psychological scientists pursue entrepreneurship over the course of their careers, but virtually all can identify with some of its central tenets, including the need for financial sustainability and the tolerance to take risks. These two ideas come together in the research of Chen Ji and James Wages, winners of the 2023 Psychological Science and Entrepreneurship Poster Award. Ji, of Indiana University, and Wages, of the University of Central Arkansas, will each receive a $1,500 award, along with free registration to the 2023 APS Annual Convention May 25–28 in Washington, D.C.
Supported by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, the Psychological Science and Entrepreneurship Poster Award is intended to stimulate research in entrepreneurship, defined as the capacity and willingness to develop, organize, and manage a business venture, along with its risks, in the pursuit of opportunity and innovation. The award is open to APS members who are either current undergraduate or graduate students or early-career scholars (having received their PhD in 2015 or more recently). The judges, previous entrepreneurship poster award winners Nikki Blacksmith of Blackhawke Behavior Science, Dohyung (Jacob) Cha of Seoul National University, and Lining (Rachel) Sun of National University of Singapore, selected one early-career winner and one student winner based on two award criteria:
Relevance to the broad study of psychological science and entrepreneurship
Scholarly contribution to existing knowledge, application, or practic
APS asked Ji and Wages three questions about their work. Their responses follow.
Student winner
Chen Ji, Indiana University
Penalty or Reward? The Role of Hybrid Identities in Social Enterprises’ Resource Acquisition
What drew you to this line of research?
My research focuses on social enterprises’ financial sustainability and resilience management in the context of sectoral blurring. Social enterprises are organizations and ventures that integrate social mission with pursuit of financial sufficiency. An example is Greyston Bakery in New York City, whose mission is to provide meaningful job opportunities for disadvantaged people experiencing barriers to employment. As a relatively new solution whose missions are both social and financial, social enterprises are recognized by scholars as well as practitioners as a powerful mechanism to address social issues. Yet social enterprises are also under increasing pressure to scale up and be financially self-sustainable, and success stories are still exceptions. The puzzle is: How can social enterprises survive and thrive?
Chen Ji, Indiana University
I noticed that prior research has explored the strategies that social enterprises use to acquire external resources but has been silent about how external resource providers relate to these strategies. More importantly, the relationship between social enterprises’ hybrid nature and their resource acquisition outcomes has been less thoroughly unpacked. My co-author and I thus proposed two contrasting theories built upon the possible dynamic interactions between the heterogeneity of social enterprises and funders, and we empirically tested them using an international dataset. The findings indeed provide meaningful practical implications for social enterprises regarding their communication strategies with stakeholders.
What did the research reveal that you didn’t already know?
We analyze two contrasting effects—the halo effect and the stain effect—and test whether social enterprises’ hybridity generates benefits (halo effect) or costs (stain effect). Our findings reveal that the stain effect is salient in social enterprises’ success attracting philanthropic funding, while the halo effect is salient in their success acquiring equity investment. This indicates that social enterprises’ hybridity may generate different outcomes depending on the nature of the resource providers they approach. Therefore, we cannot fully understand hybridity without looking at matched and mismatched identities between resource seekers and resource providers.
2023 APS Annual Convention
See Ji’s and Wages’s posters, along with hundreds of others covering various areas of study, during the Poster Sessions at APS 2023, May 25–28 in Washington, D.C.
In addition, APS 2023 will feature a panel discussion May 26 about entrepreneurship. The speakers will be psychological scientists Nikki Blacksmith (recipient of a 2021 entrepreneurship poster award), Constance Dierickx (featured in this Observer profile), and Kelly Shaver of Mindcette.
Early-Career Winner
James Wages, University of Central Arkansas
A Normative Lay Theory of Risk-Taking: Using Peripheral Features to Disambiguate Risk
What drew you to this line of research?
For a long time, I have been fascinated with why people seek and avoid risks. Part of this fascination stems from the ambiguity that surrounds the perception of risk and those who take risks. The same risk behavior can look courageous to some people but foolish to others. I was drawn to this line of research because I wanted to understand what factors help perceivers disambiguate risk-taking as a worthwhile endeavor or a reckless gamble.
James Wages, University of Central Arkansas
What did the research reveal that you didn’t already know?
The research revealed that seemingly peripheral factors surrounding risk-taking can have a rather substantial influence on how people make sense of risk, even when the probabilities of the risk decision’s success or failure are identical across conditions. For example, I found that people perceive the risk decisions of people who are generally competent as more courageous and less foolish than the risk decisions of people who are less competent, even when both types of people took the exact same risks. These findings suggest that perceivers use features such as the risk-taker’s general competence to evaluate risk, regardless of whether that information is directly relevant.
Wellcare World specializes in providing the latest advancements in wellness technology, supplementation, and lifestyle changes that improve health and increase the quality of people's lives.To learn more, visit WellcareWorld.com and begin living a better life today.
Last week, I attended the annual psyPAG conference in Cardiff, Wales. The opening Keynote by Dr Paul Hutchings has had a lasting impression on me and has inspired this blog post.
Misconceptions
To begin his presentation, a comical hypothetical experience was explained to the audience. When you tell people you study and research psychology, people react in one of two ways
1) “Wow, you can read my mind, I’ll stop talking now”
2) “I am crazy, you could write a book about me”
I looked around at this point and saw a lecture theatre of people nodding their heads in agreement, I think the majority of people involved in the field of psychology have heard one or both of these responses at some point. The general consensus is that Joe Public knows absolutely nothing about what we do. To put this in a more personal example, I have family members that think that I either:
1) Sit people on a couch and try to discuss their childhood and how that makes them feel.
2) Do nothing all day, because it isn’t a real “job” that I do
Why is this?
The whole point that, is that people think these stereotypes for many reasons such as the media, films etc. However, these false stereotypes exist is because ‘we’, the people involved in the field of psychology, do nothing to rectify these false ideas.
What do I do?
I am a research student. I research human behaviour using scientific methods to make a difference and improve things. Specifically, I am investigating how people identity can change following a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.
What can ‘we’ do about this?
To rectify this problem we need to realise that we need to explain what we do a lot more clearly and actually talk about what we do. The more we get our research and what we do out in the public eye, the more the public can benefit from what we do.
Is it this easy?
In a nutshell, no. Research students usually do not have a lot of time to explain our research fully to people who are not involved in the field, this takes time and effort, something that we are usually lacking. The main goal of research in modern academia is to get your research published in academic journals or present at conferences. No member of the general public reads academic journals and they do not go to conferences so they are not going to hear about this research, secondly, most journals need an originality report, you can’t talk about your research elsewhere if you want to get it published. Finally, are people interested? Most people i know just really do not want to hear a bunch of complicated words that they will not understand and therefore don’t want to hear about what I do.
So, what next?
You might be asking what is the point of me telling you this? Am I doing anything to get my research out there? I do already try to do a couple of these things, however, i think there are some things that we can do to change this situation.
1) Disseminating Research
This blog was set up over a year ago for me to disseminate my research, using social media you can give an overview of your research, a bare-bones, lay language overview so that the general public can find out about and read your research and you can still get published in an academic journal.
2) Engage with your research audience
I have contact with a local MS support group. This group has been essential for my research, my main research direction has come from talks with members of this group and I try my best to keep them informed of my research. I also write yearly reports for the MS Society for them to further disseminate and get my research out there.
3) Impact
When you tell Joe Public about your research, the majority of people will look at you and ask why this needs to be done. All pieces of research have impact. This is the effect that your research can have. For example, my research hopes to improve therapy options for people with multiple sclerosis and low mood, for example when is group or individual psychotherapy more effective? This is my research’s real world impact, it has a potential impact on people’s wellbeing and health pathways and funding.
4) Talk about what you do
This is something I need to work on more. I think it is beneficial for all research students or people involved in the field to talk about their research and what they do, and learn to do so to a lay audience. We spend so much time talking to colleagues that we struggle to explain ourselves to other people. I think we can all benefit from this. If people have misconceptions about what you do, its because no ones ever corrected them, take time to tell them what you do and what thats like.
5) Express your opinion
It was pointed out that all of us in the lecture theatre were experts in our own research area, even if none of us wanted to admit it. Try and get your opinion out there as much as you can. If your research is relevant to something going on at the time talk to your university about getting involved and getting your opinion out there.
Ok, stop ranting now
Going forward, please try to take some of the things I’ve said on board. By working in this field you are doing fantastic things. Talk about your research, think of your impact and get it out in the public domain. This is something we all need to do if we’re going to change the stereotypes about the field we work in.
Wellcare World specializes in providing the latest advancements in wellness technology, supplementation, and lifestyle changes that improve health and increase the quality of people's lives.To learn more, visit WellcareWorld.com and begin living a better life today.
Mental health disorders affect millions of people worldwide, and the need for effective and safe treatments is crucial. Currently, the standard treatments for mental health issues include medications, psychotherapy, and other interventions. However, the use of Terahertz (THz) technology is being explored as a possible complementary approach in treating these conditions. This article will explore the potential role of THz technology in treating mental health issues, particularly in relation to brain inflammation.
The Basics of Terahertz Technology
THz waves are electromagnetic waves that fall between the microwave and infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. THz waves have the unique property of being able to penetrate materials that are typically opaque to visible light. This property has made THz waves useful in a variety of fields, including spectroscopy, imaging, and communication.
In recent years, THz waves have also been explored for their potential use in medicine. Research has shown that THz waves can penetrate biological tissues, making them a promising tool for non-invasive medical imaging and diagnosis. Additionally, THz waves have been shown to interact with biomolecules, including proteins and nucleic acids, indicating their potential use in therapeutic applications.
The Role of Inflammation in Mental Health Issues
Inflammation is a natural immune response to infection or injury, and it is essential for healing. However, chronic inflammation can lead to tissue damage and has been linked to a variety of physical and mental health conditions. Recent research has shown that chronic inflammation may also play a role in the development of mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia.
Inflammation in the brain, also known as neuroinflammation, is thought to contribute to the development and progression of mental health disorders. Neuroinflammation can occur due to various factors, including infection, injury, and chronic stress. This inflammation can lead to the production of cytokines, which are proteins that promote inflammation and can have detrimental effects on brain function.
The Potential Role of Terahertz Technology in Treating Inflammation-Related Mental Health Issues
THz waves have been shown to interact with biomolecules, including proteins and nucleic acids, suggesting their potential use in therapeutic applications. Recent research has explored the potential of THz waves in treating inflammation-related mental health issues.
One study conducted in rats showed that THz waves can reduce inflammation in the brain by decreasing the production of cytokines. The study found that exposure to THz waves reduced the levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines and increased the levels of anti-inflammatory cytokines in the brain, suggesting that THz waves may have a beneficial effect on neuroinflammation.
Another study conducted in mice showed that THz waves can improve cognitive function in mice with neuroinflammation. The study found that exposure to THz waves improved the spatial learning and memory of mice with neuroinflammation, suggesting that THz waves may have a positive effect on brain function.
While these studies are promising, it is important to note that they are still in the early stages of research. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to explore the potential of THz waves in treating inflammation-related mental health issues in humans.
The Limitations of Terahertz Technology in Mental Health Treatment
While THz waves show promise as a possible therapeutic tool in treating mental health disorders, there are limitations to their use. One limitation is the lack of understanding of the mechanism by which THz waves affect brain function. The interaction between THz waves and biomolecules in the brain is poorly understood, making it difficult to develop targeted therapeutic approaches.
Another limitation is the potential for adverse effects. While THz waves have been shown to be safe in short-term studies, their long-term effects on the brain and other organs are still unknown. Additionally, the effects of THz waves may vary depending on the frequency, intensity, and duration of exposure.
There is also a lack of standardized protocols for the use of THz waves in medical applications. Without standardized protocols, it is difficult to compare results between studies and to determine the optimal parameters for therapeutic use.
The Importance of Seeking Professional Help for Mental Health Issues
It is important to note that THz technology is not currently accepted as a standard therapy for mental health disorders. While the potential for THz waves to be used as a therapeutic tool in the future is promising, individuals with mental health issues should always seek the opinion of a trained healthcare provider.
Mental health disorders are complex and can have multiple causes, including genetic, environmental, and social factors. Treatment for mental health disorders often requires a multidisciplinary approach, which may include medication, psychotherapy, and other interventions.
If you are struggling with a mental health disorder, it is important to seek professional help. Mental health professionals, such as psychiatrists, psychologists, and licensed therapists, can provide a thorough assessment and develop a personalized treatment plan that meets your individual needs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, THz technology shows promise as a possible therapeutic tool in treating mental health disorders, particularly those related to inflammation in the brain. However, further research is needed to confirm these findings and to develop targeted therapeutic approaches.
It is important to note that THz technology is not currently accepted as a standard therapy for mental health disorders. Individuals with mental health issues should always seek the opinion of a trained healthcare provider and follow their recommended treatment plan.
The development of safe and effective treatments for mental health disorders is crucial, and the potential of THz technology in this area is an exciting area of research. With continued research and collaboration between experts in various fields, THz technology may one day be a valuable addition to the arsenal of tools available for treating mental health issues.
The study published by Rosenhan in 1973 has always been difficult to believe. But I’ve said before that psychiatry doesn’t need to be so defensive about it. DSM-III introduced operational criteria to improve the reliability and validity of psychiatric diagnoses, partly in response to the Rosenhan Study. Robert Spitzer believed that unreliable diagnoses must be invalid, and he thought this could be addressed through operational criteria.
The Rosenhan study was designed more to question the validity of psychiatric diagnoses than their reliability. Andrew Scull, who I have mentioned before, has recently published an article in History of Psychiatry summarizing the evidence that the study was fraudulent. Six of the nine original participants were never found, and one participant’s data was not included in the Science report. Interestingly, this psychology student, who became an academic psychologist, published his own more positive account of his experience.
Rosenhan’s Findings
At the very least, Rosenhan’s findings are biased, inaccurate, dishonest, and exaggerated. Andrew states that there is a possibility the missing participants may still surface, but he thinks it is more likely they never existed at all. I know of two reports of modified repetitions of the Rosenhan study. Both were conducted later in the context of evaluating traditional psychiatric institutions. Interestingly, both reports suggest that feigning an auditory hallucination no longer leads to admission, possibly due to the shortage of beds. In one report, seven volunteers with a history of chronic schizophrenia were denied treatment or turned away.
Skinner’s Box Opened
The other report came from the book “Opening Skinner’s Box” by Lauren Slater. She suggests that Martin Seligman, an eminent psychologist, was one of Rosenhan’s pseudopatients. As far as I know, Seligman is still alive, so it may be possible to check this. Slater herself has a formidable psychiatric history and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital at the age of 14. She does not deny the reality of mental illness, but she presented herself nine times, claiming she was hearing a voice. Although she wasn’t admitted, she received prescriptions for a significant number of antidepressants and antipsychotics.
Rosenhan’s Influence
Rosenhan has had a greater impact on psychiatry as a social scientist than Andrew, except maybe Andrew’s influential dismissal of Foucault in the literature. I don’t excuse Rosenhan’s behavior, but I think the scientific literature has been plagued by such dishonesty. There is evidence that at least aspects of Rosenhan’s Science paper are correct. It was possible for a person who is not mentally ill to obtain admission to a psychiatric hospital and mislead psychiatrists into diagnosing schizophrenia. Maybe this has always been the main message that people have taken from the study. Rosenhan elaborated the details to reinforce his conclusion that psychiatric diagnosis is subjective and does not reflect inherent patient characteristics.
In Conclusion
The most concerning point, is that Andrew’s complete dismissal of Rosenhan’s study as fraudulent may reinforce the case that psychiatric diagnosis is objective, which it isn’t in any absolute sense. The limitations of psychiatric diagnosis do need to be acknowledged. If psychiatric diagnosis is meaningful, there will be inevitable inconsistencies.
Wellcare World specializes in providing the latest advancements in wellness technology, supplementation, and lifestyle changes that improve health and increase the quality of people's lives.To learn more, visit WellcareWorld.com and begin living a better life today.
