Assessing the Experience of Awe: Validating the Situational Awe Scale

Awe is an overwhelming feeling of admiration sometimes mixed with wonder or fear. Inspired by a cross-disciplinary review of perspectives on awe, we constructed a new measure that would reflect all of these perspectives. In this dissertation, I introduce the Situational Awe Scale (SAS) and report a set of studies designed to validate the measure. An exploratory factor analysis in Study 1 suggested a four-factor structure (i.e., liberation/connection, oppression/isolation, chills, and small-self/vast-world); the study also provided initial evidence of the measure’s convergent and criterion validity. Study 2 provided evidence for the structural validity of the SAS, by confirming the factor structure uncovered in Study 1, and replicated the convergent and criterion validity evidence. Study 3 established that the SAS truly assesses situational awe by demonstrating that SAS scores varied in response to situations that elicit more versus less awe; Study 3 also provided evidence that the SAS possesses discriminant validity. Study 4 extended the construct (structural, convergent, criterion, and discriminant) validity of the SAS to a field setting (Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago). Study 5 again provided evidence for the convergent, criterion, and discriminant validity of the SAS. Studies 4–5 also attempted to investigate the role of prior knowledge in the experience of awe, with mixed results. Across five studies, we constructed and validated the SAS, and began to explore its relationship with knowledge. The research reported in this dissertation supports the construct validity of the SAS and lays the groundwork for fruitful future investigation into the determinants and outcomes of awe

Risk of not liming

Plant and Soil Science

A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx)

A Guide for Social Science Journal Editors on Easing into Open Science

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://osf.io/hstcx).<br/

A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://osf.io/hstcx)

The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting with Nature: A Replication

Berman, Jonides, and Kaplan (2008) hypothesized that natural environments replenish voluntary attention, and demonstrated that after exposure to nature (versus urban) images, participants performed better on measures of executive attention (Experiment 2). We conducted a direct replication of Berman et al. to evaluate the robustness of these findings. The replication was unsuccessful with the current experiment showing significant results opposite of what was hypothesized indicating that participants did better on executive attention tasks after being exposed to urban images. All other measures yielded insignificant results challenging whether the effect found in the original paper was accurate. Further studies must be concluded to confirm whether or not the effect exists.https://via.library.depaul.edu/psychologynight/1095/thumbnail.jp

Analysis

A collection of the different types of analyses that will be conducted