Comparing angular and curved shapes in terms of implicit associations and approach/avoidance responses.

Most people prefer smoothly curved shapes over more angular shapes. We investigated the origin of this effect using abstract shapes and implicit measures of semantic association and preference. In Experiment 1 we used a multidimensional Implicit Association Test (IAT) to verify the strength of the association of curved and angular polygons with danger (safe vs. danger words), valence (positive vs. negative words) and gender (female vs. male names). Results showed that curved polygons were associated with safe and positive concepts and with female names, whereas angular polygons were associated with danger and negative concepts and with male names. Experiment 2 used a different implicit measure, which avoided any need to categorise the stimuli. Using a revised version of the Stimulus Response Compatibility (SRC) task we tested with a stick figure (i.e., the manikin) approach and avoidance reactions to curved and angular polygons. We found that RTs for approaching vs. avoiding angular polygons did not differ, even in the condition where the angles were more pronounced. By contrast participants were faster and more accurate when moving the manikin towards curved shapes. Experiment 2 suggests that preference for curvature cannot derive entirely from an association of angles with threat. We conclude that smoothly curved contours make these abstract shapes more pleasant. Further studies are needed to clarify the nature of such a preference

Factors impacting resilience as a result of exposure to COVID-19 : the ecological resilience model

Despite the severe psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, some individuals do not develop high levels of psychological distress and can be termed resilient. Using the ecological resilience model, we examined factors promoting or hindering resilience in the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 1034 participants (49.9±16.2 years; females 51.2%) from Italian general population, 70% displayed resilient outcomes and 30% reported moderate-severe anxiety and/or depression. A binary regression model revealed that factors promoting resilience were mostly psychological (e.g., trait resilience, conscientiousness) together with social distancing. Conversely, factors hindering resilience included COVID-19-anxiety, COVID-19-related PTSD symptoms, intolerance of uncertainty, loneliness, living with children, higher education, and living in regions where the virus was starting to spread. In conclusion, the ecological resilience model in the COVID-19 pandemic explained 64% of the variance and identified factors promoting or hindering resilient outcomes. Critically, these findings can inform psychological interventions supporting individuals by strengthening factors associated with resilience

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

The rhetoric of “excellence” is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organisations, from art history to zoology. But does “excellence” actually mean anything? Does this pervasive narrative of “excellence” do any good? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate “excellence” as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning in academia. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism. To investigate whether this linguistic function is useful we examine how the rhetoric of excellence combines with narratives of scarcity and competition to show that the hypercompetition that arises from the performance of “excellence” is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to this rhetoric. But we also show that this rhetoric is an internal, and not primarily an external, imposition. We conclude by proposing an alternative rhetoric based on soundness and capacity-building. In the final analysis, it turns out that that “excellence” is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship