I studied how hostile and benevolent language influences one’s ability to change their misconceptions. Participants were less likely to revise their misconceptions when reading tweets with hostile language than those exposed to benevolent language, which stresses adopting a neutral or benevolent tone to increase the likelihood of successful revision. This may be due to a shift of memory resources from the less engaging Tweet information to the more engaging, evocative hostile language.

Early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic introduced a change in communication norms in regard to well-being. People traversed through different forms of communication to adapt to policies and regulations that limited in-person interactions to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Social interactions have been found to be an innate human need, important to one’s health and well-being. The study looked at the relationship between socializing and well-being during the state of the COVID-19 pandemic. Socializing variables consisted of remote and in-person socializing which in-person socializing was divided into two distinct categories. In-person socializing was divided into in-person safe socializing, indicating socializing that was safe from the risk of contracting the virus, and in-person unsafe socializing which indicates that socializing was at risk of contracting the virus. Additionally, the current study also investigated how age moderates this relationship between socializing and well-being. SEM analyses reported that in-person unsafe socializing has a significant positive association with well-being outcomes: anxiety and depression which indicate high levels of anxiety and depression with increased in-person unsafe socializing. The study also found remote socializing to have a significant positive association with the well-being outcome: positive affect, indicating increased levels of positive affect with increased remote socializing. Regression analyses looked at moderation by age, finding no significant interactions of age between socializing and well-being. Findings suggest the beneficial role of remote socializing and although remote socializing cannot replace in-person interactions, it serves as a supplemental resource during unpredictable events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many studies indicate a positive relationship between fundamentalism and sexual and racial prejudice. Many of these studies use the Religious Fundamentalism Scale (RFS), the Attitudes Towards Homosexuals Scale (ATHS) and the Manitoba Scale. However, there appears to be overlap between RFS and both ATHS and the Manitoba Scale, unaddressed by the literature. This study looked at possible overlaps between RFS and ATHS and between RFS and the Manitoba Scale that could inflate the correlation statistic of fundamentalism and sexual and racial prejudice. The Intratextual Fundamentalism Scale (IFS), a study without authoritarian or apparent prejudice-overlapping items, was also tested for overlap. Results showed two-factor structures—namely fundamentalism and prejudice—with only two items loading to the opposite factor. However, there were many near-zero item loadings. The discussion suggests ways to change these items to increase factor loadings and to change overall measures construct validity. The correlations between fundamentalism and sexual prejudice were not significant before modifying the measures and were small and negative after modifying (modifying measures means removing all crossloaded and near-zero loaded items). The modified fundamentalism and sexual prejudice measures correlations do not follow the literature. This may be due to the sample including sexual orientation minorities and a majority of atheist, agnostic, or ‘nothing in particular’ affiliations. The correlations between fundamentalism and racial prejudice were medium and positive before modifying and were small and positive after modifying. This falls in line with the literature of small and medium positive correlation statistics.

College students are exposed to stress accumulating from daily challenges, personal relationships, financial struggles, and academic pressure. Stressors can challenge an individual to perform better or serve as a hindrance to academic achievement, depending on the individual’s perception of stressors and capacity to overcome them (Lepine et al., 2004). Optimal levels of stress are beneficial to managing responsibilities in a timely manner, while unmanageable levels of stress can negatively impact motivation and achievement. Higher levels of negatively perceived stress could have measurable consequences on academic outcomes, including lower motivation and lower achievement. This study focuses on examining the prospective relationship between levels of college stress and the academic outcomes, accounting for individual differences in vulnerability to stress. Specifically, I examined whether the associations between stress (T2) and academic outcomes (T3) were moderated by earlier (T1) levels of economic hardship and effortful control as risk and resilience factors, respectively. I predicted that higher levels of college stress would be associated with lower academic motivation and performance. I expected that higher effortful control would show a stronger association between higher academic motivation and achievement with lower college stress levels. I also predicted that higher levels of familial economic hardship would exacerbate the influence of college stress on lower academic motivation and achievement. This study utilized data collected from survey measures administered to students during the transition from high school to college. Results demonstrated a significant negative association between increased college stress and higher academic outcomes. A lack of significant interactions propose that economic hardship does not have negative effects on academic outcomes. The findings of this study will help universities to support students experiencing detrimental levels of stress to improve later academic outcomes.