Work as collaborator

This page contains information about work that I am involved but am not a (co-)principal investigator. This lists only my secondary contributions, such as data collection or limited involvement in manuscripts development.

1. Fundamental motives

How
At the recommendation of Dr. Irem Uz (see below ‘Pronoun hypothesis’), I was approached by Dr. Michael Varnum for data collection in Romania. Prior to data collection, I coordinated the back-translation into Romanian of the study questionnaire.

What
Excerpt from project summary (co-PI: Dr. Michael Varnum & Dr. Douglas Kenrick). Additional literature on the topic here.

“Human beings confront a number of adaptive challenges, such as protecting themselves from physical violence, avoiding disease, finding friends, achieving status, finding mates, and rearing offspring. These challenges that have been conceptualized within the framework of “fundamental motives.” The extent to which each of these challenges is a pressing or chronic priority is likely to depend on the ecology people find themselves inhabiting. In recent years, cross-cultural research has revealed that human societies differ along a host of psychological dimensions and behavioral tendencies. We propose that they also differ in the extent to which various fundamental motives (self-protection, disease avoidance, affiliation, status, mate seeking, and kin care) are chronic concerns. In the present research we aim to test test two broad propositions: 1) the importance of various fundamental motives differs across human societies, 2) these differences are driven by ecological conditions. Based on this framework we propose a number of specific predictions regarding links between ecology and variations in the importance
of different fundamental motives which we aim to test across two correlational studies (one cross-cultural study involving samples from 23 countries, and one study involving samples from the 50 US states), and a series of eight experiments where we will manipulate ecological cues directly to test their effects on the salience of fundamental motives.”

Status
Data from Romania (co: Dr. Daniel David) (N = 223) is delivered.

2. Pronoun hypothesis & individualism vs. collectivism

How
At the 22nd IACCP meeting in Reims (France), Dr. Irem Uz and I shared presenting time in one of the organized panels. I became interested in her work and offered my help with data collection in Romania. Prior to data collection, I coordinated the back-translation into Romanian of the study questionnaire.

What
Tests the hypothesis that cultures whose languages place personal pronouns at the beginning of a sentence facilitates having higher levels of individualism than cultures whose languages may place personal pronouns elsewhere, which would facilitate higher levels of collectivism. Furthermore, the hypothesis is tested against the one initially put forth by Kashima and Kashima (1998), which states that in cultures whose languages do not allow for pronoun omission are more individualistic.

Status
Data from Romania (N = 200) is delivered.
Manuscript is now in final stage before submission.
Work presented at the 17th Annual Convention of Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Diego, USA, 2016. (details here).

3. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy at the country level

How
Approached by Prof. Daniel David, I became involved in the project as the coordinator of data collection for Germany, Colombia, and Portugal. Prior to data collection I (co)coordinated the back-translation into Romanian and German of the study questionnaire.

What
Excerpt from the project website (details here):

“Living in a complex and globalized world, where countries/cultures/nations/societies interact more and more with one another, knowledge about the psychological profile of a nation, be it global (see Peabody, 1985-2011; Terracciano et al., 2005) and/or regional (see Rentfrow et al., 2013; 2015), can spur important (1) theoretical (e.g., to test the ABC model of CBT at national level) and (2) practical developments (e.g., to foster better communication and international peace and avoid conflicts among nations, better understanding of immigration, etc.).
CBT deals to how rational (functional) and irrational (dysfunctional) beliefs (cognitions) impact our emotions and behaviors. Both Albert Ellis (1994) and Aaron T. Beck (Beck, 2000) – the founders of CBT – envisioned two directions of research and application for CBT. Indeed, once the CBT knowledge is generated by research (e.g., by using samples and experimental designs), knowledge can be applied to (1) individuals/small groups, to understand and support human optimization/development, health promotion and prevention of psychological problems, and treatment of psychological problems and/or to (2) the larger society (e.g., countries/cultures/nations/societies), to understand and support happy and functional societies and worldwide peace.
However, the second component is less developed and/or integrated in the cross-cultural psychology movement. Therefore, cross-cultural psychology does not benefit from the extraordinary scientific potential of CBT (e.g., CBT is one of the most influential theories/practices in the current psychological science) and CBT is not related to other major cross-cultural paradigms (e.g., Hofstede’s model, Schwartz’s model, Inglehart & Welzel’s model, etc.). The present international programmatic research aims to rectify this.”

Status
Data from Germany (co: Dr. Peter Holtz) (N = 203) and Colombia (co: Dr. Jairo Montes) (N = 341) delivered.