Navigation

Jump to main content
Institute of Psychology
Colloquium

Brown Bag Meeting of the Institute of Psychology

Contact

Organization

This semester the meeting will take place virtually. Either there will be an online presentation or you will find videos in the announcements below. Afterwards there will be a discussion via video conference.

Webroom: BigBlueButton - Institutskolloquium

Dates - Wednesday, 1:00 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.

21.10.2020

M.Sc. Johanna Bruchmann & M. A. Claas Pollmanns

In unserem Vortrag im Video präsentieren wir die Ergebnisse der Open Science Umfrage vom Mai 2020 und liefern einen Ausblick auf die geplanten Veranstaltungen zum Open Science Semester WS 20/21 am Institut für Psychologie. Darüber hinaus wollen wir die möglichen Ziele und Pläne einer Open Science Initiative für das kommende Semester vorstellen. Wir laden Euch ein, am 21. Oktober 2020 über den derzeitigen Stand in Bezug auf Open Science in der Lehre und Forschung mit uns zu diskutieren.

 
Alexandra Bendixen - Tracing predictability in auditory perception - and facing unpredictability in an interdisciplinary career

My scientific work focuses on human hearing, specifically on auditory predictive processing. With psychophysical and psychophysiological research methods, I investigate how our auditory system uses prior information to predict upcoming sounds, thus reducing processing complexity once the predicted signals arrive. In my talk I will illustrate how this seemingly basic function of auditory perception comes into play for complex research questions such as those investigated in the CRC Hybrid Societies. While being fascinated with predictability as a research topic, I have encountered the typical unpredictabilities of a scientific career. I will describe how crossing boundaries between disciplines has actually helped me in tackling this challenge.

 

Wolfgang Einhäuser-Treyer From OSCAR to Hybrid Societies – a subjective account of research between disciplines.

Throughout my research career, I have almost exclusively worked in interdisciplinary teams, projects, and institutions. In my talk, I will provide a personal – and therefore purely anecdotal – view on the benefits and challenges of working at the boundaries between scientific disciplines. I will use some turning points of my own career path to illustrate why I believe that the key to success of interdisciplinary projects is to value the input from researchers across all disciplines irrespective of their academic “status” – no matter whether they are your seniors, your peers, your students or junior team members. In other words, I will argue for the CRC’s “community of learners” to come to life.

04.11.2020

Dr. Judit Castellà (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)

In this talk I am going to present recent research conducted at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB). The first study is about temporal perception in the context of a risk sport. How do humans perceive time when experiencing high anxiety? Is passage of time judgement the same as duration estimation? The study was conducted with rock climbers and results show an interesting dissociation in temporal measures. The second study is about time perspective and its role during the COVID 19 quarantine. I will discuss which temporal frame can act as a risk factor or as a protective factor when people face a long confinement. Questions and debate are encouraged!

11.11.2020

Prof. Dr. Daniel Leising (TU Dresden)

Ich spreche über ein Positionspapier (https://psyarxiv.com/6btc3/), das ich gemeinsam mit vier KollegInnen kürzlich zu der Frage verfasst habe, wie das wissenschaftliche Niveau in der Forschung zu Persönlichkeit und Psychologischer Diagnostik gesteigert werden kann. Darin rekapitulieren wir zunächst eine Reihe von einschlägigen Vorschlägen zur Methodik (Prä-Registrierung, Open Data etc.), erläutern deren Sinnhaftigkeit, und gehen auf neuere Entwicklungen ein. Darüber hinaus betonen wir die Bedeutung systematischer Versuche, größeren Konsens (z.B. bzgl. Forschungszielen, Terminologie, und Messverfahren) unter uns WissenschaftlerInnen herzustellen. Entscheidend wird jedoch sein, das akademische Belohnungssystem so umzustrukturieren, dass Qualität (anstelle von reiner Quantität) in Zukunft explizit stärker belohnt wird. Um dies in transparenter und reliabler Weise zu ermöglichen, schlagen wir die Verwendung eines Punktsystems vor. Bei konsequenter Anwendung könnte dieser Ansatz zu einer deutlichen Reduktion der Anzahl an Veröffentlichungen insgesamt führen, was eine Reihe von Vorteilen hätte (vor allem: ein deutlich verbessertes signal-to-noise-ratio in der Literatur).

25.11.2020

Megan Earle MA (Brock University, St. Catharines, Kanada)

Meat consumption is widely known to be harmful to the planet and one’s health. Yet, expressions of anti-vegetarian/vegan prejudice are overt and common. Such stigma is not only harmful to vegans and vegetarians, but also presents barriers to reducing meat consumption among non-vegetarians. First, I will discuss how meat consumption is tied to anti-vegetarian/vegan prejudice. I will then review my research on how meat consumption and anti-vegetarian prejudice can be reduced.

Link zum Vortrag - Meat Consumption and Anti-Vegetarian Attitudes

02.12.2020

Dr. Anne Gärtner & Prof. Dr. Alexander Strobel

09.12.2020

Stephen J. Ceci & Wendy M. Williams (Cornell University, USA)

Recommendation letters are central to academic hiring, and a single negative comment in a letter can derail a candidate. The underrepresentation of women in physics has been attributed to less enthusiastic depictions of their ability in letters. Recently, with four colleagues (Robert Bernstein, Michael Macy, Christopher Cameron and Sterling Williams-Ceci) we investigated the possibility that letters depict women less favorably than men across two scientific disciplines that differ dramatically in their representation of women, particle physics (<15% female) and social science (>60% female). We analyzed the largest sample of recommendation letters to date (2,206), using more measures than previous studies. Using standard lexical measures, gender disparities were no greater in physics than in social science, and several gender differences favored women. A novel open-ended search for all gender-differentiated terms of endorsement revealed language favoring males in physics and females in social science, possibly indicating unconscious gender stereotypes, even in a majority-female discipline--although this will need to be tested in future research.

Link zum Vortrag

 

13.01.2021

Jasper Van Assche (KU Leuven/Ghent University)

Modern society has evolved into a diverse place in terms of ethnic and cultural groups living together. Often, however, these groups tend to live segregated from one another. Whilst some people prefer diverse neighborhoods, others would rather live in homogeneous ones. Previous research refers to social-ideological attitudes (authoritarianism and social dominance orientation), intergroup contact experiences, and ethnic prejudice as predictors of anti-diversity and, to some extent, pro-segregation attitudes. The current contribution moves beyond these studies by letting participants “create” their own neighborhood. In Study 1, we focused on preferred diversity, Study 2 examined preferred segregation. In Study 1, respondents were shown a fictitious neighborhood and were asked to assign all houses in their surroundings to either an ethnic-cultural majority or minority household. Across 3 samples (Ntot = 581), we found positive correlations between higher preferred proportions of outgroup members in one’s neighborhood and lower levels of authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, negative intergroup contact, and prejudice. In Study 2, participants (N = 301) had to create their own city, which was divided into multiple neighborhoods. These data are currently being collected and will allow for a stringent test of the relationships between individual differences and segregation preferences. We will discuss this tendency of individuals to choose a living area according to their social-ideological and intergroup stances and embed our findings within the debate concerning the alleged self-selection bias which represents a confounding factor in diversity studies.

 

20.01.2021

Thomas Coyle (UTSA)

 

27.01.2021

Johannes Hönekopp (Newcastle)

Heterogenität entsteht, wenn mehrere exakte oder konzeptuelle Replikationen zur selben Forschungsfrage Ergebnisse zeitigen, die stärker variieren als vom Zufallseinfluss der Stichprobenziehung zu erwarten wäre. Ich argumentiere in meinem Vortrag, dass der Grad unerklärter Heterogenität den Mangel im Verständnis des Forschungsthemas widerspiegelt. Somit eröffnet Heterogenität eine nützliche, aber weitgehend vernachlässigte Perspektive auf das Verständnis unserer Forschungsgegenstände. Ich berichte eine Studie, die das Ausmaß an Heterogenität in der kognitiven Psychologie, der Sozialpsychologie und der ABO Psychologie systematisch anhand von 150 Metaanlysen und 57 exakten Replikationsprojekten beschreibt. Typischerweise erwies sich Heterogenität in Metaanalysen als sehr stark, und in der Regel blieben die Gründe dafür im Dunkeln. Heterogenität in exakten Replikationen erwies sich als deutlich weniger ausgeprägt. Ich diskutiere die Implikationen dieser Befunde dafür, wie wir Theorien aufstellen und testen sollten. Weiterhin erscheint es vor dem Hintergrund von Erkentnissen der Forschungsgeschichte und -philosophie für unseren wissenschaftlichen Fortschritt vielversprechend, unaufgeklärte Heterogenität systematisch zu reduzieren. Ich unterbreite einige Überlegungen dazu, welche Veränderungen in unserer kollektiven Forschungspraxis dem dienlich wären.

 

03.02.2021

Prof. Dr. Udo Rudolph
Zur Wahrnehmung von Bewegung und Kausalität: Eine kurze Ideengeschichte und ein paar Daten

Press Articles