School of Psychology blog

On traditionally the most romantic day of the year we couldn’t resist the opportunity to put a few questions to social psychologist and romantic relationships expert, Dr Mariko Visserman who recently joined us at Sussex.

In this Blog, Mariko shares with us how she first became inspired to study romantic relationships, her thoughts on Valentine’s day, and her plans for future research projects.

How did you first become interested in the psychology of romantic relationships?

Back when I was an undergraduate student I had a very inspiring teacher in a module on interpersonal relationships, which first sparked my interest in this topic: in some ways I was positively surprised that researchers actually study relationships! It’s a topic that may seem more based on intuition and not very tangible, but I think that this makes it particularly challenging to study relationships: they’re incredibly complex and difficult to disentangle. I learned that we can quantify relationship phenomena and make the study of romance tangible.

But my conviction in studying relationships truly took off when I learned about the profound impact that the quality of people’s relationships has on their health, wellbeing, and even their survival, so how long we’ll live! I care about understanding and promoting people’s wellbeing, and studying relationships—in particular romantic relationships—is a powerful tool in doing so.

What have been your most surprising research findings on romance to date?

I study how romantic couples navigate conflicts of interest, when they have different needs or preferences. For example, partners may have different preferences for what to have for dinner, which movie to watch, what their next holiday destination should be, or where to live. To resolve such conflicts, one partner may decide to sacrifice their own preference, for example by watching the movie that their partner preferred or even move to a different country to support a partner’s job opportunity.

One of the questions I’ve asked is how well romantic partners perceive each other’s sacrifices in their daily lives and how their perceptions in turn impact their relationship. In two diary studies, my collaborators and I asked each partner every day at the end of the day whether they had made a sacrifice for their partner and whether their partner had made a sacrifice for them, so I could directly compare partners’ accounts of what happened that day. I didn’t think that partners’ reports would perfectly align, but I was definitely surprised to find that in both studies partners only detected half of each other’s sacrifices!

This work also showed the impact that perceiving versus missing a partner’s sacrifice may have: people feel a boost in gratitude towards their partner and are more likely to then also express that gratitude to their partner, resulting in both partners feeling happier in the relationship. On the flipside, not recognizing each other’s sacrifices makes the recipient miss out on that gratitude boost and leaves the sacrificing partner feel unappreciated and dissatisfied—after all, they tried to support their partner’s wishes at a personal cost but didn’t receive any appreciation for this. So next time when you think that maybe your partner did something nice for you, giving them the benefit of the doubt could boost yours and your partner’s happiness in your relationship.

More broadly, this work illustrates the large inaccuracies with which relationship partners perceive each other and has made me believe that there is not one truth that defines a relationship. Partners each have their own experiences of a relationship—in some ways we share our lives but in separate worlds. And this doesn’t get better with time. In fact, while we don’t get more accurate in reading a relationship partner’s thoughts, motivations and behaviours, people often think they do! As a result, our perceptions become more driven by assumptions and we may fail to check in about what a partner is actually experiencing.

Valentine’s day – people either love it or hate it – why do you think this is?

I think that Valentine’s Day—a day on which we’re told to celebrate love—puts up a mirror and whether we like or hate its reflection may depend on whether we like what we see.

Being in a wonderful relationship, completely in love, surely will make this day a lot more enjoyable than when we’re involuntary single, or when a relationship is not going so well. It may also be especially hard for people who are in the middle of processing a romantic break-up – which can hurt in a way that mimics physical pain, so it cuts on a deep level. Valentine’s may be a painful reminder of what one just lost.

Personally, I think traditions like Valentine’s Day and more broadly how relationships are portrayed in pop culture may unfairly make people believe that they need to be in a relationship, to be in a perfect relationship, and for that relationship to be perfect all the time. That simply doesn’t align with reality and by setting the bar so high it’s easy to fall short of expectations. Why buy flowers on Valentine’s Day, paying premium, when you could spontaneously surprise a loved one at any point in time? Positive surprises tend to be more appreciated anyways. 

That being said, we could see days like this just as an opportunity to celebrate what we have, just like we do with birthdays and other anniversaries. Relationships easily get into routines and I think that reminders to take a pause and appreciate what we have should always be welcomed—but perhaps in a way that is authentic to oneself, on people’s own terms. And why limit this appreciation to a romantic partner when we could be celebrating any loved ones in our lives? Yes, romantic partners can profoundly benefit our wellbeing, but so can other close relationships. What matters is that people feel socially connected—having people in their lives who they feel close to, can turn to for support, and can enjoy life with.

What are your future plans for research and public engagement work?

In my future work, I aim to dive deeper into couples’ navigation of larger sacrifices, such as when one partner supports the other’s wish to move to a different city or even country to support their career ambitions. I also aim to look at larger sacrifices stemming from cultural values and lifestyles, such as learning a new language, giving up eating certain foods, or adapting to family traditions.

One reason why I aim to understand such larger sacrifices is because I think that—while they may be especially costly—they may also provide unique opportunities to gain new experiences, learn new things about a partner, ourselves, and the world we live in. The novelty and variety that this may bring can spark experiences of personal growth (often called “self-expansion”), which is a key ingredient to keeping relationships satisfying. I aim to uncover how we can benefit such process in the context of sacrifices; turning an adversity into an opportunity.

Another reason why I aim to better understand couples’ resolution of cultural differences is because I wonder if by learning to engage with each other’s differences at home—a context in which we may be most motivated to do so—we may promote our tolerance and openness to engage with differences in society at large. My hope is that such insights may contribute to combatting polarization and promote integration and mutual inspiration.

To disseminate insights, I love giving talks to general audiences in which I reflect on ways to maintain satisfying relationships, such as maintaining a healthy balance between personal and relationship needs, being responsive to each other’s needs and expressing gratitude, and engaging in novel activities that spark excitement and personal growth. In the future I would also like to do more specific consultancy work, giving scientifically-grounded relationship advice, which I think is especially important given that there’s so much unscientific relationship advice circling around. I would also like to learn more from people’s own experiences and use this as inspiration for my future work, so a more bottom-up approach to address important questions about relationships that matter to people.

Mariko Visserman recently joined the School of Psychology at Sussex after obtaining her PhD in The Netherlands and working as a Postdoctoral Researcher and Lecturer in Canada. You can find out more about Mariko’s work from her Sussex profile and her website www.marikovisserman.com which also includes media articles and infographics illustrating her work.

By Louise Davidson

According to Part Two of the public inquiry into the Manchester Arena Attack, one of the key problems with the response on the night was that the three emergency services failed to act as one team. Instead, the Police, Fire, and Ambulance Services were working as three separate teams.

One aspect of the Manchester Arena Attack that distinguishes it from day-to-day emergencies (e.g., burglaries, small house fires, and heart attacks) is the required joint nature of the response by the Police, Fire, and Ambulance Service. 

The Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP) were established following incident reports that showed persistent challenges in the ability of the emergency services to work effectively together. JESIP aims to improve joint working by providing five principles for responders to follow: co-locate; communicate; co-ordination; joint understanding of risk; and shared situational awareness.

Despite the first doctrine providing these principles being published in 2013, and the second edition being published 10 months before the attack, the inquiry reported “significant failures in relation to each of these principles for joint working on the night of the attack” (p45).

Here are just some examples from the inquiry of how the JESIP principles were not met during the response:

Co-locate: There was no shared location which all the emergency services met. Despite a location being recorded by the Police, it was shared with the Ambulance Service but not shared with the Fire Service until more than an hour later. This shared location was not used by any agency.

Communicate: The Police declared Operation Plato (the phrase used to identify a suspected marauding firearms terrorist attack which triggers a pre-determined multi-agency response), however, this was not shared with anybody outside of the Police until after the last living casualty was removed.

Co-ordination: As a terrorist attack, the Police were the lead agency in the response. Commanders from each service should have been discussing resources and the activities of each agency, as well as agreeing priorities and making joint decisions throughout the incident. A commander from the Fire Service was not present until after the last living casualty had been removed, and whilst a commander from the Ambulance Service was present, they did not make any contact with the Police commander. 

Joint understanding of risk:Rather establishing a joint understanding of risk, the three services made their own risk assessments separately and reached different conclusions.

Shared situational awareness: Those on the scene did not record it as significant that the Fire Service were not present during the first two hours of the response. The Inquiry suggests that the reason for this was due to insufficient realisation on the part of police and ambulance of the contribution fire could have made on the night.

Taken together, these failures in the emergency services to follow the JESIP principles prevented their effective joint working. A vital question that we therefore need to ask is how could the emergency services have been better prepared to jointly respond to the Manchester Arena Attack?

How can group psychology help?

According to the Social Identity Approach, a shared sense of ‘us-ness’ (i.e., a shared identity) between people can facilitate co-ordination and co-operation between them through increasing their psychological sense of inter-connection and common purpose. To be put more simply, a shared sense of ‘us-ness’ can improve group working.

The inquiry suggests that responders involved in the response to the attack did not share a sense of ‘us-ness’ and thus did not respond as one team on the night. Yet, in my previous research I have found that it is possible for responders to share a sense of ‘us-ness’ with each other by making salient the fact they are part of the emergency services. This was made possible through responders from different organizations providing each other with emotional and physical support, as well as them recognizing they were sharing a difficult experience with each other. In addition, I have also found that leaders can play an important role in reinforcing a shared sense of ‘us-ness’ through ensuring common goals are communicated to all responders.

Expanding on this, in one of my recent studies, we conducted discussion-based exercises with responders from the Police, Fire, and Ambulance Services from across the UK where we gave them a scenario of a major incident and asked them to discuss with each other how they would respond. We wanted to know whether or not responders’ sense of ‘us-ness’ was linked to improved joint working in the exercise.

I found that a shared sense of ‘us-ness’ between responders in the exercise was associated with better self-reported joint working. Thus, a shared sense of ‘us-ness’ is linked to improved joint working.   

Furthermore, I identified that joint working was facilitated during the exercise through understanding the roles of the other emergency services present; responders having a shared frame of reference for how they should be responding (e.g., JESIP); having a common language to communicate to each other with; and responders trusting each other. A preprint for this research will be available soon.

What does this mean for future training/preparation?

Based on my research, I argue that a shared sense of ‘us-ness’ should be an important part of a multi-agency response. I have demonstrated that a shared sense of ‘us-ness’ is linked to improved joint working during a discussion-based exercise. Furthermore, I have identified specific factors which are linked to improved joint working. Based on this, I recommend that training and guidance needs to include basic group psychology, such as ways to harness a shared sense of ‘us-ness’ between emergency responders, in addition to the operational guidance it already includes.

I hope this research allows some learning to take place and provides a positive step forward from the challenges identified from the Manchester Arena Attack.

Louise Davidson is a Psychology PhD student at the University of Sussex. Funded by Fire Service Research and Training Trust, Louise’s research takes a social identity approach to understanding and optimizing multi-agency emergency response. Last summer, Louise took part in Soapbox Science on Brighton seafront and shared her experiences in the Blog piece, A PhD, public engagement event, and me . If you are interested to know more about Louise’s research, take a look at her latest publication and practitioner reports. You can also follow Louise on Twitter @loudavidson07.

By Professor Gillian Forrester

My research strives to understand how we became the upright walking, talking, tool-using great apes that we are today – both through the evolution of our species and through the development of infants. I study the behaviours and brains of both neuro-typically and non-neuro-typically developing children and our great ape relatives (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans) and aim to develop comparative research approaches that place human cognitive development within an evolutionary framework.

My most recent project has both a developmental and evolutionary component. It seeks to reveal potential precursor/catalyst behaviours to modern human language. One prevailing theory is that motor action sequences that must be carried out in a hierarchical fashion to solve a problem may have prepared the brain for language syntax. For example, using our hands and tools to solve complex problems that require the solving of sub-goals in order to achieve the over-arching goal can be viewed as a physical syntax – not that different from the syntax found in language. Exaptation, the repurposing of neural regions for new or extended purpose via selection over evolutionary time, means that behaviours that may look different on the surface can still be powered by the shared underlying neural processors.

My research “Hand to Mouth” funded by the Leverhulme Trust is testing this theory using specially developed puzzle boxes that represent a physical syntax, complete with simple solutions for single word use, more complicated puzzles for phrases and the most complex boxes to represent full sentences. These puzzles were then used by gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and children (ages 2-5 years).

To validate our puzzles, we predicted that there would be positive relationship between children’s language level and puzzle solving ability. We also predicted that if non-human great apes can solve the sentence level puzzles then we should presume that humans inherited syntactic capabilities from at least a last common ancestor of extant apes and humans. Stay tuned for our results which will be published in the not-too-distant future!

One of the interesting by-products revealed through the Hand to Mouth project was that providing the puzzles on a voluntary participation basis to captive apes and nursery children afforded a focal point to collect information about enrichment activities, social dynamics, social transmission of information, cognitive ability and even psychological wellbeing. In a recent trip to Liberia, we were able to pilot the use of puzzle boxes with chimpanzees orphaned by the bushmeat trade for these new types of data collection, with a specific focus on behavioural and biological markers of wellbeing. This pilot work will continue in collaboration with sanctuaries, zoos and wild animal parks over the coming months to develop a scale of wellbeing for apes across a range of settings and social groupings in order to facilitate conservation, release and reintroduction programmes.

In addition to my research, I strongly believe public engagement, widening participation and citizen science collaboration activities are integral to 21^st century research. I treat outreach activities as an equal partner to my core responsibilities as a scientist and an educator. I make regular contributions to television (e.g. BBC’s The Incredible Human Hand), radio (e.g. BBC Radio 4, The Shock), podcasts (e.g. Level Up Human), newsprint (e.g. the i), expert panels (e.g. Ei:SMART), web-based news media (e.g. The Conversation, over 600,000 reads) and blogs (e.g. Psychology Today). Recently, I partnered with New Scientist for a video documentary and print piece to showcase cross-species cognitive research in great apes and children (documentary, field notes) and participated in New Scientist Live London in October. In January 2019, I developed the Wellcome Trust and Waterloo Foundation funded Me, Human project to act as an umbrella for all of my public outreach activities. Me, Humans explores how we are connected to the natural world. The inter-institutional Me, Human team have featured at Norwich Science Festival 2021, Bluedot Festival 2022 and Glastonbury Festival 2022.

Gillian Forrester recently joined the School of Psychology at Sussex as Professor of Comparative Cognition. You can find out more about Gillian’s work from her Sussex profile and websites: www.gillianforrester.com and www.mehuman.io.

By Guy Fincham

As part of our school’s green commitment, we have launched a new ‘Train over Plane’ travel fund which supports travel to conferences by train instead of plane. PhD student, Guy Fincham, has been one of the first to try it out, and shares his thoughts on the experience for a recent trip to the Netherlands.

I travelled to Amsterdam/Haarlem in the Netherlands for ICPR 2022 (Interdisciplinary Conference on Psychedelic Research), and primarily for a workshop the day before on breathwork as this is my research focus (Breathwork as Psychedelic Therapy).

I had a profound experience that I could never have imagined nor expected from breathwork (and so much more). I have undergone a personal paradigm shift and have gained an increasingly newfound respect for the therapeutic potential of breathwork as/for psychedelic therapy. The experience was invaluable and has made me view psychedelic breathwork under a new lens, which will benefit my future research and work.

Moreover, I connected with researchers and clinicians, some of whom were very interested in The Breathwork Survey I am working on with the Psychedelic Research Group at Imperial College London. It was a lot of fun and had some lovely down regulation time the day after it had all finished.

I wanted to use the Train over Plane fund as train is my favourite form of transport by far and is fortunately more eco-friendly than flying (saving up to 90% of the carbon emissions). I’ve never been on Eurostar before so was glad to find out they travel to Amsterdam. For the first journey I changed at Brussels, and the return leg was direct. Another great thing is that trains between Brighton and London St Pancras International are direct.

Although the journeys took around two working days (one there, one back), I particularly enjoyed the comfort of travelling by train (compared with flying), feeling much less restricted and freer. I also made friends with a lecturer at Kings College London on their way to a conference in Utrecht. I’d encourage everyone at the Sussex School of Psychology to use the Train over Plane fund if travelling within the UK and/or mainland Europe.

Looking forward to ICPR 2024 now. Hopefully there will be some research being presented on breathwork this time!

I’d like to thank the Open Foundation and Open Up for organising the ICPR conference and (breath)workshop, respectively, the Ryoichi Sasakawa Young Leaders Fellowship Fund (Sylff Association, Tokyo) as my funder and making this all possible, Charlotte Rae and Harry Lewis for setting up the Train over Plane fund, along with Mitzi Tahsin and Fran Barnard for assistance when booking through the Key Travel platform.

Thank you for reading. Set and setting.

By Alice Stanton

September was World Alzheimer’s Month, an international event run by Alzheimer’s Disease International to spread awareness and challenge the stigmas that surround Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia. Alzheimer’s is a degenerative neurological condition that is currently affecting more than 944,000 people in the UK and Alzheimer’s disease accounts for 60-70% of these cases. Alzheimer’s is progressive and, currently, irreversible with treatment limited to alleviating the symptoms and delaying the progression of the disease. But it isn’t all doom and gloom! Research is currently being done at the University of Sussex on the detection of preclinical dementia or dementia that presents neurologically before any cognitive symptoms are displayed. Although dementia is most commonly detected in people over the age of 65, I will soon be starting work on a PhD project that is motivated by research that has suggested that onset often begins long before detection and diagnosis! A preclinical diagnosis could lead to better and closer monitoring of the disease’s progression which could give patients and their loved ones more time to make choices about the future. As well as giving people more time to make choices, preventative action to slow the progression of dementia can be taken. I hope that my own research can help to make preclinical diagnosis more widely available. Earlier this year, I was accepted for the PhD project: Flower, flora, fauna run by Dr Claire Lancaster, Professor Naji Tabet and Professor Jennifer Rusted. The project asks whether novel metrics of verbal fluency performance can help to detect individuals at risk of future cognitive decline.

I come to the project from a background in linguistics and while previous research has established that there are links between impairment in linguistic processes and dementia, the PhD I will be working on will look specifically at whether patterns of words produced on a verbal fluency task can identify individuals vulnerable to future cognitive decline. A verbal fluency task is, most commonly, a task in which people are asked to produce words that either relate to a category (i.e., Animals – horse, cow, cat, dog) or start with the same letter (i.e., spoon, seat, sofa, sign) for 60 seconds. By measuring not only how many unique words a participant can relay in the given time but also the time taken to switch between broad clusters (i.e., animals to furniture), and internal clusters (i.e., farm animals to pets), as well as the amount of time between words and the length of the phonemes at the end of words, we can hope to find a link between language production on verbal fluency tasks and patients vulnerable to future cognitive decline. The project is funded by a studentship which is 50% funded by the NHS SPFT and I am extremely excited to work in clinics across East Sussex with patients right at the point where they seek medical guidance. Once the data is collected, computational tools will help in the measurement and analysis of the verbal fluency tests including measurements such as counting cluster switches (the switches between clusters of words i.e., from farm animals to pets), cluster sizes (the number of words in each cluster), incorrect responses (words that do not relate to the category given or have the correct first letter), and word frequencies (the number of times a single word is used). Using this interdisciplinary style I hope that my grounding in linguistics, knowledge of natural language processing and passion for finding a method to detect those vulnerable to future cognitive decline will help to aid diagnosis and prognosis in real-world health settings. 

This is my first week at the University and I am currently writing this from the library on campus! I have been to all of my master’s introductions as well as some PhD student introduction events and, although the journey ahead is a long one, I’m so thankful to be going down the road with some brilliant and supportive people. I’m looking forward to seeing what we can all achieve together to help pre-empt a dementia diagnosis and support not only the people affected by Alzheimer’s but also the family and friends of patients to make diagnosis a less scary prospect. 

Alice Stanton is studying the MSc in Cognitive Neuroscience at Sussex and is working alongside Dr Claire Lancaster, Professor Naji Tabet and Professor Jennifer Rusted on the PhD project, Flower, flora, fauna.

By Ian Hadden

In the Summer, I attended the 2022 annual conference of the International Society of Political Psychology (ISPP). This took place over four days in a very sweaty Athens and was a pretty mad event, with over 850 delegates attending nine parallel sessions at a time. For me there were two standouts.

The first was a ‘commemorating panel’ in honour of Jim Sidanius, of whom, I freely admit, I had never heard. However, with Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington of the LSE as chair I couldn’t miss it, and I now know that Sidanius was a giant of social psychology whose book, Social Dominance, changed her life. This was plenty endorsement for me to buy a second-hand copy (new ones are expensive). Jennifer is an incredibly articulate advocate for people who are living with limited economic resources. She argues that expecting people in these circumstances to adapt their mindsets—like taking a longer-term perspective or adopting a more internal locus of control—entirely misses the point. The reality is, they have a short-term perspective and external locus of control because their daily experience is one of trying to meet their needs when they don’t have enough. To echo Bill Clinton’s campaign slogan of 1992—it’s the environment, stupid. Jennifer points out what might seem obvious to many: people need to have their needs met in a stable way if they are going to have real control over their life circumstances and a future worth investing in.

An unexpected bonus in the Jim Sidanius panel was a talk by Stacey Sinclair, whom I and my very impressive PhD colleague Lewis Doyle have been citing with abandon without realising who she was. Stacey presented her research on how universities’ diversity and inclusion practices can actually accentuate existing racial disparities if the rationale for those practices is instrumental (i.e., to provide educational benefits) rather than as a matter of moral justice. And the sight of an eminent professor trotting down the aisle with a mic for an audience member during the Q&A typified the sheer good-naturedness of the conference.

My other standout was dinner with the members of our symposium on inequalities in educational outcomes. There were five of us, two of whom I knew well—Lewis, and my fantastic supervisor, Matt Easterbrook—and two of whom I didn’t—Anatolia Batruch and Céline Darnon. Initially, however, I experienced a sense of foreboding, as the conversation tunnelled relentlessly into a detailed history of System Justification Theory. “What’s that?”, I wondered as I nodded silently and tried to look intelligent. What will be the next academic rabbit hole they go down about which I know nothing? How long is this dinner? Well, it turned out that my fears were unfounded. We had a tremendous evening with conversation ranging from regional accents (taking in a cross-cultural and class perspective, naturally) to the challenges of recruiting schools for large-scale studies, via tips on layering in cold weather (thank you for the technical follow-up, Anatolia). What an impressive and generous bunch my confrères and consœurs are.

Our symposium had been shunted unceremoniously to the last slot on the last day (a Sunday, to boot), and straw polling confirmed what we already knew—that most people would have cleared off home by then. Our expectations of filling the room to the rafters were low, and were duly met. But the diehards who turned out in support (thank you!) seemed to find what we had to say interesting, and we closed the conference with sweaty hands, glad hearts and plenty of food for thought and action.

Ian Hadden researches how social psychological interventions can reduce group-based educational inequalities in schools. He previously helped public and private sector organisations, including the Department for Education, define and deliver large-scale programmes of change.

By Georgina Ogborn, BSc Psychology Graduate

My third-year dissertation project at Sussex was the culmination of my university studies and an important step towards realising my ambition to work in the field of clinical psychology. My project investigated the topic of barbershops as a community setting to support male mental health during the Covid-19 pandemic. This topic is important because around one in eight men experience mental health difficulties, yet most do not seek help and men are under-represented in mental health service referrals. Previous research has shown that barbers can successfully raise awareness about conditions such as hypertension and prostate cancer, building on the tradition of barbershops as a supportive environment where men can talk openly about health and personal issues. There is now growing interest in situating mental health promotion and prevention activities in barbershops. Such community-based settings are particularly important in the context of disrupted mental health care provision and surging mental health problems during the Covid-19 pandemic. Hence, my project addressed three questions: how do barbers prefer to engage with their male clients in relation to mental health issues? Second, what mental health impacts have been observed by barbers during the Covid-19 pandemic? And third, what is the scope for providing formal mental health support in barbershops?

I carried out my dissertation project in a group with three other Psychology undergraduates, working under the supervision of Dr Daniel Michelson, who is a Clinical Psychologist and Senior Lecturer at Sussex. In the first instance, Daniel directed us towards background reading on community mental health approaches and provided feedback on our planned research design and specific research questions. By working together, my fellow group members and I were able to pool efforts and identify and contact barbers remotely at a time when Covid-19 had disrupted ‘business as usual’ for barbershops. In total, we collected data from 30 barbers using an online qualitative survey. In a second phase of the project, three of the survey respondents were interviewed to verify our findings and explore practice implications. An initial qualitative coding framework was developed jointly by our group and refined in supervision meetings with Daniel. We were then individually responsible for finalising our own thematic analysis and write-up.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the survey responses, interviewing barbers, and thematically analysing the data. The analysis was a chance to explore lived experiences, reflect on their meanings and wider significance, and develop suitable recommendations for further research and practice. I was struck by the care and compassion that barbers expressed towards their clients, as well as their openness on the subject of their own mental health. Indeed, several of the participating barbers mentioned how they had experienced depression and anxiety during the pandemic themselves.

The findings were organised into three overarching themes. The first, ‘more than a haircut’, described how the physical and relational contexts of barbershops can offer a supportive environment for clients. The second, ‘impacts of COVID-19’, described stressors related to the pandemic and implications for clients’ mental health and barber-client relationships. The third, ‘formal mental health strategies’, described opportunities for, and potential barriers to, formalising mental health support in barbershops. Barbers highlighted the difficulties faced by clients, particularly the loss of social contacts – including those afforded through customary visits for haircuts. Many barbers expressed their interest in receiving formal training to recognise mental health problems and ‘sign-post’ clients to appropriate services. On the other hand, some participants expressed concern about overstepping professional boundaries, and potentially impacting upon confidentiality. The feasibility of fitting formal mental health initiatives around workplace demands was also questioned by some barbers. Future work is needed to develop credible and resource-efficient initiatives that harness the ability of barbers to build and sustain supportive relationships with men who may not otherwise engage with conventional mental health services. More generally, the study reaffirmed the value of community assets and social connections for promoting positive mental health and helping people to recover from episodes of mental ill-health. 

After handing in the dissertation in May 2021, I was really pleased when Daniel raised the possibility of revising the dissertation report into a journal paper. He explained how writing for publication differs in important ways from a dissertation project, particularly in terms of the need for concision and the process of academic peer review. During the summer of 2021, I took lead in drafting and redrafting the paper. By the end of January 2022, the manuscript was finally ready to be submitted to our chosen journal, BJPsych Open (the sister journal of the British Journal of Psychiatry) for peer review. We received anonymised comments from reviewers in March and submitted a revised draft in May. By June, the paper was finally accepted and published online.

My experience of the dissertation project has enabled me to strengthen key research skills, including conducting evidence-based literature searches, collecting and critically analysing data, and drafting reports. These skills have been essential for planning and carrying out audits and service evaluations in my current job as a Senior Assistant Psychologist for Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. My role involves developing the new ‘Complex Emotional Difficulties Pathway’ for people presenting with personality difficulties and complex trauma. Looking further ahead, I am sure that the knowledge and skills developed through my dissertation will be of great value as I work towards my goal of training as a Clinical Psychologist. I would encourage all third-year students to see their dissertation project as a great learning opportunity, and also an experience that can contribute directly to your career aspirations.

If you are interested in finding out more about my experience, please watch the video below.

Georgina Ogborn is a BSc Psychology graduate (Class of 2021) and currently works as a Senior Assistant Psychologist at Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. Here Georgina shares her experience of conducting and publishing her undergraduate dissertation, and discusses how it relates to her career aspirations. Click below to watch a short video produced by Georgina:

The paper mentioned in this blog is available through the citation below:

Ogborn, G., Bowden-Howe, C., Burd, P., Kleijn, M., & Michelson, D. (2022). Barbershops as a setting for supporting men’s mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study from the UK. BJPsych Open, 8(4), E118. doi:10.1192/bjo.2022.520

By Chloe Ilsley

After several years of not being able to celebrate our graduates and their achievements, this year we were finally able to do so! On 21st July 2022, the Psychology Student Experience Team hosted the Finalist Party, and all graduates were invited from 2020 – 2022.

The Finalist Party took place the morning of the Class of 2022 graduation ceremony. It was a great day for celebration as the sun was shining and the sky was clear, this was perfect for the garden party theme. The Meeting House and its unforgettable colourful windows were the backdrop to the party. We wanted our Finalists to see the iconic building for one last time as we know it’ll be an image they will remember from Sussex for years to come.

The Meeting House Lawns had various places to enjoy the celebration, whether that was taking up a game of Jenga on one of the picnic blankets or sitting on the brightly coloured square sofas nestled under the trees. The gentle breeze moved the colourful pompoms and streamers in the trees overhead.

The months of planning were rewarded by seeing beautifully dressed students with their families and friends, hearing them laugh and share stories with one another. It’s a special moment to share with students and one we don’t take for granted. It’s been a long time since campus has been a place for events like this so it’s great to see it again and we already look forward to the next one.

The party was attended by many faculty members, excited to see their students after a few months of working together on research projects. Head of School, Robin Banerjee, shared some words with the attendees, and from this, you could see how proud he was of everyone stood in front of him. Robin was thrilled to announce this year’s finalist prize winners to the crowd as it was the first year in a few that he was able to award these in-person.

Double prize winner, Alessandra Giuliani shared her thoughts on winning the prestigious awards and explained how a specific event had inspired the idea for her prize-winning dissertation which explores issues around street harassment:

“The idea for my dissertation project, stemmed from an actual situation. I was in my second year when the case of Sarah Everard happened. Being a psychology student, I was interested to know what psychological factors lead someone to perpetrate street harassment acts as those can lead to more severe crimes.

Surprisingly, I noticed that the current literature mainly focused on street harassment’s consequences on the victim and not on the perpetrators. Therefore, I started reading about potential factors that could predispose someone to street harass women. Drawing from other research areas, I tested and found that cognitive empathy and social dominance orientation are linked to one’s acceptance of street harassment behaviours.

I did not know we could get awarded prizes at the end of our degree. It was a delightful discovery for me since having your job recognized is extremely rewarding.

During my third year, I genuinely felt overwhelmed by it all and I did not think I would have reached a first-class mark in my dissertation project. This demonstrates that winning a prize is within everyone’s reach as long as you work consistently.

Awarding students is a beautiful initiative as it makes us feel that our hard work does not go unnoticed.“

Another of our prize-winners, Wesley Wong, also expressed his delight at having been awarded the Allison Jolly Prize for the Best Final Year Project in Comparative Psychology:

“I am really happy and honoured on winning the Allison Jolly prize. It felt like hard work really pay off in the end, but I couldn’t have done this without the tremendous support from my dissertation supervisor Dr Sarah King and academic supervisor Prof Martin Yeomans. So, a massive thanks to both of them for supporting me through my study. I am genuinely very interested in topics related to mental health. Therefore, I chose anxiety as my dissertation topic. The area of research aims to develop anxiolytic drugs with fewer side effects, and my dissertation evaluated the physiological effects produced by a developing anxiolytic drug – compound X. The result shows that compound X is effective as a non-sedative anxiolytic drug.“

It was wonderful hearing from Robin about all of the prize-winners and we congratulate them all. The winning projects cover an array of topics within Psychology, ranging from Criminology, Developmental, Mental Health & Wellbeing and more. The range of projects demonstrates that at Sussex, students can be recognised for their work from any psychological discipline.

Elouisa Huitson, the Student Experience Officer for Psychology Student Experience shared:

“It was lovely to see the prize winners colleting their certificate and enjoying the event with their family before heading to graduation. Thanks to all of the students who attended, we wish you all the best!“

It has been years since we’ve been able to host celebration events so this year will always be held as extra special. We’re really proud of all our students, as beginning a degree during a pandemic isn’t what you’d envisage when applying for University but instead of letting it phase them, you all embraced change and achieved your goals anyway!

Go over to our instagram to see the mini blog the team have put together of the event!

About the Author:

Chloe Ilsley, Student Experience Coordinator.

Chloe works within the School of Psychology’s Student Experience Team. She is a recent BSc Psychology with Education Graduate from the class of 2020.

By Psychology PhD student, Louise Davidson

The Science of Teamwork

Teamwork is something that most of us engage in every day – for example, within a work team or a sports team. We know the members of our teams… their names, their strengths, their weaknesses, and their role within the team. We consider them to be part of ‘us’.

There is an abundance of evidence to show that when we feel like we belong to a team, we generally work well with its members. This sense of ‘us-ness’ provides a strong basis for coordination and cooperation that is vital for teamwork through providing team members with shared goals and norms, as well as expectations of support from each other.

However, alongside the teams that we belong to, there are also often others that we don’t. Rather than being part of ‘us’, they are seen as ‘them’.

But what happens when we find ourselves having to work with ‘them’? Is it possible to overcome this ‘us-them’ divide? And, if so, how?

Working together to save lives

This is exactly the challenge faced by emergency services in the UK when they tackle major incidents. In contrast to other emergencies, like a small fire or minor burglary, major incidents exceed the capabilities of any single emergency service to handle on its own.

Consider, for example, the Manchester Arena Attack in 2017, where a bomb went off at the end of a music concert, killing 22 people. Here, vital information about the nature of the incident wasn’t shared between the emergency services, resulting in the Fire Service being kept away from the scene for a considerable length of time.

In incidents like Manchester Arena, the Police, Fire, and Ambulance Services need to work together to save lives and reduce harm. But how can they do this, when in most situations the members of each of these different services see the other two services as ‘them’, rather than as ‘us’?

This is a critical question, and one that I have been seeking to answer in my doctoral research, and one that I tried to explain during the Soapbox Science Event in May.

Soapbox Science, 2022

After taking part in the virtual Soapbox Science event in 2021, I was so excited to have the opportunity to take part in the in-person event this year. On a beautifully sunny day in May, I turned up on Brighton seafront, wooden sticks and playballs in tow. Having never done an event like this before, I was slightly apprehensive as to what to expect. However, as soon as I stood on the soapbox and began talking to members of the public and seeing their engagement, I felt instantly at ease.

Kids were drawn to the game I had created which involved three people representing Blue, Red, or Green Team (Police, Fire, and Ambulance, respectively). First, they had to work on their own get their colour balls out of the box and into their bucket using a stick. Then, they were able to work together. We counted the balls in the buckets to determine whether working as a team was more effective than working alone.

Interestingly, in some cases, people did not perform better when they worked as a team. But I explored why this was – in those cases, they didn’t communicate, they didn’t strategize, and they continued working as individuals (despite being allowed to work together).

I was able to use this as a starting point for talking about teamwork within the emergency services, as discussed above.  

The thing I enjoyed most about soapbox science is sharing my passion for my research with members of the public – seeing both children and adults getting involved and excited and hopefully sparking some passion in them too, as well as showing young girls that they can have a career in science. I would like to thank the organisers of this event for giving me the opportunity to be there.

About me

My name is Louise and I have just gone into the third year of my PhD in the School of Psychology at the University of Sussex. Alongside my studies, I also work as a research assistant in the Behavioural Science and Insights Unit at the UK Health Security Agency.

My passion for emergency response stemmed from my Masters degree in Investigative and Forensic Psychology at the University of Liverpool. Here I learned about the persistent challenges that emergency responders face during major incident response, and the subsequent impact this then has on their ability to respond and help those in need. At the same time as conducting my Masters, the Manchester Arena Attack took place, and I knew from that moment that I wanted to pursue a career where I could help in these situations.

Whilst we won’t be able to prevent all major incidents from occurring, this research helps us understand why challenges with multi-agency response occur, and importantly what can be done to prevent them re-occurring in the future. This understanding is so important in order to facilitate a more effective emergency response to major incidents in the future and, ultimately, save lives.

Find out more about Louise’s research from her publication, preprint, and practitioner reports. You can also follow Louise on Twitter @loudavidson07.