Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research's podcast series, "Doing Translational Research," May 2, 2018
It's our 20th episode! This seemed like a good moment to address a question we often hear: What is translational research?
To tackle this important question Karl is joined by BCTR associate director John Eckenrode. They cover the origins of translational research, and how it differs from "basic" and "applied" research. There are some examples of translational research projects and throughout the conversation they touch on why this research method is so effective and more and more in-demand by funders, policymakers and practitioners.
John Eckenrode is a social psychologist and professor of human development and associate director of the Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research. He is also founder and co-director of the National Data Archive of Child Abuse and Neglect. His research concerns child abuse and neglect, the effects of preventive interventions, translational research, and stress and coping processes.
Robert Sternberg was interviewed on October 9, 2018 for the podcast, What Makes Us Human? from Cornell University's College of Arts & Sciences. This is the podcast's third season, "What Do We Know About Love?" and Dr. Sternberg discusses his "Triangular Theory of Love."
I became interested in love when I was in a failing relationship (regrettably, one of several in my lifetime). I wondered what was wrong. I thought back to some of the relationships in my life I would have labeled at one time or another as “loving.”
The first was with a little girl I’ll call Joan, when I was in early elementary school. We could talk about anything. We even planned to be King and Queen of the world, and everyone except us would have to go around naked. We communicated well, cared about each other, felt like we could count on each other. In sum, Joan and I were truly intimate with each other, although of course strictly in a Platonic sense. After all, we were just 5 years old at the time!
The second relationship was with Jane (also not her real name). I saw Jane sitting in front of me in high school biology class and immediately fell head over heels for her. That year of school I obsessed over Jane. I could think of no one and nothing else. But it was totally one-sided. She had no interest in me, and when she met the captain of the soccer team at a New Year’s Eve party, I was totally out of the picture. What I felt for Jane was passion—infatuated love—but there was no intimacy. We even hardly spoke to each other.
The third relationship was with a woman I’ll call Joanne. The relationship started off well enough. But as time went on, it cooled. We seemed to be on different life paths and our understanding of each other got worse by the day. For a long time, we stayed with it, despite the fact that the relationship had tanked. Eventually, feeling commitment but little more, we split up.
These three relationships formed the basis for what I came to call a “triangular theory of love.” The basic idea is that love has three components: intimacy (as with Joan), passion (as with Jane), and commitment (as with Joanne). Each component contributes to the overall experience of love. And different combinations of components yield different kinds of love. Intimacy alone yields liking. Passion alone produces infatuated love. Commitment alone yields what I call empty love. Intimacy plus passion, without commitment, gives you romantic love. Intimacy plus commitment, but without passion, produces companionate love. Passion plus commitment, but without intimacy, gives you what I call fatuous or foolish love. And intimacy, passion, and commitment all combined yield consummate or complete love.
I devised a scale to measure each of the components of love, and then did what is called “construct validation,” testing both the theory and the scale with adult subjects around New Haven, Connecticut. We learned two important things. The first thing we learned wasn’t surprising: it turned out that more of each of the three components—intimacy, passion, and commitment—is associated with greater success and happiness in a relationship. But the second thing we learned was more surprising and more important: we found that relationships tend to be more successful when partners’ triangles match -- when each partner is looking for more or less the same thing. For example, if both partners value intimacy and passion but are not yet ready to commit, that will augur well for the relationship. But if one partner seeks intimacy and the other craves passion, things are not likely to work out all so well. Compatibility matters—a lot.
So what should you look for in a partner? Most of all, look for someone who wants the same things out of a relationship that you do. In that way, you ensure that what you mean by love and what your partner means by love are, more or less, the same thing. You will then have so much more reason to stay together!https://soundcloud.com/cornellcas/a-triangular-theory
Ira Flatow, host of NPR's Science Friday, discusses a recently published paper which HD's Valerie Reyna co-authored as part of a collaboration between researchers at Cornell University and University of Pennsylvania.
Dr. Loeckenhoff received her undergraduate degree from the University of Marburg, Germany and her Ph.D. from Stanford University. She completed a post-doctoral fellowship in the intramural research program of the National Institute on Aging before joining Cornell University in 2009. She was recognized as a Rising Star by the Association for Psychological Science in 2011 and received the Margret M. and Paul B. Baltes Foundation Award in Behavioral and Social Gerontology from the Gerontological Society of America in 2014. In 2013, her efforts in teaching gerontology were honored by a SUNY Chancellors Award for Teaching Excellence.
Most of us would agree that when we woke up this morning, we were the same person we were yesterday, and we will still be the same person tomorrow. But what about longer time intervals? Are we still the same person we were a year ago? Will we still be the same person 10 years from now? The term self-continuity refers to our perceived connections with our past and future selves, and self-continuity declines as we move away from the present. In fact, when we’re thinking of the distant past or future, it almost feels like we’re thinking about a different person.
Some recent work in our lab sheds new light on patterns of self-continuity. The study was the first to assess both past and future self-continuity and it covered time intervals from 1 month to 10 years. We found that past and future self-continuity are symmetrical: people who feel more similar to their past are more connected to their future as well. Also, most people view themselves as gradually emerging from the past and then slowly slipping away into the future without any sudden increases or drop-offs. Finally, we found that self-continuity increases with age. Younger people tend to see themselves as suspended between a distant past and an unknown future whereas older people are more likely to view themselves as part of an extended present.
These findings have practical implications: Prior studies have found that people who feel less connected to their future selves are worse at financial planning and more likely to behave in ways that jeopardize their future. At the same time, feeling immersed in an extended present could lead people to resist change and turn down promising opportunities.
So it turns out that who we are depends on where we have been and where we are going, and regardless of our age we should try to balance a sense of continuity with flexibility and openness for change.
What is love – and what does it have to do with meeting a bear in the woods? In the first of a five-part series, Dr Kevin Fong and Nathalie Nahai unpick the causes of emotions. But where’s the best place to start – history, culture, society or our bodies?
There’s the evolutionary theory, the internal theory looking at the physiological and cognitive side, and also cultural and social factors that have an impact on how we understand feelings. But first they’ll have to pin down a useful definition of what an emotion actually is …