Are you going to JPS? Quick survey to let others know!

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Tal Waltzer

unread,
May 20, 2022, 2:37:26 PM5/20/22
to social-dom...@googlegroups.com

Hi everyone,

Several folks in the SDT community are planning to attend JPS 2022 this year (June 2-4). To help folks coordinate, find each other, and celebrate the works/awards of our community members, we wanted to compile a list of people's presentations and/or plans. Regardless of whether it is directly SDT-related, please consider sharing. It's nice to see what everyone is up to!

If you are planning to attend JPS 2022, please fill out this brief form by 5/27: https://forms.gle/S2MSAjkH82vdvbVe9

We will compile all the info from your survey responses and send out a consolidated announcement to the listserv on May 31 to let everyone know who will be there and when/where their talks/posters/etc will be.

Thanks, all!

Tal, on behalf of the Communications Committee

-- 
Dr. Talia Waltzer
Postdoctoral Scholar
Department of Psychology
University of California, San Diego
https://www.twaltzer.com/

Clare Conry-Murray

unread,
May 23, 2022, 10:44:32 AM5/23/22
to social-dom...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,
Here are my JPS presentations (with my students).  Posting here because it's a bit easier than filling out a google form.

June 3, 9:00-10:30 Ballroom A2

The role of harm in judgments of stealing
To assess the role of harm in reasoning about stealing, 200 undergraduates with a range of political views (M = 3.81 on a 7-point scale, SD = 1.49) judged instances of taking resources without permission to benefit a third party. Participants responded to vignettes that varied regarding who took the resources (an authority or an individual), whether the recipient needed the resources or not, and whether the owner would be harmed (left with not enough, left with enough or more than enough). Labelling acts as stealing was only weakly associated with evaluations of acts. Harm was key to judgments of stealing across political orientations in that participants judged taking resources without permission as unacceptable when it harmed the owner but as acceptable when it helped others in need. In the absence of harm, stealing was not consistently seen as a moral issue.

Does Framing Resources Allocation as Games Affect Fairness Judgments?
The association between resource allocation and group favoritism has received extensive investigation. Since the goal of games is to win, using games as a framework to examine fairness judgments may be misguided. Our current study (n = 37 undergraduates) seeks to rectify this potential problem by manipulating three variables: a) the significance of the outcome (i.e., whether the participants were described as playing a board game with tokens or determining graduate school admission spots), b) the strength of group affiliation (i.e., groups using minimal group paradigm or groups based on more stable school affiliations), and c) if the ingroup already possessed the relevant resources. We found that participants were more likely to distribute resources to an outgroup when the scenario involved a significant outcome. Justifications also focused on "winning" more when resources were trivial. Finally, participants used group affiliation to distribute resources less when outcomes were significant. Our results suggest that participants' decision making changes when resource allocation tasks are framed as games.

Paper Session 6: Ethics and Equality

Friday June 3, 2:00 PM–3:15 PM, Ballroom A2

 

The Role of Norms on Judging Online Social Behavior

As social media use among adolescents continues to increase, it is crucial that we understand how adolescents and young adults respond to online norms violations in different domain social interactions (i.e. moral, social conventional, and multifaceted) because these rules may be upheld differently online. The current study (n= 142; 121 emerging adults, 21 adolescents, with data collection ongoing) asks participants to respond to and judge different social media behavior, along with similar behavior in an in-person context. The influence of peer norms was investigated by creating conditions in which the majority of peers' comments on social media are either critical or supportive of the behavior. In initial analysis, we found that, across ages, comments critical of moral violations were rated as more acceptable by participants than comments critical of the other domains. Peer norms impacted the different domains in different ways. For conventional violations, participants rejected norms, such that critical peer comments on posts with majority-supportive peer comments were rated as more acceptable than critical peer comments on posts with majority-critical peer comments. For multifaceted violations, peer norms did not influence judgements of others' critical peer comments, such that there was no significant difference between critical peer comments on posts with majority-supportive peer comments and critical peer comments on posts with majority-critical peer comments. Additionally, critical peer comments made online were judged as less acceptable than those made in-person, showing that responses to behavior in-person versus online differs, but not in the expected direction.

 

Research Ethics: Reporting on Group Differences

Research into group differences can be harmful in that it can introduce or support harmful stereotypes. Should potentially harmful research meet a high standard of research quality before it is published? To assess whether consumers of psychology research consider potential harm to marginalized populations as well as research quality, psychology subject pool participants (n = 81) judged various research summaries. Both the quality of the research and whether the research topic was value-laden (e.g. IQ) or value-neutral (e.g. collectivism) was varied. Overall, participants were sensitive to research quality. When participants were shown poor methods, the average quality rating was 2.15 (on a scale from 1 to 7). Moderate quality methods had an average rating of 3.21, and high quality methods were rated 4.40. However, participants were less likely to judge topics differently depending on whether the finding could be potentially harmful or not. That is, value-laden research topics were rated as similarly acceptable to publish as neutral topics. Across all topics and qualities, value-laden topics were rated 3.15 while neutral topics were rated 3.36. Despite presenting our research summaries with descriptions suggesting that a historically disempowered group had lower scores on important value-laden qualities, participants did not have a substantially higher standard of evidence for these potentially harmful findings. Justifications will also be reported and discussed.

 


--
To learn more about the Social Domain Theory listserv and group, visit https://www.socialdomaintheory.com/
To post an announcement to the listserv, send an email to: social-dom...@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Social Domain Theory" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to social-domain-th...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/social-domain-theory/7b6015fa-b637-b655-2123-434f95e42fa9%40ucsc.edu.


--
Clare Conry-Murray, Ph.D.
she/her/hers
Associate Professor of Psychology
Saint Joseph's University
226 Post Hall
5600 City Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19131-1395
Phone: 610-660-1803
Fax: 610-660-1819
ccon...@sju.edu

Tal Waltzer

unread,
May 26, 2022, 2:56:02 PM5/26/22
to social-dom...@googlegroups.com

Hi everyone,

Are you attending JPS 2022 at Philadelphia next week? This is a reminder to please fill out this brief form by tomorrow (5/27):

https://forms.gle/S2MSAjkH82vdvbVe9 

Our goal is to help folks connect and plan their JPS visit, and also to celebrate the great work of our community members being featured at the conference (regardless of whether it is directly SDT-related). People’s email addresses will be included: You could reach out to congratulate them, ask about their presentation, or arrange to meet up.

We will send out a consolidated list of people’s responses by May 31.

Thanks, all!

Tal, on behalf of the Communications Committee

Dr. Talia Waltzer
Postdoctoral Scholar
Department of Psychology
University of California, San Diego
https://www.twaltzer.com/
--

Tal Waltzer

unread,
May 31, 2022, 9:58:10 AM5/31/22
to social-dom...@googlegroups.com

Hi everyone,


Several folks in the SDT community are planning to attend JPS 2022 this year (June 2-4). To help folks coordinate, find each other, and celebrate the works/awards of our community members, we compiled a list of people’s plans / who is attending.


Presentations / events to check out:


THURSDAY 6/2


"Even the small work that I do, it has impact": Meaning-making in youth-led climate justice advocacy

Talk: Julia Ginsburg (julia.l....@gmail.com)

Thursday 6/2 11am-12:30pm, Ballroom A2


U.S. Parents’ Comfort with Their Child’s Intergroup Peers: Roles of Gender, Race, and Social Class

Poster: Amanda Ackerman (amanda....@rochester.edu), Laura Elenbaas, Aline Hitti, Ellen Kneeskern 

Thursday 3:30-4:30,  Ballroom BC


2022 Karger Prize for Early Contributions to Developmental Science

Award: Audun Dahl

From Larry: For those of you attending JPS this year, please be sure to attend the President's Reception on Thursday and cheer on Audun when the Awards are presented. 



FRIDAY 6/3


The role of harm in judgments of stealing

Talk: Clare Conry-Murray (ccon...@sju.edu), Holly Recchia, Kristen Dunfield, Heather Maranges

Friday 6/3, 9:00-10:30 Ballroom A2


Does Framing Resources Allocation as Games Affect Fairness Judgments?

Talk:  Evan DiGregory (ed75...@sju.edu), Kara McSweeney, Jules Spara, Clare Conry-Murray

Friday 6/3, 9:00-10:30 Ballroom A2


The Role of Norms on Judging Online Social Behavior

Talk: Kara McSweeney (km70...@sju.edu), Ryan Schaad, and Dr. Clare Conry-Murray 

Friday 6/3, 2:00pm- 3:15 pm, Ballroom A2


Turkish children's judgments on equality and equity in resource allocation contexts

Talk: Melike Acar (aca...@mef.edu.tr),  Ozce Sivis

Friday 6/3, Paper session 6 2:00pm- 3:15 pm, Ballroom A2


Research Ethics: Reporting on Group Differences

Talk: Jasper Touchette (st75...@sju.edu), Lauren Rossi, Clare Conry-Murray, Evan DiGregory

Friday 6/3, 2:00pm- 3:15 pm, Ballroom A2



SATURDAY 6/4


Preschool Peer Experiences and Executive Function in the Development of Moral Reasoning

Talk: Jessica Caporaso (jls...@uncg.edu) & Stuart Marcovitch

Saturday 6/4 9-10:30, Ballroom A2



List of people attending: *would love to meet up


*Melike Acar, aca...@mef.edu.tr 

Amanda Ackerman, amanda....@rochester.edu 

Jessica Caporaso, jls...@uncg.edu

Clare Conry-Murray, ccon...@sju.edu 

Audun Dahl, da...@ucsc.edu 

*Julia Ginsburg, julia.l....@gmail.com 

Kara McSweeney, km70...@sju.edu

Larry Nucci, nu...@berkeley.edu 

Dr. Talia Waltzer
Postdoctoral Scholar
Department of Psychology
University of California, San Diego
https://www.twaltzer.com/
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages