Basics to Developing a Poster Presentation

1. Basics to Developing a Poster Presentation PSY 231: Research Methods in Psychology 1/4/2020

2. Importance of Poster Presentations(And how they differ from manuscripts) Differences Between Posters and Manuscripts • Less detail is needed (as opposed to a manuscript) on a poster • Details not included in the poster will be assessed through questioning of the audience and presentation Benefits of Presentations • The time before the manuscript can even be published can vary (usually taking an extended period of time) • First Step: Peer review- 1-3 months if lucky • Second Step: Revisions • Can take just as long as the peer review, as you must resubmit the manuscript • Third Step: If accepted (Many time rare), the publishing process unfolds

3. Tips to a Successful Presentation • Clarity is more important than aesthetics • Are you clear; are the viewers reading this going to understand the take home message that you are trying to present • Aesthetics • In the proper order • Focus on aesthetics in the sense of clarity • Development of Poster • DO NOT COPY AND PASTE • No paragraphs • Readable from 4-5 feet away • Understand the material • Its one thing to write the paper, but its another to explain the poster • We expect EVERYONE to know what happened in the study • Read through first, then have explanation

4. Common Questions Asked Q: How could you adjust your research to make it more generalizable to the public? A: The generalizability of the results was one of our limitations in our study. Future research can adjust this by including populations that may be more generalizable to the public (For example: children enrolled in local elementary schools, or the elderly) Q: What type of implications are suggested in relation to the results of the study? A: Our study has significant relevance to the study of memory and cognition. More specifically… This may be applicable to… Q: What exactly do these results in your table indicate? A: The table is a factor analysis, which presents our correlations among all of our factors. As you can see… which means… which may imply… Q: How did you use _______ to measure _______? A: Our study was replicated from a previous study that assessed ____ with similar tools…

5. Mistakes on Posters • Do NOT include balloons and other unprofessional materials • Glitter • Balloons • Unnecessary objects irrelevant to the research • If you do include any of these objects, they better pertain to the research in some significant way and they ought to be presented in such fashion (i.e. show the audience how the object was used)

6. Layout Examples Examples and other tips can be found at: https://www.psichi.net/conventions/samples.aspx

8. Project Title Author(s) Principle Investigator: If Applicable (This typically is in both graduate and undergraduate research) Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Campus Box 4620, Normal, IL 61790-4620 (Principle Investigator Information) • Abstract • Because both the manuscript abstract and the poster abstract serve a similar purpose, then there should be very little deviation from the original • Introduction (Literature Review: Construct 1) • Authors (Year) • Each paradigm or construct that you have used from previous experiments needs to be added to the introduction. • This previous research can tie into the current study by helping produce hypotheses. • Some constructs that you define in the introduction can key into your methods but should be used primarily to discuss what you plan on finding in your results. • Be sure to include any necessary information regarding the previous experiment that is relevant to the current study • This may include key points that help supplement the current study • Other information may include graphs, charts, images, that may have been used in previous studies that is used in the current study, or any figures that brought about the current research • Condition I Condition II Condition III • If including images, graphs, or figures, give a brief description of what they mean below the figure • Acknowledgments • In the acknowledgments section, include any team members that assisted with the project, professors that helped develop the study (if not principle investigator) • I would like to thank Professor Scott Jordan and Luke Johnson for developing the template of the poster. • Overview of The Methods • Participants • Give a brief description of who your participants are. You want to include the following • Number of participants • Where the sample came from • What consists of your sample (i.e. gender, ethnicity) • Materials and Apparatus • Include any materials included in the study. The primary purpose of research articles is to explain a particular theory or hypothesis, how the results were obtained as well as what the results mean. Posters are essentially a research paper prepared for a presentation to [typically] a mass audience. This audience may need to know the information regarding the materials used in case they decide to replicate or to elaborate on your study. • You may include pictures of abstract materials used in the study. This may include a digital photograph of the object, an animation of the object, or possibly a screenshot (if a computer program used). • Figure 2 • You may include images of any materials you used in your study, but give a brief description below the image • Procedure • As with the procedure section in a research paper, it is just as crucial to account for the major concepts in your experiment on a research poster. You do not have to be have great detail about the procedure as you would in a paper, but include enough information that you can elaborate on in a presentation. This way, it saves space and you don’t have an entire poster of text which is boring and does not always explain the material in full. • Results • The purpose of the results section deviates from the manuscript in that the results are typically given on a table with a brief description. You can put in text format, but again it takes away from the aesthetics. You can explain during the presentation everything that would be on the poster, which makes putting the results in text redundant. • Discussion • In the discussion section, explain the study’s results and what they mean. • The interpretation of the results is often followed by the implications of the study (how is it generalizable to the outside world) • Also note the limitations of the study. Along with the limitations, include how these limitations can be fixed so future research does not encounter the same issues. • References • Hommel, B. (1998). Perceiving one’s own actions – and what it leads to. In J.S. Jordan (Ed.) Systems Theories and A Priori Aspects of Perception (pp. 143-179) North-Holland: Elsevier. • Hommel, B., Musseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849- 937. • Hubbard, T. L., & Bharucha, J. J. (1988). Judged displacement in apparent vertical and horizontal motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 211-221. • Hubbard, T. L. (1993). The effect of context on visual representational momentum. Memory & Cognition, 21, 103-114. • Jordan, J. S., & Knoblich, G. (2004). Spatial perception and control. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11(1), 54-59. • Tsiappoutas, Coey, & Jordan (in perparation)

9. personality in college students By: Al c. • Method • Participants • Sixty eight undergraduates (N=9 Males [13.2%], N=59 Females [86.8%]) enrolled at a Midwestern University participated in exchange for extra credit in his/her respective psychology course. Subject ages were skewed towards the younger pole of the range, with a typical age of participants being between the ages of 18 and 23 (M=19.10, SD=1.05). Among the sample of participants, ethnic backgrounds were primarly Caucasian (N=55 [80.9%]) followed by African-American (N=5 [7.4%]), Latino/Latina (N=5 [7.4%]), Asian-American (N=2 [2.9%]), and finally Native American (N=1 [1.5%]). Participants were asked to enroll in pairs in order to obtain both a measure of self report data in addition to peer report data. In addition to measures obtained from both participants, researchers also rated both participants, giving the researcher a subject role as well as the unbiased stranger rating. • Subjects were required to participate with a friend of who they knew considerably. Typically, peers knew each other for at least one year1, although some dyads may have been acquainted for under a year which is typical of our sample of primarily college undergraduates. The term “friend” used as a requirement for enrolling in the study had a vague definition which made the strength of the relationship as well as the years known a strong factor in the correlational analysis. It seems valid to say that the average length of relationship would be skewed towards the lower end of the distribution due to the convenience of choosing a roommate as the partner. Many students who participate in the current study chose a fellow participant of whom they spend most time with which may very well be a roommate. The skew of the age distribution infers that a vast majority of our participants were college freshmen and sophomores, who are required to live in the dorms for the first two years (as required by the university). With a large amount of participants living in the dorms, it makes sense that the length of the relationship demographic is skewed towards the lower end of the distribution (Mdn= 2.75). The average length of acquaintance (M= 4.46, SD= 4.36) was pulled towards a higher length of acquaintance however due to extreme outliers. • Among the 34 dyads, 62 were of the same sex with the remaining 6 participants enrolling with a member of the opposite sex. Participants were assigned random number codes to protect the confidentiality of the reports. • 1. Length of relationship ratings below one year were considered one year • Materials • An informed consent was given to each participant to protect confidentiality and provide an understanding of the study for each participant. Administration of the study required three separate measures of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). The Big Five Inventory was used in attempt to gather an understanding of one’s perceived personality on two levels: a self report measure and peer-report measure (John et al., 2008). The Big Five Inventory has been supported as a valid form of personality measurement, assessing all five factors with congruence among other personality measures, particularly the Neuroticism Extraversion Openness-Personality Inventory, Revised (NEO-PI-R) (McCrae & Costa, 1987). A self report BFI (Appendix A, Section I) was administered to each participant to obtain a basis for the correlational hypotheses. In addition to self report measures, each participant was also given a peer report measure (Appendix A, Section II) in which he/she would be asked to rate their fellow peer (considered a close friend). Following both inventories was a demographic form (Appendix B) to assist in the explanation of many of the variances in the correlational analysis. As stated previously, researchers also gave a rating of the respective individual in order to obtain a stranger report (Appendix A, Section III). • Big Five questionnaires were rated on a five point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). The rated scores received were did not maintain a consistent value however, with a rating of 5 being strongly agree at times, and other times being strongly disagree. The variability allows for an easier scoring method. The numbers held no significance to the rating itself; participants simply rated how much the characteristic applies to the individual by circling the number under the applicable column thus giving the numbers meaning only in the analysis. • Big Five inventories were scored on the five separate scales (Extraversion, openness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness). Each question on the inventory associated with the given scale was totaled to give a composite score for that scale. Scores range from a minimum of 8 to a maximum score of 40 on Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism scales, with the exceptions of conscientiousness (Minimum= 9, Maximum= 45) and Openness (Minimum= 10, Maximum= 50). The total of each scale was used in the analysis to assess correlations among self, peer, and stranger reports. • Procedure/Design • Prior to participants’ arrival to the laboratory, random id codes were given to each subject in each dyad. Participants would be labeled by their dyad number, followed by an A or B (i.e. 124A) to ensure synchrony between all reports. In accordance with the ID number given to the dyad, participants were either given a self-report BFI first or a peer-report BFI to attempt to reduce any confounds brought about by the order of reports given. Two researchers worked with each dyad. Researchers were also labeled A or B and given the like participant to rate during the stranger reporting. • Upon arrival, participants were escorted by researcher A to the lab where there they were instructed to sit at adjacent tables facing away from each other to limit a confound of any possible interaction between the two peers. Participants were then given the informed consent and given a brief description of what the consent as well as the study entails. • At this time, participants were given either a self-report or peer-report measure (depending on the ID number) to complete. Upon completion of the questionnaire, participants would insert the finished copy into the given folder. When both participants completed the report, researcher B would administer the second report and participants would continue with the same process as the prior questionnaire. Following the second BFI, a demographics form was given to each participant. With the completion of the demographics form and all of the materials placed in the participant’s folder, the study was completed. Participants were then debriefed and given all of the essential information regarding the study. At this time participants were given extra credit vouchers, and the researchers retired to another room in which they filled out the stranger-report BFI for their respective subject. Results Our primary hypotheses were supported among the five factors. The agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness facets of the big five yielded high correlations among self and peer ratings as was predicted, whereas neuroticism and extraversion did not. For means and standard deviations of self, peer, and stranger reports, see table 1. For correlations and significance levels among self/peer ratings, see table 2. In accordance with our predictions on self-stranger agreement, extraversion was highly correlated among self ratings and peer ratings (r=.40, p<.001). The remaining factors were not correlated however, supporting the hypothesis that personality is difficult to perceive without some sort of intimate connection between raters. For correlations among five factors between self and stranger ratings, see table 3. Our primary hypothesis that peer reports will converge with self reports was moderated by our two potential moderators: length of the relationship and the strength of the relationship. Although the results were not completely dependent on the two moderators, it still important to note these statistics to determine the validity of the friendship. As stated previously, friendship length remained towards the lower end of the distribution (M=4.56, SD=4.36, Mdn=2.75). When rating friendship strength on a five point likert scale, strength tended to be skewed toward the higher end of the distribution (M=4.28, SD=.76, Mdn=4.50). Pearson correlations were ran to determine the validity of the two factors in friendship (r=.54, p<.001) and were found to be quite significant. The connection between the two factors is a necessity in determining friendship. Friends need to agree on how the length of the relationship, otherwise, in some cases peers may know the other, but not have a strong relationship, which would make the case that the peer that the participants walked in with is not so much a friend as much as they are an acquaintance When considering the analysis of the results, it is important to factor in moderators as potential reasons for the results given. The results did not fully support our hypothesis, with the length of the relationship that was three years or greater yielding a high correlation among agreeableness (r=.38, p<.05). Strength of the relationship with a score of 4 or greater also yielded a high correlation among the agreeableness facet (r=.35, p<.05). Length of relationship of three years or less proved have a significant correlation conscientiousness ratings among peers and the self (r=.63, p<.05) as well as the strength of the relationship with a score of 4 or less, (r=.64, p<.05). For additional analysis on moderators, see table 2. No significant correlations were found in regards to the order of presentation as a moderator. Because the order in which the forms were presented did not yield any significant effects, the order moderator appeared irrelevant to the results. Discussion Knowing several aspects about an individual is part of the criteria that defines the term friend. Although there are other facets that make up a friend (i.e. compassion, altruism), without knowledge of the individual, a friend is no more than an acquaintance. The current research studied how well friends know each other based on levels of personality. The results supported the hypotheses, stating that friends do understand each other on the levels that they understand themselves. Among the five factors, the three that we predicted would be most salient between raters were. Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience did yield highest correlations. The three factors previously stated are factors that require interaction to understand between raters. “Friends” often spend time with one another, and during this time, friends can comprehend their personality type by witnessing their lifestyle. As previously stated, many of the participants in our study may be college roommates. Because roommates spend so much time together, it is easy to see personality characteristics such as conscientiousness. The ability to accurately depict personality among roommates coincides with previous claims made by Beer and Watson (2008) that the greater amount of time spent together results in higher correlations among peer and self reports. For example, roommates inhabited in a room no larger than closet are forced to see organization styles (i.e. a messy, disorganized individual or a clean, uptight individual). Because conscientiousness is rarely associated with a stigma, the concordance rates should be higher, because the organization styles witnessed by peers are often similar to the reports made by the self. Agreeableness was also shown to have a high correlation among raters. Friends must be agreeable with one another in order to maintain a healthy relationship. Otherwise, the dyads would not have registered for the study as “friends”. The stranger ratings did not show a high correlation among agreeableness, which may be due to the lack of rapport built between the researcher and participant. Agreeableness is difficult to be established within a short 30 minute timeframe, so we can infer that agreeableness would not hold a high correlation among two strangers. During the span of a friendship, openness to experience would convey itself in certain activities. For example, when a friend wants to go to an art exhibit (or some other activity requiring an open mind), the amount of openness towards the experience will be fairly observable. Time spent with friends during these experiences will allow for a better understanding of the openness facet, which supports the results shown in the current study. Two factors in our hypothesis that were not predicted to be correlated among self and peer reports were neuroticism and extraversion. Neuroticism has an attached stigma, which may be the reason for social desirability reporting as previously supported by past research (Greenwald, 1980; Hofstee, 1994; Holzback, 1978; John & Robins, 1993; Kenny, 1994). However, due to the confidentiality of the reports, it may be that the self reported honestly, but the peer would have never (or not very often) observed any symptoms of neuroticism. The self may often hide the symptoms of neuroticism due to the stigma attached among individuals, and thus making the ratings incongruent. Extraversion, as stated earlier, is more relevant among outside observers as opposed to the self (Watson, 1989). The results support the affirmation made previously by Watson in that peer reports had no correlation with self reports. Although stranger reports did have a correlation with self reports, the assumption could be made that the researchers had just as much influence on how extraverted the individual was as the self did, making the results of both self and stranger similar. Peers, on the other hand have experience witnessing any extraversion the friend may have, thus, the more salient feature of extraversion is more noticeable to peers as opposed to the stranger or the self. The current research can easily be attributed to any individual in some sort of committed friendship. Although the findings of the study are difficult to apply, it does provide a firm understanding of how we know our friends and on what levels. Personality is important in assessing if a friend is a good match to another. Based on the results of the stranger reports, it is important to note that becoming friends takes time. One could conclude that how intimate the relationship suggests greater concordance among raters as previously stated by Katz and Joiner (2002). This supports the results regarding stranger reports yielding lower connection with self reports as opposed to peer reports which support the fact that the researcher had no time to learn and understand the other individual, which ultimately supported our hypothesis. Several limitations were factored into the current study. First, the levels of the relationships (strength and length) did not clearly define what a friend was. The range of years that friends knew each other varied from under one year to 20 years. Unfortunately, we have no way of accurately defining how long a friend should know each other. Our effort to make up for the wide range of length was to factor in strength of relationship. The combination of the two resulted into an operational definition of friendship. Limitations occurred among the demographic nature of our subject pool. University students are not generalizable to the outside world. Although many students have long-standing personal friendships, many others who do not attend college, who are younger than our age range and older, can not necessarily be considered to have the same effect that we found under our results. In addition to our age demographic, males were also a limitation in our study. With only 13% of the sample being male, it is difficult to determine whether gender is a moderator or not. Future research should address these limitations in effort to make the study more generalizable to the public and to address potential moderators. Replications should make an effort to gain a wide variety of participants. For example, future research could study personality perception in a cross-sectional approach by testing children, adolescents, adults, and the elderly. Each age group often has a significant other who they consider a friend, so the research is relevant to all age groups. An equal number of males and females should be required for replication of the research. Gender differences could be hypothesized as a potential moderator due to previous studies on gender and the contexts of help seeking. Previous literature has stated that women are more likely to confide in females and discuss their issues (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Good et al., 1989; Oltmanns et al., 1998), which may indicate that correlations among same-sex female dyads would be stronger as opposed to same-sex male dyads. Opposite sex dyads may also show a higher correlation in relation to male dyads. Based on the previous literature in confiding and help seeking, future research should take gender and possibly ethnicity into consideration as potential moderators. Friendship is defined by several aspects of relational interaction. Not only must we help friends out in times of need, show compassion for their sorrows and excitement for their achievements, but we must know and understand the individual. The current study was designed to understand the facets of personality perception, which will hopefully help others understand the connection of what and why they have the relationship that they do. Abstract Knowing the self is a not necessarily as obvious as we thought. Previous studies have shown that on some levels, we may not understand completely how we act in our environment (Watson, 1989). We may also introduce bias in our report to stay consistent with social norms. The current study was designed to assess personality perception and the congruence between self, peer, and stranger reports on the Big Five Inventory. Our sample consisted of university students who were asked to rate both themselves (self-report) as well as their peers (peer-report) on a Big Five Inventory scale to assess correlations among self/peer congruence. Results indicate that self/peer congruence matched on the big five factors of agreeableness, conscientiousness, as well as openness to experience. The findings suggest that friends are able to understand each other on these three levels, while neuroticism and extraversion are less salient to the other as indicated by the incongruence of peer reports. Possible explanations of low correlations among these two factors are the stigmatizing of neurotic symptoms and the low visibility of extraversion by the self. Concordance of Self Perception among Big Five Factors of Personality It is often a preconceived notion that we know our friends to a certain key. The term friend has a connotation that deems one individual as having a firm understanding of the other individual. How well do friends truly know each other can vary from knowing what the others’ favorite food is to how their behavior in relation to a particular situation. Many of these facets of knowledge build up to the self-concept of an individual (Hermans, 2001). The self-concept is a crucial aspect to personality, as it depicts who we truly are. In friendship, the self-concept is shared among peers, giving importance to the accurate knowledge of the other’s personality. The requirements for being a friend must include a firm understanding of several of these facets that make up personality. Understanding an individual’s thoughts and behaviors in particular contexts develops a connection between two individuals. A friend may know how we act in certain situations, but what they really comprehend in these contexts is our personality. Our personality dictates how we act in our environment, how we think, and who we are as the “self” (Rogers, 1963). Previous research has questioned who can determine our personality best; does our experience day to day posit an accurate depiction of our true personality or do observers (friends, peers, significant others) have an advantage of illustrating another’s personality due to the lack of bias. According to Kolar and colleagues (1996), we should have a strong perception of our own personality. Other researchers have supported Kolar’s argument, stating that self reports are typically favored over other reports because they are often most accurate according to the previous research recorded (Hofstee, 1994; Wiggins, 1973). These assumptions that we know our contextual responses best is implied because we are typically aware of our behavior in most contexts. Although it seems obvious that self-report measures of personality would be most accurate, previous research indicates that not all facets of personality are subject to accurate interpretation by the self; instead, some aspects of personality are best defined by the observer. The issue behind false reports among self raters is the hindrance of bias. Previous researchers have concluded that individuals present themselves in a biased light; that is, that self reports may attempt to concur with the social norms (Greenwald, 1980; Hofstee, 1994; Holzback, 1978; John & Robins, 1993; Kenny, 1994). The issue here is that we may have altered our personal perception of the self to coincide with social norms, thus not revealing the true personality. Kolar and colleagues found that it is actually peers that have the best definition of another’s personality under some situational contexts. The explanation behind the findings was the bias that was introduced by the Q-Sort measure implemented in the study. Kolar looked for contradictions in self reported situational behaviors with actual behaviors in a situational context (i.e. how extraversion is expressed in debate). Their findings resulted in inconsistent reports among the self-reports. These inconsistencies imply that self perception of behavior can be hindered by social norms. It is possible that an individual would have expressed themselves as introverted and yet behaved with great enthusiasm during the debate portion of the study. This contradicts previous conclusions made by Hofstee (1994) and Wiggins (1973), in that not all facets of personality are best observed by the self. The current research addresses Kolar and colleague’s issue of bias. The primary purpose of the study is to understand the connection between self-ratings and peer-ratings of personality. Measures have been altered to reduce the bias that was introduced in previous studies (Kolar et al., 1996). In the current study, a Big Five Inventory (John et al., 2008) was used to assess both a self-report of personality as well as a peer report of personality. In contrast to the previous research done by Kolar, bias was eliminated by keeping any report completed by an individual confidential and concealed from the other participant. Several issues become apparent when discussing the differences among peer and self personality perception. Beer and Watson (2008) state that there could be several issues in relation to observable behaviors that causes differences in the reporting of personality. In concordance with Kolar’s claims, personality perception is best known to the self, followed by spouses, family members, dating partners, best friends, acquaintances, and finally strangers. It may seem obvious that we know where we stand among the big five factors best, with the exception of extraversion. Extraversion is a trait that is more salient to outside observers that is to the self (Watson, 1989). Extraversion is not to say inaccurately depicted by the self, but is less noticeable to an individual, due to the observed nature of the trait; that is, that the trait must be observed by others to be reported, it is difficult to see this trait unless we view it outside the body. more intrinsic values, such as neuroticism (which we predict will also have a small to no correlation). In conclusion, the purpose of the current study is to elaborate on previous literature on congruence of self and peer reports. Our hypothesis emphasizes a strong correlation between both self and peer ratings on three of the five factors (openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness). We expect to find low correlations among neuroticism because of the stigma attached to any high levels of neuroticism. Individuals may introduce a bias to respond in a socially desirable way as previously stated in research by Beer and Watson (2008). Extraversion, a more salient trait to the outside observer should receive a lower correlation as well. Self raters may not see this trait as well as others because extraversion is a trait that is expressed particularly in social contexts, requiring others (peers) to pick up on it (Watson, 1989). In addition to our five factor hypotheses, we will be studying how the status of the relationship factors into the results. The status of the relationship in the current study is defined by two variables: length of the relationship and the strength of the relationship. Both constructs are crucial to understanding the connection between reports. We predict that relationship status should have a positive correlation among the concordance among raters; that is, that the better the strength of the relationship and the longer the length of the relationship should contribute to higher collaboration between ratings. Because researchers would be low on the hierarchy of perceived personality of the individual, we predict little if not any correlation between stranger and self ratings of personality with the exception of extraversion, which as previously stated, is salient by outside observers, thus making researchers (an unbiased outside observer) have an advantage over the self in personality perception. If our hypotheses are correct, then the study would further support relationship intimacy as a predictor of personality perception between raters.

10. Symposium Examples

11. What Have we Learned? • Why do we expect you to know everything about your research? • How many ways can a poster be made? • What sets a poster presentation apart from a manuscript? • What is most important in the presentation?