Society for Personality and Social Psychology '13 Meeting

[firstsight]

Anyone planning on going to the SPSP meeting next month? I keep weebling back and forth on it myself, mostly due to finances.. but I know for sure two or three of my POIs will be there. Anyone else's thoughts on going, or the importance of going and potentially networking with POIs in a fairly critical point in time as far as apps go (Jan 17th-19th)?

[DarwinAG]

I am going to SPSP next month.

I think it is important to attend for the following reasons. One, you want to utilize the path of least resistance at the off chance they are on the fence about your application and they are not sure if they want to invite you for an interview on campus. Two, showing up at a national conference is a commitment signal that you want to be part of academia and that you are serious about graduate school. They know its expensive. They know its a hassle. Showing up says, I found a way to solve that it's expensive and it's a hassle just to be here and be part of this collection of scholars and researchers to obtain and share information. Three, it is a good place to social network and meet graduate students your POIs are working with.

[stereopticons]

I am going. I wasn't going to because I didn't think I could afford it, but then I got an award I wasn't expecting. I was worried about not going because it seemed like it might look bad if I didn't go. Last year, I had several POIs come by and talk to me at my poster and I also talked to graduate students at schools I was applying to, so I think it's important to go.

[QxV]

I'm going!

[Soc Cog]

Going of course!

Poster on some unconscious thought research and hopefully a second on a political psych side project.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Soc Cog

[mewtoo]

I'm going for a poster presentation. I'm worried about money, though, and that I'll end up unable to attend. I'm getting a bit of funding and am hoping from more from a Psi Chi grant. I'm in driving distance, however so it isn't too bad. Yay carpooling with professors? Haha.

Edited December 18, 2012 by mewtoo

[firstsight]

I'm in driving distance too, thankfully. A flight would DEFINITELY make it prohibitive. No professors for me to carpool with though, unfortunately! It'll just be me and my lonesome, or with the SO if he decides he wants a couple of days off in N'awlins~

At least there are a few "cheaper" hotel options, I guess. I dunno. I'm still torn on it-- I get /why/ I should go and I want to go, in a sense, but I hate it that I'll basically be going alone. Half the fun of conferences is being able to talk about sessions with someone! Augh! Someone be my SPSP buddy! -.-

[DarwinAG]

You can totally hang out with me and my pscy buddies! Actually, I will most likely attend emotion and well-being related conferences. But I'd love to meet the next generatin of Ph.D. students.

[ILuvPsych2013]

Going and stoked!

[sdt13]

I have been attending SPSP since my sophomore year, and so this will be my third year attending (although this will be my second year presenting). This conference is really great to mingle with a variety of researchers, both senior and junior, especially if you plan accordingly to your interests.

However, some of the graduate students in my department have warned me about the undergrads who swarm SPSP (particularly those not presenting) to "stalk" (her words, not mine) professors to whom they've applied. This got me really nervous because I have been to several conferences where I have met most of the professors who I have recently applied to and I know I will definitely run into them here (e.g., one of my professors is in the same symposium as one of my top choice PI's). In fact, one even has a poster a couple slots away from mine and I will actually be meeting up with the grad student of my top choice program (the PI wasn't able to make it). I guess you just have to be careful and walk a fine line between being intellectual and interested rather than the annoying undergrad who is trying to brown-nose their way into a program.

 

Although on the upside, I was also told some programs don't even look at applications until after SPSP so it could work in your favor if you happen to bump into your favorite professor :-)

 

[lewin]

I'm going and I'm giving a talk. Come see me, my real name is David Funder.

But seriously, SPSP is fun. More than the talks, I like getting away with my grad school friends for a few days.

[Nausicaa]

I'm going! I'll be presenting two posters. Anyone who is on the fence, I HIGHLY recommend it.

[lewin]

I want to encourage everybody to attend the "professional" or "current issues" types of sessions, maybe even make them a priority over content sessions. For example, last year there was a symposium on false positive psychology (hawt topic right now) that include a nice public--and later email--argument between Uri Simonsohn and Norbert Schwarz. Sadly, I skipped it in favour of something else, which I regret.

e.g., SPSP sent this last week: "...this year a special symposium session is being added, designed to allow the membership of SPSP to come together to discuss current issues important to the Society. Such issues might include priorities for action in the coming year, administration, financial issues, the pending reorganization of the Society’s central office, the profession’s response to recent episodes of research fraud and questions about the reliability of scientific findings, or anything else of interest to the membership. We have scheduled this session for Saturday, January 19 from 3:30 pm to 4:45 pm in Room 203-205 of the Convention Center."

"Administration" = boring. "fraud and reliability" = spicy

Other possibilities:

"Openness in scientific reporting: Potential and reaction" S-B1

"False positive II: Effect sizes too small, too large, or just right" S-D1

And the data blitz is great for those of us with short attention spans (S-B9).

[Nausicaa]

I'm going and I'm giving a talk. Come see me, my real name is David Funder.

But seriously, SPSP is fun. More than the talks, I like getting away with my grad school friends for a few days.

 

 

Heh.

 

I want to encourage everybody to attend the "professional" or "current issues" types of sessions, maybe even make them a priority over content sessions. For example, last year there was a symposium on false positive psychology (hawt topic right now) that include a nice public--and later email--argument between Uri Simonsohn and Norbert Schwarz. Sadly, I skipped it in favour of something else, which I regret.

e.g., SPSP sent this last week: "...this year a special symposium session is being added, designed to allow the membership of SPSP to come together to discuss current issues important to the Society. Such issues might include priorities for action in the coming year, administration, financial issues, the pending reorganization of the Society’s central office, the profession’s response to recent episodes of research fraud and questions about the reliability of scientific findings, or anything else of interest to the membership. We have scheduled this session for Saturday, January 19 from 3:30 pm to 4:45 pm in Room 203-205 of the Convention Center."

"Administration" = boring. "fraud and reliability" = spicy

Other possibilities:

"Openness in scientific reporting: Potential and reaction" S-B1

"False positive II: Effect sizes too small, too large, or just right" S-D1

And the data blitz is great for those of us with short attention spans (S-B9).

 

Thanks for that info! I'm also interested in the "What I Know Now That I Wish I'd Known Then" symposium, particularly the ones about handling rejection and building a career. Because, you know, there is the slight possibility that I actually make this dream happen.

[DarwinAG]

I want to encourage everybody to attend the "professional" or "current issues" types of sessions, maybe even make them a priority over content sessions. For example, last year there was a symposium on false positive psychology (hawt topic right now) that include a nice public--and later email--argument between Uri Simonsohn and Norbert Schwarz. Sadly, I skipped it in favour of something else, which I regret.

e.g., SPSP sent this last week: "...this year a special symposium session is being added, designed to allow the membership of SPSP to come together to discuss current issues important to the Society. Such issues might include priorities for action in the coming year, administration, financial issues, the pending reorganization of the Society’s central office, the profession’s response to recent episodes of research fraud and questions about the reliability of scientific findings, or anything else of interest to the membership. We have scheduled this session for Saturday, January 19 from 3:30 pm to 4:45 pm in Room 203-205 of the Convention Center."

"Administration" = boring. "fraud and reliability" = spicy

Other possibilities:

"Openness in scientific reporting: Potential and reaction" S-B1

"False positive II: Effect sizes too small, too large, or just right" S-D1

 

I was there for the first False Positive symposium. It was an amazing experience and it was a packed room. I think that those types of symposiums are very good for advancing the science. I am sad that I will miss it this year because it overlaps with a mandatory presentation.

 

I am particularly excited about the Social psychologist as subjects symposium on Saturday from 9:45-11 Room 208-210. That should be entertaining. I also look forward tot he data blitz. I have never attended one before.

[firstsight]

Oh man, data blitz. If it's anything like the IGNITE session I went to at FABA... though I'll admit I think as a whole, behavior analysts tend to be a little wackier than the rest of the psychology crowd. One IGNITE was done entirely in limerick; another entirely sung. And they were both informative, which was the REAL ridiculous part.

[watson]

I want to encourage everybody to attend the "professional" or "current issues" types of sessions, maybe even make them a priority over content sessions. For example, last year there was a symposium on false positive psychology (hawt topic right now) that include a nice public--and later email--argument between Uri Simonsohn and Norbert Schwarz. Sadly, I skipped it in favour of something else, which I regret.

e.g., SPSP sent this last week: "...this year a special symposium session is being added, designed to allow the membership of SPSP to come together to discuss current issues important to the Society. Such issues might include priorities for action in the coming year, administration, financial issues, the pending reorganization of the Society’s central office, the profession’s response to recent episodes of research fraud and questions about the reliability of scientific findings, or anything else of interest to the membership. We have scheduled this session for Saturday, January 19 from 3:30 pm to 4:45 pm in Room 203-205 of the Convention Center."

"Administration" = boring. "fraud and reliability" = spicy

Other possibilities:

"Openness in scientific reporting: Potential and reaction" S-B1

"False positive II: Effect sizes too small, too large, or just right" S-D1

And the data blitz is great for those of us with short attention spans (S-B9).

 

That was the second best session I have ever attended. The best one wasn't at SPSP, and sadly sharing the story will almost certainly out me here, so I'll have to laugh to myself for now.

[Linelei]

Oh man, I wish I could attend! I agree that going to a national conference sends a signal that you are really interested and resourceful. I, however, used up my resourcefulness on attending Society for Neuroscience in New Orleans this last fall, and on attending CNS in April, where I will be presenting a poster. But I am super jealous of those of you who will be attending! I am sure it will be fabulous.

[lewin]

Soooooo, what did everybody think? 

[DarwinAG]

Ooo I still had a blast, even though I did not get to see any symposiums that I wanted. I am really going to plan the next one carefully and minimize meeting and dinner commitments.

The emotion preconference was amazing. Dr. Lindquist, Dr. Adams, and Dr. Weisbuch really did a good job setting up the panel. I was able to meet, talk to, or just be in the presence of some of my academic idols. That part is just fun. I also had a debate with one of them on an article he wrote 10 years ago. They really are just people too. haha.

It's also really fun meeting graduate students who are studying the same thing you are.

Regretably, I was not able to see the second False Positive, Psychology talk. Or Lewin's presentation. Or the lip gloss party that it seems like undergraduates are not privy to.

I really enjoy poster sessions, so I want to see more of those next year.

What were some of your highlights?

[watson]

Regretably, I was not able to see the second False Positive, Psychology talk. Or Lewin's presentation. Or the lip gloss party that it seems like undergraduates are not privy to.

 

Ohhh lip gloss.  You aren't missing much.  Just some faculty hitting on people way too young for them.  It's probably best for undergrads to stay away lol.

[lewin]

Undergrads aren't deliberately snubbed from Lip Gloss, but it's organized by the graduate student committee and the email invites tend to go out on that internal email list. It's not really for faculty either but they probably just invite themselves (see every experiment on power ever).

 

I'm not sure anything stood out as life-changing, but I attended a lot of good talks, met interesting people at the poster sessions, and felt pretty good about my own talk.

 

 

Until next year...!

[mewtoo]

I am afraid to ask what exactly a lip gloss party is. o.O

 

This was my first non-regional conference and I thought it was awesome. Lots of cool symposia and posters. Depending where I end up for grad school I hope I can make the one in Austin. 

[watson]

lol, usually you are not missing anything by not attending lip gloss.  The party used to be a lot more, errr, closed door, especially way back in it's lurve days.  Now it's public knowledge and advertised.