Macmillan Learning is honored to sponsor the PsychSessions podcast, a platform dedicated to insightful conversations about teaching and psychology. Today, we celebrate a monumental milestone—the 200th episode of the flagship series, PsychSessions: Conversations About Teaching N' Stuff. This episode features special guest host Chris Cardone as she joins Garth Neufeld to interview the esteemed social psychologist and author, Elliot Aronson.   Click here to receive a free PsychSessions discussion guide for this episode! PsychSessions is giving away 20 copies of Aronson's autobiography Not By Chance Alone. Register here for your chance to win.   ... View more

Road rage has been in our local news this spring. Last month, a man was found guilty of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon with a firearm enhancement for shooting a bicycle rider in October 2022. The man was driving a vehicle that almost hit the bike rider. The bike rider yelled at the driver. The driver got out of his vehicle and pushed the bike rider to the ground. The bike rider got up and pushed the driver back. When the bike rider turned to walk away, the driver pulled out a handgun and shot the bike rider in the face. The driver got back in his vehicle and drove away. The bike rider survived the shooting. There were a number of witnesses to the incident who photographed the license plate of the driver’s vehicle so identifying the driver was not difficult (Groves, 2024). Sentencing will be at a later date. On May 24, 2024, an older driver and a teenage driver pulled into the parking lot of a high school. Witnesses saw the two drivers exit their vehicles. The teenager pulled out a gun and shot the older driver. The teenager drove away. The older driver died at the scene. The police are still sorting out the cause of the shooting, but they believe road rage is likely. The teenager is in custody (Ibave, 2024). To anyone who tends to get angry with other drivers, please leave your guns at home—ideally, locked up where children and thieves cannot get to them. Angry drivers—even without a firearm—are still in control of a deadly weapon. Our vehicles are effectively missiles—2,000 pounds of projectile, loaded with several gallons of flammable liquids, and with the ability to travel at over 100 miles per hour. Within seconds, an angry driver can kill another person. Because the angry driver was unable—or unwilling—to regulate their emotions, a person is dead and the angry driver is headed to prison for murder. In this open access article (Bjureberg & Gross, 2021), researchers offer a model for how the emotions in a road rage experience come into being (emotion generation) and how a driver can use emotion regulation to short circuit those emotions. One of the American Psychological Association’s integrative themes is “applying psychological principles can change our lives, organizations, and communities in positive ways” (APA, 2022). Here is an opportunity to give your students a chance to do just that. Divide your class into eight small groups. If your class is larger, divide the class into 16 or 24 small groups. One group is assigned the task of illustrating the problem with road rage. Each of the remaining groups is assigned one of seven emotion regulation strategies from the article. The problem with road rage 4.1.2 Identification-stage strategies 4.2.2 Selection-state strategies 4.3.2 Implementation‐stage situational strategies 4.3.3 Implementation‐stage attentional strategies 4.3.4 Implementation‐stage cognitive strategies 4.3.5 Implementation‐stage response modulation strategies 4.4.2 Monitoring‐stage strategies. Each group’s task is to create an infographic that illustrates the problem (group one) or the strategies (groups two through eight). Work with the powers-that-be at your institution to get the infographics printed and posted. If budget limitations mean only being able to post them in your classroom, then at least everyone who comes through your classroom will see them. Even if your students are online, their infographics can still be posted in a psychology classroom. Because the posters will be publicly displayed, do at least one round of peer review where the members of two other groups review another group’s infographic. Because students can be reluctant to critique the work of their fellow students, explain that it’s better that the critiques come from classmates than from everyone else at your institution once the infographics go public. To drive the point home, consider requiring each peer reviewer to note at least one area where the infographic can be improved. Points will be docked for not noting one area of improvement. Here is a sample rubric your students can use to evaluate their own work and the work of their peers. If you are not an expert at designing infographics—I know I am not—this website has some tips. If you are feeling especially sporty, partner with a graphic design instructor at your institution. Once your groups know what information they want to convey, each of your groups would be partnered with one or more graphic design students who would actually design the infographic. Make clear, however, that the final approval of the design would come from your groups.     References APA. (2022). Psychology’s Integrative Themes. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/undergrad/introductory-psychology-initiative/student-learning-outcomes-poster.pdf Bjureberg, J., & Gross, J. J. (2021). Regulating road rage. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(3), e12586. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12586 Groves, J. (2024, April 11). The man who shot NMSU student Daniel Garcia in a road rage found guilty by Las Cruces jury. Las Cruces Sun-News. https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/crime/2024/04/11/road-rage-shooter-found-guilty-by-las-cruces-jury/73265714007/ Ibave, D. (2024, May 24). Juvenile in custody after deadly road rage shooting at Anthony, NM high school. KFOX. https://kfoxtv.com/news/local/shooting-outside-empty-anthony-nm-high-school-prompts-lockdown-no-injuries-reported-new-mexico-gadsden-high-school-independent-school-district-isd-gisd ... View more

Will visitors to vending machines make healthier purchases if they know which purchases are healthier? After discussing experimental design, ask your students to work in small groups. First, they are to take the above question and reword it as a hypothesis. As part of their design, they should identify the independent variable and its levels and identify the dependent variable—providing operational definitions of the levels of the independent variable and the dependent variable. After discussion has waned, ask a volunteer from each group to share their group’s design. Conclude this activity by sharing the design and results from this freely available experiment conducted in Philadelphia (Gibson et al., 2024). Researchers tested four different messaging systems in 267 vending machines; 150 machines sold beverages and 117 sold snacks. The study began with a 9-month period where researchers just monitored sales at these machines. The intervention period began immediately after this baseline period and lasted 13 months. All of the materials used in this study are available with the article. Click on “supplemental content,” and select “Supplement 2.”    Message 1: Beverage-tax poster only. Next to the beverage machines, the poster read, “Philly bev tax is here. Starting January 1, 2017, a 1.5-cents-per-ounce tax will be applied to sweetened beverages.” Next to the snack machines, the poster read, “Are you drinking fewer sweetened drinks because of the cost? Keep up the healthy choices by also choosing healthy snacks.” For the remaining three conditions, a poster placed next to the vending machine explained how to interpret the labels. Message 2: Green labels. These labels were placed on items that were deemed a healthier choice. For example, seltzer water and popcorn got green labels. In the corresponding poster’s small print were the criteria the researcher’s used for the green label. This was their operational definition of “healthy.” Healthy beverages had 5g or less of sugar per 12 ounces. Healthy snacks Message 3: Traffic lights. Green, yellow, or red labels were placed on each vending machine option. Again, green labels were on healthier items like seltzer water and popcorn; the poster explained these were “choose often” options. Yellow labels were on so-so items like diet drinks and trail mix; the poster explained these were “choose sometimes” options. Lastly, red labels were on unhealthy items like sweetened teas and chocolate bars; the poster explained that these were “choose rarely” options. In the poster’s small print were the criteria used for determining what was green, yellow, and red. Message 4: Physical activity. Each item had a label noting how many minutes of brisk walking it would take to work off the calories in the beverage or snack. The accompanying poster noted that the healthier items would take less than 45 minutes to walk off. The primary dependent variable was product sales; data were provided by the vending machine company. Researchers compared sales data from the green label, traffic light, and physical activity conditions vending machines with the beverage-tax poster only vending machines. Here are some of the key results. “Traffic light machines were 25% more likely to sell a yellow (eg, taxed diet soda) compared with a red (eg, taxed soda) beverage compared with beverage tax machines.” While purchasers didn’t go green, some were willing to go from red to yellow. If you go to the machine to get a Coke, you might be willing to go Coke Zero, but declining the Coke for a seltzer water is asking a bit much.   “For snacks, green-only machines were 10% more likely to sell a green snack (eg, baked chips) compared with a red snack (eg, candy) compared with beverage tax machines.” If you want Doritos, you might be talked into popcorn. “At the machine level, physical activity compared with beverage tax decreased the expected monthly number of beverages sold by 24%.” If you go to the machine to get a Pepsi, and you see that it’s going to take 62 minutes of brisk walking to walk off the calories, you might choose to fill up your water bottle instead. “Traffic light labels significantly decreased total calories sold per customer trip compared with physical activity.” The researchers did a manipulation check. They asked the visitors to the vending machines if they noticed “any posters or labels displayed on the machines.” In the beverage-tax poster group, 26% reported seeing the poster. In the green-only group, 40% reported seeing the green labels. In the traffic light group, 65% noticed the green, yellow, red labels. In the physical activity group, 58% noticed the brisk-walking-minutes labels. Interestingly, “Reported noticing of messaging did not moderate condition effects on calories sold per trip.” Are any of your students interested in replicating this study at your institution? What would they need to do in order to conduct this experiment? Would they make any changes to the original study? Why or why not?     Reference Gibson, L. A., Stephens-Shields, A. J., Hua, S. V., Orr, J. A., Lawman, H. G., Bleich, S. N., Volpp, K. G., Bleakley, A., Thorndike, A. N., & Roberto, C. A. (2024). Comparison of sales from vending machines with 4 different food and beverage messages: A randomized trial. JAMA Network Open, 7(5), e249438. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.9438   ... View more

As telehealth visits skyrocketed during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers wondered if the physician’s background mattered to their patients (Houchens et al., 2024). (The article is freely available.) The researchers asked volunteers to look at seven photos of the same physician with different backgrounds: bedroom, kitchen, bookcase, exam room, physician office (counter with office-type things on it), a wall of diplomas, and a solid color (control condition).  The researchers also asked about the type of physician (primary care or specialty care) and whether the patient’s length of relationship with the physician (new or established). This experiment is a 7 (type of background) x 2 (type of physician) x 2 (length of relationship) within-participants design, although they analyzed it as a 7 x 4 (lumping type of physician and length of relationship into one variable). In the results, neither type of physician nor length of relationship mattered. The only statistical difference was for type of background. There were two dependent variables. First, researchers asked volunteers which of the seven backgrounds they preferred. As compared to the solid color background, volunteers preferred the wall of diplomas followed by the physician office. The least preferred—again as compared to the solid color background—were the bedroom and the kitchen. There were no statistical differences between the solid color and the bookcase or the exam room. For the second dependent variable, researchers calculated a composite score after asking volunteers to rate the physicians with each background on six factors on a scale of one to ten: “how knowledgeable, trustworthy, caring, approachable, and professional the physician appeared, and how comfortable the physician made the respondent feel.” As compared to the solid background (7.7), the only two backgrounds where the physician was rated statistically lower were the bedroom (7.2) and the kitchen (7.0). Because this was a within-participant design and volunteers saw the same physician against every background, I could imagine that once volunteers rated one, it may have been more difficult to rate the others much differently.   After sharing this study with your students, give small groups this hypothesis: If students see an instructor in a virtual classroom with a professional background, they will rate the instructor as being more knowledgeable and trustworthy. Ask students to design an experiment to test this hypothesis. Students should be sure to identify the independent variable and its levels and the two dependent variables, providing operational definitions for all variables. Invite a spokesperson for each group to share their experimental design.   Reference Houchens, N., Saint, S., Kuhn, L., Ratz, D., Engle, J. M., & Meddings, J. (2024). Patient preferences for telemedicine video backgrounds. JAMA Network Open, 7(5), e2411512. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.11512   ... View more

“In the U.S., 42% of people are now myopic [nearsighted] – up from 25% back in the 1970s. In some East Asian countries, as many as 90% of people are myopic by the time they're young adults” (Godoy, 2024). That’s a lot of people who need corrective lenses. But the news is worse than that. “Once a kid gets myopia, their eyeball will keep stretching and the condition will get progressively worse. If they develop high myopia, it can increase the risk of serious eye problems down the road, such as retinal detachments, glaucoma and cataracts. It can even lead to blindness” (Godoy, 2024). That, I did not know. I also did not know “that light stimulates the eye to release the neurotransmitter dopamine, which can slow the eyeball from stretching” (Godoy, 2024). Researchers thought this would make for a good correlational study. In a study of 4,000 children, researchers found that the more time the children spent outside, the lower levels of myopia they had, even after “adjusting for near work, parental myopia, and ethnicity” (Rose et al., 2008). Here's an opportunity to give your students some experimental design practice in the sensation and perception chapter. After sharing the above information with students, give small groups this hypothesis: If children spend at least two hours a day outdoors, they will develop less myopia (nearsightedness). Ask students to address the following: Design an experiment that will test the hypothesis. Identify your independent variable, including the experimental group and the control group. Identify your dependent variable. All variables should include operational definitions. Your experiment should include random assignment to conditions. Briefly explain the importance of random assignment. Review the five general principles from the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association. By these standards, would it be ethical to conduct your study? Why or why not? Invite a spokesperson from each group to share their group’s research design and their assessment of the ethics of conducting that study. To conclude this activity, share this information with your students. A Taiwanese ophthalmologist, Pei-Chang Wu, whose son was entering first grade convinced his son’s school to allow the children to spend more time outside. At the same time, he convinced another school to allow him to test their school children for myopia. “A year later, his son's school had half as many new myopia cases as the other school” (Godoy, 2024).  After these preliminary results, Wu did similar studies at other schools and found similar results. Pause here to ask your students to assess whether Wu’s research meets American Psychological Association’s ethical guidelines. Why or why not. Wu obviously has some pretty mean persuasive skills, but check out what he did next. With the data in hand, he convinced Taiwan’s Minister of Education to make a policy change that required schools to get children outside for two hours a day. “The program launched in September 2010. And after decades of trending upward, the rate of myopia among Taiwan's elementary school students began falling – from an all-time high of 50% in 2011 down to 45.1% by 2015” (Godoy, 2024). If time allows, ask students what schools and parents can do to help ensure children are getting two hours outside each day per the recommendation of ophthalmologists. Are your students ready to start a letter-writing campaign to their local school boards?   References Godoy, M. (2024, May 13). Want to protect your kids’ eyes from myopia? Get them to play outside. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/05/13/1250555639/kids-eyesight-myopia-near-sighted-nearsightedness-outdoor-play Rose, K. A., Morgan, I. G., Ip, J., Kifley, A., Huynh, S., Smith, W., & Mitchell, P. (2008). Outdoor activity reduces the prevalence of myopia in children. Ophthalmology, 115(8), 1279–1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.12.019   ... View more

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about recreational fear. (See my first writing on the topic posted in October 2023). As a newly-minted honorary member of the research team at the Recreational Fear Lab at Aarhus University in Denmark (thank you Mathias Clasen!), I’ve had even more reason to think about recreational fear. Proof of my honorary membership to the Recreational Fear Lab research team   According to a national survey of Intro Psych instructors, 64% of us cover emotion (Richmond et al., 2021). For the third who don’t, I encourage you to give covering it some consideration. If the theories of emotion don’t do much for you, leave those out. In other blog posts, such as this one from September 2022, I’ve discussed covering emotion regulation strategies. There are plenty of examples of people making poor emotion regulation choices, such as frustrated Denver Nuggets player Jamal Murray throwing a heat pack onto the basketball court as an opposing player drove for a layup (Li, 2024). Helping students understand the different types of emotion regulation strategies might help them make better emotion regulation choices. (There’s an empirical question worthy of study.) Here are the five emotion regulation strategies (McRae & Gross, 2020). Situation selection: choosing situations to elicit or not elicit specific emotions Situation modification: changing an existing situation to elicit or not elicit specific emotions Attentional deployment: shifting attention in an existing situation to elicit or not elicit specific emotions Cognitive change: reframing an existing situation or its elements to elicit or not elicit specific emotions Response modulation: employing behavior that reduces the strength of a specific emotion once it has occurred One way to help students understand emotion regulation strategies is—after explaining the strategies—to ask students to think about those strategies in terms of recreational fear, which we can loosely define as fear that is fun. Let’s use horror movies as an example of recreational fear. Situation selection. We watch horror movies in order to experience fear in a safe space where there is no actual danger from a murderer with a chainsaw. Situation modification. While watching a horror movie, we may cover our eyes during some scenes in order to reduce the amount of fear we experience. Attentional deployment. Rather than focus on the action in a particular scene, we may pay attention to the quality of the cinematography or admire the skill of the makeup artists. Or take the opportunity to fish out the last milkdud stuck to the bottom of the box. Cognitive change. “I’m not scared. I’m excited to see what is going to happen next!” Response modulation. “I am scared out of my mind right now. I’m going to take some deep breaths to reduce the intensity of what I am experiencing. If your students seem into the topic of recreational fear, give them the opportunity to explore the topic further. Here are some possible discussion questions. What are some other examples of recreational fear?   Some people enjoy some types of recreational fear more than others. Why might that be? Might there be personality differences? If so, what might those be? Are all horror the films the same? Or are there different types of horror films? If so, how do they differ? When does recreational fear cross the line into being real fear?     References Li. (2024, May 7). Denver Nuggets star Jamal Murray throws heat pack on court during game, slammed as “inexcusable and dangerous.” NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/denver-nuggets-star-jamal-murray-throws-heat-pack-court-game-slammed-i-rcna151021 McRae, K., & Gross, J. J. (2020). Emotion regulation. Emotion, 20(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000703 Richmond, A. S., Boysen, G. A., Hudson, D. L., Gurung, R. A. R., Naufel, K. Z., Neufeld, G., Landrum, R. E., Dunn, D. S., & Beers, M. (2021). The Introductory Psychology census: A national study. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 7(3), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000277       ... View more

With the NCAA women’s and men’s basketball tournaments behind us, the NBA playoffs coming up, and the WNBA season starting soon, here’s a timely research paper on free throw shooting (Büttner et al., 2024). While most basketball play involves interactions between players, the free throw is unique. Everything comes to a standstill while a player—with all eyes on them—attempts to make a basket from 15 feet away.  While waiting to make the free throw, players have time to think. That’s not a good thing in a sport that relies on a brain that automatically runs programs for particular sets of muscle movements. Of all the activities in basketball—because of the time to think—the free throw may be the most susceptible to stress-induced errors. If stress can impact free throw accuracy, Christiane Büttner (University of Basel), Christoph Kenntemich (Universität Koblenz-Landau), and Kipling D. Williams (Purdue University) wondered if social support could reduce the stress thereby increasing accuracy (Büttner et al., 2024). Read  their paper on ResearchGate. The researchers had three hypotheses, but for the purpose of this activity, let’s focus on this one: “Only after missing the first free throw (but not when the first free throw was successful), does being touched by more (vs. fewer) teammates increase the likelihood of success with the second free throw” (Büttner et al., 2024, p. 2). If basketball is not your sport, this video will help you understand what the post-free-throw touching looks like. During the third quarter of the Iowa-UConn women’s NCAA 2024 final, UConn’s Aaliyah Edwards was fouled. She went to the line for two free throws. (Watch video.) After missing the first one, One of the two teammates in front of her (#25) tap her hands. Edwards turned around, and the two teammates behind her tap her hands. When Edwards turned back toward the free throw line, the teammate who missed the tap (#10) was standing there waiting to do her tap. That’s all four teammates. Edwards stepped to the line for her second shot. (Spoiler alert!) She made it. Was Edwards’ experience typical? Do hand taps following a missed free throw predict a made free throw on the next shot? To do this study, the researchers took an archival approach. Using the recordings of 50 Division I Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) women’s basketball games, they measured several variables with the key measures being the outcome of the first and second free throws (they only looked at free throws that came in pairs) and the number of hand taps after the first free throw. They observed 699 pairs of free-throws. They found that if a player missed the first free throw, the more teammates who tapped their hand, the greater the chance that the player would make their second free throw. If a player made the first free throw, the number of hand taps did not predict the making of the second free throw. Ask your students to determine if this was a correlational study or an experiment. How do they know?  The researchers wrote: “[W]e do acknowledge that our findings are correlational and the caveats that come with that” (Büttner et al., 2024, p. 6). Teams were not, for example, randomly assigned to tap the hand of the free-throw shooting player zero to four times. Unfortunately, this doesn’t stop the researchers from making a causal statement in the next paragraph: “Physical touch by teammates boosts performance in one of the most stressful athletic tasks imaginable: Succeeding with a free throw in basketball after already missing one” (Büttner et al., 2024, p. 6). They do, however, encourage experimental research: “Future experimental research should determine whether physical touch improves performance as an active ingredient or whether more frequent touch is a symptom of better team cohesion and, consequentially, better performance under pressure” (Büttner et al., 2024, p. 6). After sharing this study with students, there are a couple of different directions you could take this. Choose your own adventure. Option 1: Experiment. Ask students to work in small groups to design an experiment that would test this hypothesis: “Only after missing the first free throw (but not when the first free throw was successful), …being touched by more (vs. fewer) teammates increase[s] the likelihood of success with the second free throw”(Büttner et al., 2024, p. 2). Participants would need to be randomly assigned to conditions. Students should identify the independent variable (including its levels) and the dependent variable. Ethics add-on: If this experiment were done with real teams—assuming it could be done without the participants being influenced by knowing the hypothesis, discuss the ethical implications of a study that may cause a team to score fewer points. Option 2: Correlation. Ask students to work in small groups to design a correlational study that would test this hypothesis: “[M]ore frequent touch is a symptom of better team cohesion” (Büttner et al., 2024, p. 6). First, create a measure of team cohesion. (Some research has been published in the context of work teams. One alternative is to ask students to do some research and adapt something that has already been created.) Next, describe how you could use that measure to test the hypothesis.     Reference Büttner, C. M., Kenntemich, C., & Williams, K. D. (2024). The power of human touch: Physical contact improves performance in basketball free throws. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 72, 102610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2024.102610       ... View more

This is the most horrifying thing I have read in some time: Nearly two-thirds of women in [Indiana University’s Debby Herbenick’s] most recent campus-representative survey of 5,000 students at an anonymized “major Midwestern university” said a partner had choked them during sex (one-third in their most recent encounter). The rate of those women who said they were between the ages 12 and 17 the first time that happened had shot up to 40 percent from one in four [from four years ago] (Orenstein, 2024). Nearly two-thirds of the women at this “major Midwestern university.” Let’s say that your students are no different than these “major Midwestern university” students. Let’s say you have 500 students a year. About 60% of college students are women (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023a). During the 2020-2021 academic year, 80% of bachelor’s degrees went to women (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023b). If you teach mostly Intro Psych, the number of women in your classes may be closer to 60%. If you teach mostly upper division courses for the psych major, the number of women in your classes may be closer to 80%. For illustration purposes, let’s split the difference and say that 70% of your 500 students are women. That means that you teach 350 women each year. If “nearly two-thirds” of those women have been choked during sex, that comes out to 231 of your students. “Nearly” half of your students. Are being choked. Actually, the number is likely higher than that. “[W]hile undergrads of all genders and sexualities in Dr. Herbenick’s surveys report both choking and being choked, straight and bisexual young women are far more likely to have been the subjects of the behavior; the gap widens with greater occurrences” (Orenstein, 2024). Men, too, have been choked, just not in the same numbers. “[W]hile the act is often engaged in with a steady partner, a quarter of young women said partners they’d had sex with on the day they’d met also choked them” (Orenstein, 2024). I had just gotten accustomed to a world where apps like Tinder make it easy for complete strangers to have sex—and that many young people were, indeed, using those apps to do just that. But 25% of the women in those same-day sexual encounters are being choked?! “No wonder that, in a separate study by Dr. Herbenick, choking was among the most frequently listed sex acts young women said had scared them, reporting that it sometimes made them worry whether they’d survive” (Orenstein, 2024). No wonder, indeed. Also, oxygen deprivation is bad for the brain. According to the American Academy of Neurology, restricting blood flow to the brain, even briefly, can cause permanent injury, including stroke and cognitive impairment. In M.R.I.s conducted by Dr. [Keisuke] Kawata [an early researcher on NFL concussions and CTE] and his colleagues (including Dr. Herbenick, who is a co-author of his papers on strangulation), undergraduate women who have been repeatedly choked show a reduction in cortical folding in the brain compared with a never-choked control group. They also showed widespread cortical thickening, an inflammation response that is associated with elevated risk of later-onset mental illness. In completing simple memory tasks, their brains had to work far harder than the control group, recruiting from more regions to achieve the same level of accuracy (Orenstein, 2024). And while we’re here, despite what students might have seen on TikTok, “There is no safe way to strangle someone” (Orenstein, 2024). Believing that there is a safe way to choke would be an Internet fact, not an actual fact (Frantz, 2024). “Among girls and women [Orenstein had] spoken with, many did not want or like to be sexually strangled” (Orenstein, 2024). I guess that’s the good news. But why is it so dang common—and becoming more popular? Here’s where I suggest we turn this article into a class or small group discussion (in person or online) as part of the social psych chapter in Intro Psych. Instructions: Read this New York Times opinion piece of April 12, 2024 titled “The Troubling Trend in Teenage Sex” by Peggy Orenstein, and then answer the following questions. From the article, quote a sentence that illustrates the social pressure women feel to allow choking during sex. Have you seen this social pressure within your own friend group? If so, give an example. From the article, quote a sentence that illustrates the social pressure men feel to engage in choking during sex. Have you seen this social pressure within your own friend group? If so, give an example. From the article, describe how choking during sex became popularized through observational learning, starting with its beginning in porn. The article describes how oxygen deprivation can negatively impact the brain. Identify at least five of those effects. Which one do you find the most concerning? Why? The article suggests language that sexual partners can use to make clear what is okay and what is not okay during sex. What is that language? Consider a friend of yours. Do you believe they would be comfortable saying that to a sexual partner? Why or why not? In BDSM, consent—and the ability to withdraw consent (commonly with a safe word)—is paramount. Is choking someone because you think they want to be choked enough to establish consent? Why or why not? If someone gives their consent to be choked but then decides to withdraw their consent, can they do that if they cannot breathe and are losing consciousness? Why or why not? If someone has not given their consent to be choked, can the person doing the choking be charged with assault? Why or why not? If the person being choked experiences permanent damage to their brain or dies, can the person doing the choking be held liable? Why or why not? What was the most surprising thing you learned from this article? Explain.     References Frantz, S. (2024, March 22). “Internet fact or actual fact?” Macmillan and BFW Teaching Community. https://community.macmillanlearning.com/t5/psychology-blog/internet-fact-or-actual-fact/ba-p/19976 National Center for Education Statistics. (2023a). Postbaccalaureate enrollment. Condition of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/chb National Center for Education Statistics. (2023b). Undergraduate degree fields. Condition of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cta/undergrad-degree-fields Orenstein, P. (2024, April 12). The troubling trend in teenage sex. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/opinion/choking-teen-sex-brain-damage.html   ... View more

Introduction to Psychology is the hardest course we teach because we are unfamiliar with so much of the course content (Frantz, 2024). We rely heavily on our textbooks to tell us what we—and our students—need to know about the field. This creates an unfortunate feedback loop that is difficult to break. Let’s take the personality chapter as an example. I am not a personality researcher nor did I take a personality course as an undergrad for my major. Yet, here I am teaching Intro Psych, and it seems like personality is a pretty important topic, so I’m game for teaching it. Step 1. I read the personality chapter in the Intro Psych textbook I have adopted. “This must be what Intro Psych students should know about personality.” Step 2. The personality chapter spends a lot of time on the history of personality theory, so I spend a lot of time lecturing on the history of personality theory. Repeat Step 2. Every term. For years. One day, the personality researchers were asked, “What should we teach Intro Psych students about personality?” They said, “Please focus on today’s personality research, and stop teaching the history of personality theory.” (See pages 8 to 16 of the 2017 Division 1/Division 2 Joint Task Force Report on Introductory Psychology.) Step 3. Authors of Intro Psych textbooks listen to the personality researchers. The authors greatly pare back the coverage of the history of personality theory in the personality chapter. Step 4. The publishers of those Intro Psych textbooks send the personality chapters out for review. They ask people who use the textbook—or who might one day use the textbook—what they think of the chapter. Step 5. The reviews come back. The personality researchers who review the chapter are thrilled! “Finally,” they say, “Intro Psych students are going to be learning about what we are really doing in the field.” Everyone else, though, is ticked off. “Wait! Where is the coverage of Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis?! Where is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs?! You can’t take that content out! I teach that!!” Let’s stop here for a minute to reflect. Why am I teaching the history of personality? Because many, many years ago when I first started teaching Intro Psych, the personality chapter in the textbook I used devoted many, many pages to the history of personality. That’s it. I don’t have any independent knowledge of personality. Because this is what I have always taught, this is what I think should be taught. Step 6. The publishers read the reviews. There is a very short stack of reviews saying, “Yay! Thanks for taking the history out of the personality chapter!” Those are primarily the reviews from the personality researchers. There is a very tall stack of reviews saying, “WTH?! Put the history back into the personality chapter, because I teach that!” Those are reviews from everyone else, including the neuroscientists, developmental psychologists, and cognitive psychologists. Step 7. The publishers tell the Intro Psych textbook authors, “Look at all of these instructors who won’t adopt our book, because this chapter doesn’t cover what people want. You have to put the history back in.” Step 8. The Intro Psych textbook authors respond with, “But… But…” And the content goes back in. As someone who has reviewed plenty of Intro Psych textbook chapters, I own that I was part of the problem. In retrospect, I should have said, “I know you want me to review five chapters, but I’m really only expert in two of these: research methods and social.” If they insisted that I pick three others, I should have said, “Okay, I will also review neuroscience, sensation and perception, and personality, but understand that I will defer to what the experts in those areas think should be in the chapter. For example, yes, I cover dark adaptation in the S&P chapter, but if the S&P researchers don’t think that’s important, I’m fine not covering it.” (And, indeed, S&P researchers do not think coverage of dark adaptation is particularly important. See page 7 of the 2017 Division 1/Division 2 Joint Task Force Report on Introductory Psychology. If you ever heard Scott Lilienfeld’s talk on Intro Psych, you’ll remember he had a great story about a reviewer’s thoughts on his dark adaptation coverage in his textbook.) “Yes, I teach that, because… well… I guess because I have always taught that.” Psychology is a dynamic field. Is having taught particular content a good enough reason to keep teaching it?  Or should what we teach be just as dynamic as our science?   Reference Frantz, S. (2024, April 4). Intro Psych: The hardest course we teach. Macmillan and BFW Teaching Community. https://community.macmillanlearning.com/t5/psychology-blog/intro-psych-the-hardest-course-we-teach/ba-p/20067   ... View more

My first full-time job was at a small college. I was both the psychology and the sociology department—although after a year or two I convinced them to hire a sociologist. In college, I minored in sociology and my graduate degree was in social psychology, but the two disciplines look at the human condition very differently. Anyway, that’s just to explain why the head of the social sciences division (the closest thing we had to a department chair) was from accounting. One day while we chatting, she told me that she believed that anyone can teach an intro course in anything. All they need is a good intro textbook. In my memory, my first thought was, “Please don’t ask me to teach Introduction to Accounting.” My second thought was, “What a weird way to insult my expertise.”  But now, 30 years later, I’m thinking she may have been right. To a point. Introduction to Psychology is the hardest course in the psychology curriculum we have to teach. That’s only because, as instructors, we don’t know most of the content of the course. The first time I taught Intro Psych, I was a third-year social psych grad student. I had a solid handle on three chapters: “Welcome to Psychology,” research methods, and social psychology. Now, what about those other 11 chapters? As an undergrad (three to seven years earlier), I had taken biopsych, development, learning, memory and cognition, and abnormal psych. With those five chapters, I had a fighting chance. I was familiar enough with most of the concepts, that I could relearn them without too much trouble. Although, admittedly with some concepts, I only fully grasped them when I had to teach them to my students. And, also admittedly, not always the first, second, or even third time around. (To all of the students I had in my first few years of teaching, I’m sorry!) If you have been keeping track at home, you know that I felt competent—or reasonably competent—in eight of 14 chapters. That leaves sensation and perception, consciousness, intelligence and language, emotion and motivation, personality, and therapy. Here’s an idea. What if I just don’t cover some of those? In a survey of 814 Intro Psych instructors (Richmond et al., 2021), the chapters taught by over 90% of the respondents were learning, neuroscience, personality, abnormal, memory, social psych, and development. Six of those seven I felt pretty good about teaching. What about the chapters I was less comfortable with? What percentage of my fellow Intro Psych instructors taught those? Perception: 78.1%; therapy: 77.2%; sensation: 75.6%; consciousness: 71%; intelligence: 64.2%; emotion: 64.1%; motivation: 60.3%; language: 41.4%. I encourage you to look at the survey’s results for each Intro Psych content area. The chapters most of us teach are courses that are typically part of the core for the major. The chapters in the second tier are typically second tier courses for the major. The chapters we’re commonly excluding are typically electives for the major, if they are offered at all. Maybe I wasn’t the only one teaching Intro Psych content that I was most familiar with. As a newly-minted Intro Psych instructor, I relied heavily on the textbook I adopted to teach me what I needed to know in all of those chapters where I felt, frankly, incompetent. The textbook wasn’t my only source, though. A grad student ahead of me in my program was headed off to a job in industry, so she gave me her hand-written Intro Psych lecture notes to get me started. Someone also gave me this nugget of advice: get a high-level Intro Psych textbook, and use that for your lecture material. During the recording of a Psych Sessions podcast (Landrum & Nolan, Feb 29, 2024), I learned that I wasn’t the only one who got that advice. In some ways, my first division chair was right. When we teach Intro Psych, we are learning the course content from our textbooks as we go. For high school teachers who teach Intro Psych—especially AP Psych—they may not have a background in psychology at all, so they are absolutely learning as they go. And the AP Psych instructors don’t have the luxury of not teaching chapters they’re not comfortable with. The students need all of the chapters in preparation for the AP exam. Some of the best Intro Psych instructors I know teach AP Psych. In a recent conversation with one of those best AP Psych instructors, she said that she feels like she has just the surface of the field, not the depth. I countered that college instructors have just the surface, too, except for their area of expertise. The more education we get, the narrower our knowledge becomes. There is one exception to the narrowing of knowledge: research methods. That is one way where my division chair was wrong. Through my BA and graduate training, I became well-versed in the research methods we use in psychology. Research methods underpins everything we do; it is our way of knowing. While an accountant would struggle to wrap their head around how psychological researchers do science, a scientist from a different field might have an easier time. Science is science. Our methods may differ, but the basics—and the values—are the same. To everyone who is teaching Intro Psych for the first time, if you feel incompetent in most of what you are teaching, it is because you are. But you are not alone in that experience. And it will get better. Every time you teach the course, you will learn more.   References Landrum, E., & Nolan, S. A. (Feb 29, 2024). STP and new challenges, with guest Sue Frantz (Beyond Teaching S6E4) [MP3]. https://psychsessionspodcast.libsyn.com/beyond-teaching-s6e4-stp-and-new-challenges-with-guest-sue-frantz Richmond, A. S., Boysen, G. A., Hudson, D. L., Gurung, R. A. R., Naufel, K. Z., Neufeld, G., Landrum, R. E., Dunn, D. S., & Beers, M. (2021). The Introductory Psychology census: A national study. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 7(3), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000277   ... View more

Walking in nature is good for us, but what if we’re looking at our phones while we’re walking in nature? Is that walk still beneficial? Researchers Randi Collin and Elizabeth Broadbent at the University of Auckland recognized that this was an empirical question (Collin & Broadbent, 2023). If you’d like to give your students some experimental design practice when you cover stress and coping, ask your students to work in small groups to design an experiment that would test one of Collin and Broadbent’s hypotheses: “phone walking would cause stooped posture, slower walking, lower arousal, and worse mood and affect than walking without a phone.” Students should identify their dependent variables and the experimental and control conditions of their independent variable, including operational definitions. Because this is an experiment, remind students that in their proposed study, participants will need to be randomly assigned to conditions. Invite each group to share their designs. As a take-home assignment, ask students to read Collin and Broadbent’s freely available research paper and answer these questions: The researchers had two hypotheses. One we discussed in class: “phone walking would cause stooped posture, slower walking, lower arousal, and worse mood and affect than walking without a phone.” What was their second hypothesis? What was the study’s independent variable? Identify the experimental and control conditions. What operational definitions for each did the researchers use? When identifying participants for their study, researchers had two requirements that participants had to meet. What were they? When identifying participants for their study, researchers had two things that would exclude a volunteer from their study. What were they? From the “measures” section of the article, identify all of the dependent variables the researchers measured. What operational definitions for each did the researchers use? For each dependent variable, describe whether the researchers found any statistically significant differences between the two conditions. (The article refers to significant differences, but it is understood that they mean statistically significant differences.) Near the end of the discussion section, the researchers identify several limitations in this study. Each limitation is effectively a hypothesis and an invitation to other researchers to test these hypotheses. Choose one of their identified limitations, create a hypothesis based on that limitation, and then design an experiment to test that hypothesis. Identify your dependent variables and the experimental and control conditions of your independent variable. Be sure to include operational definitions.     Reference Collin, R., & Broadbent, E. (2023). Walking with a mobile phone: A randomised controlled trial of effects on mood. Psych, 5(3), 715–723. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych5030046     ... View more

In season three/episode four of the Andy Griffith Show (first aired October 22, 1962), Opie advises his father, Andy, not to lick the tip of the pencil he’s about to write with. Opie says, “It’s an indelible pencil. If you lick indelible, you die in a minute and a half.” His father asks Opie who told him that. “Johnny Paul Jason.” This is after Opie has shared a few other similar ‘facts’ that Johnny Paul Jason has uttered. Andy replies, “Boy sure is a gold mine of made-up facts.” Johnny Paul Jason would be right at home with today’s Internet. I visited with a friend last week at a conference. He told me that upon someone telling his daughter, Melina Gurung, something that sounded questionable, she replied, “Is that an Internet fact or an actual fact?” What a great response! The subtext: “That sounds like a bunch of baloney. Have you checked the source to see if it’s legitimate? Or are you just repeating it?” Isn’t Gurung’s phrasing beautifully concise? It immediately puts the onus back on the speaker: “Is that an Internet fact or an actual fact?” The speaker has to stop and consider the source. Back in the 1960s, Opie’s father would have asked, “Is that a Johnny Paul Jason fact or an actual fact?” Just a couple of days ago I learned that today’s Johnny Paul Jasons are sharing tax advice on TikTok (Dietz, 2024). No, creating a limited liability company (LLC) does not mean you can deduct your groceries from your taxes. No, as a business owner, you cannot list your 4-year-old as an employee. If the person giving you tax advice is a tax attorney or an accountant, you can give what they say some credibility. But a seemingly random person? Is that really a good idea? When it comes to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), actual facts are less likely to land you in hot water than are Internet facts. Have you seen the photo of the British Airways plane with a flock of birds in the foreground? (Shout out to Linda Woolf for sharing this with me.) The Internet fact says that smuggled exotic birds were on the plane, and that’s why the wild birds swarmed it. (Who makes this stuff up?) The good folks at Snopes.com, who have been sorting Internet facts from actual facts since 1995, discovered the actual fact (Liles, 2024). Adam Samu took the photo on June 15, 2004, and he confirmed that the birds were not near the plane. It’s an optical illusion. The birds are starlings that “range in size from 19 to 23 centimetres” (7.5 to 9 inches). The birds simply happened to be in the foreground when he took the photo. Many years ago, I had a Johnny Paul Jason in class. I’m sorry I didn’t take the time to write down the Internet facts he shared—always uttered with complete conviction. One in particular I remember. He said that dolphins can identify humans who were born underwater. We took some class time on that one to design an experiment that would test his claim. While that was a useful activity, I’m now ready for my next Johnny Paul Jason. “Is that an Internet fact or actual fact?” Thank you, Melina Gurung!   References Dietz, M. (2024, March 18). Ignore this tax advice from TikTok. Lifehacker. https://lifehacker.com/money/ignore-this-tax-advice-from-tiktok Liles, J. (2024, March 15). Pilot reacted emotionally when he realized why birds were flying alongside his airplane? Snopes. https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/pilot-emotional-birds-plane/   ... View more

My favorite conference activity is attending poster sessions. I love talking with students. They are always enthusiastic about their research. The poster topic doesn’t matter to me, although I tend to favor the topics I know very little or nothing about. The student presenters get to experience what it’s like to be the experts and in a position to teach someone else not only about their study but about the topic more generally. Last week, I attended the Southeastern Psychological Association (SEPA) conference. Whenever I had free time, I popped into the posters and wandered around until I found a poster where the presenters were not currently speaking with anyone. “Hi! Tell me about your poster,” I say. The first poster I went to, the students surprised me, though. One student looked at my name badge, and said, “Oh! Sue Frantz. We read a couple of your papers.” I haven’t published much in journals and what I have published was not related to their poster topic, so this was especially surprising. Of course, I asked what they had read. It took them a bit to remember, but they got there. One was a paper on how Intro Psych can dispel myths (McCarthy & Frantz, 2016), and the other was the Intro Psych pillars article (Gurung et al., 2016). Once we had that sorted, I asked why they read those articles. They said that their professor asked them to read one to three articles written by each of the invited speakers in preparation for coming to SEPA. Brilliant! I quickly looked at their poster to find their affiliation: Covenant College. I asked for the name of their professor: Carole Yue. Later that afternoon, I gave my talk on the need to give careful consideration to what we cover in Intro Psych. After the talk, two students came up to me. They said that they needed to interview one of the invited speakers and would I be willing to take 10 to 15 minutes to answer their questions? My first thought was, “I have no idea what questions you are going to ask, but there is no way I can answer them in 15 minutes.” And that was okay by me since I had nowhere in particular I needed to be. But what I said was, “Are you from Covenant College?” Yes, yes, they were. After our conversation—which took at least 30 minutes—I asked that if they see me and their professor, Dr. Yue, in the same room, to please introduce me. I remember my very first conference: Eastern Psychological Association (EPA), Buffalo, NY, 1989. Or at least I’m pretty sure about the location, but the year could have been 1988. That was a long time ago. Anyway, I remember seeing someone whose work I had been reading for a research project I was working on. I wanted to say hi, but I didn’t have any words for after “Hi.” Yue’s students have something to say after “Hi.” The next day, Carole Yue found me, and I learned more about what she does to ensure her students get the most out of their conference experience. I was so impressed, I asked her to email me with what she does because I wanted to share it with all of you. At Covenant College, students can enroll in Psy310: Psych Field Trip. This course was created decades ago by Yue’s predecessor, Mike Rulon. Yue reports that Rulon graciously shared everything with her when she took over the course, and she has since revised it. Here’s the catalog description. The psychology department arranges and sponsors field trips to various professional psychology conventions. The conventions attended in the past have included the Southeastern Psychology Association (SEPA), the Christian Association for Psychological Studies (CAPS) and the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR). By these means, students are able to gain a wide sampling of the range of topics, issues, controversies and personalities in psychology today. A travel fee is individually set for each field trip (based on distance, housing, etc.).   This year’s trip fee was $600, “but presenters get a 50% scholarship. We've been fortunate that the administration has been willing to largely subsidize the trip for students (over half the total cost)” (C. Yue, personal communication, March 18, 2024). For context, Covenant College is near Chattanooga, an 8.5-drive to Orlando where this year’s SEPA conference was held.   Students needed to prepare for SEPA by doing the assigned readings (one to three articles by each invited speaker) and discussing some of those articles with one to three other SEPA attendees. Yue ensures students get exposure to what’s new in a breadth of topics. She divides psychology into eight broad areas (e.g., clinical/counseling/addiction/therapies, neuroscience/cognitive neuroscience/neurology, industrial-organizational/human factors/forensic). Students need to identify one session in at least five of those eight categories that they plan on attending. Yue writes, While at the conference, students check in with me around 8am and receive their per diem for food…They conference all day, and we meet for dinner each night…We then have debriefing meetings after dinner where each student shares about their day. Even though it makes the days very long, students also generally appreciate having the debriefing because they get to reconnect and hear about talks they didn't get to, unusual experiences, or interview/presentation tips. At some point during those two days, students need to find and interview (or have a substantial conversation with) a psychologist. I give them some interview guidelines and suggested questions/topics, but I do encourage them to think of it as a professional fact-finding mission and tailor questions to their own interests (C. Yue, personal communication, March 18, 2024). After the conference, students write about their experiences. Yue writes, Their post-SEPA writings are reflections/summaries of their experiences…I've divided it up into one for each day (Thursday and Friday), as well as a summary of their concentration…They do a summary of their interview, and they do a final reflection of the trip in the style of a letter to a future student who might be considering attending SEPA… Students also submit a list of "Five 5's" in which they tell me 5 things they thought were unusual or surprising (behavioral or content-based), 5 applications they want to implement, 5 memorable events, 5 ideas/concepts they want to remember, and 5 suggestions to me.  Since we have the evening debriefs and the long bus ride home, we won't meet again this week. I think one of the appealing aspects of the course is that after the trip is done, they're done with the class (C. Yue, personal communication, March 18, 2024).  Based on the interactions I had with four of Yue’s students, there is no doubt in mind that they were well-prepared for attending SEPA. After Yue shared with me how she prepared them, I understood why. Conferences can be overwhelming, especially for first-time attendees. Yue’s students are familiar with the conference program and the invited speakers, and they have goals they want to accomplish. What an amazing experience it must be for them—and for their professor. Yue adds, “[T]his course is only possible because the students really jump into the work, and they're amazing. It's such a privilege to see them stretch themselves and grow into themselves as psychologists” (C. Yue, personal communication, March 19, 2024) If you are interested in exploring similar assignments or a similar course for your students, please download Yue’s Psy310 syllabus, pre-SEPA requirements checklist, concentration plan, and breadth requirements.   References Gurung, R. A. R., Hackathorn, J., Enns, C., Frantz, S., Cacioppo, J. T., Loop, T., & Freeman, J. E. (2016). Strengthening Introductory Psychology: A new model for teaching the introductory course. American Psychologist, 71(2), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040012 McCarthy, M. A., & Frantz, S. (2016). Challenging the status quo: Evidence that Introductory Psychology can dispel myths. Teaching of Psychology, 43(3), 211–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316649470 Yue, C. (2024, March 18). Re: SEPA student assignment [Personal communication]. Yue, C. (2024, March 19). Re: SEPA student assignment [Personal communication].   ... View more

I saw a post about “hanging coffee” come across my social media news feed this morning, and I thought this could be a great activity for our students. It would fit wherever you cover social norms. What’s a “hanging coffee” (also called a “suspended coffee”)? Coffee shops (or other eating establishments) who do this allow patrons to gift coffee (or bagels, or meals, or whatever) to others. While I’ve experienced coffee shop patrons who have paid for the coffee for the next person in line, I haven’t seen this. How it works is simple. I walk up to the counter and order my coffee, but I pay for three coffees. The barista hands me my coffee and then “hangs” the extra two coffees I bought on the wall in the form of receipts or laminated cards. A patron who needs a free beverage takes down the receipt or the laminated card and hands it to the barista. The barista hands them their order. There was an article in the Portsmouth, NH newspaper four years ago describing the practice there (Barndollar, 2020). The norm of social responsibility tells us that we should help others. In fact, helping others makes us feel good about ourselves. Those are two good reasons alone to buy a “hanging coffee.” But what if “hanging coffees” aren’t (yet!) a norm in your community? After covering social norms, invite your students to try to establish “hanging coffee” as a new social norm in your community. Of course, students don’t have to limit themselves to coffee. Is there a staffed laundromat in your community? “Hanging laundry” could become a thing. If your students don’t like the term “hanging”—I know I don’t—or “suspended”—another loaded term, especially for students!—encourage your students to think of another name. Working in pairs or small groups, students are to identify a business establishment where patrons might like to buy something for someone else. (You might want to exclude alcoholic drinks at bars as an option.) If several pairs or small groups identify coffee shops, ask those students to divvy up your local coffee shops. Next, students—again working in those same pairs or small groups—are to speak with the manager about their idea. Students should be prepared to buy the first “hanging <whatever>.” If they don’t have the money, encourage them to bring their friends. Everyone in the group could chip in, say, a quarter to buy a “hanging <whatever>.” To make it easier for the manager to say yes, students should do some reconnaissance first to identify a place where the receipts could be placed and create a sign that could go in that location. If the establishment doesn’t have an empty billboard, students could consider donating one. Creating the board and posting a receipt one time may not be enough to establish a norm. How frequently do students think they will have to “seed” the board before the norm becomes established—perhaps students could encourage faculty to purchased “hanging <whatevers>”? Invite students to report back on their experience. Based on social media responses, some students, managers, and others will be concerned that people would take advantage of the “hanging <whatever>” board. It’s an interesting idea to explore. Plenty of us donate money or food to food banks, and the food banks I’m familiar with don’t ask for proof of need. Might someone who is quite wealthy get free food? Sure. Do I care? Not especially. For all I know, they’re donating thousands of dollars each year to that food bank. As for the “hanging coffee,” I would imagine that social norms would drive not only who donates but who uses it. Having said that, I can imagine a person who is having an absolutely rotten day wanting to accept a coffee bought by someone else as a mood booster. I can just easily imagine that same person coming in a week later and buying ten “hanging coffees” in order to boost the mood of others. If creating a new social norm in the form of “hanging coffees” doesn’t work for you as a class activity, consider suggesting it to the psychology club, psychology honor society chapter, Greek chapters, or other clubs.   Reference Barndollar, H. (2020, January 13). “Hanging coffee” aims to pay it forward. Foster’s Daily Democrat. https://www.fosters.com/story/news/2020/01/13/hanging-coffee-aims-to-pay-it-forward/1909907007/   ... View more

I recently read Henry Winkler’s memoir, Being Henry: The Fonz… and Beyond. Having grown up with Happy Days (first aired 1974-1984), I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the Fonz… and Henry Winkler. People who are more closely in tune with today’s culture than I am—and that’s just about everybody—will know Henry Winkler for his role as the acting teacher Gene Cousineau in the HBO series Barry (aired 2018-2023). In Winkler’s memoir, he opens chapter 11 with this: “I had a shrink for two years. Every week I'd go in and talk about my parents, Stacey [his wife], our children, my troubles getting acting work, and—when I did get work—my continuing problems getting out of my own way” (Winkler & Kaplan, 2023, p. 198) Good for him, I thought. After having read the first 10 chapters, I could see where he could benefit from psychotherapy. Question 1 for your students. When Winkler uses the term “shrink,” what kind of therapist might he be referring to? He doesn’t tell us, but the top three options are psychologist, counselor, and psychiatrist. Although, a life coach is certainly a possibility. After revealing he is seeing a therapist of some kind, Winkler writes, “Then one day my shrink asked me to look at a script he'd written” (Winkler & Kaplan, 2023, p. 198)  <Screeching record noise>. I reread the sentence. No, I did not read it wrong. I immediately began mentally flipping through the American Psychological Association’s (APA’s) ethics code and the American Counseling Association’s ethics code. And then, because I’m not familiar with the American Psychiatric Association’s ethics code, I looked it up. Unsurprisingly, they follow the ethics code of the American Medical Association, although the psychiatrists have a sort of annotated edition for themselves. With a bit of research, I discovered the International Coaching Federation (life and business coaches, not sports coaches) and their ethics code. Question 2 for your students. Review the ethics codes for the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the International Coaching Federation. Do any of them permit a provider to use a client to advance their side gig? If not, which part of each ethics code has been violated? Question 3 for your students. If Winkler wanted to pursue a complaint against this provider, what should he do? [The answer differs depending on the type of provider, the professional association(s) the provider belongs to, and how and where they are licensed.] Winkler seems to have solved the problem to his satisfaction. He writes, “And so I spent a number of years shrink-less” (Winkler & Kaplan, 2023, p. 198)  While I applaud him for walking away, I am reminded of how one bad experience can color a person’s view of an entire profession. We see it in higher ed all the time. I loved chemistry in high school, so when I got to college, I considered majoring in chemistry. I took a chemistry class, and I hated it. More specifically, I hated how it was taught. And that resulted in a full stop to my chemistry exploration. Winkler did see another therapist. While the timeline is unclear, I perceived this therapist as coming after the read-my-script therapist. Winkler’s wife writes, “[H]e asked her at the beginning if she had children, and she said, ‘How will knowing that help you? What would that add to why we’re here?’” (Winkler & Kaplan, 2023, p. 237). What a beautiful way of saying, “We’re here to talk about you, not me.” In this blog post, while I suggest prompting students to look at ethics codes in the context of Henry Winkler’s experience, it is important that students have some familiarity with those codes. Everyone should know that therapists should follow a code of ethics, and if a person is seeing a therapist who violates that code of ethics, what they should do. Even if it is, at minimum, simply walking away.     Reference Winkler, H., & Kaplan, J. (2023). Being Henry: The Fonz . . . and beyond (First edition). Celadon Books. ... View more