stanford university phd psychology

PSYCH-PHD - Psychology (PhD)

Program overview.

There are no specific course requirements for admission to the doctoral program. Nevertheless, an applicant should have prior research experience and the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree. The Department of Psychology does not require the GRE for admission. The doctoral program’s primary focus is research training, and admission is highly selective.

In addition to fulfilling Stanford University requirements for the degree, the following departmental requirements are stipulated.

The Doctoral Training Program

A student typically concentrates in one of several areas within Psychology. Across all areas, the training program emphasizes the development of research competence, and students are encouraged to develop skills and attitudes appropriate to a career of continuing research productivity.

Two kinds of experience are necessary for this purpose. One is learning substantial amounts of theoretical, empirical, computational, and methods information. Several courses and seminars are provided to assist in this learning, and students are expected to construct a program in consultation with their advisor(s) to obtain this knowledge in the most stimulating and economical fashion.

A second aspect of training cannot be gained from the courses or seminars. This is first-hand knowledge of, and practical experience with, the methods of psychological investigation and study. Therefore, students are expected to spend half their time on research and take no more than ten units of coursework per quarter, beginning in the first quarter.

Students achieve competence in unique ways and at different rates. Students and advisors work together to plan a program leading to the objectives discussed above. For further information, contact the student services manager and refer to the Department Graduate Guide on the  Psychology Department website .

The Stanford Psychology Department values a shared appreciation of the full range of approaches and research questions spanned by the department’s five areas . The department seeks to train scientists who are well-prepared to pursue careers that build on their training in any one of these areas and who can interact with researchers in other fields of Psychology. Therefore, students within each department area are expected to construct a program of study in consultation with their primary advisor that includes exposure to other areas in the department while also achieving sufficient depth within their area of specialization to prepare them for their next career stage after graduating.

Free Form Requisites

Requirements

Professional Seminar Requirement

During the first quarter of graduate study, students must take  course  Professional Seminar for First-Year Ph.D. Graduate Students.

Core Course Requirement

Students must take four core courses, each from a different area of the Psychology department: Affective Science, Cognitive Science, Developmental Psychology, Neuroscience, and Social Psychology, as listed below. All core courses must be taken for a letter grade for three units and passed with a B- or better grade. Students are expected to complete four core courses by the end of the third year.

Consistent with the program’s goal of fostering breadth and engagement across all areas of the department, students are encouraged to take all five core courses spanning the five areas of the department. If a student takes five core courses, the units and grade of the fifth course are counted toward the student’s advanced units.

Students may be required by their advisors to take up to two additional graduate courses in their area of specialization. In these cases, the other courses are counted toward the advanced units requirement described below. Students should consult with their advisor about any additional requirements in their area of specialization. 

Quantitative Methods Course Requirement

Students are required to take two of the following Quantitative Methods courses:

At least one of these courses must be taken in the first year, and both should be completed by the end of the second year. Quantitative methods courses must be taken for a letter grade and passed with a B- or better grade.

In the case that a student has already taken similar graduate-level coursework, with the consent of the advisor, the student may petition to substitute an alternative course for one of the two required courses; for example, to take 252 and 253 but not 251, or to take 251 and another upper-division statistics course. Petitions must be submitted to the department’s student services office and approved by the department’s Director of Graduate Studies (DGS).

Students who did not take an undergraduate course in statistics should take PSYCH 10 (STATS 60) in the earliest possible quarter within the first year; this is a prerequisite to any graduate statistics course.

Advanced Units or Ph.D. Minor Requirement

Students must complete 12 units of advanced graduate coursework, referred to as advanced units (AU). Students earn AU by taking: (a) non-core graduate psychology courses and/or (b) graduate-level courses in other departments comparable in quality to graduate courses offered by the Psychology Department. If there is any question about the comparability of courses, the student should consult the advisor, student services, and, in some cases, the graduate program committee chair before taking the course.

Courses taken for a letter grade must receive a B- or better to count toward the advanced units requirement. Students may request to count up to 3 units of undergraduate-level coursework toward the AU requirement. The advisor should support the request, and the undergraduate course must be substantive and relevant to the student’s graduate research. Requests to count undergraduate-level coursework must be submitted to the student services manager and may be adjudicated by the Director of Graduate Studies and/or the Graduate Program Committee.

A student may complete a PhD minor in another department instead of the advanced units requirement. Students pursuing a minor should register this decision with the student services manager.

Advanced units and/or PhD minors must be completed by the end of the fourth year. The department expects all decisions related to the AUs or the PhD minor to be made in close consultation with the student’s advisor.

The goals of the graduate program in the Stanford Psychology Department are twofold. First, it aims to develop researchers who are expert scholars in their dissertations. The program expects graduates to be fluent in theoretical foundations and debates, empirical findings, and methods of their respective fields. Second, it aims to guide and foster students’ development of an original research program that significantly advances knowledge in their specialization. Therefore, the research requirements, implemented in a series of milestones, are intended to help students obtain the necessary research experience, receive expert and constructive feedback from their primary advisor(s) and their committee, and ensure the successful completion of their dissertation research at the end of the program.

Students are expected to spend at least half of their time engaged in research from the beginning of the first year of graduate study to the completion of the PhD, taking no more than ten units of coursework each quarter.

First Year Project (FYP)

At the end of their first year of graduate study, students must submit a written report of their first-year research activities, called the First Year Project (FYP). This report should resemble a journal article in their area. It is written in consultation with their advisor. The FYP proposal is due at the end of autumn quarter. The final FYP is due on June 1 of the first year. First-year students must also work with their advisor to identify a second FYP reader (another Psychology faculty member) by the end of October in autumn quarter of the first year. Both the advisor and the second FYP reader are expected to read the FYP and provide the student with constructive feedback. It is recommended that students meet with their FYP readers in the summer of the first year to receive feedback.

Dissertation Reading Committee

Students are expected to form a research committee, including the dissertation reading committee, before initiating their dissertation research. The research committee includes the dissertation advisor and at least two additional faculty members, for three members, at least two of whom should have primary appointments in the Psychology Department. See  Graduate Degrees for university guidelines for the composition of the dissertation reading committee.

Students must form the committee and submit the Dissertation Reading Committee form to the student services manager by February 1 of the third year.

Third-Year Committee Meeting and Research Plan

Students are required to meet with their committee annually beginning in their third year. For the annual committee meetings, if a member of the student’s regular committee is unavailable (e.g., on sabbatical), the student should recruit another department faculty member to attend instead.

Students must meet with their committee in winter or spring quarter of the third year no later than June 1. At least two weeks before this meeting, students must submit a 1-2 page research plan to the committee.

Research Plan

The third-year research plan, which is submitted to the committee, is a short (1-2 page) document containing a brief overview of the experiments that have been completed and the planned experiments. The research plan is due in winter or spring quarter of the third year and no later than two weeks before the committee meeting.

Third-Year Committee Meeting

The goal of the third-year committee meeting is for students to present their planned research and preliminary data and for the faculty to give students feedback on their research plan, feasibility, and progress. During the third-year committee meeting, students present and discuss with the committee:

Background and hypothesis being tested

Experiments and methods

Preliminary results

Potential outcomes as well as pitfalls

After the committee meeting, students should submit the research plan to the student services manager and report the date the meeting took place.

Fourth-Year Committee Meeting and Research Plan

Students must meet with their committee in the fourth year in the autumn or winter quarter. At least two weeks before the meeting, they must submit their Area Review and Research Roadmap (ARRR) to their committee.

Area Review and Research Roadmap (ARRR):

This document has two parts:

Area Review:  A manuscript written in the format of a review paper that summarizes current theories, debates, and empirical work in the area of the dissertation, which ultimately leads to the open questions that will be answered in the dissertation. The goal of writing this document is to enable the students to organize and develop scholarly knowledge relevant to their dissertation research. This document could serve as the basis for the introduction to the dissertation and/or a basis for a review paper. The department expects that this section will be the bulk of the ARRR. It expects students to consult with their advisor on this document’s scope and receive feedback from their committee during the fourth-year meeting.

Research Roadmap:  This section is short (1-2 pages) and contains a brief overview of the experiments that will be part of the dissertation. Given that this document is written during the fourth year, some of the experiments are expected to be completed, while others are planned/ongoing.

Fourth-Year Committee Meeting

The goal of the fourth-year committee meeting is for students to present their research progress and receive feedback from the committee members on the ARRR. The department expects the presentation to start with a review of the relevant work but focus on the research progress. During the meeting, students present and discuss with the committee:

Background and hypothesis being tests

Current Results

Planned experiments toward dissertation completion

After the committee meeting, students should submit the ARRR to the student services manager and report the date the meeting took place.

Note:  Students admitted before 2018-19 may choose to use the prior milestone documents (the Dissertation Proposal and Conceptual Analysis of Dissertation Area) instead of the ARRR. This decision should be registered with the student services manager. Refer to the Stanford Bulletin from your entering year for details about these prior requirements.

Fifth-Year Committee Meeting and Beyond

The department expects that students complete their Oral Exam by the end of the fifth year. Thus, typically, the Oral Exam replaces the fifth-year committee meeting. However, if a student defers the Oral Exam, they are expected to meet with their committee before June 1 of the fifth year to give an update on ongoing research progress and receive feedback. The same applies to the sixth year and so on. After each committee meeting, students should report to the student services manager when the committee meeting occurred.

Oral Examination

In the Department of Psychology, the Oral Examination is a dissertation defense. A 5-member committee is formed to review the oral examination. This committee includes the dissertation reading committee, an additional faculty member, and one oral examination committee chair from outside the Psychology department.

The oral examination consists of a 45-minute public presentation to the department of the completed dissertation research, followed by a 10-15 minute period of open questions and answers. Parents and friends are welcome to attend. Following the presentation, the student and the committee convene for a closed part of the oral exam. Each committee member asks the PhD candidate questions regarding their PhD research. After the closed session, the candidate leaves the room, the committee discusses the outcome of the exam, and members anonymously vote on whether the candidate passed the oral exam. Per university policy, the total duration of both parts of the oral examination should be less than three hours.

Dissertation

Per university policy, the candidate must complete a dissertation satisfactory to the dissertation reading committee. Typically, the candidate will submit the dissertation to the reading committee two weeks before the oral examination. Minor revisions to formatting may be made after the oral examination. It is allowable by university policy to have a single additional writing quarter after the defense to finalize the dissertation. The dissertation must be approved and signed by each member of the dissertation reading committee.

Students must complete their oral examination and submit their dissertation before their candidate status expires at the end of the seventh year (per university policy, candidacy status is granted at the end of year 2, and students have five years of candidacy in which to complete all requirements). See Graduate Degrees for more information. The Department will review petitions for a more extended candidacy period on a case-by-case basis.

Teaching Requirement

The department views experience in supervised teaching as an integral part of its graduate program. Regardless of their financial support source, all students must participate in at least five quarters of teaching experience during their graduate study.

Of these five teaching quarters, students are required to apply for 2 of the quarters providing teaching support to a service course, either two quarters of  course  Introduction to Psychology or two quarters of a core statistics course:  course  Introduction to Statistical Methods: Precalculus,  course  Experimental Methods,  course  Statistical Methods for Behavioral and Social Sciences, and/or  course  Advanced Statistical Modeling. Students report whether they prefer the PSYCH 1 or the stats path (or neutral) in their first year. 

Students are prohibited from teaching during the first year of graduate study. Students typically progress from closely supervised teaching to more independent teaching. Some students may be invited to offer a supervised, but essentially independent, seminar during their final year of graduate study.

Laura L. Carstensen

• Decision Science
• Developmental Approaches
• Learning & Memory
• Motivation & Emotion
• Self-Regulation & Control

Geoffrey Cohen

• Interventions
• Self & Identity
• Stereotyping & Stereotype Threat

Carol Dweck

• Meaning & Mental Representation
• Plasticity & Change
• Psychopathology & Risk

Jennifer Eberhardt

Johannes C. Eichstaedt

• Computational Approaches
• Social Cognition

Cameron Ellis

• Neuroimaging
• Vision Science

Judith Ellen Fan

• Reasoning & Problem Solving
• Words & Categories

Michael Frank

Justin Gardner

Tobias Gerstenberg

Noah Goodman

Kalanit Grill-Spector

James Gross

Hyowon Gweon

Laura Gwilliams

Catherine Heaney

Brian Knutson

• Addictive Behaviors

Ellen Markman

Hazel Markus

Jay McClelland

• Mathematical Cognition

Benoit Monin

Anthony Norcia

Russell Poldrack

Steven O. Roberts

Jordan Gerard Starck

Claude Steele

Jeanne L. Tsai

Anthony Wagner

Greg Walton

Brian A. Wandell

Daniel Yamins

Jason Yeatman

Herbert Clark

Anne Fernald

John Flavell

Mark Lepper

Ewart Thomas

Barbara Tversky

Jeffrey J. Wine

Philip Zimbardo

Michele Gelfand

Gary Glover

Jon Krosnick

Robert MacCoun

William Newsome

Laura Roberts, MD, MA

Leanne Williams

Doctoral Program

Stanford's Ph.D. program is among the world's best. Our graduate students receive their training in a lively community of philosophers engaged in a wide range of philosophical projects. Our Ph.D. program trains students in traditional core areas of philosophy and provides them with opportunities to explore many subfields such as the philosophy of literature, and nineteenth-century German philosophy.

Among other areas, we are exceptionally strong in Kant studies, the philosophy of action, ancient philosophy, logic, and the philosophy of science. We attract some of the best students from around the world and we turn them into accomplished philosophers ready to compete for the best jobs in a very tight job market.

The most up-to-date requirements are listed in   t he Bulletin .  

CHECK PHD REQUIREMENTS

From the 2020-2021 edition of Explore Degrees:

Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy

Prospective graduate students should see the  Office of Graduate Admissions  web site for information and application materials. 

The University's basic requirements for the Ph.D. degree including candidacy, residence, dissertation, and examination are discussed in the " Graduate Degrees " section of this bulletin. Graduate students are expected to meet standards of professional behavior, including: being present on campus to meet the academic and research expectations of the degree program; communicating in a timely, respectful and professional manner; complying with institutional policies and procedures; and participating appropriately in the program’s community. Graduate students are expected to familiarize themselves with applicable university policy and degree program requirements.’ ( https://gap.stanford.edu/handbooks/gap-handbook/chapter-5/subchapter-6/… )

University candidacy requirements, published in the " Candidacy " section of this bulletin, apply to all Ph.D. students. Admission to a doctoral degree program is preliminary to, and distinct from, admission to candidacy. Admission to candidacy for the doctoral degree is a judgment by the faculty in the department or school of the student's potential to successfully complete the requirements of the degree program. Students are expected to complete department qualifying procedures and apply for candidacy at the beginning of the seventh academic quarter, normally the Autumn Quarter of the student's third year.

Admission to candidacy for the doctoral degree is granted by the major department following a student's successful completion of qualifying procedures as determined by the department. Departmental policy determines procedures for subsequent attempts to become advanced to candidacy in the event that the student does not successfully complete the procedures. Failure to advance to candidacy results in the dismissal of the student from the doctoral program; see the " Guidelines for Dismissal of Graduate Students for Academic Reasons " section of this bulletin.

The requirements detailed here are department requirements. These requirements are meant to balance structure and flexibility in allowing students, in consultation with their  advisors , to take a path through the program that gives them a rigorous and broad philosophical education, with room to focus on areas of particular interest, and with an eye to completing the degree with an excellent dissertation and a solid preparation for a career in academic philosophy.

Normally, all courses used to satisfy the distribution requirements for the Philosophy Ph.D. are Stanford courses taken as part of a student's graduate program.  In special circumstances, a student may petition to use a very small number of graduate-level courses taken at other institutions to satisfy a distribution requirement.  To be approved for this purpose, the student’s work in such a graduate-level course would need to involve an appropriate subject matter and would need to be judged by the department to be at the level of an 'A' in a corresponding graduate-level course at Stanford.  

Courses used to satisfy any course requirement in Philosophy (except Teaching Methods and the summer Dissertation Development Seminar) must be passed with a letter grade of 'B-' or better (no satisfactory/no credit), except in the case of a course/seminar used to satisfy the third-year course/seminar requirement and taken for only 2 units. Such a reduced-unit third-year course/seminar must be taken credit/no credit. 

In the spring quarter of each year, the department reviews the progress of each first-year student to determine whether the student is making satisfactory progress. In the fall and the spring quarter of each year, the department reviews the progress of each student who is past the first year to determine whether the student is making satisfactory progress, and on that basis to make decisions about probationary status and termination from the program where appropriate.

Any student in one of the Ph.D. programs may apply for the M.A. when all University and department requirements have been met.

Proficiency Requirements

• First-year Ph.D. Proseminar : a one quarter, topically focused seminar offered in Autumn Quarter, and required of all first-year students.
• two courses in value theory including ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy, social philosophy, philosophy of law. At least one of the courses satisfying this distribution requirement must be in ethics or political philosophy.
• Two courses in language, mind, and action. One course satisfying this requirement must be drawn from the language related courses, and one from mind and action related courses.
• two courses in metaphysics and epistemology (including metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science). At least one of the courses satisfying this requirement must be drawn from either metaphysics or epistemology.
• Instructors indicate which courses may satisfy particular requirements. If a course potentially satisfies more than one requirement the student may use it for only one of those area requirements; no units may be double-counted. Students must develop broad competencies in all these areas. Those without strong backgrounds in these areas would normally satisfy these distribution requirements by taking more basic courses rather than highly specialized and focused courses. Students should consult with their advisor in making these course decisions, and be prepared to explain these decisions when reviewed for candidacy; see requirement 6 below.
• Logic requirement:  PHIL 150  Mathematical Logic or equivalent.
• History/logic requirement. One approved course each in ancient and modern philosophy, plus either another approved history of philosophy course or  PHIL 151  Metalogic.
• Students should normally take at least 64 graduate level units at Stanford during their first six quarters (in many cases students would take more units than that) and of those total units, at least 49 units of course work are to be in the Philosophy department. These courses must be numbered above 110, but not including Teaching Methods ( PHIL 239  Teaching Methods in Philosophy) or affiliated courses. Units of Individual Directed Reading are normally not to be counted toward this 49-unit requirement unless there is special permission from the student's advisor and the Director of Graduate Studies.
•  Prior to candidacy, at least 3 units of work must be taken with each of four Stanford faculty members.

Writing Requirement: Second Year Paper

The second year paper should demonstrate good scholarship and argumentative rigor, and be a polished piece of writing approximately 8000 words in length. The second year paper need not bear any specific relationship to the dissertation. It may be a version of a prospective dissertation chapter, but this is not required. The final version must be turned in on the last class of the Second Year Paper Development Seminar in Summer Quarter of the second year. Extensions of this deadline require the consent of the instructor of the Second Year Paper Development Seminar and the Director of Graduate Studies and are only granted in exceptional cases (e.g., documented illness, family crisis). The final paper is read by a committee of two faculty members and it is an important consideration in the department’s decision on the student’s candidacy. 

Teaching Assistancy

A minimum of five quarters of teaching assistancy are required for the Ph.D. Normally one of these quarters is as a teaching assistant for the Philosophy Department's Writing in the Major course,  PHIL 80  Mind, Matter, and Meaning. It is expected that students not teach in their first year and that they teach no more than two quarters in their second year. Students are required to take  PHIL 239  Teaching Methods in Philosophy during Spring Quarter of their first year and during Autumn Quarter of their second year. Teaching is an important part of students’ preparation to be professional philosophers.

Review at the End of the Second Year for Advancement to Candidacy

The faculty's review of each student includes a review of the student's record, an assessment of the second year paper, and an assessment of the student's preparation for work in her/his intended area of specialization, as well as recommendations of additional preparation, if necessary.

To continue in the Ph.D. program, each student must apply for candidacy at the beginning of the sixth academic quarter, normally the Spring Quarter of the student's second year. Students may be approved for or denied candidacy by the end of that quarter by the department. In some cases, where there are only one or two outstanding deficiencies, the department may defer the candidacy decision and require the student to re-apply for candidacy in a subsequent quarter. In such cases, definite conditions for the candidacy re-application must be specified, and the student must work with the advisor and the DGS to meet those conditions in a timely fashion. A failure to maintain timely progress in satisfying the specified conditions constitutes grounds for withholding travel and discretionary funds and for a denial of advancement to candidacy.

• Writing Seminar : In the Summer Quarter after the second year, students are required to attend the Second Year Paper Development Seminar. The seminar is intended to help students complete their second year papers. 
• Upon completion of the summer writing seminar, students must sign up for independent study credit,  PHIL 240  Individual Work for Graduate Students, with their respective advisors each quarter. A plan at the beginning, and a report at the end, of each quarter must be signed by both student and advisor and submitted to the graduate administrator for inclusion in the student's file. This is the process every quarter until the completion of the departmental oral.
• In Autumn and Winter quarters of the third year, students register in and satisfactorily complete  PHIL 301  Dissertation Development Proseminar. Students meet to present their work in progress and discuss their thesis project. Participation in these seminars is required.
• During the third and fourth years in the program, a student should complete at least three graduate-level courses/seminars, at least two of them in philosophy (a course outside philosophy can be approved by the advisor), and at least two of them in the third year. The three seminars can be taken credit/no-credit for reduced (2) units. Courses required for candidacy are not counted toward satisfaction of this requirement. This light load of courses allows students to deepen their philosophical training while keeping time free for thesis research.

Dissertation Work and Defense

The third and following years are devoted to dissertation work. The few requirements in this segment of the program are milestones to encourage students and advisors to ensure that the project is on track.

• Dissertation Proposal— By the end of Winter Quarter of the third year, students should have selected a dissertation topic and committee. A proposal sketching the topic, status, and plan for the thesis project, as well as an annotated bibliography or literature review indicating familiarity with the relevant literature, must be received by the committee one week before the meeting on graduate student progress late in Spring Quarter. The dissertation proposal and the reading committee's report on it will constitute a substantial portion of the third-year review.
• Departmental Oral— During Autumn Quarter of the fourth year, students take an oral examination based on at least 30 pages of written work, in addition to the proposal. The aim of the exam is to help the student arrive at an acceptable plan for the dissertation and to make sure that student, thesis topic, and advisors make a reasonable fit. It is an important chance for the student to clarify their goals and intentions with the entire committee present.
• Fourth-Year Colloquium— No later than Spring Quarter of the fourth year, students present a research paper in a 60-minute seminar open to the entire department. This paper should be on an aspect of the student's dissertation research. This is an opportunity for the student to make their work known to the wider department, and to explain their ideas to a general philosophical audience.
• University Oral Exam— Ph.D. students must submit a completed draft of the dissertation to the reading committee at least one month before the student expects to defend the thesis in the University oral exam. If the student is given consent to go forward, the University oral can take place approximately two weeks later. A portion of the exam consists of a student presentation based on the dissertation and is open to the public. A closed question period follows. If the draft is ready by Autumn Quarter of the fourth year, the student may request that the University oral count as the department oral.

Below are yearly lists of courses which the faculty have approved to fulfill distribution requirements in these areas: value theory (including ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy, social philosophy, philosophy of law); language; mind and action; metaphysics and epistemology (including metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science); logic; ancient philosophy; modern philosophy.

The most up-to-date requirements are listed in  t he Bulletin .  

Ph.D. Minor in Philosophy

To obtain a Ph.D. minor in Philosophy, students must follow these procedures:

• Consult with the Director of Graduate Study to establish eligibility, and select a suitable  advisor .
• 30 units of courses in the Department of Philosophy with a letter grade of 'B-' or better in each course. No more than 3 units of directed reading may be counted in the 30-unit requirement.
• Philosophy of science
• Ethics, value theory, and moral and political philosophy
• Metaphysics and epistemology
• Language, mind and action
• History of philosophy
• Two additional courses numbered over 199 to be taken in one of those (b) six areas.
• A faculty member from the Department of Philosophy (usually the student's advisor) serves on the student's doctoral oral examination committee and may request that up to one third of this examination be devoted to the minor subject.
• Paperwork for the minor must be submitted to the department office before beginning the program.

Interdisciplinary Study

The department supports interdisciplinary study. Courses in Stanford's other departments and programs may be counted towards the degree, and course requirements in Philosophy are designed to allow students considerable freedom in taking such courses. Dissertation committees may include members from other departments. Where special needs arise, the department is committed to making it possible for students to obtain a philosophical education and to meet their interdisciplinary goals. Students are advised to consult their advisors and the department's student services office for assistance.

Graduate Program in Cognitive Science

Philosophy participates with the departments of Computer Science, Linguistics, and Psychology in an interdisciplinary program in Cognitive Science. It is intended to provide an interdisciplinary education, as well as a deeper concentration in philosophy, and is open to doctoral students. Students who complete the requirements within Philosophy and the Cognitive Science requirements receive a special designation in Cognitive Science along with the Ph.D. in Philosophy. To receive this field designation, students must complete 30 units of approved courses, 18 of which must be taken in two disciplines outside of philosophy. The list of approved courses can be obtained from the Cognitive Science program located in the Department of Psychology.

Special Track in Philosophy and Symbolic Systems

Students interested in interdisciplinary work relating philosophy to artificial intelligence, cognitive science, computer science, linguistics, or logic may pursue a degree in this program.

Prerequisites—Admitted students should have covered the equivalent of the core of the undergraduate Symbolic Systems Program requirements as described in the " Symbolic Systems " section of the Stanford Bulletin, including courses in artificial intelligence (AI), cognitive science, linguistics, logic, and philosophy. The graduate program is designed with this background in mind. Students missing part of this background may need additional course work. In addition to the required course work listed in the bulletin, the Ph.D. requirements are the same as for the regular program, with the exception that one course in value theory and one course in history may be omitted.

Joint Program in Ancient Philosophy

This program is jointly administered by the Departments of Classics and Philosophy and is overseen by a joint committee composed of members of both departments:

•         Christopher Bobonich , Philosophy (Ancient Greek Philosophy, Ethics)
•         Alan Code , Philosophy, Philosophy (Ancient Greek Philosophy, Metaphysics)
•         Reviel Netz , Classics (History of Greek and Pre-Modern Mathematics)
•         Andrea Nightingale , Classics, (Greek and Roman Philosophy and Literature)
•        Josh Ober , Classics and Political Science (Greek Political Thought, Democratic Theory)

It provides students with the training, specialist skills, and knowledge needed for research and teaching in ancient philosophy while producing scholars who are fully trained as either philosophers with a strong specialization in ancient languages and philology, or classicists with a concentration in philosophy.

Students are admitted to the program by either department. Graduate students admitted by the Philosophy department receive their Ph.D. from the Philosophy department; those admitted by the Classics department receive their Ph.D. from the Classics department. For Philosophy graduate students, this program provides training in classical languages, literature, culture, and history. For Classics graduate students, this program provides training in the history of philosophy and in contemporary philosophy.

Each student in the program is advised by a committee consisting of one professor in each department.

Requirements for Philosophy Graduate Students: These are the same as the proficiency requirements for the Ph.D. in Philosophy.

One year of Greek is a requirement for admission to the program. If students have had a year of Latin, they are required to take 3 courses in second- or third-year Greek or Latin, at least one of which must be in Latin. If they have not had a year of Latin, they are then required to complete a year of Latin, and take two courses in second- or third-year Greek or Latin.

Students are also required to take at least three courses in ancient philosophy at the 200 level or above, one of which must be in the Classics department and two of which must be in the Philosophy department.

Ph.D. Subplan in History and Philosophy of Science

Graduate students in the Philosophy Ph.D. program may pursue a Ph.D. subplan in History and Philosophy of Science. The subplan is declared in Axess and subplan designations appear on the official transcript, but are not printed on the diploma.

1.  Attendance at the HPS colloquium series. 2.  Philosophy of Science courses.  Select one of the following:

• PHIL 263 Significant Figures in Philosophy of Science: Einstein
• PHIL 264: Central Topics in the Philosophy of Science: Theory and Evidence
• PHIL 264A: Central Topics in Philosophy of Science: Causation
• PHIL 265: Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time
• PHIL 265C: Philosophy of Physics: Probability and Relativity
• PHIL 266: Probability: Ten Great Ideas About Chance
• PHIL 267A:  Philosophy of Biology
• PHIL 267B: Philosophy, Biology, and Behavior

3.  One elective seminar in the history of science. 4.  One elective seminar (in addition to the course satisfying requirement 2) in philosophy of science.

The PhD program provide 5 years of  financial support . We also try to provide support for our sixth year students and beyond though we cannot guarantee such support. In addition to covering tuition, providing a stipend, and covering Stanford's health insurance, we provide additional funds for books, computer equipment, and conference travel expenses. Some of the financial support is provided through requiring you to teach; however, our teaching requirement is quite low and we believe that this is a significant advantage of our program.

Stanford Support Programs

Additional support, such as advances, medical and emergency grants for Grad Students are available through the Financial Aid Office. The University has created the following programs specifically for graduate students dealing with challenging financial situations.

Graduate Financial Aid  homepage :

https://financialaid.stanford.edu/grad/funding/

Cash Advance:  https://sfs.stanford.edu/gradcashadvance

Emergency grant-in-aid :  https://financialaid.stanford.edu/pdf/emergencygrant-in-aid.pdf, family grants:  https://financialaid.stanford.edu/pdf/gradfamilygrant2021.pdf, housing loans:  https://financialaid.stanford.edu/loans/other/gradhousing.html, program characteristics.

Our program is well known for its small size, streamlined teaching requirements, and low average time to degree.

The program regulations are designed to efficiently provide students with a broad base in their first two years. In the third year students transition to working on their dissertations. During the summer prior to the third year, students are required to attend a dissertation development seminar. This seminar introduces students to what is involved in writing a dissertation. During the third year the course load drops to just under one course per quarter.

The rest of the time is spent working closely with a faculty member, or a couple of faculty members, on the student's area of research interest. The goal of the third year is that this process of intensive research and one-on-one interaction will generate a topic and proposal for the dissertation. During the fourth and fifth year the student is not required to take any courses and he or she focusses exclusively on research and writing on the dissertation.

Stanford University

Being a part of  Stanford University  means that students have access to one of the premier education institutions in the world. Stanford is replete with top departments in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. In addition, our professional schools, such as the  Stanford Law School , are among the best. The range of research in a variety of areas, many of which touch on or relate to philosophical issues, is simply astounding. Students have the freedom to take courses across the university. Graduate students also regularly earn joint degrees with other programs.

ExploreDegrees Archive, 2011-12

Explore courses, alphabetical index.

Bulletin Archive

This archived information is dated to the 2011-12 academic year only and may no longer be current.

For currently applicable policies and information, see the current Stanford Bulletin .

Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology

There are no specific course requirements for admission to the doctoral program. However, an applicant should have research experience as an undergraduate, as well as the equivalent of an undergraduate major in Psychology. The major focus of the doctoral program is on research training, and admission is highly selective.

Applicants for admission must submit their scores on the general Graduate Record Examination as part of the application. GRE subject scores are recommended.

General University requirements for the Ph.D. are described in the " Graduate Degrees " section of this bulletin.

In addition to fulfilling Stanford University requirements for the degree, the following departmental requirements are stipulated.

First-Year Course Requirements— During the first year of graduate study, the student must take PSYCH 207, Proseminar for First-Year Ph.D. Graduate Students, at least one approved graduate statistics course, and at least two core courses from the following list:

• PSYCH 202. Neuroscience
• PSYCH 205. Foundations of Cognition
• PSYCH 211. Developmental Psychology
• or PSYCH 215. Mind, Culture, and Society
• PSYCH 213. Affective Science

Students in each area may be required to take up to two additional non-core graduate courses in their area of specialization.

The student is expected to spend at least half of the time in research from the beginning of the first year of graduate study to the completion of the Ph.D., taking no more than 10 units of course work each quarter. At the end of the first year of graduate study, the student must file with the department a written report of the first-year research activities.

Second Year Course Requirements —By the end of the second year of graduate study, the student should complete the core courses listed above and take a second approved graduate course in statistics.

Third-Year and Beyond— Students are expected to form a research committee, which must include the dissertation reading committee, before the initiation of the dissertation research. The research committee includes the dissertation adviser and consists of at least three faculty members, at least two of whom should have primary appointments in the Psychology department. For University guidelines for the composition of the dissertation reading committee, see the " Graduate Degrees " section of this bulletin.

The research committee should meet no later than the last day of classes of Spring Quarter of the third year, and determines the timeline for further development of the dissertation research project. Subsequent meetings are triggered by the completion of one of two documents: a dissertation proposal (DP) or a conceptual analysis of the dissertation area (CADA). The timing and sequencing of the DP and CADA are developed by the student in consultation with the committee. As a general guide, one of the two preliminary elements (CADA or DP) should be completed by the end of the third Summer Quarter and the second should be completed by the end of the fourth Spring Quarter. Students are free to alter the membership of the committee at any time during the process, subject to consultation with the adviser.

The DP should be a description of the proposed research. The CADA provides a framework for the research topic of the dissertation, addresses the central issues within the specialty area, and reviews the pertinent literature.

Advanced Course or Minor Requirements —The candidate must complete 12 units of advanced graduate course work or a Ph.D. minor in another department. If a student waives the minor requirement in favor of the 12 advanced units, the student must fulfill the advanced course requirement by taking (a) non-core graduate courses required by a particular area, or (b) graduate-level courses in other departments comparable in quality to Psychology's graduate courses. If there is any question about comparability, the student should consult the adviser, student services, and, in some cases, the graduate program committee chair before taking the course.

Orals— The candidate must pass the University oral examination, which also serves as a dissertation defense. A committee is formed to review the oral examination, including the dissertation reading committee, an additional faculty member, and one oral examination committee chair from outside the Psychology department. The oral examination consists of a 40-45-minute presentation to the department of the completed dissertation research. Parents and friends are welcome to attend. Following the presentation, the student and the committee convene for a discussion of the dissertation and the presentation.

Dissertation Requirements —The candidate must complete a dissertation satisfactory to the dissertation reading committee prior to the oral examination. Minor revisions to formatting may be made after the oral examination.

Ph.D. candidacy expires five years after admission to candidacy at the end of the second year of study. Reapplication requires department reexamination.

STUDENT EVALUATIONS

First-Year Evaluation— It is the department's policy to evaluate the progress of each graduate student at the end of the first year of graduate study. As part of the procedure, each student is required to file with the department a report of the first-year research activities.

Students should discuss this report and the evaluation procedures with their adviser as early as possible in their first year. If the student fulfills the academic promise displayed upon entrance, he or she is invited to continue working towards the doctorate.

The first-year evaluation is primarily based on three factors:

• quality of research carried out in the first year
• performance in courses (especially required courses)
• recommendations of the adviser (including a commitment on the part of that adviser to continue in that role).

Second-Year and Beyond Evaluation— A similar evaluation is conducted at the end of each year of graduate training involving the same criteria as the first year; however, the student is not required to submit a paper. Students who are not making satisfactory progress may be dropped from the program.

THE DOCTORAL TRAINING PROGRAM

As indicated by the requirements described above, a student concentrates in any one of several areas within Psychology. Regardless of area, however, the training program places emphasis on the development of research competence, and students are encouraged to develop those skills and attitudes that are appropriate to a career of continuing research productivity.

Two kinds of experience are necessary for this purpose. One is the learning of substantial amounts of technical information. A number of courses and seminars are provided to assist in this learning, and a student is expected to work out a program, with his or her adviser, to attain this knowledge in the most stimulating and economical fashion.

A second aspect of training is one that cannot be gained from the courses or seminars. This is firsthand knowledge of, and practical experience with, the methods of psychological investigation and study. These methods include ways of behaving with the subjects being studied. Students are provided with whatever opportunities they need to reach those levels of competence representative of doctoral standing. Continuing research programs, sponsored by members of the faculty, offer direct opportunities for experience in fields represented by the faculty's many research interests.

Each student achieves competence in unique ways and at different rates. Each student and adviser share in planning a program leading to the objectives discussed. The student is expected to spend half of his or her time on research and takes no more than 10 units of course work per quarter. For further information please contact the student services office and the department graduate guide.

TEACHING REQUIREMENT

The department views experience in supervised teaching as an integral part of its graduate program. Regardless of the source of financial support, all students serve as teaching assistants for at least five Psychology courses during their graduate study. Of the courses, two must be PSYCH 1, Introduction to Psychology, or PSYCH 10, 252 or 253, Statistical Methods. Students are discouraged from participating in teaching during the first year of graduate study. Students typically progress from closely supervised teaching to more independent work. Some students may be invited to offer a supervised, but essentially independent, seminar during their final year of graduate study.

PSYCHOLOGY COLLOQUIUM

The Psychology Colloquium meets on most Wednesday afternoons at 3:45 p.m. Speakers from Stanford and other institutions present topics of current interest. Graduate students are expected to attend. Additional announcements may be found at http://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/colloquium .

© Stanford University - Office of the Registrar . Archive of the Stanford Bulletin 2011-12.   Terms of Use | Copyright Complaints

Carol Dweck

Lewis and virginia eaton professor and professor, by courtesy, of education.

• Print Profile
• Email Profile
• View Stanford-only Profile
• Publications

My work bridges developmental psychology, social psychology, and personality psychology, and examines the self-conceptions people use to structure the self and guide their behavior. My research looks at the origins of these self-conceptions, their role in motivation and self-regulation, and their impact on achievement and interpersonal processes.

Academic Appointments

• Professor, Psychology
• Professor (By courtesy), Graduate School of Education
• Member, Wu Tsai Human Performance Alliance

Administrative Appointments

• Lewis and Virginia Eaton Professor of Psychology, Stanford University (2004 - Present)
• Professor, Department of Psychology, Columbia University (1989 - 2004)
• William B. Ransford Professor of Psychology, Columbia University (1989 - 2004)
• Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois (1985 - 1989)
• Professor, Laboratory of Human Development, Harvard University (1981 - 1985)
• Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois (1977 - 1981)
• Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois (1972 - 1977)
• National Science Foundation Fellow, Yale University (1967 - 1971)

Honors & Awards

• Book Award for Self-Theories, World Education Federation (an organization of the United Nations and UNICEF) (2004)
• Donald Campbell Career Achievement Award in Social Psychology, Society for Personality and Social Psychology (2008)
• Award for Innovative Program of the Year, “Brainology” (2008)
• Ann L. Brown Award for Research in Developmental Psychology, University of Illinois (2009)
• Klingenstein Award for Leadership in Education, Klingenstein Center, Columbia University (2010)
• Thorndike Career Achievement Award in Educational Psychology, American Psychological Association (2010)
• Beckman Mentoring Award, Columbia University (2011)
• Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award, American Psychological Association (2011)
• Gallery of Scientists, Federation of Associations in Behavioral & Brain Sciences (2011)
• James McKeen Cattell Lifetime Achievement Award, Association for Psychological Science (2013)
• Distinguished Scholar Award, Society for Personality and Social Psychology (2013)

Boards, Advisory Committees, Professional Organizations

• Elected Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2002 - Present)
• Elected Member, Herbert Simon Fellow of the Academy of Political and Social Science (2010 - 2010)
• Elected Member, National Academy of Sciences (2012 - 2012)

Professional Education

• Ph.D., Yale University, Psychology (1972)
• B.A., Barnard College, Columbia University, Psychology (1967)
• Department of Psychology
• Stanford,  California  94305 
• (650) 724-9063 (office)
• 650-724-1138 (office)

Additional Info

• Mail Code: 2130
• Curriculum Vitae PDF

2023-24 Courses

• Developmental Psychology PSYCH 211 (Win)
• Rethinking the Development of the Self PSYCH 287A (Spr)
• Self Theories PSYCH 12N (Aut)
• Graduate Research PSYCH 275 (Aut, Win, Spr, Sum)
• Master's Degree Project SYMSYS 290 (Aut, Spr)
• Practicum in Teaching PSYCH 281 (Aut, Win, Spr)
• Reading and Special Work PSYCH 194 (Aut, Win, Spr, Sum)
• Special Laboratory Projects PSYCH 195 (Aut, Win, Spr, Sum)

2022-23 Courses

• Human Motivation PSYCH 235 (Spr)

2021-22 Courses

2020-21 courses.

• Changing Mindsets and Contexts: How to Create Authentic, Lasting Improvement PSYCH 273 (Spr)

Stanford Advisees

• Doctoral Dissertation Reader (AC) Jenny Yang
• Postdoctoral Faculty Sponsor Elizabeth Blevins , Melis Muradoglu
• Doctoral Dissertation Co-Advisor (AC) Kris Evans , Kayla Good , Cedric Lim (Chun Hui)

All Publications

Two largely separate bodies of empirical research have shown that academic achievement is influenced by structural factors, such as socioeconomic background, and psychological factors, such as students' beliefs about their abilities. In this research, we use a nationwide sample of high school students from Chile to investigate how these factors interact on a systemic level. Confirming prior research, we find that family income is a strong predictor of achievement. Extending prior research, we find that a growth mindset (the belief that intelligence is not fixed and can be developed) is a comparably strong predictor of achievement and that it exhibits a positive relationship with achievement across all of the socioeconomic strata in the country. Furthermore, we find that students from lower-income families were less likely to hold a growth mindset than their wealthier peers, but those who did hold a growth mindset were appreciably buffered against the deleterious effects of poverty on achievement: students in the lowest 10th percentile of family income who exhibited a growth mindset showed academic performance as high as that of fixed mindset students from the 80th income percentile. These results suggest that students' mindsets may temper or exacerbate the effects of economic disadvantage on a systemic level.

View details for DOI 10.1073/pnas.1608207113

View details for PubMedID 27432947

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC4978255

Previous experiments have shown that college students benefit when they understand that challenges in the transition to college are common and improvable and, thus, that early struggles need not portend a permanent lack of belonging or potential. Could such an approach-called a lay theory intervention-be effective before college matriculation? Could this strategy reduce a portion of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic achievement gaps for entire institutions? Three double-blind experiments tested this possibility. Ninety percent of first-year college students from three institutions were randomly assigned to complete single-session, online lay theory or control materials before matriculation (n > 9,500). The lay theory interventions raised first-year full-time college enrollment among students from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds exiting a high-performing charter high school network or entering a public flagship university (experiments 1 and 2) and, at a selective private university, raised disadvantaged students' cumulative first-year grade point average (experiment 3). These gains correspond to 31-40% reductions of the raw (unadjusted) institutional achievement gaps between students from disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged backgrounds at those institutions. Further, follow-up surveys suggest that the interventions improved disadvantaged students' overall college experiences, promoting use of student support services and the development of friendship networks and mentor relationships. This research therefore provides a basis for further tests of the generalizability of preparatory lay theories interventions and of their potential to reduce social inequality and improve other major life transitions.

View details for DOI 10.1073/pnas.1524360113

View details for PubMedID 27247409

Children's intelligence mind-sets (i.e., their beliefs about whether intelligence is fixed or malleable) robustly influence their motivation and learning. Yet, surprisingly, research has not linked parents' intelligence mind-sets to their children's. We tested the hypothesis that a different belief of parents-their failure mind-sets-may be more visible to children and therefore more prominent in shaping their beliefs. In Study 1, we found that parents can view failure as debilitating or enhancing, and that these failure mind-sets predict parenting practices and, in turn, children's intelligence mind-sets. Study 2 probed more deeply into how parents display failure mind-sets. In Study 3a, we found that children can indeed accurately perceive their parents' failure mind-sets but not their parents' intelligence mind-sets. Study 3b showed that children's perceptions of their parents' failure mind-sets also predicted their own intelligence mind-sets. Finally, Study 4 showed a causal effect of parents' failure mind-sets on their responses to their children's hypothetical failure. Overall, parents who see failure as debilitating focus on their children's performance and ability rather than on their children's learning, and their children, in turn, tend to believe that intelligence is fixed rather than malleable.

View details for DOI 10.1177/0956797616639727

View details for Web of Science ID 000378420100009

View details for PubMedID 27113733

There are many promising psychological interventions on the horizon, but there is no clear methodology for preparing them to be scaled up. Drawing on design thinking, the present research formalizes a methodology for redesigning and tailoring initial interventions. We test the methodology using the case of fixed versus growth mindsets during the transition to high school. Qualitative inquiry and rapid, iterative, randomized "A/B" experiments were conducted with ~3,000 participants to inform intervention revisions for this population. Next, two experimental evaluations showed that the revised growth mindset intervention was an improvement over previous versions in terms of short-term proxy outcomes (Study 1, N=7,501), and it improved 9th grade core-course GPA and reduced D/F GPAs for lower achieving students when delivered via the Internet under routine conditions with ~95% of students at 10 schools (Study 2, N=3,676). Although the intervention could still be improved even further, the current research provides a model for how to improve and scale interventions that begin to address pressing educational problems. It also provides insight into how to teach a growth mindset more effectively.

View details for DOI 10.1037/edu0000098

View details for Web of Science ID 000373687300007

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC4981081

The efficacy of academic-mind-set interventions has been demonstrated by small-scale, proof-of-concept interventions, generally delivered in person in one school at a time. Whether this approach could be a practical way to raise school achievement on a large scale remains unknown. We therefore delivered brief growth-mind-set and sense-of-purpose interventions through online modules to 1,594 students in 13 geographically diverse high schools. Both interventions were intended to help students persist when they experienced academic difficulty; thus, both were predicted to be most beneficial for poorly performing students. This was the case. Among students at risk of dropping out of high school (one third of the sample), each intervention raised students' semester grade point averages in core academic courses and increased the rate at which students performed satisfactorily in core courses by 6.4 percentage points. We discuss implications for the pipeline from theory to practice and for education reform.

View details for DOI 10.1177/0956797615571017

View details for Web of Science ID 000355857100010

View details for PubMedID 25862544

Laboratory research shows that when people believe that willpower is an abundant (rather than highly limited) resource they exhibit better self-control after demanding tasks. However, some have questioned whether this "nonlimited" theory leads to squandering of resources and worse outcomes in everyday life when demands on self-regulation are high. To examine this, we conducted a longitudinal study, assessing students' theories about willpower and tracking their self-regulation and academic performance. As hypothesized, a nonlimited theory predicted better self-regulation (better time management and less procrastination, unhealthy eating, and impulsive spending) for students who faced high self-regulatory demands. Moreover, among students taking a heavy course load, those with a nonlimited theory earned higher grades, which was mediated by less procrastination. These findings contradict the idea that a limited theory helps people allocate their resources more effectively; instead, it is people with the nonlimited theory who self-regulate well in the face of high demands.

View details for DOI 10.1037/pspp0000014

View details for Web of Science ID 000352321900008

View details for PubMedID 25844577

View details for DOI 10.1073/pnas.1500252112

View details for PubMedID 25695973

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC4364198

Despite strong support for the efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for social anxiety disorder (SAD), little is known about mechanisms of change in treatment. Within the context of a randomized controlled trial of CBT, this study examined patients' beliefs about the fixed versus malleable nature of anxiety-their 'implicit theories'-as a key variable in CBT for SAD. Compared to waitlist (n = 29; 58% female), CBT (n = 24; 52% female) led to significantly lower levels of fixed beliefs about anxiety (Mbaseline = 11.70 vs. MPost = 7.08, d = 1.27). These implicit beliefs indirectly explained CBT-related changes in social anxiety symptoms (κ(2) = .28, [95% CI = 0.12, 0.46]). Implicit beliefs also uniquely predicted treatment outcomes when controlling for baseline social anxiety and other kinds of maladaptive beliefs (perceived social costs, perceived social self-efficacy, and maladaptive interpersonal beliefs). Finally, implicit beliefs continued to predict social anxiety symptoms at 12 months post-treatment. These findings suggest that changes in patients' beliefs about their emotions may play an important role in CBT for SAD.

View details for DOI 10.1080/16506073.2014.974665

View details for PubMedID 25380179

A very simple reciprocal activity elicited high degrees of altruism in 1- and 2-y-old children, whereas friendly but nonreciprocal activity yielded little subsequent altruism. In a second study, reciprocity with one adult led 1- and 2-y-olds to provide help to a new person. These results question the current dominant claim that social experiences cannot account for early occurring altruistic behavior. A third study, with preschool-age children, showed that subtle reciprocal cues remain potent elicitors of altruism, whereas a fourth study with preschoolers showed that even a brief reciprocal experience fostered children's expectation of altruism from others. Collectively, the studies suggest that simple reciprocal interactions are a potent trigger of altruism for young children, and that these interactions lead children to believe that their relationships are characterized by mutual care and commitment.

View details for DOI 10.1073/pnas.1419408111

View details for Web of Science ID 000345920800033

View details for PubMedID 25404334

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC4260564

View details for DOI 10.1177/0146167214552789

View details for Web of Science ID 000344851000004

Empathy is often thought to occur automatically. Yet, empathy frequently breaks down when it is difficult or distressing to relate to people in need, suggesting that empathy is often not felt reflexively. Indeed, the United States as a whole is said to be displaying an empathy deficit. When and why does empathy break down, and what predicts whether people will exert effort to experience empathy in challenging contexts? Across 7 studies, we found that people who held a malleable mindset about empathy (believing empathy can be developed) expended greater empathic effort in challenging contexts than did people who held a fixed theory (believing empathy cannot be developed). Specifically, a malleable theory of empathy--whether measured or experimentally induced--promoted (a) more self-reported effort to feel empathy when it is challenging (Study 1); (b) more empathically effortful responses to a person with conflicting views on personally important sociopolitical issues (Studies 2-4); (c) more time spent listening to the emotional personal story of a racial outgroup member (Study 5); and (d) greater willingness to help cancer patients in effortful, face-to-face ways (Study 6). Study 7 revealed a possible reason for this greater empathic effort in challenging contexts: a stronger interest in improving one's empathy. Together, these data suggest that people's mindsets powerfully affect whether they exert effort to empathize when it is needed most, and these data may represent a point of leverage in increasing empathic behaviors on a broad scale.

View details for DOI 10.1037/a0036738

View details for Web of Science ID 000348334600006

View details for PubMedID 25133727

People often exert willpower to choose a more valuable delayed reward over a less valuable immediate reward, but using willpower is taxing and frequently fails. In this research, we demonstrate the ability to enhance self-control (i.e., forgoing smaller immediate rewards in favor of larger delayed rewards) without exerting additional willpower. Using behavioral and neuroimaging data, we show that a reframing of rewards (i) reduced the subjective value of smaller immediate rewards relative to larger delayed rewards, (ii) increased the likelihood of choosing the larger delayed rewards when choosing between two real monetary rewards, (iii) reduced the brain reward responses to immediate rewards in the dorsal and ventral striatum, and (iv) reduced brain activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (a correlate of willpower) when participants chose the same larger later rewards across the two choice frames. We conclude that reframing can promote self-control while avoiding the need for additional willpower expenditure.

View details for DOI 10.1073/pnas.1408991111

View details for Web of Science ID 000338514800030

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC4103380

The belief that personality is fixed (an entity theory of personality) can give rise to negative reactions to social adversities. Three studies showed that when social adversity is common-at the transition to high school-an entity theory can affect overall stress, health, and achievement. Study 1 showed that an entity theory of personality, measured during the 1st month of 9th grade, predicted more negative immediate reactions to social adversity and, at the end of the year, greater stress, poorer health, and lower grades in school. Studies 2 and 3, both experiments, tested a brief intervention that taught a malleable (incremental) theory of personality-the belief that people can change. The incremental theory group showed less negative reactions to an immediate experience of social adversity and, 8 months later, reported lower overall stress and physical illness. They also achieved better academic performance over the year. Discussion centers on the power of targeted psychological interventions to effect far-reaching and long-term change by shifting interpretations of recurring adversities during developmental transitions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).

View details for DOI 10.1037/a0036335

View details for PubMedID 24841093

Recent years have seen a rejuvenation of interest in studies of motivation-cognition interactions arising from many different areas of psychology and neuroscience. The present issue of Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience provides a sampling of some of the latest research from a number of these different areas. In this introductory article, we provide an overview of the current state of the field, in terms of key research developments and candidate neural mechanisms receiving focused investigation as potential sources of motivation-cognition interaction. However, our primary goal is conceptual: to highlight the distinct perspectives taken by different research areas, in terms of how motivation is defined, the relevant dimensions and dissociations that are emphasized, and the theoretical questions being targeted. Together, these distinctions present both challenges and opportunities for efforts aiming toward a more unified and cross-disciplinary approach. We identify a set of pressing research questions calling for this sort of cross-disciplinary approach, with the explicit goal of encouraging integrative and collaborative investigations directed toward them.

View details for DOI 10.3758/s13415-014-0300-0

View details for Web of Science ID 000338516800001

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC4986920

Adolescents face many academic and emotional challenges in middle school, but notable differences are evident in how well they adapt. What predicts adolescents' academic and emotional outcomes during this period? One important factor might be adolescents' implicit theories about whether intelligence and emotions can change. The current study examines how these theories affect academic and emotional outcomes. One hundred fifteen students completed surveys throughout middle school, and their grades and course selections were obtained from school records. Students who believed that intelligence could be developed earned higher grades and were more likely to move to advanced math courses over time. Students who believed that emotions could be controlled reported fewer depressive symptoms and, if they began middle school with lower well-being, were more likely to feel better over time. These findings illustrate the power of adolescents' implicit theories, suggesting exciting new pathways for intervention. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).

View details for DOI 10.1037/a0035490

View details for PubMedID 24512251

Evaluating others is a fundamental feature of human social interaction-we like those who help more than those who hinder. In the present research, we examined social evaluation of those who not only intentionally performed good and bad actions but also those to whom good things have happened (the lucky) and those to whom bad things have happened (the unlucky). In Experiment 1a, subjects demonstrated a sympathetic preference for the unlucky. However, under cognitive load (Experiment 1b), no such preference was expressed. Further, in Experiments 2a and 2b, when a time delay between impression formation (learning) and evaluation (memory test) was introduced, results showed that younger (Experiment 2a) and older adults (Experiment 2b) showed a significant preference for the lucky. Together these experiments show that a consciously motivated sympathetic preference for those who are unlucky dissolves when memory is disrupted. The observed dissociation provides evidence for the presence of conscious good intentions (favoring the unlucky) and the cognitive compromising of such intentions when memory fails.

View details for DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0079091

View details for Web of Science ID 000327254700091

View details for PubMedID 24236093

View details for DOI 10.1080/01973533.2013.840632

View details for Web of Science ID 000327235400001

Past research found that the ingestion of glucose can enhance self-control. It has been widely assumed that basic physiological processes underlie this effect. We hypothesized that the effect of glucose also depends on people's theories about willpower. Three experiments, both measuring (experiment 1) and manipulating (experiments 2 and 3) theories about willpower, showed that, following a demanding task, only people who view willpower as limited and easily depleted (a limited resource theory) exhibited improved self-control after sugar consumption. In contrast, people who view willpower as plentiful (a nonlimited resource theory) showed no benefits from glucose-they exhibited high levels of self-control performance with or without sugar boosts. Additionally, creating beliefs about glucose ingestion (experiment 3) did not have the same effect as ingesting glucose for those with a limited resource theory. We suggest that the belief that willpower is limited sensitizes people to cues about their available resources including physiological cues, making them dependent on glucose boosts for high self-control performance.

View details for DOI 10.1073/pnas.1313475110

View details for Web of Science ID 000324125100020

View details for PubMedID 23959900

Past research has shown that hostile schemas and adverse experiences predict the hostile attributional bias. This research proposes that seemingly nonhostile beliefs (implicit theories about the malleability of personality) may also play a role in shaping it. Study 1 meta-analytically summarized 11 original tests of this hypothesis (N = 1,659), and showed that among diverse adolescents aged 13-16 a fixed or entity theory about personality traits predicted greater hostile attributional biases, which mediated an effect on aggressive desires. Study 2 experimentally changed adolescents' implicit theories toward a malleable or incremental view and showed a reduction in hostile intent attributions. Study 3 delivered an incremental theory intervention that reduced hostile intent attributions and aggressive desires over an 8-month period.

View details for DOI 10.1111/cdev.12062

View details for Web of Science ID 000323829300013

View details for PubMedID 23402434

In laboratory studies, praising children's effort encourages them to adopt incremental motivational frameworks--they believe ability is malleable, attribute success to hard work, enjoy challenges, and generate strategies for improvement. In contrast, praising children's inherent abilities encourages them to adopt fixed-ability frameworks. Does the praise parents spontaneously give children at home show the same effects? Although parents' early praise of inherent characteristics was not associated with children's later fixed-ability frameworks, parents' praise of children's effort at 14-38 months (N = 53) did predict incremental frameworks at 7-8 years, suggesting that causal mechanisms identified in experimental work may be operating in home environments.

View details for DOI 10.1111/cdev.12064

View details for Web of Science ID 000323829300005

View details for PubMedID 23397904

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.002

View details for Web of Science ID 000319852600008

Adolescents are often resistant to interventions that reduce aggression in children. At the same time, they are developing stronger beliefs in the fixed nature of personal characteristics, particularly aggression. The present intervention addressed these beliefs. A randomized field experiment with a diverse sample of Grades 9 and 10 students (ages 14-16, n = 230) tested the impact of a 6-session intervention that taught an incremental theory (a belief in the potential for personal change). Compared to no-treatment and coping skills control groups, the incremental theory group behaved significantly less aggressively and more prosocially 1 month postintervention and exhibited fewer conduct problems 3 months postintervention. The incremental theory and the coping skills interventions also eliminated the association between peer victimization and depressive symptoms.

View details for DOI 10.1111/cdev.12003

View details for Web of Science ID 000318624500016

View details for PubMedID 23106262

• Social-cognitive development: A renaissance Navigating the Social World: What infants, children, and other species can teach us Dweck, C. S. 2013
• Parent praise to 1-3 year-olds predicts children’s motivational frameworks 5 years later Child Development Gunderson, L., Gripshover, S., Romero, C., Goldin-Meadow, S., Dweck, C. S., Levine, S. 2013
• How universals and individual differences can inform each other: The case of social expectations in infancy Navigating the Social World: What infants, children, and other species can teach us Johnson, S. C., Dweck, C. S., Dunfield, K. edited by Banaji, M. R., Gelman, S. New York: Oxford. 2013

Intergroup contact plays a crucial role in moderating long-term conflicts. Unfortunately, the motivation to make contact with outgroup members is usually very low in such conflicts. We hypothesized that one limiting factor is the belief that groups cannot change, which leads to increased intergroup anxiety and decreased contact motivation. To test this hypothesis, we experimentally manipulated beliefs about group malleability in the context of the conflict between Greek and Turkish Cypriots and then assessed intergroup anxiety and motivation to engage in intergroup contact. Turkish Cypriots who were led to believe that groups can change (with no mention of the specific groups involved) reported lower levels of intergroup anxiety and higher motivation to interact and communicate with Greek Cypriots in the future, compared with those who were led to believe that groups cannot change. This effect of group malleability manipulation on contact motivation was mediated by intergroup anxiety.

View details for DOI 10.1037/a0028620

View details for Web of Science ID 000311878700003

View details for PubMedID 22642339

The authors test the assumption that the core of implicit motives is the desire for particular affective experiences and that motive satisfaction need not be tied to any particular domain. Using the context of romantic relationships, cross-sectional Study 1 and experimental Study 2 showed that people with a high affiliation motive were more satisfied when they experienced more affiliation-specific affect (calmness and relaxation). However, people with a higher power motive were more satisfied in their relationships when they experienced more power-specific affect (strength and excitement) in these relationships. The results support the idea that an implicit motive involves the desire for specific affective experiences and that frequent experiences of one's preferred affect can lead to enhanced satisfaction and well-being in a domain, even one that is not typically associated with that motive.

View details for DOI 10.1177/0146167212454920

View details for Web of Science ID 000311570600002

View details for PubMedID 22854792

We identify a novel dimension of people's beliefs about intelligence: beliefs about the potential to become highly intelligent. Studies 1-3 found that in U.S. American contexts, people tend to believe that only some people have the potential to become highly intelligent. In contrast, in South Asian Indian contexts, people tend to believe that most people have the potential to become highly intelligent. To examine the implications of these beliefs, Studies 4-6 measured and manipulated Americans' beliefs about the potential for intelligence and found that the belief that everyone can become highly intelligent predicted increased support for policies that distribute resources more equally across advantaged and disadvantaged social groups. These findings suggest that the belief that only some people have the potential to become highly intelligent is a culturally shaped belief, and one that can lead people to oppose policies aimed at redressing social inequality.

View details for DOI 10.1037/a0029263

View details for Web of Science ID 000310042000005

View details for PubMedID 22800285

Debates about human nature often revolve around what is built in. However, the hallmark of human nature is how much of a person's identity is not built in; rather, it is humans' great capacity to adapt, change, and grow. This nature versus nurture debate matters-not only to students of human nature-but to everyone. It matters whether people believe that their core qualities are fixed by nature (an entity theory, or fixed mindset) or whether they believe that their qualities can be developed (an incremental theory, or growth mindset). In this article, I show that an emphasis on growth not only increases intellectual achievement but can also advance conflict resolution between long-standing adversaries, decrease even chronic aggression, foster cross-race relations, and enhance willpower. I close by returning to human nature and considering how it is best conceptualized and studied.

View details for DOI 10.1037/a0029783

View details for Web of Science ID 000311008200006

View details for PubMedID 23163438

Prejudiced behavior is typically seen as emanating from prejudiced attitudes. Eight studies showed that majority-group members' beliefs about prejudice can create seemingly "prejudiced" behaviors above and beyond prejudice measured explicitly (Study 1b) and implicitly (Study 2). Those who believed prejudice was relatively fixed, rather than malleable, were less interested in interracial interactions (Studies 1a-1d), race- or diversity-related activities (Study 1a), and activities to reduce their prejudice (Study 3). They were also more uncomfortable in interracial, but not same-race, interactions (Study 2). Study 4 manipulated beliefs about prejudice and found that a fixed belief, by heightening concerns about revealing prejudice to oneself and others, depressed interest in interracial interactions. Further, though Whites who were taught a fixed belief were more anxious and unfriendly in an interaction with a Black compared with a White individual, Whites who were taught a malleable belief were not (Study 5). Implications for reducing prejudice and improving intergroup relations are discussed.

View details for DOI 10.1037/a0028849

View details for Web of Science ID 000307793500008

View details for PubMedID 22708626

Can young children, forming expectations about the social world, capture differences among people without falling into the pitfalls of categorization? Categorization often leads to exaggerating differences between groups and minimizing differences within groups, resulting in stereotyping. Six studies with 4-year-old children (N = 214) characterized schematic faces or photographs as falling along a continuum (really mean to really nice) or divided into categories (mean vs. nice). Using materials that children naturally group into categories (Study 3), the continuum framing prevented the signature pattern of categorization for similarity judgments (Study 1), inferences about behavior and deservingness (Studies 2 and 5), personal liking and play preferences (Study 4), and stable and internal attributions for behavior (Study 6). When children recognize people as members of continua, they may avoid stereotypes.

View details for DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01774.x

View details for Web of Science ID 000306403700004

View details for PubMedID 22540868

Building cognitive abilities often requires sustained engagement with effortful tasks. We demonstrate that beliefs about willpower-whether willpower is viewed as a limited or non-limited resource-impact sustained learning on a strenuous mental task. As predicted, beliefs about willpower did not affect accuracy or improvement during the initial phases of learning; however, participants who were led to view willpower as non-limited showed greater sustained learning over the full duration of the task. These findings highlight the interactive nature of motivational and cognitive processes: motivational factors can substantially affect people's ability to recruit their cognitive resources to sustain learning over time.

View details for DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0038680

View details for Web of Science ID 000305730900016

View details for PubMedID 22745675

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC3382137

Legal precedent establishes juvenile offenders as inherently less culpable than adult offenders and thus protects juveniles from the most severe of punishments. But how fragile might these protections be? In the present study, simply bringing to mind a Black (vs. White) juvenile offender led participants to view juveniles in general as significantly more similar to adults in their inherent culpability and to express more support for severe sentencing. Indeed, these differences in participants' perceptions of this foundational legal precedent distinguishing between juveniles and adults accounted for their greater support for severe punishment. These results highlight the fragility of protections for juveniles when race is in play. Furthermore, we suggest that this fragility may have broad implications for how juveniles are seen and treated in the criminal justice system.

View details for DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0036680

View details for Web of Science ID 000305335800013

View details for PubMedID 22649496

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC3359323

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012

View details for Web of Science ID 000303075000016

Sense of belonging to math-one's feelings of membership and acceptance in the math domain-was established as a new and an important factor in the representation gap between males and females in math. First, a new scale of sense of belonging to math was created and validated, and was found to predict unique variance in college students' intent to pursue math in the future (Studies 1-2). Second, in a longitudinal study of calculus students (Study 3), students' perceptions of 2 factors in their math environment-the message that math ability is a fixed trait and the stereotype that women have less of this ability than men-worked together to erode women's, but not men's, sense of belonging in math. Their lowered sense of belonging, in turn, mediated women's desire to pursue math in the future and their math grades. Interestingly, the message that math ability could be acquired protected women from negative stereotypes, allowing them to maintain a high sense of belonging in math and the intention to pursue math in the future.

View details for DOI 10.1037/a0026659

View details for Web of Science ID 000301884100003

View details for PubMedID 22288527

Gender-based stereotypes undermine females' performance on challenging math tests, but how do they influence their ability to learn from the errors they make? Females under stereotype threat or non-threat were presented with accuracy feedback after each problem on a GRE-like math test, followed by an optional interactive tutorial that provided step-wise problem-solving instruction. Event-related potentials tracked the initial detection of the negative feedback following errors [feedback related negativity (FRN), P3a], as well as any subsequent sustained attention/arousal to that information [late positive potential (LPP)]. Learning was defined as success in applying tutorial information to correction of initial test errors on a surprise retest 24-h later. Under non-threat conditions, emotional responses to negative feedback did not curtail exploration of the tutor, and the amount of tutor exploration predicted learning success. In the stereotype threat condition, however, greater initial salience of the failure (FRN) predicted less exploration of the tutor, and sustained attention to the negative feedback (LPP) predicted poor learning from what was explored. Thus, under stereotype threat, emotional responses to negative feedback predicted both disengagement from learning and interference with learning attempts. We discuss the importance of emotion regulation in successful rebound from failure for stigmatized groups in stereotype-salient environments.

View details for DOI 10.1093/scan/nsq100

View details for Web of Science ID 000300227500012

View details for PubMedID 21252312

View details for DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-394286-9.00003-2

View details for Web of Science ID 000306817800003

• An implicit theories of personality intervention reduces adolescent aggression in response to victimization and exclusion Child Development Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K., Dweck, C. S. 2012 ; 84 : 970 - 988
• Expandable selves Handbook of self and identity Walton, G. M., Paunesku, D., Dweck, C. S. edited by Leary, M., Tangney, J. New York: Guilford. 2012

View details for DOI 10.1080/00461520.2012.722805

View details for Web of Science ID 000310142900003

Drawing upon the literatures on beliefs about magical contagion and property transmission, we examined people's belief in a novel mechanism of human-to-human contagion, emotional residue. This is the lay belief that people's emotions leave traces in the physical environment, which can later influence others or be sensed by others. Studies 1-4 demonstrated that Indians are more likely than Americans to endorse a lay theory of emotions as substances that move in and out of the body, and to claim that they can sense emotional residue. However, when the belief in emotional residue is measured implicitly, both Indians and American believe to a similar extent that emotional residue influences the moods and behaviors of those who come into contact with it (Studies 5-7). Both Indians and Americans also believe that closer relationships and a larger number of people yield more detectable residue (Study 8). Finally, Study 9 demonstrated that beliefs about emotional residue can influence people's behaviors. Together, these finding suggest that emotional residue is likely to be an intuitive concept, one that people in different cultures acquire even without explicit instruction.

View details for DOI 10.1037/a0024102

View details for Web of Science ID 000295196400003

View details for PubMedID 21688925

Four studies showed that beliefs about whether groups have a malleable versus fixed nature affected intergroup attitudes and willingness to compromise for peace. Using a nationwide sample (N = 500) of Israeli Jews, the first study showed that a belief that groups were malleable predicted positive attitudes toward Palestinians, which in turn predicted willingness to compromise. In the remaining three studies, experimentally inducing malleable versus fixed beliefs about groups among Israeli Jews (N = 76), Palestinian citizens of Israel (N = 59), and Palestinians in the West Bank (N = 53)--without mentioning the adversary--led to more positive attitudes toward the outgroup and, in turn, increased willingness to compromise for peace.

View details for DOI 10.1126/science.1202925

View details for Web of Science ID 000295121500049

View details for PubMedID 21868627

Three randomized experiments found that subtle linguistic cues have the power to increase voting and related behavior. The phrasing of survey items was varied to frame voting either as the enactment of a personal identity (e.g., "being a voter") or as simply a behavior (e.g., "voting"). As predicted, the personal-identity phrasing significantly increased interest in registering to vote (experiment 1) and, in two statewide elections in the United States, voter turnout as assessed by official state records (experiments 2 and 3). These results provide evidence that people are continually managing their self-concepts, seeking to assume or affirm valued personal identities. The results further demonstrate how this process can be channeled to motivate important socially relevant behavior.

View details for DOI 10.1073/pnas.1103343108

View details for Web of Science ID 000293385700029

View details for PubMedID 21768362

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC3150938

Why do some adolescents respond to interpersonal conflicts vengefully, whereas others seek more positive solutions? Three studies investigated the role of implicit theories of personality in predicting violent or vengeful responses to peer conflicts among adolescents in Grades 9 and 10. They showed that a greater belief that traits are fixed (an entity theory) predicted a stronger desire for revenge after a variety of recalled peer conflicts (Study 1) and after a hypothetical conflict that specifically involved bullying (Study 2). Study 3 experimentally induced a belief in the potential for change (an incremental theory), which resulted in a reduced desire to seek revenge. This effect was mediated by changes in bad-person attributions about the perpetrators, feelings of shame and hatred, and the belief that vengeful ideation is an effective emotion-regulation strategy. Together, the findings illuminate the social-cognitive processes underlying reactions to conflict and suggest potential avenues for reducing violent retaliation in adolescents.

View details for DOI 10.1037/a0023769

View details for Web of Science ID 000292481800020

View details for PubMedID 21604865

View details for Web of Science ID 000292005700004

View details for DOI 10.1177/0022002710383670

View details for Web of Science ID 000289616700005

Four studies document underestimations of the prevalence of others' negative emotions and suggest causes and correlates of these erroneous perceptions. In Study 1a, participants reported that their negative emotions were more private or hidden than were their positive emotions; in Study 1b, participants underestimated the peer prevalence of common negative, but not positive, experiences described in Study 1a. In Study 2, people underestimated negative emotions and overestimated positive emotions even for well-known peers, and this effect was partially mediated by the degree to which those peers reported suppression of negative (vs. positive) emotions. Study 3 showed that lower estimations of the prevalence of negative emotional experiences predicted greater loneliness and rumination and lower life satisfaction and that higher estimations for positive emotional experiences predicted lower life satisfaction. Taken together, these studies suggest that people may think they are more alone in their emotional difficulties than they really are.

View details for DOI 10.1177/0146167210390822

View details for PubMedID 21177878

• Self-Theories Handbook of theories in social psychology Dweck, C. S. edited by Lange, P. V., Kruglanski, A., Higgins, E. T. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. 2011
• Academic tenacity White paper prepared for the Gates Foundation Dweck, C. S., Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. 2011
• Motivation and intelligence Handbook of Intelligence Carr, P. B., Dweck, C. S. edited by Fieldman, S., Sternberg, R. New York: Cambridge. 2011
• Buried treasures: Depression, murder, praise, and intelligence Most Underappreciated: 50 Of the Most Eminent Social Psychologists Talk About Hidden Gems Dweck, C. S. edited by Arkin, R. New York: Oxford University Press. 2011

Much recent research suggests that willpower--the capacity to exert self-control--is a limited resource that is depleted after exertion. We propose that whether depletion takes place or not depends on a person's belief about whether willpower is a limited resource. Study 1 found that individual differences in lay theories about willpower moderate ego-depletion effects: People who viewed the capacity for self-control as not limited did not show diminished self-control after a depleting experience. Study 2 replicated the effect, manipulating lay theories about willpower. Study 3 addressed questions about the mechanism underlying the effect. Study 4, a longitudinal field study, found that theories about willpower predict change in eating behavior, procrastination, and self-regulated goal striving in depleting circumstances. Taken together, the findings suggest that reduced self-control after a depleting task or during demanding periods may reflect people's beliefs about the availability of willpower rather than true resource depletion.

View details for DOI 10.1177/0956797610384745

View details for Web of Science ID 000285456800024

View details for PubMedID 20876879

View details for Web of Science ID 000281415800007

Despite the possible costs, confronting prejudice can have important benefits, ranging from the well-being of the target of prejudice to social change. What, then, motivates targets of prejudice to confront people who express explicit bias? In three studies, we tested the hypothesis that targets who hold an incremental theory of personality (i.e., the belief that people can change) are more likely to confront prejudice than targets who hold an entity theory of personality (i.e., the belief that people have fixed traits). In Study 1, targets' beliefs about the malleability of personality predicted whether they spontaneously confronted an individual who expressed bias. In Study 2, targets who held more of an incremental theory reported that they would be more likely to confront prejudice and less likely to withdraw from future interactions with an individual who expressed prejudice. In Study 3, we manipulated implicit theories and replicated these findings. By highlighting the central role that implicit theories of personality play in targets' motivation to confront prejudice, this research has important implications for intergroup relations and social change.

View details for DOI 10.1177/0956797610374740

View details for Web of Science ID 000285453600011

View details for PubMedID 20551213

Three visual habituation studies using abstract animations tested the claim that infants' attachment behavior in the Strange Situation procedure corresponds to their expectations about caregiver-infant interactions. Three unique patterns of expectations were revealed. Securely attached infants expected infants to seek comfort from caregivers and expected caregivers to provide comfort. Insecure-resistant infants not only expected infants to seek comfort from caregivers but also expected caregivers to withhold comfort. Insecure-avoidant infants expected infants to avoid seeking comfort from caregivers and expected caregivers to withhold comfort. These data support Bowlby's (1958) original claims-that infants form internal working models of attachment that are expressed in infants' own behavior.

View details for DOI 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01112.x

View details for Web of Science ID 000279610500006

View details for PubMedID 21564237

Traditionally, researchers have conceptualized implicit theories as individual differences-lay theories that vary between people. This article, however, investigates the consequences of organization-level implicit theories of intelligence. In five studies, the authors examine how an organization's fixed (entity) or malleable (incremental) theory of intelligence affects people's inferences about what is valued, their self- and social judgments, and their behavioral decisions. In Studies 1 and 2, the authors find that people systematically shift their self-presentations when motivated to join an entity or incremental organization. People present their "smarts" to the entity environment and their "motivation" to the incremental environment. In Studies 3a and 4, they show downstream consequences of these inferences for participants' self-concepts and their hiring decisions. In Study 3b, they demonstrate that the effects are not due to simple priming. The implications for understanding how environments shape cognition and behavior and, more generally, for implicit theories research are discussed.

View details for DOI 10.1177/0146167209347380

View details for Web of Science ID 000274848000001

View details for PubMedID 19826076

• Self-theories: The roots of defensiveness The social psychological foundations of clinical psychology Dweck, C. S., Elliott-Moskwa, E. edited by Maddux, J. E., Tagney, J. P. New York: Guilford Press. 2010

View details for DOI 10.1017/S0140525X09991427

View details for Web of Science ID 000274676100011

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.007

View details for Web of Science ID 000269278800033

View details for Web of Science ID 000270262700011

View details for DOI 10.1159/000242351

View details for Web of Science ID 000271818600004

• Augmenting cognition: Psychological studies of children Frontiers in Neuroscience Dweck, C. S. 2009
• Lay theories of personality: Cornerstones of meaning in social cognition Social Psychology Compass Plaks, J. E., Levy, S. R., Dweck, C. S. 2009 ; 3 : 1069 - 1081
• On learning to become a member of one’s culture Why We Cooperate Dweck, C. S. edited by Tomasello, M., Dweck, C. S., Silk, J., Skryms, B., Spelke, E. S. Boston, MA.: Boston Review. 2009
• Foreword The Development of Giftedness and Talent Across the Life-Span Dweck, C. S. edited by Horowitz, F. D., Subotnik, R. F., Matthews, D. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 2009

View details for DOI 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01098.x

View details for Web of Science ID 000262830700025

View details for DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00612.x

View details for Web of Science ID 000261627700007

View details for Web of Science ID 000257785000006

View details for PubMedID 18727778

How people maintain and repair their self-esteem has been a topic of widespread interest. In this article, the authors ask, What determines whether people will use direct, remedial actions, or defensive actions? In three studies, they tested the hypothesis that a belief in fixed intelligence (entity theory) would produce defensiveness, whereas a belief in improvable intelligence (incremental theory) would foster remediation. In each study, participants assigned to the entity condition opted for defensive self-esteem repair (downward comparison in Studies 1 and 3; a tutorial on already mastered material in Study 2), but those in the incremental condition opted for self-improvement (upward comparison in Studies 1 and 3; a tutorial on unmastered material in Study 2). Experiment 3 also linked these strategies to self-esteem repair; remedial strategies were the most effective in recovering lost self-esteem for those in the incremental condition, whereas defensive strategies were most effective for those in the entity condition.

View details for DOI 10.1177/0146167207312960

View details for Web of Science ID 000255167900002

View details for PubMedID 18276895

For millennia, human beings have believed that it is morally wrong to judge others by the fortuitous or unfortunate events that befall them or by the actions of another person. Rather, an individual's own intended, deliberate actions should be the basis of his or her evaluation, reward, and punishment. In a series of studies, the authors investigated whether such rules guide the judgments of children. The first 3 studies demonstrated that children view lucky others as more likely than unlucky others to perform intentional good actions. Children similarly assess the siblings of lucky others as more likely to perform intentional good actions than the siblings of unlucky others. The next 3 studies demonstrated that children as young as 3 years believe that lucky people are nicer than unlucky people. The final 2 studies found that Japanese children also demonstrate a robust preference for the lucky and their associates. These findings are discussed in relation to M. J. Lerner's (1980) just-world theory and J. Piaget's (1932/1965) immanent-justice research and in relation to the development of intergroup attitudes.

View details for DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.757

View details for Web of Science ID 000255293700002

View details for PubMedID 18444737

View details for DOI 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00074.x

View details for Web of Science ID 000261999900003

• Self-theories: The construction of free will Are we free? Psychology and free will Dweck, C. S., Molden, D. C. edited by Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., Baumeister, R. F. New York: Oxford University Press. 2008
• Self-theories, goals, and meaning The handbook of motivational science Dweck, C. S., Grant, H. edited by Shah, J., Gardner, W. New York: Guilford. 2008
• Self-theories motivate self-regulated learning Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, Research, and Applications Dweck, C. S., Master, A. edited by Shunk, D., Zimmerman, B. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 2008
• The hidden zero effect: Representing standalone choices as extended sequences reduces impulsive choice Psychological Science Magen, E., Dweck, C. S., Gross, J. J. 2008 ; 19 : 648 - 649

View details for Web of Science ID 000249944600006

View details for Web of Science ID 000247263800007

View details for PubMedID 17576262

View details for Web of Science ID 000246152000008

View details for PubMedID 17470255

Two studies explored the role of implicit theories of intelligence in adolescents' mathematics achievement. In Study 1 with 373 7th graders, the belief that intelligence is malleable (incremental theory) predicted an upward trajectory in grades over the two years of junior high school, while a belief that intelligence is fixed (entity theory) predicted a flat trajectory. A mediational model including learning goals, positive beliefs about effort, and causal attributions and strategies was tested. In Study 2, an intervention teaching an incremental theory to 7th graders (N=48) promoted positive change in classroom motivation, compared with a control group (N=43). Simultaneously, students in the control group displayed a continuing downward trajectory in grades, while this decline was reversed for students in the experimental group.

View details for Web of Science ID 000244517400014

View details for PubMedID 17328703

• Self-theories: The mindset of a champion Sport and exercise psychology: International perspectives Dweck, C. S. edited by Morris, T., Terry, P., Gordon, S. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. 2007
• Social identity, stereotype threat, and self-theories Contesting stereotypes and constructing identities Good, C., Dweck, C. S., Aronson, J. edited by Fuligni, A. New York: Russell Sage. 2007
• The secret to raising smart kids Scientific American: Mind Dweck, C. S. 2007 : 36 - 43

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.11.005

View details for Web of Science ID 000241366900004

The way individuals choose to handle their feelings during interpersonal conflicts has important consequences for relationship outcomes. In this article, the authors predict and find evidence that people's implicit theory of personality is an important predictor of conflict behavior following a relationship transgression. Incremental theorists, who believe personality can change and improve, were likely to voice their displeasure with others openly and constructively during conflicts. Entity theorists, who believe personality is fundamentally fixed, were less likely to voice their dissatisfactions directly. These patterns were observed in both a retrospective study of conflict in dating relationships (Study 1) and a prospective study of daily conflict experiences (Study 2). Study 2 revealed that the divergence between incremental and entity theorists was increasingly pronounced as conflicts increased in severity: the higher the stakes the stronger the effect.

View details for DOI 10.1177/0146167206291476

View details for Web of Science ID 000241331200007

View details for PubMedID 17030891

View details for Web of Science ID 000242289600005

View details for PubMedID 17100783

Students' beliefs and goals can powerfully influence their learning success. Those who believe intelligence is a fixed entity (entity theorists) tend to emphasize 'performance goals,' leaving them vulnerable to negative feedback and likely to disengage from challenging learning opportunities. In contrast, students who believe intelligence is malleable (incremental theorists) tend to emphasize 'learning goals' and rebound better from occasional failures. Guided by cognitive neuroscience models of top-down, goal-directed behavior, we use event-related potentials (ERPs) to understand how these beliefs influence attention to information associated with successful error correction. Focusing on waveforms associated with conflict detection and error correction in a test of general knowledge, we found evidence indicating that entity theorists oriented differently toward negative performance feedback, as indicated by an enhanced anterior frontal P3 that was also positively correlated with concerns about proving ability relative to others. Yet, following negative feedback, entity theorists demonstrated less sustained memory-related activity (left temporal negativity) to corrective information, suggesting reduced effortful conceptual encoding of this material-a strategic approach that may have contributed to their reduced error correction on a subsequent surprise retest. These results suggest that beliefs can influence learning success through top-down biasing of attention and conceptual processing toward goal-congruent information.

View details for DOI 10.1093/scan/nsl013

View details for Web of Science ID 000208129700002

View details for PubMedID 17392928

Much of psychology focuses on universal principles of thought and action. Although an extremely productive pursuit, this approach, by describing only the "average person," risks describing no one in particular. This article discusses an alternate approach that complements interests in universal principles with analyses of the unique psychological meaning that individuals find in their experiences and interactions. Rooted in research on social cognition, this approach examines how people's lay theories about the stability or malleability of human attributes alter the meaning they give to basic psychological processes such as self-regulation and social perception. Following a review of research on this lay theories perspective in the field of social psychology, the implications of analyzing psychological meaning for other fields such as developmental, cultural, and personality psychology are discussed.

View details for Web of Science ID 000236824300001

View details for PubMedID 16594836

• A motivational approach to reasoning, resilience, and responsibility The other 3 R’s: Reasoning, resilience, and responsibility Good, C., Dweck, C. S. edited by Subotonik, R., Sternberg, R. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 2006
• Self-theories and conflict resolution Handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice Dweck, C. S., Ehrlinger, J., Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 2006
• How stereotypes influence the meaning students give to academic settings Navigating the future: Social identity, coping, and life tasks Lawrence, J. S., Crocker, J., Dweck, C. S. edited by Downey, G., Eccles, J., Chatman, C. New York: Russell Sage. 2006
• Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence Dweck, C. S. edited by Ceci, S. J., William, W. M. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 2006
• Mindset Dweck, C. S. New York: Random House. 2006

Beginning with the assumption that implicit theories of personality are crucial tools for understanding social behavior, the authors tested the hypothesis that perceivers would process person information that violated their predominant theory in a biased manner. Using an attentional probe paradigm (Experiment 1) and a recognition memory paradigm (Experiment 2), the authors presented entity theorists (who believe that human attributes are fixed) and incremental theorists (who believe that human attributes are malleable) with stereotype-relevant information about a target person that supported or violated their respective theory. Both groups of participants showed evidence of motivated, selective processing only with respect to theory-violating information. In Experiment 3, the authors found that after exposure to theory-violating information, participants felt greater anxiety and worked harder to reestablish their sense of prediction and control mastery. The authors discuss the epistemic functions of implicit theories of personality and the impact of violated assumptions.

View details for DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.245

View details for Web of Science ID 000226585400002

View details for PubMedID 15841857

• The handbook of competence and motivation edited by Elliot, A., Dweck, C. S. New York: Guilford. 2005
• Self-Theories: Their impact on competence motivation and acquisition The handbook of competence and motivation Dweck, C. S., Molden, D. C. 2005

View details for Web of Science ID 000225587900003

• Motivational effects on attention, cognition, and performance Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrated perspectives on intellectual functioning Dweck, C. S., Mangels, J., Good, C. edited by Dai, D. Y., Sternberg, R. J. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 2004
• The role of mental representation in social development Appraising past, present, and prospective research agendas in the human development sciences Dweck, C. S. edited by Ladd, G. Detriot: Wayne State University Press. 2004

The study of achievement goals has illuminated basic motivational processes, though controversy surrounds their nature and impact. In 5 studies, including a longitudinal study in a difficult premed course, the authors show that the impact of learning and performance goals depends on how they are operationalized. Active learning goals predicted active coping, sustained motivation, and higher achievement in the face of challenge. Among performance goals, ability-linked goals predicted withdrawal and poorer performance in the face of challenge (but provided a "boost" to performance when students met with success); normative goals did not predict decrements in motivation or performance; and outcome goals (wanting a good grade) were in fact equally related to learning goals and ability goals. Ways in which the findings address discrepancies in the literature are discussed.

View details for DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541

View details for Web of Science ID 000185259200013

View details for PubMedID 14498789

• Ability conceptions, motivation, and development British Journal of Educational Psychology (Special Issue: Motivation and Development) Dweck, C. S. 2003
• The development of ability conceptions The development of achievement motivation Dweck, C. S. edited by Wingfield, A., Eccles, J. New York: Academic Press. 2002
• Self-systems give unique meaning to self-variables Handbook of self and identity Dweck, C. S., Higgins, E. T., Grant, H. edited by Leary, M., Tagney, J. New York: Guilford. 2002
• In the eye of the beholder: Implicit theories and the perception of groups The psychology of group perception Plaks, J., Levy, S., Dweck, C. S., Strossner edited by Yzerbyt, V., Corneille, O., Judd, C. New York: Psychology Press. 2002
• Messages that motivate: How praise molds students' beliefs, motivation, and performance (In Surprising Ways) Improving academic achievement Dweck, C. S. edited by Aronson, J. New York: Academic Press. 2002
• Beliefs that make smart people dumb Why smart people do stupid things Dweck, C. S. edited by Sternberg, R. J. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2002

How do people respond to information that counters a stereotype? Do they approach it or avoid it? Four experiments showed that attention to stereotype-consistent vs. -inconsistent information depends on people's implicit theories about human traits. Those holding an entity theory (the belief that traits are fixed) consistently displayed greater attention to (Experiments 1 and 4) and recognition of (Experiments 2 and 3) consistent information. whereas those holding an incremental (dynamic) theory tended to display greater attention to (Experiment 1) and recognition of (Experiment 3) inconsistent information. This was true whether implicit theories were measured as chronic structures (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) or were experimentally manipulated (Experiment 3). Thus, different a priori assumptions about human traits and behavior lead to processing that supports versus limits stereotype maintenance.

View details for DOI 10.1037//0022-3514.80.6.876

View details for Web of Science ID 000170456200004

View details for PubMedID 11414372

• Cross-cultural response to failure: Considering outcome attributions within different goals Student motivation: The culture and context of learning Grant, H., Dweck, C. S. edited by Salili, F., Chiu, C., Hong, Y. New York: Plenum. 2001
• Person theories and attention allocation: Preference for stereotypic vs. counterstereotypic information Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Plaks, J., Stroessner, S., Dweck, C. S., Sherman, J. 2001 ; 80 : 876 - 893

View details for Web of Science ID 000168592200006

• Meaning and motivation Intrinsic motivation Molden, D., Dweck, C. S. edited by Sansone, C., Harackiewicz, J. San Diego, CA: Academic Pres. 2000
• Teorie del se': Intelligenza, motivazione, personalita' e sviluppo Self-Theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development Dweck, C. S. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press. 2000

View details for Web of Science ID 000082743400012

View details for Web of Science ID 000083197900009

Conventional wisdom suggests that praising a child as a whole or praising his or her traits is beneficial. Two studies tested the hypothesis that both criticism and praise that conveyed person or trait judgments could send a message of contingent worth and undermine subsequent coping. In Study 1, 67 children (ages 5-6 years) role-played tasks involving a setback and received 1 of 3 forms of criticism after each task: person, outcome, or process criticism. In Study 2, 64 children role-played successful tasks and received either person, outcome, or process praise. In both studies, self-assessments, affect, and persistence were measured on a subsequent task involving a setback. Results indicated that children displayed significantly more "helpless" responses (including self-blame) on all dependent measures after person criticism or praise than after process criticism or praise. Thus person feedback, even when positive, can create vulnerability and a sense of contingent self-worth.

View details for Web of Science ID 000080687800021

View details for PubMedID 10380873

• Self-Theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development Dweck, C. S. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press. 1999
• Children’s static vs. dynamic person conceptions as predictors of their stereotype formation Child Development Levy, S. R., Dweck, C. S. 1999 ; 70 : 1163 - 1180
• Mastery-oriented thinking Coping Dweck, C. S., Sorich, L. edited by Snyder, R. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999
• Content vs. structural models of self-regulation Advances in social cognition Grant, H., Dweck, C. S. 1999
• Caution: Praise can be dangerous American Educator Dweck, C. S. 1999 ; 23 (1) : 4 - 9
• A goal analysis of personality and personality coherence Social-cognitive approaches to personality coherence Grant, H., Dweck, C. S. edited by Cervone, D., Shoda, Y. New York: Guilford Press. 1999 : 345–371
• Modes of social thought: Implicit theories and social understanding Dual process models in social psychology Levy, S., Plaks, J. E., Dweck, C. S. edited by Chaiken, S., Trope, Y. New York: Guilford Press. 1999

View details for Web of Science ID 000077691800002

View details for Web of Science ID 000074328700001

The relation between the way in which children interpret human behavior and their beliefs about the stability of human traits is investigated. In interviews with 202 7- and 8-year-olds across 2 studies, the belief that traits are stable predicted a greater tendency to make trait judgments, and an increased focus on outcomes and behaviors through which traits can be judged. In the academic domain, a belief in trait stability was associated with an emphasis on the evaluative meanings of performance outcomes, as opposed to mediating processes such as effort. In the sociomoral domain, the same belief was associated with an emphasis on the evaluative meanings of behaviors (e.g., whether the person is good or bad), as opposed to factors that mediate behavior, such as intention. Results suggest that beliefs about the stability of traits may serve an important role in thinking about and functioning within the academic and sociomoral domains.

View details for Web of Science ID 000073343300011

View details for PubMedID 9586214

View details for Web of Science ID 000074161300009

• Motivation and self-regulation across the life span Dweck, C. S. edited by Heckhausen, J., Dweck, C. S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998
• The development of early self-conceptions: Their relevance for motivational processes Motivation and self-regulation across the life span Dweck, C. S. edited by Hechausen, J., Dweck, C. S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998 : 257–280
• Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Mueller, C. M., Dweck, C. S. 1998 ; 75 : 33 - 52

View details for Web of Science ID A1997YD81800003

Lay dispositionism refers to lay people's tendency to use traits as the basic unit of analysis in social perception (L. Ross & R. E. Nisbett, 1991). Five studies explored the relation between the practices indicative of lay dispositionism and people's implicit theories about the nature of personal attributes. As predicted, compared with those who believed that personal attributes are malleable (incremental theorists), those who believed in fixed traits (entity theorists) used traits or trait-relevant information to make stronger future behavioral predictions (Studies 1 and 2) and made stronger trait inferences from behavior (Study 3). Moreover, the relation between implicit theories and lay dispositionism was found in both the United States (a more individualistic culture) and Hong Kong (a more collectivistic culture), suggesting this relation to be generalizable across cultures (Study 4). Finally, an experiment in which implicit theories were manipulated provided preliminary evidence for the possible causal role of implicit theories in lay dispositionism (Study 5).

View details for Web of Science ID A1997XG51500002

View details for PubMedID 9216077

View details for Web of Science ID A1997WX63900005

Two studies examined children's thought patterns in relation to their responses to social challenge. In Study 1, 4th and 5th graders tried out for a pen pal club under either a performance goal (stressing the evaluative nature of the tryout) or a learning goal (emphasizing the potential learning opportunities). In their behavior and attributions following rejection, children who were focused on a performance goal reacted with more helplessness, whereas children given a learning goal displayed a more mastery-oriented response. Study 2 found that in response to hypothetical socially challenging situations, 4th, 5th, and 6th graders who believed personality was nonmalleable (entity theorists) vs. malleable (incremental theorists) were more likely to endorse performance goals. Together, these studies indicate that children's goals in social situations are associated with their responses to social failure and are predicted by their implicit theories about their personality.

View details for Web of Science ID A1997WM80500007

View details for PubMedID 9147835

View details for Web of Science ID A1996VT73000005

• Implicit theories as organizers of goals and behavior The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior Dweck, C. S. edited by Gollwitzer, P., Bargh, J. New York: Guilford. 1996
• Social motivation: Goals and social-cognitive processes Social Motivation Dweck, C. S. edited by Juvonen, J., Wentzel, K. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1996

This article presents an expanded view of the bases of helpless reactions to failure. This view stems from recent findings of helplessness in young children. Previous formulations have stressed the attainment of invariant trait conceptions as a necessary condition for helplessness to occur and have suggested that children are relatively invulnerable to helplessness prior to this attainment. We review a series of studies documenting that key aspects of helplessness are present in preschool and early elementary school children (ages 4-7). We then propose a preliminary model in which (a) a general conception of self and (b) the notion of this self as an object of contingent worth are sufficient conditions for helplessness. We integrate this view with Dweck and Leggett's model of helplessness in older individuals, in which more differentiated trait conceptions play an important role.

View details for Web of Science ID A1995TN06500010

View details for PubMedID 8556895

• Implicit theories of intelligence: Reconsidering the role of confidence in achievement motivation Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, Y. Y., Dweck, C. S., edited by Kemis, M. New York: Plenum. 1995

View details for Web of Science ID A1995QF63100002

• The development of children’s achievement motivation patterns and conceptions of intelligence Merrill-Palmer Quarterly Cain, K., Dweck, C. S. 1995 ; 41 : 25 - 52

View details for Web of Science ID A1995RX39600012

View details for Web of Science ID A1995RX39600001

• The development of self-conceptions and person conceptions Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 15: Social Development Ruble, D. N., Dweck, C. S. edited by Eisenberg, N. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 1995

Developmental research has generally not found evidence of helpless responses to failure in young children; a prevailing view is that young children lack the cognitive prerequisite for helplessness. However, recent evidence suggests that even preschoolers are vulnerable to helplessness in some situations. In the present study with 4- and 5-year-olds, we tested a goal-confidence model that predicts achievement behavior during failure for older children. We first categorized preschoolers' orientations toward "learning" or "performance" goals based on their preference for a challenging or nonchallenging task. As for older children, goal orientation was independent of ability and predicted cognitions and emotions during failure. Further, consistent with the model, within a learning goal, children displayed the mastery-oriented pattern regardless of confidence level, whereas within a performance goal, children with low confidence were most susceptible to helplessness. These behavior patterns were found on a second task as well. Thus, our findings show that individual differences in achievement goals emerge very early.

View details for Web of Science ID A1994QA68600014

View details for PubMedID 7859551

• Toward an integrative model of personality and intelligence: A general framework and some preliminary steps Personality and intelligence Chiu, C. Y., Hong, Y. Y., Dweck, C. S. edited by Stenberg, R., Ruzgis, G. New York: Cambridge. 1994
• The development of achievement motivation International encyclopedia of education Heyman, G. D., Dweck, C. S. edited by Weinert, F. London: Pergamon Press. 1994

View details for Web of Science ID A1993LY98900014

Social judgment and trait ascription have long been central issues in psychology. Two studies tested the hypothesis that children who believe that personality is a fixed quality (entity theorists) would make more rigid and long-term social judgments than those who believe that personality is malleable (incremental theorists). Fourth and fifth graders (mean age 10.2 years) viewed a slide show of a boy displaying negative behaviors (Study 1--being shy, clumsy, and nervous; Study 2--lying, cheating, and stealing) and then made a series of ratings. Half of the subjects saw a consistent (negative) ending, and half saw an inconsistent (more positive) ending. Even when they viewed positive counterevidence, entity theorists did not differ in their ratings of the focal traits, but incremental theorists did. Entity theorists in Study 2 also predicted significantly less change in the short term and the long term than did incremental theorists. Study 2 further revealed that, when the behaviors were more negative, entity theorists made more generalized and global negative trait evaluations of the target, showed less empathy, and recommended more punishment. Differences in the social judgment processes of entity and incremental theorists are discussed, and implications for issues (such as stereotyping) are explored.

View details for Web of Science ID A1993LJ94100016

View details for PubMedID 8339700

View details for Web of Science ID A1992KF99500005

View details for Web of Science ID A1992HX39400004

Motivational helplessness, linked to conceptions of intelligence, has been well documented in older children. While some researchers have reported that children just starting school are motivationally invulnerable, others have found evidence of helplessness when these children encounter failure. The present study seeks to determine whether the reactions associated with helplessness can be identified in a new context, that of criticism, and whether any such responses are related to the child's conceptions of goodness. Subjects were 107 5- and 6-year-old children who enacted achievement situations in which teacher criticism was presented. The 39% of children whose own assessments were undermined by criticism exhibited the affect, task choices, and nonconstructive problem-solving strategies characteristic of helplessness. They were also more likely to make global negative self-judgments following criticism, including negative judgments of their goodness. Finally, these children were more likely to endorse stable and global beliefs about goodness.

View details for Web of Science ID A1992HP15600013

View details for PubMedID 1611943

View details for Web of Science ID A1991HT08000004

• Motivation Foundations for a cognitive psychology of education Dweck, C. S. edited by Glaser, R., Lesgold, A. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1990
• Achievement and motivation in adolescence: A new model and data At the threshold: The developing adolescent Henderson, V., Dweck, C. S. edited by Fieldman, S., Elliot, G. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1990
• The functions of a personality theory Advances in social cognition Bergen, R., Dweck, C. S. edited by Wyre, R., Srull, T. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1989
• Children’s theories of intelligence: A developmental model Advances in the study of intelligence Cain, K., Dweck, C. S. edited by Sternberg, R. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1989

View details for Web of Science ID A1988N009600004

This study tested a framework in which goals are proposed to be central determinants of achievement patterns. Learning goals, in which individuals seek to increase their competence, were predicted to promote challenge-seeking and a mastery-oriented response to failure regardless of perceived ability. Performance goals, in which individuals seek to gain favorable judgments of their competence or avoid negative judgments, were predicted to produce challenge-avoidance and learned helplessness when perceived ability was low and to promote certain forms of risk-avoidance even when perceived ability was high. Manipulations of relative goal value (learning vs. performance) and perceived ability (high vs. low) resulted in the predicted differences on measures of task choice, performance during difficulty, and spontaneous verbalizations during difficulty. Particularly striking was the way in which the performance goal-low perceived ability condition produced the same pattern of strategy deterioration, failure attribution, and negative affect found in naturally occurring learned helplessness. Implications for theories of motivation and achievement are discussed.

View details for Web of Science ID A1988L778300001

View details for PubMedID 3346808

View details for Web of Science ID A1986E614300003

The present study was designed to investigate the development of children's trait explanations and self-evaluations in the 2 domains. 144 white, middle-class children in kindergarten, first, second, and fourth grades (mean ages 5-8, 7-0, 7-9, and 10-0 years, respectively) were interviewed individually about their explanations for both academic and social outcomes and their evaluations of their own outcomes. Trait explanations emerged earlier in the social domain. In addition, trait explanations emerged earlier for success than for failure. Self-evaluations became less positive in both domains and less similar across domains with increasing grade level. An experiential theory of the development of understanding of a domain is presented.

View details for Web of Science ID A1986E196100009

View details for PubMedID 3769605

• Intrinsic motivation, perceived control, and self-evaluation maintenance: An achievement goal analysis Research on motivation in education Dweck, C. S. edited by Ames, R., Ames, C. New York: Academic Press. 1985
• Sex differences in achievement orientations: Consequences for academic choices and attainments Sex differentiation and schooling Licht, B. G., Dweck, C. S. edited by Marland, M. London: Heinemann. 1984

View details for Web of Science ID A1984TA61500012

• Achievement motivation Handbook of child psychology Dweck, C. S., Elliot, E. S. edited by Mussen, P., Hetherington, E. M. New York: Wiley. 1983
• Children’s theories of intelligence: Implications for learning Learning and motivation in children Dweck, C. S., Bempechat, J. edited by Paris, S., Olson, G., Stevenson, H. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1983
• Learned helplessness, anxiety, and achievement motivation: Neglected parallels in cognitive, affective, and coping responses Achievement, stress, and anxiety Dweck, C. S., Wortman, C. edited by Krohne, H. W., Laux, L. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. 1982
• Social-cognitive processes in children’s friendships The development of children’s friendships Dweck, C. S. edited by Asher, S. R., Gottman, J. M. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1981

Helpless children attribute their failures to lack of ability and view them as insurmountable. Mastery-oriented children, in contrast, tend to emphasize motivational factors and to view failure as surmountable. Although the performance of the two groups is usually identical during success of prior to failure, past research suggests that these groups may well differ in the degree to which they perceive that their successes are replicable and hence that their failures are avoidable. The present study was concerned with the nature of such differences. Children performed a task on which they encountered success and then failure. Half were asked a series of questions about their performance after success and half after failure. Striking differences emerged: Compared to mastery-oriented children, helpless children underestimated the number of success (and overestimated the number of failures), did not view successes as indicative of ability, and did not expect the successes to continue. subsequent failure led them to devalue ;their performance but left the mastery-oriented children undaunted. Thus, for helpless children, successes are less salient, less predictive, and less enduring--less successful.

View details for Web of Science ID A1980KS20700017

View details for PubMedID 7441483

View details for Web of Science ID A1980JN14000011

Helplessness in social situations was conceptualized as the perceived inability to surmount rejection, as revealed by causal attributions for rejection. Although current research on children's social adjustment emphasizes differences in social skills between popular and unpopular children or behavioral intervention as an aid for withdrawn children, the present study explores responses to rejection across popularity levels. The results show that individual differences in attributions for rejection are related to disruption of goal-directed behavior following rejection. As predicted, the most severe disruption of attempts to gain social approval (withdrawal and perseveration) was associated with the tendency to emphasize personal incompetence as the cause of rejection, regardless of popularity level. The findings suggest that cognitive mediators of overt social behavior and ability to solve problems when faced with difficulties need to be considered in the study of children's social relations.

View details for Web of Science ID A1980KE45800006

View details for PubMedID 7411393

• Learned helplessness and intellectual achievement Human helplessness: Theory and application Dweck, C. S., Licht, B. G. edited by Seligman, M. E., Garber, J. New York: Academic Press. 1980
• Attributions and learned helplessness New directions in attribution research Dweck, C. S. edited by Harvey, J., Ickes, W., Kidd, R. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1978
• Achievement Socio-personality development Dweck, C. S., Lamb, M. E. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. 1978

View details for Web of Science ID A1978FA62800009

View details for Web of Science ID A1978FG91200002

View details for Web of Science ID A1978FA11100001

• Learned helplessness and childhood depression: A developmental approach Depression in childhood: Diagnosis, treatment and conceptual models Dweck, C. S. edited by Schulterbrandt, J. G., Raskin, A. New York: Raven Press. 1977

View details for Web of Science ID A1977DH43300003

• Children’s interpretation of evaluative feedback: The effect of social cues on learned helplessness Merrill-Palmer Quarterly Dweck, C. S. edited by Dweck, C. S., Hill, K. T., Redd, W. H., Steinman, W. M., Parke, R. D. 1976 : 83–92

View details for Web of Science ID A1976BJ03000009

• The impact of social cues on children's behavior Merrill-Palmer Quarterly Dweck, C. S. 1976 : 83–92

View details for Web of Science ID A1975W168100009

View details for Web of Science ID A1975AQ71300006

View details for Web of Science ID A1975AZ92700017

View details for Web of Science ID A1973O635300014

• Personal politics Langer, E. J., Dweck, C. S. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1973
• Situational cues and the correlation between CS and US as determinants of the conditioned emotional response Psychonomic Science Dweck, C. S., Wegner, A. R. 1970 ; 18 : 145 - 147

Law and Psychology

Jd/phd — law and psychology.

There are nearly as many intersections between law and psychology as there are areas of policy regulation. Conflict resolution and negotiation; judgment and decision-making capacity; prejudice and stereotyping; criminal responsibility; competency; assessment of evidence, including the reliability of eyewitnesses, and lie detection; hedonics; developmental psychology and educational policy; addiction and drug policy—these are just a few of the frontiers open to scholars and practitioners educated in both law and psychology.

Stanford has a rich tradition of collaboration between its psychology department and law school, with faculty members co-authoring publications, and students working together and enrolling in interdisciplinary programs. Stanford’s psychology department has long been considered the strongest in the nation, with an atypical breadth of scholarly strength that supports a wide range of student interests. Stanford is also one of the nation’s leading centers for neuroscience research , bringing together biologists, psychologists, social scientists, and policymaker-lawyers to deepen our understanding of the brain.

Students pursuing a JD/PhD in law and psychology generally go on to academic careers in law schools, psychology departments, policy jobs, and think tanks. However, issues pursued through this joint degree program are also highly relevant to legal practice. Every day, litigators and negotiators make strategic decisions based on accounts of human decision-making. Those who regulate markets make decisions based on accounts of how people process distinct sorts of information. Those who work with medical ethicists make judgments that depend on assumptions about competency or the nature of pain.

Special Requirements

Students must have completed a year of law school before entering the psychology department or have completed a year of psychology graduate school before applying to the law school.

Course Requirements

As many as 54 quarter units of approved courses may be counted toward both degrees. No more than 31 quarter units of approved courses that originate outside the law school may count toward the law degree.

The maximum number of law school credits that may be counted toward the PhD in psychology is the greater of: (i) 36 quarter units; or (ii) the maximum number of units from courses outside the department that PhD candidates in psychology are permitted to count toward the PhD under general psychology department guidelines or in the case of a particular student’s individual program.

Note to applicants:  The Knight-Hennessy Scholars program awards full funding to Stanford graduate students from all disciplines, with additional opportunities for leadership training and collaboration across fields. Joint Degree applicants are encouraged to apply to the  Knight – Hennessy Scholars Program.  Please be aware that the Knight-Hennessy Scholars applications are due in early Autumn one year prior to enrollment. View dates and deadlines: knight-hennessy.stanford.edu/dates-and-deadlines .

Janet Cooper Alexander

• Frederick I. Richman Professor of Law, Emerita

Ralph Richard Banks

• Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of Law
• Faculty Director, Stanford Center for Racial Justice

Henry T. Greely

• Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law
• Director, Center for Law and the Biosciences
• Professor, by courtesy, Genetics
• Chair, Steering Committee of the Center for Biomedical Ethics
• Director, Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society

Mark G. Kelman

• James C. Gaither Professor of Law

Deborah Hensler

• Judge John W. Ford Professor of Dispute Resolution

Daniel E. Ho

• William Benjamin Scott and Luna M. Scott Professor of Law
• Professor of Political Science
• Professor of Computer Science (by courtesy)
• Senior Fellow, Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI)
• Senior Fellow, Stanford Institute for Economic and Policy Research
• Director of the Regulation, Evaluation, and Governance Lab (RegLab)

Robert J. MacCoun

• James and Patricia Kowal Professor of Law
• Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies

Alison D. Morantz

• James and Nancy Kelso Professor of Law
• Director of SIDDLAPP
• Senior Fellow, Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research

Robert Weisberg

• Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Professor of Law
• Faculty Co-Director, Stanford Criminal Justice Center

• [email protected]
• (650) 338-8226

Cupertino, CA

• Our Philosophy
• Our Results
• News, Media, and Press
• Common Application
• College Application Essay Editing
• Extracurricular Planning
• Academic Guidance
• Summer Programs
• Interview Preparation

Middle School

• Pre-High School Consultation
• Boarding School Admissions

College Admissions

• Academic and Extracurricular Profile Evaluation
• Senior Editor College Application Program
• Summer Program Applications
• Private Consulting Program
• Transfer Admissions
• UC Transfer Admissions
• Ivy League Transfer Admissions

Graduate Admissions

• Graduate School Admissions
• MBA Admissions

Private Tutoring

• SAT/ACT Tutoring
• AP Exam Tutoring
• Olympiad Training

Research Programs

• Science Research Program
• Humanities Competitions
• Passion Project Program
• Ad Hoc Consulting
• Athletic Recruitment
• National Universities Rankings
• Liberal Arts Colleges Rankings
• Public Schools Rankings

Acceptance Rates

• University Acceptance Rates
• Transfer Acceptance Rates
• Supplemental Essays
• College Admissions Data
• Chances Calculator
• GPA Calculator

National Universities

• College Acceptance Rates
• College Overall Acceptance Rates
• College Regular Acceptance Rates
• College Early Acceptance Rates
• Ivy League Acceptance Rates
• Ivy League Overall Acceptance Rates
• Ivy League Regular Acceptance Rates
• Ivy League Early Acceptance Rates

Public Schools

• Public Schools Acceptance Rates
• Public Schools Overall Acceptance Rates
• Public Schools Regular Acceptance Rates
• Public Schools Early Acceptance Rates

Liberal Arts

• Liberal Arts Colleges Acceptance Rates
• Liberal Arts Colleges Overall Acceptance Rates
• Liberal Arts Colleges Regular Acceptance Rates
• Liberal Arts Colleges Early Acceptance Rates

Exploring the Psychology Programs at Stanford

By Eric Eng

If you want to study psychology at a top-notch university, there are few places that can compare to Stanford University. Home to some of the leading researchers, scholars, and practitioners in the field, Stanford offers a range of psychology programs that are highly respected within the academic world and beyond. In this article, we’ll take a closer look at what makes Stanford’s psychology programs stand out, the history and evolution of psychology at Stanford, the different options available for prospective students, and what you can expect as a psychology student at Stanford.

Why Stanford University’s Psychology Programs are Among the Best in the Country

Stanford has earned a prestigious reputation, and its psychology programs are no exception. There are many reasons why Stanford’s psychology programs are considered some of the best in the country. First, Stanford has a longstanding commitment to interdisciplinary research, which means that students in the psychology program will have access to a wide range of research areas and opportunities.

Furthermore, the university has world-renowned faculty members who are experts in their respective fields and are committed to pushing the boundaries of psychological knowledge. Finally, the university is located in the heart of Silicon Valley, which offers unique opportunities for students to apply their knowledge and skills in the real world.

Another reason why Stanford’s psychology programs are highly regarded is the university’s emphasis on hands-on learning. Students have the opportunity to participate in research projects and gain practical experience in various areas of psychology. This not only enhances their understanding of the subject matter but also prepares them for future careers in the field.

Additionally, Stanford’s psychology programs offer a diverse range of courses that cater to students’ interests and career goals. From cognitive psychology to social psychology, students can choose from a variety of specializations and tailor their education to their individual needs. This flexibility ensures that students receive a well-rounded education and are equipped with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in their chosen career paths.

A Brief History of Psychology at Stanford University

Psychology has been a part of Stanford University since its founding in 1891. However, the department didn’t become a standalone entity until 1920 when it was established as the Department of Psychology and Education, with the renowned psychologist Lewis Terman at its helm. Since then, the department has grown and evolved, producing countless notable psychologists and researchers, including Albert Bandura, Philip Zimbardo, and Carol Dweck. Today, Stanford’s Department of Psychology is one of the largest and most diverse departments of its kind.

In recent years, the department has made significant strides in the field of cognitive neuroscience, with researchers using advanced imaging techniques to study the brain and its functions. Additionally, the department has expanded its focus to include areas such as social psychology, developmental psychology, and affective science. With a commitment to interdisciplinary collaboration and cutting-edge research, Stanford’s Department of Psychology continues to be a leader in the field of psychology.

The Different Types of Psychology Programs Offered at Stanford

Stanford offers a variety of psychology programs to suit the needs and interests of prospective students. At the undergraduate level, students can major or minor in psychology, with options to specialize in areas such as cognitive science, neuroscience, and social psychology.

At the graduate level, students can pursue a PhD in psychology, with specializations in areas such as social psychology, organizational behavior, and neuroscience. Stanford also offers professional degrees in psychology, including a Master’s in Psychology and a Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) degree, which is designed for students interested in clinical psychology.

In addition to these programs, Stanford also offers research opportunities for students interested in psychology. The Psychology Department has several research labs that focus on topics such as cognitive development, social psychology, and affective science.

Students can apply to work in these labs as research assistants, gaining valuable experience in conducting research and contributing to ongoing projects. Additionally, the department hosts several events throughout the year, including talks by visiting scholars and workshops on research methods, providing students with opportunities to engage with the broader psychology community.

What Makes Stanford’s Psychology Programs Stand Out from Other Universities?

Stanford’s psychology programs stand out from other universities in several ways. First, the university has a strong emphasis on interdisciplinary research, meaning that students in the psychology program have access to a wide range of resources and expertise from multiple fields.

Second, the university has a commitment to applied and translational psychology, meaning that students are encouraged to apply their knowledge and skills to real-world problems. Finally, Stanford’s psychology programs are known for their rigorous training and high expectations, which prepare students for successful careers in academia, research, and beyond.

Additionally, Stanford’s psychology programs offer unique opportunities for students to engage in cutting-edge research. The university has state-of-the-art facilities and equipment, as well as partnerships with leading research institutions and organizations. Students have the chance to work on projects that address some of the most pressing issues in psychology, such as mental health, social justice, and cognitive development. This hands-on experience not only enhances students’ understanding of psychology but also prepares them for future careers in research and innovation.

How to Get Accepted into Stanford’s Competitive Psychology Programs

Getting into Stanford’s psychology programs is highly competitive, as the university receives thousands of applications each year. To increase your chances of getting accepted, it’s important to have a strong academic record, with a focus on psychology and related fields. You should also have relevant research experience, such as working in a research lab or conducting an independent research project. In addition to your academic record and research experience, it’s important to have strong letters of recommendation and to demonstrate a clear and compelling interest in psychology.

Another important factor to consider when applying to Stanford’s psychology programs is your fit with the program and the faculty. It’s important to research the faculty members and their areas of expertise, and to tailor your application materials to highlight your fit with their research interests.

Additionally, attending information sessions and reaching out to current students or alumni can provide valuable insights into the program’s culture and expectations. Demonstrating a strong fit with the program and faculty can greatly increase your chances of being accepted into Stanford’s competitive psychology programs.

The Pros and Cons of Studying Psychology at a Prestigious University like Stanford

Studying psychology at a prestigious university like Stanford has both advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, you’ll have access to world-class faculty, resources, and opportunities, which can be invaluable for your education and career prospects. You’ll also be part of a community of scholars and researchers who are at the forefront of psychological knowledge and practice.

However, studying at a prestigious university can also be challenging, with high academic expectations, competitive admissions, and a demanding workload. It’s important to be prepared for the rigors of studying at a top-tier university, but the rewards can be significant.

One advantage of studying psychology at a prestigious university like Stanford is the opportunity to participate in cutting-edge research. Stanford is home to numerous research centers and institutes, such as the Center for Social Psychological Answers to Real-World Questions and the Stanford Center for Cognitive and Neurobiological Imaging, which offer students the chance to work alongside leading researchers in the field. This hands-on experience can be invaluable for students who are interested in pursuing careers in research or academia.

On the other hand, one potential disadvantage of studying psychology at a prestigious university is the high cost of tuition and living expenses. Stanford is one of the most expensive universities in the country, and many students may struggle to afford the cost of attendance. Additionally, the competitive nature of the admissions process can make it difficult for some students to gain acceptance, even if they have strong academic credentials. It’s important for students to carefully consider their financial situation and academic goals before deciding to apply to a prestigious university like Stanford.

Career Opportunities for Graduates of Stanford’s Psychology Programs

Graduates of Stanford’s psychology programs are well-positioned for a variety of careers in psychology and related fields. Some graduates go on to academic positions, conducting research and teaching at universities and colleges around the world. Others go into industry, working in areas such as human resources, marketing, or product design. Still, others may pursue careers in healthcare, government, or non-profit organizations. The versatility of a psychology degree from Stanford is a testament to the rigorous training and interdisciplinary focus of the university’s programs.

One area where Stanford psychology graduates have made significant contributions is in the field of technology. Many graduates have gone on to work for major tech companies, such as Google, Facebook, and Apple, where they apply their knowledge of human behavior and cognition to improve user experience and design more effective products.

Another growing area of opportunity for Stanford psychology graduates is in the field of data analysis and research. With the increasing availability of large datasets and advanced statistical tools, there is a growing demand for professionals who can analyze and interpret complex data. Stanford psychology graduates are well-equipped to meet this demand, with their training in research methods, statistics, and data analysis.

The Role of Research in Stanford’s Psychology Programs

Research is an integral part of Stanford’s psychology programs, with a strong emphasis on both basic and applied research that tackles real-world problems. Students in the psychology programs are encouraged to get involved in research early on, with a wide range of research opportunities available through university research centers and individual faculty members. Research is not only an important academic pursuit but is also an essential tool for understanding human behavior and creating solutions to complex problems in society.

One of the unique aspects of research in Stanford’s psychology programs is the interdisciplinary approach that is taken. Researchers from different fields, such as neuroscience, computer science, and sociology, collaborate to bring diverse perspectives to the study of human behavior.

This approach has led to groundbreaking research in areas such as cognitive psychology, social psychology, and developmental psychology. Through these collaborations, students in the psychology programs are exposed to a wide range of research methods and approaches, preparing them for careers in academia, industry, and beyond.

Life as a Psychology Student at Stanford: Experiences, Challenges, and Rewards

Life as a psychology student at Stanford can be challenging but also rewarding. Students can expect to encounter rigorous coursework, demanding research expectations, and a highly competitive academic environment. However, students will also have access to a wide range of resources and opportunities, including world-class faculty, cutting-edge research facilities, and a vibrant community of scholars. Additionally, as part of the larger Stanford community, psychology students can participate in clubs, organizations, and events that cater to their personal interests and passions.

One of the unique experiences of being a psychology student at Stanford is the opportunity to participate in groundbreaking research. Stanford is home to some of the most innovative and influential research in the field of psychology, and students have the chance to work alongside faculty members on projects that are shaping the future of the discipline. This hands-on experience not only enhances students’ understanding of psychology but also prepares them for future careers in research or academia.

Another challenge that psychology students at Stanford may face is the pressure to balance academic demands with personal well-being. With such a competitive environment, it can be easy to become consumed by coursework and research, neglecting self-care and mental health. However, Stanford offers a variety of resources to support students’ well-being, including counseling services, wellness programs, and mindfulness classes. By taking advantage of these resources, psychology students can maintain a healthy balance between academic and personal pursuits.

Meet the Professors: A Look at the Leading Minds Behind Stanford’s Psychology Programs

Stanford’s psychology programs are home to some of the leading minds in the field. From cognitive science to social psychology to neuroscience, the faculty at Stanford are renowned for their expertise, research, and contributions to psychological knowledge. Some notable faculty members include Carol Dweck, known for her pioneering work on mindset and motivation; Robert Sapolsky, an expert in the biology of stress and the brain; and Jamil Zaki, who studies empathy and social influence. As a psychology student at Stanford, you will have opportunities to learn from, work with, and be inspired by these and many other leading scholars.

In addition to these renowned faculty members, Stanford’s psychology programs also offer a diverse range of research opportunities for students. Undergraduate and graduate students alike can participate in ongoing research projects, gaining hands-on experience in various areas of psychology. This not only provides valuable experience for future careers in psychology, but also allows students to contribute to the advancement of psychological knowledge.

Furthermore, Stanford’s psychology programs prioritize interdisciplinary collaboration, encouraging students and faculty to work across departments and fields. This approach fosters innovative research and allows for a more comprehensive understanding of psychological phenomena. As a result, Stanford’s psychology programs are at the forefront of cutting-edge research and are constantly pushing the boundaries of what we know about the human mind and behavior.

Funding Your Education: Scholarships, Grants, and Loans Available for Students in Stanford’s Psychology Programs

Getting an education at Stanford is expensive, but there are many resources available to help you fund your education. Stanford offers financial aid, scholarships, and grants to eligible students, which can significantly reduce the cost of tuition and living expenses. Additionally, there are a variety of external sources of funding, including government grants, private scholarships, and loans. It’s important to research your options and apply for any funding that you are eligible for to make your education more affordable.

One of the best ways to find scholarships and grants is to search online databases, such as Fastweb or Scholarships.com. These websites allow you to search for scholarships based on your field of study, interests, and other criteria. You can also check with professional organizations and foundations related to psychology, as they often offer scholarships to students pursuing degrees in the field.

Another option for funding your education is to consider taking out student loans. While loans should be a last resort, they can be a helpful tool for covering the cost of tuition and living expenses. Be sure to research different loan options and understand the terms and conditions before taking out any loans. It’s important to borrow only what you need and to have a plan for paying back the loans after graduation.

Applying to Graduate School? Here’s How to Make Your Application Stand Out for Stanford’s Psychology Program

Applying to graduate school can be daunting, particularly for highly competitive programs like Stanford’s psychology programs. To make your application stand out, it’s important to have a strong academic record, with a focus on psychology and related fields. Additionally, having relevant research experience, a strong personal statement, and compelling letters of recommendation can make your application more competitive. Lastly, it’s important to demonstrate a clear fit with Stanford’s programs and research areas, showing that you have strong interest and preparation for the psychology program at Stanford.

One way to demonstrate a clear fit with Stanford’s psychology program is to research the faculty and their areas of expertise. This can help you identify potential research mentors and highlight how your research interests align with theirs. Additionally, attending virtual information sessions or reaching out to current students or alumni can provide valuable insights into the program and its culture.

It’s also important to note that Stanford’s psychology program values diversity and inclusion. Highlighting any experiences or perspectives that contribute to a diverse and inclusive community can strengthen your application. This can include experiences working with diverse populations, involvement in diversity and inclusion initiatives, or personal experiences that have shaped your perspective.

Alumni Insights: How Studying Psychology at Stanford Shaped Their Careers and Lives

Graduates of Stanford’s psychology programs have gone on to have remarkable careers in psychology and related fields. Some alumni have become world-renowned psychologists and researchers, while others have gone on to make significant contributions to healthcare, government, and industry. Many alumni credit their time at Stanford with shaping their perspectives, skills, and passions, preparing them for successful and fulfilling careers. As a prospective student, hearing from alumni can provide valuable insights into the impact of a psychology degree from Stanford.

One notable alumna of Stanford’s psychology program is Dr. Carol Dweck, a renowned psychologist and author known for her work on mindset and motivation. Dweck’s research on the growth mindset has had a significant impact on education and personal development, inspiring individuals to embrace challenges and view failures as opportunities for growth. Dweck credits her time at Stanford for providing her with the foundation and resources to pursue her research and make a meaningful impact on society.

Tips for Making the Most of Your Time in Stanford’s Psychology Programs

The psychology programs at Stanford are among the best in the world, but your experience will ultimately depend on how you approach your education. To make the most of your time at Stanford, it’s important to be proactive, passionate, and engaged. Seek out research opportunities, connect with faculty, and get involved in the larger Stanford community. Maintain a strong work-life balance, taking time for self-care, social connections, and personal interests. Lastly, remember that your time at Stanford is an opportunity to push your boundaries, expand your knowledge, and create a foundation for a fulfilling and impactful career in psychology.

Additionally, it’s important to take advantage of the resources available to you at Stanford. The psychology department offers a variety of workshops, seminars, and events that can enhance your learning and provide networking opportunities. The university also has a career center that can help you explore different career paths and connect with potential employers. Don’t be afraid to ask for help or guidance when you need it, whether it’s from a professor, advisor, or peer. By utilizing these resources, you can maximize your experience at Stanford and set yourself up for success in the field of psychology.

If you’re set on getting into a world-class college but aren’t sure how to make it happen, we can help! AdmissionSight is a leading college entrance expert with over a decade of experience helping students just like you get into the schools of their dreams.

At AdmissionSight, we focus on offering a wide range of services, all aimed at helping students perfect their applications to catch the attention of admissions officers. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about what we offer.

Want to assess your chances of admission? Take our FREE chances calculator today!

Why College Admissions Isn’t Perfect

US News Rankings

The Personal Statement: The Holy Grail of College Admissions

The Modern Day 4.0 and 1600 SAT Score Student Is No Longer Impressive

The Competitive Nature of College Admissions for Asian Americans

The College Application

Our Comprehensive Approach

Ivy League Schools

How Early Should You Prepare for College?

Featured in US News & World Report Best Colleges Publication

Congratulations to AdmissionSight Students and their Acceptances!

College Rejection

College Rankings

College Consultants Could Make A Difference

College Admissions Scandal and Higher Education

Explore the Merit Scholarships Offered by Colleges this 2024

Learn the Top UCLA Supplemental Essay Tips for 2024

Discover the Top East Coast Schools for Studying Law

The Best PhD Programs for Working Professionals Worldwide

The National Society of High School Scholars: Is It Worth It?

The Eight US Presidents Who Went to Harvard

Athletic Recruitment for the Ivy League

The Easiest Master’s Programs for Working Professionals in the US

Exploring Safety Schools in California: A Guide for Students in 2024

The Top 10 Most Popular Fraternities in the US

What Is A Valedictorian and How Can You Become One?

UChicago Early Decision Acceptance Rate

UCLA Undergraduate Tuition: What To Know

Top Advice for Students: Tips and Strategies for Success

The Best Ivy League Schools for Engineering

Everything You Need To Know About Walmart’s Live Better U Program

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Recent Articles

Explore the Merit Scholarships Offered...

Learn the Top UCLA Supplemental...

Discover the Top East Coast...

The Best PhD Programs for...

The National Society of High...

The Eight US Presidents Who...

The Modern Day 4.0 and...

Athletic Recruitment for the Ivy...

The Easiest Master’s Programs for...

Exploring Safety Schools in California:...

The Top 10 Most Popular...

What Is A Valedictorian and...

Sign up now to receive insights on how to navigate the college admissions process..

Admissions Counseling

• Academic & Extracurricular Profile Evaluation

Copyright © AdmissionSight 2024

Privacy Policy - Terms and Conditions

Eligibility

Main navigation.

To be eligible for admission to graduate study at Stanford, you must meet the university’s minimum requirements for academic credentials and English proficiency.

Minimum Education Requirements

You must hold, or expect to hold before enrollment at Stanford, a U.S. bachelor’s degree or its international equivalent from a college or university of recognized standing.

Stanford’s assessment of a post-secondary degree is based on World Education Services (WES) degree equivalency standards . If you are admitted for graduate study starting in 2025 or later, you may be required to submit a WES evaluation as verification of your academic credentials. For more information, refer to Official Transcripts & Degree Conferral Documents (2025 Entry) .

English Proficiency

As a graduate student enrolled at Stanford, you will be expected to read English with ease, understand rapid idiomatic English as used in lectures and group discussions, and express thoughts quickly and clearly in spoken and written English.

If your first language is not English, you are required to take the Test of English as a Foreign Language Internet-Based Test (TOEFL iBT) .

Refer to the link above for more information, including Stanford’s minimum TOEFL score requirements and TOEFL waivers/exemptions.

Research in Media Psychology

Main navigation.

The Stanford Department of Communication has long been a pioneer in studying the relationships between digital media, psychology and behavior. In the early nineties, Clifford Nass and his graduate students were among the first in the world to empirically examine constructs such as agency and anthropomorphism. Soon thereafter Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass published their landmark book,  The Media Equation , which set the stage for a new research paradigm based on the notion that the brain has not evolved to differentiate mediated experiences from actual ones. Indeed, one of the fastest growing divisions of the International Communication Association, Communication and Technology, is substantially based on the work of Stanford scholars.

Currently, the area focuses on a number of ways in which digital media affect people.  Jeremy Bailenson  directs the  Virtual Human Interaction Lab  and studies the phenomenon of digital human representation, especially in the context of immersive virtual reality.  Jeff Hancock  uses computational linguistics to analyze interpersonal relations in social media.  Gabriella Harari  studies the ways the digital technologies we use everyday reveal our personality structures and shape our life outcomes.  Nilam Ram  studies the dynamic interplay between psychological and media processes and how they change from moment-to-moment and across the life span.  Byron Reeves  utilizes physiological measures to understand media effects in multiplayer game technology, and develops applications for using those networked games to address critical issues such as global warming.

Students and faculty in the media psychology area collaborate frequently with other departments on campus. Current Communication faculty have active collaborations with scholars in computer science, education, psychology, engineering, linguistics, the business school, and MediaX. The department also draws a steady stream of visits from new media technology researchers.

Faculty — Media Psychology

Postdoctoral Scholars — Media Psychology

Doctoral Students — Media Psychology

Selected Graduates in Academia

• Mark Miller, Ph.D. 2023. Assistant Professor, Computer Science, Illinois Institute of Technology
• Mu-Jung Cho , Ph.D. 2020. Postdoc, Stanford School of Medicine, Pediatrics
• Dave Miller , Ph.D. 2019. Postdoc, Cornell University
• Dave Markowitz , Ph.D. 2018. Assistant Professor, Department of Communication, University of Oregon
• Jakki Bailey , Ph.D. 2017. Assistant Professor, School of Information, University of Texas at Austin
• Rene Kizilcec , Ph.D. 2017, Assistant Professor, Information School, Cornell University
• James Scarborough , Ph.D. 2017, Lecturer, Department of Communication, Cal Poly
• James Cummings , Ph.D. 2016. Assistant Professor, Emerging Media Studies, Boston University
• Jamy Li , Ph.D. 2016. Assistant Professor, Human Media Interaction, University of Twente, Netherlands
• Andrea Stevenson Won , Ph.D. 2016. Assistant Professor, Department of Communication, Cornell University
• Yeon Joo , Ph.D. 2014, Associate Professor, Department of Digital Media, Myungji University
• Dean Eckles , Ph.D. 2012, Professor, MIT Sloan School of Management
• Kathryn Segovia , Ph.D. 2012, Head of Learning Experience Design, Stanford d.school
• Grace Ahn , Ph.D. 2011, Associate Professor, College of Journalism, University of Georgia
• Jesse Fox , Ph.D. 2010, Associate Professor, Department of Communication, The Ohio State University
• Roselyn Jong-Eun Lee-Won , Ph.D. 2009, Assistant Professor, Department of Communication, The Ohio State University
• Leila Takayama , Ph.D. 2008, Associate Professor, Psychology, University of California Santa Cruz
• Sohye Lim , Ph.D. 2006, Associate Professor, EWHA Women’s University
• Kevin Wise , Ph.D. 2004, Associate Professor, Department of Advertising, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Eun-Ju Lee , Ph.D. 2000, Professor, Seoul National University
• Katherine Isbister , Ph.D. 1998, Professor, Department of Computational Media at University of California Santa Cruz
• Osei Appiah , Ph.D. 1998, Professor, School of Communication, The Ohio State University
• Brian Fogg , Ph.D. 1997, Research Scholar, Stanford
• Youngme Moon , Ph.D. 1996, Donald K. David Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School
• Benjamin Detenber , Ph.D. 1995, Professor, School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University
• S. Shyam Sundar , Ph.D. 1995, Distinguished Professor, Penn State University
• Glenn Leshner , Ph.D. 1994, Professor, College of Journalism and Mass Communication, Oklahoma University
• Michael Basil , Ph.D. 1992, Professor, School of Business, University of Lethbridge
• Barbara Brown , Ph.D. 1989, School of Business, San Jose State (retired)
• Michael Slater , Ph.D. 1988, Director and Professor, School of Communication, The Ohio State University

Selected Graduates in Industry and Nonprofit

• Hanseul Jun, Ph.D. 2022. Software Engineer, Apple
• Mufan Luo , Ph.D. 2021. Robinhood
• Annabelle Ho , Ph.D. 2019, UX Researcher, Google
• Catherine Oh , Ph.D. 2019, Researcher, Google
• Megan French , Ph.D. 2018, UX Researcher, Facebook
• Ketaki Shriram , Ph.D. 2017, CTO, Krikey
• Leo Yeykelis , Ph.D. 2015, Head of UX Research, VMWare
• Lorin Dole , Ph.D. 2011, UX Researcher, Google
• Helen Harris , Ph.D. 2011, UX Research Manager, Google
• Jiang Hu , Ph.D. 2011, Oracle
• Katherine Murray , Ph.D. 2011
• Victoria Groom , Ph.D. 2010
• Shailendra Rao , Ph.D. 2010, Uber
• Vanessa Vega , Ph.D. 2010, Research Associate, Rockman Et Al
• Jane Wang , Ph.D. 2010
• David Danielson , Ph.D. 2008
• Nick Yee , Ph.D. 2007, Co-Founder and Analytics Lead, Quantic Foundry
• Eva Jettmar , Ph.D. 2006
• Scott Brave , Ph.D. 2003, CTO, Fullcontact, Inc.
• Li Gong , Ph.D. 2001, Researcher, SAP
• Raoul Rickenberg , Ph.D. 1999
• Peter Orton , Ph.D. 1995, Media Research Scientist, IBM (retired)
• David Voelker , Ph.D. 1994, Strategic Communication Consultant
• Seth Geiger , Ph.D. 1990, President, Smith-Geiger Media Research

• Office of Graduate Education

Applicant FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions – Eligibility, Funding, Knight-Hennessy Scholars, etc.

In addition to the most frequently asked Biosciences questions below, please also visit the Graduate Admissions FAQ web page for a more expansive list.

Are there any prerequisites or background coursework required for the 14 Biosciences PhD Programs?

A majority of the Biosciences PhD Programs do not have specific course requirements for admission.  The faculty like to see that you have taken a rigorous course load, but they will be particularly interested in your research experience.  While many of our graduate students have undergraduate preparation in a life sciences curriculum, it is feasible to enter from other programs, including chemistry, computer science, mathematics, psychology, or physics.  The  Biomedical Data Science ,  Biophysics ,  Molecular and Cellular Physiology , and  Structural Biology  programs have prerequisite or background course requirements. We strongly recommend that you reach out to the  programs  to which you plan to apply, to ask for specific course requirements/suggestions.

Can I apply to other graduate programs (e.g. Applied Physics, Bioengineering, Chemistry, Computer Science, etc.) in addition to the 14 Biosciences PhD Programs?

You may apply to only one graduate program per academic year. The only exception is within the 14 Biosciences PhD Programs, where you may apply for two Biosciences programs within a single application. The 14 Biosciences PhD Programs include:

• Biochemistry
• Biomedical Data Science
• Cancer Biology
• Chemical and Systems Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Microbiology and Immunology
• Molecular and Cellular Physiology
• Neurosciences
• Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine
• Structural Biology

Can I defer my enrollment?

Admitted students are expected to enroll in their Home Program in September of the year they are admitted. Deferral requests will be reviewed by your admitting program’s admissions committee and are approved on a case-by-case basis. The maximum length of an admissions deferral granted by Stanford is one year. Typically, deferral requests are only approved for military, medical, visa, or education-related purposes.

Can recommenders submit their letter via mail, email, fax, or a letter service?

All recommendations must be submitted using the online application system as recommenders are required to respond to specific evaluation questions on the recommendation form. Letters of recommendation cannot be mailed, emailed, faxed, or submitted through a letter service (with the exception of Interfolio). For letters submitted via Interfolio, please remember that letters written specifically for your Stanford graduate program tend to be stronger than letters written for general use purposes.

Do any of the 14 Biosciences PhD Programs offer an MS degree program?

The Biomedical Data Science program is the only Biosciences Program that currently offers an MS degree program.  Information about the program and its application process can be found on its website .

If you are not interested in one of the 14 Biosciences PhD Programs, you can find a list of all the currently offered degrees at Stanford (along with their contact information) on the Graduate Admissions  Explore Programs web page .

Do I need to hold an MS degree to be eligible to apply?

A Master’s degree is only required if you do not meet the following eligibility requirements.  To be eligible for admission to graduate programs at Stanford, applicants must meet  one  of the following conditions:

• Applicants must hold, or expect to hold before enrollment at Stanford, a bachelor’s degree from a U.S. college or university accredited by a regional accrediting association.
• Applicants from institutions outside the U.S. must hold, or expect to hold before enrollment at Stanford, the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor’s degree from a college or university of recognized standing. See the Office of Graduate Admissions for the  minimum level of study required of international applicants .

Do I need to include a department code number when requesting to have my GRE and/or TOEFL scores sent to Stanford?

Applicants should have the Educational Testing Service (ETS) send scores electronically to Stanford. Our university code is  4704  and no department code is required. You will either self-report your scores or indicate the date you will take the test(s) in the online application. Self-reported test scores will be used by the relevant admissions committee in their initial review process. Your unofficial test scores will be validated when your official scores are received by the University.

Do I need to secure a Lab/Thesis Supervisor prior to applying?

You will not need to secure a research supervisor prior to applying. Incoming students usually do 2-4 lab rotations during their first year.  Information on the rotation process can be found on the following  website .  If you realize a few weeks into a rotation that the lab is not a good fit for you, then there is no reason for you to stay any longer.

Do I need to submit official transcripts/academic records?

Graduate Admissions only requires admitted applicants who accept the offer of admission to submit official transcripts that shows their degree conferral. More details on this can be found on the following Graduate Admissions  webpage .   Please do not send or have sent any transcripts to us or to your program. 

Do you offer fellowships to international applicants?

We have a limited number of fellowships (which include a yearly stipend, tuition, and health and dental insurance) available to the most highly competitive international applicants. The stipend for the 2023-24 Academic Year is $51,600 ($12,900 per quarter). Admittance to the Biosciences Programs for international applicants varies from year to year depending on funding and available space. We strongly encourage applicants to apply for scholarships/fellowships in their home country that can be used overseas. Some useful websites that include information on external fellowships are:

• Fulbright Foreign Student Program
• The Fogarty International Center at the NIH
• International Center at the Institute of International Education (IIE)

Applying for scholarships/fellowships generally takes some time to arrange, so plan ahead. You will be able to list any scholarships/fellowships that you have applied for and been awarded in the “Additional Information” section of the online application under “External Funding for Graduate Study”.  For more information about the costs and estimated expenses of attending Stanford, please visit the following  webpage .

Does the Bioengineering PhD program participate in the Biosciences Interview Session?

The Bioengineering PhD program is not one of the 14 Biosciences PhD Programs and has a separate admissions process and Interview Session.

How do I change one of my recommenders?

On the Recommendations page of the application, click on the recommender’s name you wish to replace, then click Exclude at the bottom of the resulting popup window. You then will see the option to add a new recommender. The recommender you exclude will not receive an email notification.

How does the funding work for those admitted to the Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program and the Biosciences?

The Knight-Hennessy Scholars program funding covers the first three years and your admitting Home Program will cover the remaining years.

I previously applied to the Stanford Biosciences Programs and was not admitted. What application materials will I need to submit?

Applicants who wish to reapply follow the same application process as first-time applicants. Reapplicants have the option of using letters of recommendation from their prior submitted Biosciences application or having new ones submitted.  Prior applications from the Autumn 2022, 2023, and 2024 admission cycles have been retained. It is highly recommended that one new letter of recommendation be submitted on your behalf.  When completing the application, you will be required to enter the information for a minimum of three recommenders (including the information for the letter writers that you plan to reuse).

For the letters you plan to reuse, please notify your recommenders in advance that they will receive a recommendation request but should not take any action.  Once you submit your application, please submit an email to the Biosciences Admissions Office indicating which letters you would like to reuse so we can add them to your application.

I’m an applicant whose first language is not English. Is it possible to have the TOEFL Test requirement waived?

Information about the TOEFL Test requirements, exemptions and waivers can be found on the  Graduate Admissions  website. Please note that if you submit a waiver request, it will be routed to Graduate Admissions  after you submit your application . Allow up to 15 business days after submitting your application for a response.

I’ve applied to multiple Home Programs and was wondering what happens if more than one program is interested in interviewing me?

In that case, the admissions representatives confer and attempt to determine which Home Program best fits your interests and should serve as your host. They will use the information you provided in your Statement of Purpose and on the Biosciences Supplemental Form. In most cases the best match is clear, but in rare cases where this is not the case, an admissions committee member will contact you directly to discuss with you which Home Program would be the best to host your visit. You will also have an opportunity to meet with faculty affiliated with other Home Programs during your visit.

If my school does not use a 4.0 GPA grading scale, how should I report this on my application?

You are asked to enter both GPA and GPA scale for each institution you list on the application. Enter your GPA as it appears on your transcript. Do not convert your GPA to a 4.0 scale if it’s reported on a different scale.

Is there a minimum GPA requirement?

There is no minimum GPA requirement to be considered for admission. The application review process is holistic and all aspects of the application (prior coursework, letters of recommendation, the statement of purpose, prior research experience, and test scores {if applicable}) are considered by the Admissions Committee when making an admissions decision.

What if my recommenders are not receiving their recommender link emails?

Occasionally, some email servers will send recommender link emails directly to Spam or will not allow the email to reach the primary inbox at all (particularly for email addresses located outside of the United States). Please reach out to Technical Support by submitting a request via the “Request Application Support” button on the “Instructions” page of your application.

What is included in the offer of admission?

The offer of admission for the 2023-24 Academic Year included a stipend of $51,600 ($12,900 per quarter), health and dental insurance, and graduate tuition. The stipend and benefits for the 2025-26 Academic Year will be set sometime in March 2025.  For more information about the costs and estimated expenses of attending Stanford, please visit the following webpage .

What is the Knight-Hennessy Scholars program?

The  Knight-Hennessy Scholars  program develops a community of future global leaders to address complex challenges through collaboration and innovation. The program will award up to 100 high-achieving students with three years of funding to pursue a graduate education at Stanford. To be considered, you  must apply to both  the Knight-Hennessy Scholars by Wednesday, October 9, 2024, at 1:00 pm (PST) and to one of the Stanford Biosciences PhD programs by Sunday , December 1, 2024, at 11:59:59 pm (PST) .  Information about the program and the application process can be found on the  Knight-Hennessy Scholars  program website.

© Copyright & Disclaimer 2024

PhD in School Psychology

Using data-driven solutions to enhance equality across the education system.

With a PhD in School Psychology, you will work directly with PK-12 students, while also publishing change-making research, that will help improve equity and inclusion in schools.

See important statements and positions from the School Psychology faculty

Our commitment to you

Upon graduation with a PhD in school psychology from Loyola, you will possess the following knowledge, skills, and professional values necessary to commence work as both a practicing school psychologist and researcher.

You will become a scientist-practitioner who understands and can implement evidence-based assessment, intervention, and consultation practice from a social justice perspective. Plus, you'll understand the history of school psychology, the impact of historical discrimination and inequity on educational and psychological functioning, and  individual differences and social/cultural influences on development and adjustment.

You'll conduct evidence-based direct counseling and mental health interventions, as well as indirect consultative interventions in applied settings. You will also be trained to carry out comprehensive psychoeducational assessments to support decision-making regarding special education eligibility and development of individual education plans (IEPs). On the research side, you'll critically evaluate research (i.e., designs, data analysis, and data interpretation) from a methodological, as well as ethical and social justice, perspective. Using research methodological skills and statistical expertise, you'll complete original dissertation research, present at psychological and educational conferences, and prepare manuscripts for publication.

Professional Values

Our graduates represent the scientist-practitioner ideal of a person who not only applies psychological knowledge within the context of their professional practice, but also a person who can generate new, applications-oriented knowledge through their research and scholarly activities and the application of such in the service of others through a social justice framework.

Program Faculty

Our dedicated  School Psychology Faculty  are experts in the field of School Psychology. They conduct research on topics such as equity in school mental health, discipline policy, early childhood development, family collaboration, school consultation, student identity development, and other scholarship that advances social justice in education. PhD students work on faculty research teams trhoughout their training. Additionally, faculty advisors support students throughout each stage of the program.

Accreditation

Loyola's PhD in School Psychology has been accredited by the  American Psychologist Association (APA)  and approved by the  National Association of School Psychologists (NASP).

APA Student Admissions Outcomes Reporting Measures

APA Student Admissions, Outcomes and Other Data (2023)

Program Features

All students begin in the first year with an introductory professional orientation course, beginning research courses, pre-requisite courses that lead to a second-year school-based practicum, and engagement with the community through the completion of a school-based, pre-practicum experience.

In the second year of the program, students complete two semesters of a structured school-based practicum, in which they spend two days a week in a school setting and complete structured activities tied to the practicum, while also taking additional courses in research methods/statistics, counseling, consultation, and assessment.

In the third year of the program, students complete an advanced practicum, more advanced research courses, and work on their dissertation proposals.

In the fourth year of the program, students apply for a calendar-year-long doctoral internship through the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC), an APA-accredited doctoral internship match system for doctoral students in Health Service Psychology programs.

In the fifth year, students are required to complete a calendar-year internship under the direction of a licensed psychologist and certified school psychologist.

Transfer Credit

Students with a master’s degree may be able to transfer up to 36 credit hours into the PhD program. However, a minimum of 63 credit hours and a minimum of 2 years of coursework must be completed at Loyola University Chicago.

Program Length

This is a full-time program. Students complete the course work for the program in four years, including summers. Time for degree completion, including the dissertation, is five years.

Continuous Enrollments Doctoral students in School Psychology are required to maintain continuous enrollment during their program of studies. A formal leave of absence may be granted upon request and with the approval of the Graduate School’s Associate Dean.

Admission Requirements

Interested in applying? Check out the  PhD i n School Psychology application requirements .

• For  application  related questions,  contact Graduate Enrollment Management . 
• For  program structure and academics  related questions, contact:  Ashley Mayworm , Program Chair

Tuition, Financial Aid and Scholarships

The School of Education and Loyola's Financial Aid Office are committed to helping students secure the necessary financial resources to make their education at Loyola affordable. You can learn more on the  Financial Assistance  page.

What is the difference between a PhD and EdS in School Psychology?

The EdS degree will allow you to be credentialed in Illinois as a licensed school psychologist through the State Board of Education and also prepares you to become a Nationally Certified School Psychologist (NCSP). This credential allows you to practice as a school psychologist in the public schools. The PhD program also prepares students to become credentialed school psychologists, but additionally provides research and clinical training that allows for careers in research and University-level teaching.

Does the School Psychology PhD program prepare me for licensure?

In Illinois, the PhD degree qualifies you to become licensed as a school psychologist by the Illinois State Board of Education, which is required to work in the schools. Graduates of the PhD program are also eligible to pursue clinical licensure (as a clinical psychologist) through the Illinois Department of Professional Regulations (IDPR). In Illinois, graduates of our School Psychology PhD program meet the educational requirements to pursue their clinical psychology license, but must meet IDPR requirements for internship, postdoctoral training, and exams; each case is reviewed by IDPR. Outside of Illinois, each state has its own credentialing requirements and individuals need to check with the state in which they want to practice school psychology for the particular state's credentialing requirements.

Do I need to take any licensure examinations?

All candidates must successfully pass the Illinois State School Psychology Content Examination prior to beginning internship. All candidates must also pass the PRAXIS School Psychology Examination to obtain NCSP status (National Certified School Psychologists). For doctoral graduates pursuing their clinical license in Illinois, they must also meet IDPR exam requirements (e.g., passing the EPPP).

How do I apply for state licensure?

Visit the  Placement and Licensure page  for details. 

I have taken graduate courses at another university. Will any of these courses transfer to Loyola's School Psychology program?

Because of the rapid changes in the field of education and school psychology, courses will only be transferred to Loyola if they have been taken during the five years prior to your admittance to the school psychology program. If you do not have a master's degree, then six semester hours may be transferred. If you have a master's degree, up to 36 semester hours may be transferred into the PhD program at Loyola.

How long does it take to complete the PhD in School Psychology?

Full-time students can complete the coursework and field placements in a minimum of four years by taking courses during the summer. A full-time 12-month internship must be completed during the last year of study. All coursework and the dissertation proposal must be completed prior to beginning an internship. Completion of coursework and dissertation typically takes five years.

Can I complete the PhD in School Psychology degree by taking courses part time?

The program is full-time only and requires attendance during the summer.

Is there a residency requirement?

As full-time students, all PhD students automatically satisfy the residency requirements.

• See us on linkedin
• See us on facebook
• See us on youtube
• See us on instagram

Home   /  Education   /  Clinical Psychology Postdoctoral Fellowship Program

Clinical Psychology Postdoctoral Fellowship Program

Program description.

The Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences is a vibrant, multidisciplinary department dedicated to advancing science and integrating this foremost mission with those of clinical innovation, educational excellence, community engagement and commitment, and professionalism and leadership development.

The Clinical Psychology Fellowship at Stanford serves as the culmination of training in psychology and is guided by the scientist-practitioner model. Residents are offered diverse clinical experiences in assessment and treatment utilizing evidence-based treatments, rich didactics based on current empirical literature, opportunities for scholarly inquiry, and supervision by Stanford faculty.

The mission of the Fellowship Program is to train highly skilled, ethical psychologists who contribute to the field of psychology through clinical work, research and/or education.

Program Goals and Competencies

The primary goal of the program is to provide advanced training in the areas of clinical service, integration of science and practice, professionalism and ethical decision-making. The program design is based on seven core competencies, including:

• Integration of Science and Practice
• Ethics and Legal Matters
• Individual and Cultural Diversity
• Theories and Methods of Diagnosis and Assessment
• Theories and Methods of Effective Psychotherapeutic Intervention
• Professional Conduct and Interpersonal Relationships
• Dissemination Beyond Clinical Care (research, supervision, and/or teaching)

On this Page

Additional Links and Resources

Clinical Psychology (Adult Program)

Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology Program

Postdoctoral Residency Admissions, Support, and Initial Placement Data

Training Overview

The Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences offers two training programs:

Norah Simpson, PhD Program Director

Janie hong, phd associate director.

Learn More about the Adult Program

Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology

Sharon williams, phd program director.

Learn More about the Child & Adolescent Program

Clinical Training

Fellows are trained in evaluation, assessment, and treatment. Fellows spend approximately 20 hours a week in direct patient care. The remaining fellowship hours are spent in supervision, didactics, and indirect patient care activities.

Didactics     

Stanford University is a rich learning environment and, as such, fellows participate in many didactic opportunities throughout the year. Below is a list of general didactics offered through the fellowship, followed by program specific didactics:

• Professional Issues Workshop
• Ethics and Legal Issues
• Grand Rounds in Psychiatry
• Seminar in Biostatistics

Adult Specific Didactics and Training Opportunities

• Professional Development Seminar
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Seminar
• Supervision Training Seminar
• Subspecialty Clinic Meetings
• Group Supervision
• Supervision Training Experience
• Professional peer-support meetings
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion-focused case consultation and meetings

Child Specific Didactics and Training Opportunities

• Psychology Seminar
• Specialty Clinic Meetings
• Autism Spectrum Update
• Diversity Forum

Supervision

Fellows receive a minimum of four hours of supervision each week, including a minimum of two hours of individual supervision. Supervision is primarily conducted by attending psychologists in the clinic or unit in which the fellow is seeing patients.

Fellowship Duration

The Clinical Psychology Fellowship is a one year position. It starts on September 1st of each year and ends on August 31st of the following year.

When available based on research funding, two-year clinical research fellowship positions are offered in both Adult and Child Psychology. At least 50% of time in the fellowship is dedicated to clinical service provision and training, with the remaining time (<50%) supported by research funding. These positions are associated with specific clinical research initiatives and identified on our website when they are available. They are part of the APA approved clinical psychology fellowship program, and typically also start on September 1st.

Adult Program Faculty

Child Program Faculty

Administrative Policies and Procedures

All Stanford postdocs must adhere to the University’s standards of academic integrity, honesty and behavior. The primary conduct codes are the University Code of Conduct and the Honor Code and Fundamental Standard.

All members of the Stanford community are expected to abide by the Stanford Nondiscrimination Policy and the School of Medicine’s Respectful Workplace Policy  .

For more information about Administrative Policies and Procedures please go to: http://postdocs.stanford.edu

Fellowship Start Date:  The postdoctoral fellowship year is anticipated to be 9/3/2024 - 8/31/25

Stipend:   Stipend minimum is $73,800 + generous benefits. Benefits include vacation days, sick leave, statutory holidays, as well as a generous health plan. Complete Funding Rates and Guidelines:  Office of Postdoctoral Affairs

Application Requirements and Process

All applicants must have completed:

• APA- or CPA-accredited graduate programs in clinical or counseling psychology
• APA- or CPA-accredited internship; and
• all requirements for their PhD or PsyD prior to the beginning of their appointment

Application Process

Please apply using the APPIC Psychology Postdoctoral Application system. You will need the following information when completing the online application:

• A cover letter specifying the position to which you are applying and your aims
• Three letters of recommendation
• If at the time of application your dissertation has not been completed, please submit a letter from your dissertation chair documenting the timeline for completion of the dissertation.

Stanford University School of Medicine is committed to fostering a diverse community in which all individuals are welcomed, respected, and supported to achieve their full potential. Our program emphasizes recruitment and acceptance of a diverse class of fellows. We invite applicants to share any information that would be helpful in their application to our program.

Stanford is an equal employment opportunity and affirmative action employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by law. Stanford welcomes applications from all who would bring additional dimensions to the University’s research, teaching and clinical missions.

Applications are due by December 3, 2024.

All interviews will be virtual..

Adult Psychology Fellowship

Karen Saltzman                    [email protected]

Child Psychology Fellowship

Charlie Larson [email protected]

Accreditation and Approval

• The fellowship program is approved by the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC).
• The fellowship is accredited by the APA Commission on Accreditation, 750 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242, (202) 336-5979. Email: [email protected]

The Core is an opportunity to inquire into the fundamental aspects of being and our relationship with God, nature and our fellow human beings.

Popular Searches

• Undergraduate Programs
• Graduate Programs
• Core Curriculum
• Financial Aid

Request Info

• Braniff Graduate School Office
• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: 972-721-5106

Psychology, MPsy

Introduction.

The graduate psychology program at the University of Dallas is devoted to the recovery of some of the great traditions in 20th-century psychology often lost in the shuffle of current day clinical and research-oriented programs. Rooted in humanistic, psychodynamic and phenomenological traditions, the department emphasizes critical thinking about the theoretical and epistemological foundations of psychology.

Explore the depth of human experience.

Students at the University of Dallas have the opportunity to approach psychology as a qualitative science.

The master’s program in psychology at the University of Dallas recognizes the work of 20th-century thinkers and prepares students to contribute to 21st-century psychology. The distinguishing character of the program is its existential-phenomenological orientation, which draws upon the traditions of psychoanalysis, hermeneutics and humanistic psychology, as well as Continental psychology and feminism.

The program offers an array of courses in areas such as personality theory, psychodiagnostics, psychotherapy and lifespan development.

The “great books” of these fields provide the backbone for the program; that is, primary sources such as Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty and Levinas from the phenomenological tradition; Freud, Jung, Adler, Horney, Sullivan, Klein, Winnicott, Kernberg, and Lacan from the psychodynamic tradition; Rogers, Allport, Murray, Maslow, May and Bugental from the tradition of American humanistic psychology; Binswanger, Boss, Buytendijk, Minkowski, van den Berg, Laing and Szasz from the European tradition of existential psychiatry; and figures like Giorgi, Colaizzi, von Eckartsberg and others from the Duquesne School of phenomenological research.

Bolstering its position as a program that represents and supports qualitative research as well as a broadly defined humanistic tradition in academic psychology, the department contributes editorially to the publication of the APA division journal The Humanistic Psychologist.

Why Study Humanistic Psychology?

Humanistic psychology focuses on the study of the whole person and emphasizes human potential. By exploring psychology through a humanistic lens, the complex and unique facets of the human experience become more discernible.

Through exploring both the history of humanistic psychology and examining contributions from natural science psychology, this program provides a multifaceted psychological perspective that aims to foster an in-depth understanding of the human experience.

Why Psychology at UD?

• Accreditation from The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).
• Choose from two masters-level degree tracks: Master of Psychology or Master of Psychology with Clinical Concentration.
• Experience clinical courses that emphasize psychodynamic and humanistic approaches to psychotherapy and help you prepare for the NCE exam.
• Many students continue to work while earning their degrees.
• Receive training in quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research in small class sizes that afford close collaboration with professors.
• Gain opportunities for applied training in psychological assessment and clinical intervention with experienced faculty.

Learn more about our degree requirements here.

Graduate Psychology Programs Offered at UD

Advance your career and academic work.

The goal of the graduate program is to prepare students for advanced academic work in psychology or for professional mental health practice in a wide range of settings. Graduates enter the marketplace with a flexible degree that allows them to pursue state level credentials, including Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC) or Psychological Associate (PA). Learn from distinguished faculty committed to qualitative research in academic psychology’s humanistic tradition.

Learn about Will Edmonson's experience.

Important Notices for Students Seeking LPC Licensure:

• The University of Dallas Master of Psychology with clinical concentration program is a psychology program, not a counseling program. Many students seek to satisfy the educational requirements for licensure in Texas as a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC) through the completion of our 60 credit Master of Psychology with clinical concentration. Under the current requirements of the Texas State Board of Examiners of Professional Counselors, graduates of psychology programs can apply for LPC licensure under the statutory recognition of psychology as a ‘counseling-related field’ (Texas Administrative Code §681.2).
• Students should be aware that some Counseling professional organizations, including the American Counseling Association (ACA), the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), and the National Board of Certified Counselors (NBCC) have expressed their intent to restrict counseling licensure to graduates of counseling programs. At present, four states require that in order to be an LPC, an individual must have graduated from a CACREP-accredited institution. The psychology program at the University of Dallas is not CACREP-accredited. Students’ eligibility for licensure as LPCs in Texas and other States may change as a result of these administrative and policy positions as well as legislative initiatives undertaken to implement them. Students are advised to keep abreast of the licensing boards' regulations in the jurisdictions in which they aim to reside and practice.
• In Texas, as in many states, you may be ineligible for licensure as an LPC due to a criminal or deferred adjudication for a felony or a misdemeanor offense. If your record includes a criminal or deferred adjudication for a felony or misdemeanor offense, and you plan to seek licensure in Texas, you should request a criminal history letter from the Texas State Board of Examiners of Professional Counselors, pursuant to Texas Administrative Code §469.7, to evaluate your potential ineligibility for licensure. Please consider this notice carefully and, if appropriate or if you are unsure, please take steps to review your potential ineligibility for licensure in the state where you intend to reside and practice before enrolling in the program and incurring the related tuition and fees.

For the university's most up to date information on professional licensing, visit https://udallas.edu/offices-services/institutional-effectiveness/professional-licensure.php

Questions? Find answers and general information about the graduate psychology program on the FAQ page or contact an admissions counselor :

Keep Exploring

Psychology Student Camille Chandler Named Beinecke Scholar

The third carnegie mellon student to receive the beinecke scholarship, chandler plans to pursue graduate studies in the social sciences.

• Share on Facebook (opens in new window)
• Share on X (opens in new window)
• Share on LinkedIn (opens in new window)
• Print this page
• Share by email

Camille Chandler is a researcher, a leader and a dancer. She is an advocate for Black success and a champion for mental health. And as a 2024 Beinecke Scholar, she is a force to be reckoned with at Carnegie Mellon University and in the greater academic sphere. 

Established in 1971, the  Beinecke Scholarship Program (opens in new window) was founded to inspire and enable driven, hardworking students to pursue graduate education in the arts, humanities and social sciences. CMU nominated Chandler, a junior in the Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences (opens in new window) , for this opportunity, and she was selected as one of 20 Beinecke Scholars nationwide.

“The Beinecke Scholarship is really competitive,” said  Paige Zalman (opens in new window) , associate director of the  Office of Undergraduate Research and Scholar Development (opens in new window) . “(Receiving this award) highlights Camille’s extraordinary research accomplishments as well as her future potential as a leading scholar — but it also highlights the incredible work of the Psychology Department here at Carnegie Mellon in terms of preparing students for meaningful careers in research.”

Studying Psychology at Carnegie Mellon

Growing up in Howell, Michigan, Chandler was acutely aware of the lack of diversity surrounding her and the impact that could have on a student and their success. 

“In a way (my experiences) led me to CMU. I think that because of where I grew up, people didn’t really expect that Black people could achieve very much, and so I worked really hard to get to a really good university, which is part of what led me to CMU. Being able to prove to people that I could go somewhere like CMU was a part of getting me here.”

At CMU, Chandler started to realize how she could leverage her experiences to make a difference.

Chandler’s introduction to psychology began with taking an AP psychology course in high school. Fascinated by the study of why people behave in certain ways, Chandler came to CMU thinking that she wanted to become a mental health professional. Her path took a different turn after taking two courses — the first being Grand Challenge First-Year Seminar: We're Not Beyond Race: Race and Identity in America, taught by  Kody Manke-Miller (opens in new window) , associate teaching professor of psychology and Dietrich College’s director of research on diversity, equity and inclusion, and  Kevin Jarbo (opens in new window) , assistant professor of social and decision sciences. The second course was Introduction to Social Psychology taught by Manke-Miller and  Michael Trujillo (opens in new window) , assistant professor of psychology.

Exploring Research in Social Risk-taking

The early psychology courses helped Chandler focus her research interests, coalescing at the intersection of individuals and their social environments. Her research aims to understand how these factors impact behaviors and perceptions in a social setting. She aspires to help develop beneficial interventions to center Black success.

Chandler’s research to date has focused on preferences for standards of fairness in resource allocation and how people make sense of conflicting feedback. In her studies, she and a cohort of two other students investigated the impact of social rejection on social risk-taking. The project explored the experiences of in-groups and out-groups to examine social rejection and how it impacts a person’s social risk-taking behaviors. Her investigation was a joint project in the  Data-Driven Diversity (D3) Lab (opens in new window) and the  Stigma, Health, Equity, and Resilience (SHARE) Lab (opens in new window) . Her project was accepted as a poster presentation at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference. 

Securing the Beinecke Scholarship

Chandler began preparing her Beinecke application package in January with support and advising from Zalman’s office. After a  competitive campus nomination process, (opens in new window) a committee made up of staff from the Office of Undergraduate Research and Scholar Development and faculty who teach in the arts, humanities and social sciences selected Chandler as CMU’s Beinecke nominee. 

“What Camille brings to the table is a very strong and impressive research background that highlights how well-positioned she is to not only be successful in graduate school but also to be a leader in her field of social psychology,” said Zalman.

Chandler received the news of her selection as a Beinecke Scholar through an email, and at first, it didn’t register. Once it did, she was thrilled and surprised.      

“Winning this feels like a testament to my academic self-efficacy that I’ve been working on for a while,” Chandler said.

Chandler is now beginning to work on her  senior honors thesis (opens in new window) project with Trujillo. This thesis will expand on her past studies, exploring the impact of skin tone on in-group role model effectiveness in the academic achievement of Black students.

“We’re so excited to see what she does next because it is very clear that she will have an important impact not just on Carnegie Mellon but on the future of her field and on her future students,” said Zalman.

Chandler made it clear that her support network has been essential in her academic journey and her path to earning this scholarship. 

“I’m really lucky. I have a pretty good network of support at CMU that really helped me to apply for this. During the application process, Paige was so helpful — I sent her so many emails asking for feedback on everything that I was doing,” said Chandler. 

As a Beinecke Scholar, Chandler will receive $5,000 just prior to starting graduate school, along with an additional $30,000 while enrolled and attending her graduate program of choice. She is still considering where to pursue her graduate studies.

— Related Content —

Guerrero Awarded Beinecke Scholarship

Greta Markey Named CMU’s First Stanford Knight-Hennessy Awardee

Celebrating 10 Years of Dietrich Foundation Support

• The Piper: Campus & Community News (opens in new window)
• Official Events Calendar (opens in new window)

Chatain Wins Bronze

Stanford alum medals with U.S. boat in men's eights

VAIRES-SUR-MARNE, France – Peter Chatain ’22 earned a bronze medal in rowing Saturday as part of the United States boat in the men’s eight A final.  Chatain rowed in the No. 6 seat for the U.S., which covered the 2,000-meter course at the Vaires-sur-Marne Nautical Stadium in 5:25.28.  The U.S. held third throughout the race while Great Britain and Netherlands battled in front before Great Britain took the lead in the final kilometer. The U.S. nearly caught the Netherlands with 500 meters to go, but the Dutch were able to surge ahead in the final stretch.  Great Britain won in 5:22.88 with the Netherlands next in 5:23.92.  This is the first U.S. medal in the men’s eight since winning bronze in 2008 in Beijing and Stanford’s first medal in this race since Adam Kreek won gold for Canada in 2008. The last time a Stanford rower won a medal for the U.S. in the men’s eight was 1988 when John Pescatore won bronze for the Americans. Chatain follows Austin Hack among Stanford rowers who raced in the Olympics. Hack competed for the U.S. Eights at the 2016 Rio and 2020 Tokyo Games. Chatain made his Olympic debut in the prelims on Monday, helping the U.S. to the day’s fastest time of 5:29.94 and an automatic berth into the A final. He and all but one rower on the U.S. boat were first-time Olympians.  Chatain, from Winnetka, Illinois, was an IRCA first-team All-American in 2021 and was named Pac-12 Rowing Athlete of the Year. He was a two-time All-Pac-12 first-team selection, including in his final collegiate season of 2023, when he stroked Stanford's Eights at the IRA Championships. Chatain earned his mathematics degree from Stanford and is a graduate student in computer science with a concentration in artificial intelligence. Chatain was selected to the national team a year ago, not long after his fifth and final collegiate season.