receptor expression and binding in the ventral striatum, in response to social cues.
      • Seen across species; evolutionary primed to develop autonomy and skills.
    • Immature cognitive control
      • Asynchronous development across limbic and prefrontal cortex (PFC) regions.
      • Heightened “bottom-up” affective responses to social rejection/exclusive cues, yet immature “top-down” regulatory responses (e.g., less developed PFC).
      • More risk-taking, sensation-seeking, and impulsive behavior.
  • Peer Influence
    • Homophily
      • Adolescents are attracted to those similar to them
  • Estimating peer socialization effects
    • Experimental vs. social mimicry vs. correlational designs
    • Cross sectional vs. longitudinal approaches
    • Perceptions of peers’ behavior or peers’ reported behavior
    • Examining increased similarity among peers vs. increases in target’s behavior following exposure to peers
  • Effect sizes were cross-lagged regression coefficients
  • Analyses:
    • Multilevel meta-regression models were conducted to estimate the average cross-lagged regression coefficient
      • Multiple studies, same dataset
      • Multiple effect (time 1-2, time 1-3, time 2-3) within each study
    • Four level model:
      • Level 1: random sampling variance (ie sampling variation of the observed effect sizes around the “true” population effect sizes, base on function of sample size).
      • Level 2: within-wave variance, reflecting variation between effect sizes that were based on data obtained from the same measurement waves within a particular study.
      • Level 3: between-wave variance, reflecting systematic variance between measurement waves.
      • Level 4: between-study variance, reflecting systematic variance between studies.
    • Publication bias
  • Results
    • 50,668 participants (51% girls)
    • 236 effect sizes
      • M=3.69 effect sizes per study
    • Baseline age
      • 3.95 to 16.66 (M= 12.51 years, SD = 2.49)
    • Time lag
      • Average 13.26 months (SD=11.92, Mdn = 12 months, range= 3-96 months) 75% were either 6 or 12 months
  • Behaviors examined:
    • Substance use, problem behavior, aggression, depression, other internalizing, academic performance, academic engagement, other behaviors
  • Average effect size
    • Weighted mean cross-lafd regression coefficient equal to 0.08 (SE=.01, p<.001, 95% CI).
    • Comparable to effects between
      • Attachment and substance use
      • Depression and self-esteem
      • Positive emotionality and depression
    • Moderators
      • Type of behavior, NS
      • Time lag p. <.001
      • Age, p=.07
      • No evidence of publication bias
  • New frontier
    • Peer influence susceptibility
      • Moderators of peer influence effects (eg, family)
      • Susceptibility to our environment
      • Or neurologically
    • How do we measure it?
      • Self-report indices
        • Adolescents loathe to admit conformity
        • Meta-cognitive awareness
        • Implicit level process
      • Performance-based measurement
  • MARs task
    • Which of 7 or 12 stranded people in outer space would you choose to bring back to earth?
      • Did adolescents change their mind after discussing with a friend?
      • Changing their mind may be a measure of susceptibility?
  • Simulated chat room
    • E-confederates
      • 3 peers also in the chat room
      • Used hypothetical scenarios to examine health risk behavior engagement (injunctive norms)
      • Econgederated always responded before the participant
      • Measured adolescents actual responses
    • Now administered to over 500 adolescents
    • Procedure
      • Sociometric assessment
        • Likeability: like most/least
        • Popularity: most/least popular
        • Friendships
      • Pre-test assessment of hypothetical risk-taking scenarios
        • Local social norms
        • Adolescents pre-chat room responses
      • Step 2: Chat room
    • Measuring susceptibility
      • Changes in adolescence response from pre to during the chat room
      • 71 adolescents participated in chat room
      • Measurement
        • Susceptivity in chat room
        • Baseline perceptions popular peer’s sexual behavior
        • Trajectories of adolescents' own sexual behavior over 2 years
  • New Frontier
    • Peer influence susceptibility
      • State or trait
      • Conceptually distinct from other risk factors:
        • Is susceptibility related to a broader interest in popularity and social affiliation?
          • Sociotropy?
        • Or fears of ostracism
          • Social anxiety
        • Or to individual differences in experience of peer rewards
          • Ventral striatum connectivity
  • fMRI work
    • Nook and Zacki, 2015
      • Asked hungry college students about food preferences
      • Then revealed what (fictitious) others preferences were
      • When peers agreed with participant ACC and VS showed activation - social rewards
      • Greater ACC responses - more likely to subsequently change preferences
  • Peers and Stress Responses
    • Psychological
      • Social support within friendships
    • Biological stress
  • Physiological stress responses
    • Read dianna Murray-Close’s excellent reviews in JRA 2013
      • Autonomic Nervous system
        • HPA axis
      • Reproductive hormones
      • Future directions
        • Vagal tone
        • Startle
        • EEG
    • Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis
      • Particularly responsive to social stressors, especially in adolescence
      • Diurnal cortisol (i.e. daily patterns in cortisol levels)
      • Cortisol reactivity (i.e. acute responses to a specific stressor)
  • Cortisol and health
    • Not just relevant for psychopathology
    • Hypercortisolism
      • Digestive problems
      • Heart disease
      • Sleep problems
      • Weight gain
      • Memory and concentration impairment
    • Hypocortisolism
      • Often seen among those chronically stressed, depressed
        • Chronic fatigue syndrome
        • Fibromyalgia
        • Rheumatoid arthritis
        • Asthma
    • Optimal
      • Diurnal: moderate levels, reservoir for stress responding if necessary
      • Reactive: nimble, responsive HPA axis response
    • Diurnal Cortisonal
      • Are peer relationships associated with available cortisol throughout the day?
      • Peer isolation predicts flatter cortisol profile over the day
  • Reactive Cortisol
    • How do peer experiences affect physiological responses in face of social stress?
    • Peer relationships
      • Change our body’s stress reactivity response
      • Change our body’s regulation following stress
    • Standardized stressor
    • Controlled for other known predictors of HPA response
    • Life events, depression, medication usage, birth control, time of day
  • Project ARCH
    • Adolescence relationships, coping and health
    • Trier social stress task
      • Impromptu speech
      • 1 minute prep
      • 3 minute speech
      • Male “evaluator”
  • Victimization related to HPA reactivity
  • Friendship quality related to HPA regulation
    • High, neg friendship quality barely recovered to baseline
  • New frontier
    • Peer relations and stress responses
      • Different peer constructs
      • Different physiological measures
      • At different developmental levels
      • As moderated by different cultural factors
  • A causal link between peers and morbidity/mortality
  • 60,000 years ago
    • Early human-like species
      • Us in Africa and South Europe
      • Neanderthals, northern Europe
      • Denisovas, Asia
      • Homofloriensis , Indonesia
    • Why did we survive?
      • Anthropologists suggested that we have a weird genetic mutation, change in the brain to understand unique sounds.
  • Evolution
    • Living in herds, offers advantages
    • Leaving the herd increases risk
  • Neural signals for social exclusion
    • Cyberball
      • Passing ball between three people but then they leave you out → feel excluded
    • fMRI
    • Pain response
    • Dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (left) signals pain
    • Right ventral prefrontal cortex (right) helps regulate pain
  • Overlap between social and physical pain
    • Two areas of neural response to pain
      • Sensory signals
      • Motivation to act
    • Overall, social exclusion signals most powerful signal to change behavior
    • Association between social sensitivity and pain sensitivity
    • Nonsuicidal self-injury emotional pain response
    • Tylenol response to social pain
  • Cells regenerate
    • New cells grow based on DNA
    • Dormant cells turned on by social experience
    • Inflammation and viral immunity
  • Gene expression
    • In context of social rejection body prepares for injury (ie pro-inflammatory response)
    • Effects on gene transcription, measured with cytokines (TNF - alpha; IL1-Beta)
    • Feedback loop to central nervous system, glucocorticoid resistance
    • Depression-like “sickness” behaviors
  • Does cytokine reactivity predict depression
    • Trier social stress task
    • Longitudinal follow-up
      • Life stress interview
        • Interpersonal and non-interpersonal events
      • Depressive symptoms, every 3 months
  • Longitudinal hypothesis
    • Interpersonal stress → cytokine response → depression
  • New frontiers
    • So much still to do to understand links between peers and psychopathology
      • Dynamic systems framework to understand how peer experiences transact with numerous inter and interpersonal processes in adolescence
    • Largely untapped potential to also understand role of peers on physical health
    • Many potential mechanisms
      • Many potential funding sources
      • We can further identify how studying peers can help us improve adolescent development