Main

April 9, 2008

Life After Allegheny...Student Panel.

Panelb.jpg
Panelists included (left to right) Jamie Skender, Liz Marsh, Angie Ricciardi, Katie Cross, and Kristen Lane.

Not that you all don't love being at Allegheny, but, eventually, you will have to venture into the outside world. Cognitive Group was very excited to invite four seniors and an '08 alum who have recently gone through this transition process to talk to us about their experiences. The students included Katie Cross, who has been accepted to a Masters program in Speech Pathology, Angie Ricciardi, who was accepted to a Masters of Education program, Kristen Lane, who has just accepted a position with the FBI, Liz March, who was accepted to a Cognitive psych PhD program at Arizona State University, and Jamie Skender who was accepted into a Masters of Education early intervention program for children with disabilities with an autism specialization.

After a brief introduction of each program, the meeting was opened up for questions and answers. Discussion centered on thinking about what programs to pursue, how to find them, the application process, the GREs, and what it was like to interview. The panelists also shared what they were most excited about in terms of their new programs and pursuits.

If you were not able to join us, you can still benefit from this great conversation. Just follow this link Life After Allegheny to listen to our discussion.

Thanks so much to all the panelists for sharing their experiences. We wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

February 27, 2008

Tell Me Something, Anything you Wish, About Cognitive Group.

CogGroup1.jpg
Students waiting for the sub! (for more pictures, follow the link at the end of the entry).

Last week's Cognitive Group meeting had three headliners--Maria Kennihan, Rachel Learned, and a sub from The Whole Darn Thing Sub Shop.

Maria presented the design of her senior comp for which she will begin testing soon. The group helped her refine some of the stimuli she will be using for her study. Maria's study occurs across two sessions, and the group discussed the challenges of such a design and brainstormed ways to encourage participants to return for a second session.

Rachel also presented her senior comp for which she has just finished testing. Specifically, Rachel testing approximately 70 first year students about the first year experience. As part of that interview, Rachel asked her participants to tell her "something, anything you wish..." about approaching professors during office hours and about what they do with their friends on campus and in the Meadville community. Rachel was particularly interested in how her interviewees would respond to the use of two interviewing techniques. For some participants, Rachel first engaged in small talk, for others she began the interview as soon as the informed consent was signed. Also, for some participants, Rachel took notes during the interview; for others she did not. Rachel hopes to determine whether notetaking during interviews has a negative effect on the interviewee's experience of the interview and of her as the interviewer. This question became of interest to her during her work with the admissions office on campus where the common practice is to make sure not to take notes when meeting with visitors to campus. Furthermore, Rachel hopes to examine the interaction that might occur between the use of small talk and notetaking. Specifically, she expects to find that interviewees will rate the interview experience most positively when small talk is used and no notes are taken. She also expects that the experience will be rated most negatively when small talk is not used and notes are taken. Finally, she expects that the negative impact of notetaking will be mitigated by the positive effect of the use of small talk. The group asked Rachel about what her testing experience was like and Rachel shared some of the challenges she faced trying to keep her interview as similar as possible across each participant without having her behavior seem too unnatural.

Finally, the idea of a 'Cognitive Group Presents' Night was discussed. Professor Knupsky and Professor Wiseman are hoping to have the Group sponsor an evening during which senior psychology students can present posters of their work. The Group thought this would be a great way to showcase the hard work of the seniors and would provide an opportunity for other students to see how the projects turned out and to perhaps get ideas for future projects.

For more pictures from our meeting, please continue reading...

Continue reading "Tell Me Something, Anything you Wish, About Cognitive Group." »

February 8, 2008

No Stale Brains Here!!

stalebrain.jpg
Agnes, from the wonderfully weird mind of Tony Cochran.

At Cognitive Group this week, Angie Ricciardi shared her senior comp research. We had the opportunity to view her stimuli and discuss her research design. When testing is completed, Angie will get back to the group with her results. Also at the meeting, Professor Wiseman presented us with the stimuli for Maria Kennihan's comp project so that the group could provide feedback. We had quite a great brainstorming session.

Speaking of which, I just found the Creative Tools Website. The goal of the site is to inspire people to use "randomness to create order." Of particular interest is the suite of brainstorming tools they provide including a random word generator that generates random words of varying difficulty. I have to say that while the "very uncommon" category was difficult, the "obscure" category was ridiculous! I am hooked on this website and am convinced it could be used in a future senior comp project. Check it out!

January 29, 2008

WARNING: Some letters may be bad for your (academic) health!

letters.jpg At the last meeting of the Cognitive Group, we reviewed a fairly recent article by Nelson & Simmons (2007) who present some shocking new information regarding the name-letter effect. The name-letter effect highlights correlations that we see between the letters in someone's name and his/her choices and preferences. For example, someone named Paul may be more likely to live in Pennsylvania, study psychology, drink Pepsi, own a poodle, and date a woman named Penny.

Historically, data on the name-letter effect has derived from correlational studies that demonstrate these interesting relations in various archives of demographic information. The first few experiments in the Nelson & Simmons study follow this trend. For example, they find that batters whose names began with the letter K have higher strike out rates. In fact, using a data set that spanned 90 years, they found that, "...K was both the first initial and the last initial associated with the highest strikeout rate" (p. 1107).

Closer to our academic setting, the study also showed that students whose names began with C or D had lower GPAs than students whose names began with A or B. It is important to point out that this tendency depended upon whether or not the students liked the letters in their name. Specifically, students whose names began with C or D only had significantly lower GPAs if they reported liking the initials of their first or last name.

Our Cognitive Group members were quick to point out that, so far, this data is correlational and, as we all learn in Psych 206 and 207, correlation does not equal causation! However, Nelson & Simmons also report the results of an experimental study that demonstrated that people completed significantly fewer anagrams if their initials matched the name of a consolation prize. Hmm...now what?

Overall, the group discussed that there are still issues to consider before we stop using all C and D names for children. For example, it seemed that there was the potential for participant bias in the experimental study...would participants catch on that the consolation prize had their initial? Naming the consolation prize, "Prize K" would seem kind of odd. Also, if students whose name began with C or D received a lot of C and D's in school...wouldn't they come to dislike those letters and, if so, shouldn't that experience mitigate the finding of lower GPAs? Remember, the effect only holds if students like the initials of their names. Speaking of which...how do we determine if participants like the initials of their names and what factors do they consider in those "liking" ratings? How often do we share with one another our "favorite letter"? All great points brought up in our discussion.

Needless to say, the study has raised some controversy and discussion in the field as well. For example, you can find interesting summaries of the data (and the history of the name-letter effect) by reading the Cognitive Daily and Mixing Memory blog entries discussing the study.

Finally, the abstract and reference of the Nelson & Simmons study can be found by reading more...

Continue reading "WARNING: Some letters may be bad for your (academic) health!" »

November 15, 2007

Words, words, words

words.jpg Although this is a little late, I just wanted to share some follow-up information regarding the Cognitive Group meeting from November 2nd. Specifically, we discussed the myth regarding the idea that the meaning of words should not be allowed to change. Instead, we talked about the flexibility that is inherent in language and how change is an inevitable outcome for any viable language. Although common ground (and common meaning) is important for successful communication, language must also be able to grow and adapt to meet the needs of its users. Most of the time, change in language happens slowly enough that we don't notice it; other times, language change comes blazing in with a bang in the forms of new slang (although often it seems these words can also die a sudden death). Overall, however, the community that uses the language does a pretty good job in understanding one another.

To learn more about the study of words, see this TED Talk by Erin McKean on Redefining the dictionary. You can also see Erin talk more about words during her Google talk Verbatim.

Thanks, Lucas, for these great references!

September 7, 2007

Looking to Increase your Memory?

computerguts.jpg Cognitive Group started this week with a great article on study strategies that impact long-term memory for information learned in class. One of the most interesting findings was that overlearning (practicing material immediately after you've mastered it) does not improve long-term memory. Instead, the research showed that it is much better to set the material you've mastered aside for future study and use that extra study time to review previously learned material or to focus on other information you would like to learn. I also thought that the article made a rather insightful suggestion regarding how textbooks should design practice problem sections. And, of course, you've got to love an article that makes a strong case for cumlative exams, right? To find out more, check out the article: Long-term Retention And, to learn more about other great areas of Cognitive Psych, please join us at the next Cognitive Group meeting on Sept. 21st.