We came up with the idea to organize EASP Summer School in 2018. We applied to one of the calls that EASP announced and we were thrilled to learn that we were granted the organization of the Summer School. One hundred and forty applications were submitted and we decided on accepting 61 participants. We have to admit that the process of choosing the candidates was very difficult. Our idea was to attract PhD students that wish to work in academia after completing the PhD. We hoped that the Summer School would help them in acquiring new skills, excelling in what they have been doing so far and in general boost their skills as academics. The chosen participants were really diverse when it comes to the country of their origin. There were the following nationalities among the participants: Dutch 2, Taiwanese 1, Hungarian 1, British 3, German 6, Japanese 2, Israeli 3, USA 1, Serbian 1, Portuguese 4, Polish 4, Indian 1, Italian 8, Icelandic 1, Belgian 1, Canadian 1, French 3, Irish 1, Danish 1, Austrian 1, Norwegian 1, Double: Iranian & German 1, Portuguese & Brazilian 1, Chilean & Italian 1, 1 not stated. There were also 5 participants, who were chosen by SASP (Society of Australasian Social Psychologists) and another 5 were chosen by SPSP (Society for Personality and Social Psychology).

We had the perfect teachers and the perfect participants, but… we also had the pandemic…

1. The Pandemic and the Summer School

We struggled if the school should be organized in 2021 (as initially planned), yet online, or if it would be better to postpone it to 2022. After having consulted the teachers, we moved the event to 2022. We were then quite convinced that the pandemic would no longer be a problem in 2022. Little did we know that right before the Summer School, there would be another wave of COVID-19 passing through Europe… After having consulted the Executive Committee of the EASP, we decided to employ extra safety measures (we asked everyone to wear masks and we handled tests against COVID-19 for everybody to self-test prior to coming to the university venue) and we kept our fingers crossed. In the middle of the first week one participant tested positive and they stayed in self-isolation until the last day of the Summer School. We were prepared for hybrid teaching and this participant, together with three others that tested positive prior to coming to the Summer School, attended the main workshops, additional workshops and keynote lectures online. Luckily (and to our surprise) nobody else tested positive during the Summer School. We did learn afterwards that several participants tested positive to COVID-19 after the Summer School…

2. The Main Workshops There were five main workshops at the Summer School and excellent scholars agreed to teach during the workshops: 1. Identity and politics Aleksandra Cichocka & Aleksandra Cisłak, 2. Intergroup relations, Michał Bilewicz & Sylvie Graf, 3. Meanings in life, Samantha Heintzelman & Wijnand Van Tilburg, 4. Moral judgement and behavior, Shahar Ayal & Paul Conway and 5. Social cognition, Hans IJzerman & Caterina Suitner. Although at the beginning of the week when the Summer School was about to start it was uncertain if three of the teachers would successfully get to Wroclaw (due to COVID, canceled flights and ticket issues), eventually everybody managed to get to Wroclaw and participants enjoyed almost two weeks of intense work with them.

Below you will find description of the main workshops provided by the participants.

2.1. Identity and politics

Teachers: Aleksandra Cichocka (University of Kent) & Aleksandra Cisłak (SWPS University)
Students: Robin Bachman, Gonçalo Freitas, Frank Gootjes, Shira Hebel-Sela, Naomi Isenberg, Danica Kulibert, Yuan-Hsi Liao, Zuzanna Molenda, Devora Newman, Milica Ninković, Annayah Prosser, Lotte Pummerer, Zea Szebeni, Ruri Takizawa, Morgan Weaving

The Identity and Politics workshop consisted of 15 graduate students from across the world and was led by two amazing professors, Drs. Aleksandra Cichocka and Aleksandra Cislak. Many of the graduate students in this workshop came with programs of research in the identity and politics space, and many came in with the goal of learning more about how identity relates to politics to supplement their research on other topics. Over the course of the two-week summer school, the individuals in our workshop became close friends and potentially collaborators, and we spent much of our time in Wroclaw, Poland building memories that will last us our lifetimes.

The first week of the workshop consisted of daily lectures and discussions. The professors provided assigned readings each day for the class that featured a specific area of study within identity and politics. Each day we would cover the important concepts and research findings from the readings. Then, we would break off into small groups to complete activities related to the topic. To finish off the day, a group of students would expand on a particular facet of the topic for the day and lead a discussion on it, which often involved engaging activities such as debates and brainstorming solutions to real-world problems.

The topic for the first day of the workshop was understanding the basic concepts and definitions related to identity and politics. We covered the concepts of ethnocentrism, nationalism vs. collective narcissism, blind vs. constructive patriotism, group-level self-definitions, and intergroup conflict theory. On the second day, our topic was intergroup attitudes where we discussed political attitudes and partisan conflict, and how identification with a group relates to intergroup hostility. The third day focused on intragroup attitudes, specifically how identification with a group relates to various ingroup outcomes (e.g., objectification of ingroup members, community involvement). For the fourth day of the workshop, our topic was public policies. We discussed research on how identification with one’s country, specifically national narcissism, predicts support or rejection for different policies related to a variety of concerns such as vaccination and conservation. For the last day of the week, we covered the topic of interventions where we discussed research on how to intervene on the negative implications of insecure ingroup identification (e.g., collective narcissism).

The second week of the workshop was dedicated to working on our group research projects. The members of the workshop split into teams based off shared research interests and spent the week meeting with each other and the professors to develop a research question relevant to the workshop that we would propose a series of studies for. At the end of the week, all workshops got together for a symposium where each team presented their research projects to the whole summer school group. This day was full of excitement since it was the last day of the summer school, and we were able to see the accumulation of all our hard work.

When we were not in our workshops and working on our projects, we bonded over many activities such as going to the city center for dinner, visiting the Japanese Garden and the Wroclaw multimedia fountain, and dancing the night away on the last day of the school. This was an experience we will not be able to forget, and we look forward to continuing developing our relationships with each other through collaborations and meet-ups at conferences.

Written and edited by Naomi Isenberg

2.2. Intergroup relations

Teachers: Michał Bilewicz (University of Warsaw) & Sylvie Graf (Institute of Psychology, Czech Academy of Sciences)
Students: Katja Albada, Katrin Árnadóttir, Rosandra Coladonato, Emerson Do Bú, Hirotaka Imada, Jannis Kreienkamp, Fiona Kazarovytska, Zahra Khosrowtaj, Eugene Ofosu, Chiara Venanzetti, Suryodaya Sharma

The selection of Wroclaw, Poland, as the site of the summer school was significant for several reasons. On the one hand, the history of Poland with Auschwitz-Birkenau is a reminder of the historical forces that shaped the focus of social psychology after WWII. Social psychologists such as Henri Tajfel (himself losing family and friends to the Holocaust in Poland) focused on the enormous influence of shared identities on intergroup relations and underlying psychological processes. On the other hand, monuments like Polin Museum and Oscar Schindler’s factory commemorate the agency and resistance even in the worst of times. That is why, even before coming to Poland, it felt like hallowed grounds for intergroup relations.

Email communication from the organizers before the event was thorough, thoughtful and informative.

Michal Bilewicz and Sylvie Graf, our mentors, have provided us with a wide list of papers covering the broad outlines of different areas of study within the intergroup relations framework. Upon our arrival at the summer school, they created a pleasant and liberating atmosphere, which included an extended getting to know each other. Each day was organized as follows: in the morning we had the opportunity to attend an insightful lecture on topics such as the relations between intergroup relations and language, the epidemic of hate speech and its consequences, dehumanization, and intergroup contact, and conspiracy beliefs. After that, a time was scheduled for discussion on the topic raised. Finally, and especially in the second week, we were asked to take input from the discussion to generate and develop research ideas in small groups. We would like to underline that we really enjoyed the inspiring and creative discussions, and even came up with several research ideas after each day. Thanks to Sylvie and Michal, we could come up with creative insights and learn from their expertise. We also had the brilliant opportunity to interact with and get feedback from Eerika Finell. Our workshop group had three project presentations on wide-ranging topics such as the conceptualization of power, the supposed role of an ethnic bias in attitudes towards abortion, and hate speech through memes. There is every intention to continue the collaborations by turning these ideas into real projects.

The activities aside from the scientific part, such as volunteering, visiting the old town of Wroclaw and the pottery museum in Boleslawiec as well as the farewell party by the riverside remain with good memories. The drinks with other participants while enjoying the sunset on Concordia Design was a harbinger of good times ahead. In addition, some activities in smaller groups were organized on our day off (the hike to Zamek Książ and Kościół Pokoju w Świdnicy will always be remembered with nostalgia).

To conclude, it was an inspiring and intense experience which did not only last for two weeks. We would like to use this opportunity to express our heartfelt thank you to Michal and Sylvie for the great (and patient) input to our questions, for the lovely dinner and dance at Restauracja Sarah, and for building a democratic environment in the workshop. Thanks to the organizing team from the SWPS University, we had a very pleasant time at the EASP summer school, getting to know new colleagues and forming new friendships.

Written and edited by Rosandra Coladonato, Zahra Khosrowtaj and Suryodaya Sharma

2.3. Meanings in life

Teachers: Samantha Heintzelman (Rutgers University) & Wijnand Van Tilburg (University of Essex)
Students: Jolanta Czarnecka, Isla Dougall, Angela Johnson, Alice Lucarini, Ryan Lundell-Creagh, Jean Monéger, Jessica Morton, Lewis Nitschinsk, Muireann O’Dea, Alessandro Sparacio, Anastassia Vivanco Carlevari, Vera Vogel

Meaning in life can be conceptually defined by the three facets: coherence (i.e., a sense of comprehensibility in one's life), purpose (i.e., a sense of core goals in one's life), and significance (i.e., a sense that one's life has an impact). In the "Meanings in Life" workshop, we discussed how people create, experience, maintain and protect meaning in life and how meaning in life is beneficially related to motivation, well-being, emotions, interpersonal behavior, and other significant life outcomes. Thus, having meaning in life can be considered an essential aspect of human functioning, comprising a variety of psychology fields, such as existential and positive psychology.

During the first week of the workshop, we reflected on the current literature on meaning in life based on the knowledge gained from the requested readings. Each day, we actively undertook a specific topic. They included reviewing the different existing theoretical models, deciphering a clear definition of meaning in life, the psychological dimensions of meaning, and methodological considerations for measuring the construct. Additionally, our two workshop leaders, Samantha Heintzelman and Wijnand van Tilburg, shared their respective work in the field of meaning in life. While Samantha Heintzelman has focused her research on the role of coherence and daily life experiences as crucial components of meaningfulness, Wijnand van Tilburg has primarily explored how meaning in life regulates the experience of boredom and its relationship with existential threats. This week's extensive overview of current knowledge on meaning in life and inspiring group discussions brought to light research questions still pending in the literature. Many of them firmly grasped our attention: is there an objective component of meaning in life, or is it always a subjective judgment? Does everyone gain meaning in life from the same sources, or are there interindividual differences? Are the sources of meaning exceptional and infrequent, or is it a daily life experience? What is the relation between meaning loss and death, traumatic events, or boredom?

In the second week of the workshop, we split into four subgroups. Specifically, the subgroups aimed to generate a specific research question arising from the previous discussions and to draw up a research plan to be presented on the last day of the summer school. Finally, the four subgroups addressed the following topics in their presentations: (a) The individualistic pursuit of a meaningful life, (b) How trait boredom is related to trait meaning in life and global trolling, (c) How social is meaning for you? Individual differences in the perception of meaning in life, and (d) How perceived intentionality in collective suffering shapes meaning loss.

Overall, the two weeks of the "Meanings in Life" workshop offered highly stimulating, thought-provoking, and 'meaningful' conversations. Moreover, we became a coherent group having the purpose of creating significant research questions that do have an impact. Thanks to the workshop, we now have not only an in-depth knowledge of the topic of meaning in life but also friendships that will, in the future, bring the fruit of excellent collaborations. Going forward, we are excited to have the opportunity to conduct the research ideas generated over the Summer School.

Written and edited by Jessica Morton, Anastassia Vivanco Carlevari, Vera Vogel, Muireann O’Dea, Jean Monéger, Alice Lucarini, Jolanta Czarnecka

2.4. Moral judgement and behavior

Teachers: Shahar Ayal (Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology at Reichman University, (IDC) Herzliya) & Paul Conway (University of Portsmouth)
Students: Carmen Cervone, Veronica Margherita Cocco, Michael Donner, Terence Dores Cruz, Silvana D’Ottone, Christian Elbaek, Aleksandra Kosiarczyk, Karolina Koszałkowska, Andrea Scatolon, Anandita Sabherwal, Matilde Tumino

The workshop was focused on moral psychology and behavioral ethics. During the course we discussed moral dilemmas and moral judgment. Specifically…
● We reviewed the classic trolley dilemmas framework and the latest trends in the field of moral judgments and decision making.
● We also discussed ethical dissonance and the way we justify our misdeeds or others’.
● We read about what happens when we confess or partially confess our wrongdoings and possible mechanisms underlying those confessions.
● We learned about the evolution of morality and its role in cooperation within and between groups, cross-cultural differences in unethical behavior, and the importance of morality in the perception of ourselves and others.

The workshop linked complementary lines of research in a way that contributed to our understanding of the state of affairs of the psychology of morality. We were able to discuss novel research and questions that are framing the current advances in this field, and we gathered enough insight to outline our own research projects that we believe will successfully contribute to the discipline.

We had lectures in the mornings delivered either by Paul or Shahar. The lecture lasted around 2-3 hours, depending on how many questions and discussions we had. For each session, one or two of us had to take over the last part of the morning session. We were asked to read the articles for the session and come up with questions or comments to incite a debate with the other students. The discussion lasted until lunch time.

During the afternoon session we worked on our projects. Usually, we discussed one or two projects per day. The whole class engaged in the discussion to help our partner(s) improve or extend their questions and ideas. In the evening we took part in the different talks and activities programmed by the organization.

Our group came up with a total of 5 presentations, including one ManyLabs project that was open to anyone from the Summer School (and beyond!) to join. These are the ideas we proposed during the final presentation:

1. The partisan dilemma: Evaluating utilitarian and deontological decisions by in and out party politicians by Michael Ryan Donner, Silvana A. D'Ottone, & Matilde Tumino: The project seeks to explore how partisans evaluate utilitarian decisions made either by an in or an out-party politician.

2. The trolley that got away: Does moral judgment in sacrificial dilemmas resemble real behavior? by Terence Dores Cruz & Christian Truelsen Elbæk: In this project, we designed a novel economic game, the fungible trolley dilemma, that resembles the inherent structure of classic moral dilemmas, where causing harm prevents greater harm. Here, we will test whether moral economic decisions in such a dilemma resemble hypothetical moral judgments in moral dilemmas.

3. Punching up or punching down? The effect of disparagement versus subversive humor on agency and patiency perceptions by Karolina Koszałkowska: This project will investigate how people might perceive moral agency, patiency, and (im)morality of a joke teller depending on whether they tell a joke that disparages their own group vs a subversive joke.

4. Setting intergroup contact interventions: The role of moral perceived similarity in promoting social change by Veronica Margherita Cocco: The present research project aims to provide greater knowledge on the interplay between intergroup contact, morality and solidarity-based collective action.

5. The balancing act: A Manylabs study on moral balancing of proenvironmental behaviors by Anandita Sabherwal, Veronica Margherita Cocco, Terence Dores Cruz, Christian Truelsen Elbæk, Matilde Tumino, Michael Ryan Donner, Carmen Cervone, Andrea Scatolon, Aleksandra Kosiarczyk, Silvana A. D'Ottone, Karolina Koszałkowska, Paul Conway, & Ayal Shahar: The phenomenon of moral balancing posits that upon taking ethical actions, people feel licensed to take unethical ones while maintaining a relatively stable moral self image. This has implications for complex global challenges like climate change that require sustained pro-environmental actions. Leveraging the diversity in our summer school, we developed a Manylabs project to test moral balancing of pro-environmental behavior. Addressing existing gaps in literature, we are conducting a culturally diverse, behaviourally robust and high-powered test of moral balancing. We are fortunate to have support from 100+ collaborators from over 42 countries!

We really enjoyed each other’s presence and we are determined to organize as many reunions as humanly possible. As of now, we have an ongoing WhatsApp group chat to share any ideas, news about our professional and personal lives, as well as tons of great memes. We truly appreciate the way our professors managed to create such a good environment during the workshop. We felt comfortable and safe sharing our thoughts, asking questions, or just being around each other. We developed a strong sense of group belonging and that was partly because of the thoughtfulness and hard work of the professors and students. We are very grateful for this experience, not only because of how much we learned, but also because of the incredible people we got to know.

Written and edited by Silvana D’Ottone & Karolina Koszałkowska

2.5. Social cognition

Teachers: Hans IJzerman (Université Grenoble Alpes) & Caterina Suitner (University of Padova)
Students: Maximilian Agostini, Magali Beylat, Mafalda Fontinha Azevedo Mascarenhas de Oliveira, Lucas Gautier, Guy Grinfeld, Felix Kruse, Sonja Kunz, Marie Levorsen, Matteo Masi, Bernardo Pereira Cavalheiro, Michael Sweigart, Iana Wong

You are the future of social psychology, they said. Use your time wisely, they said. And so we did. Two exciting weeks awaited us in the beautiful city of Wrocław, Poland. Although the days flew past in no time, it felt like we have been in this place for an eternity and we certainly did not leave as the same people as we entered.

We opened the summer school with a great welcoming reception at the Concordia design on Słodowa island, where we made first contact with our fellow summer schoolers from all over the world. After years of social distancing due to the Covid19 pandemic, for many of us, this was the first and longingly awaited opportunity to exchange gossip about our various labs, which we certainly took advantage of.

The following day, the work began. In the social cognition workshop, we were put into groups, according to maximum diversity with regard to university of origin, methodological skills and research interests. The first task was to come up within two days with an initial research question about each of the two workshop topics: Social thermoregulation and agency. Ambitious, thought we. But anything is possible, when you take some of the smartest PhD candidates from all over the world and lock them together for two weeks.

During the first week, we learned about the basic principles of social thermoregulation (We know that people are not monkeys, but they might be penguins) and agency (We know that we still do not really know what agency is). Also, we discussed potential research topics and fought passionately over who gets to work on which topic. In the second week, we had time to refine our research question and come up with a proposal to present at the final conference.

Not only did the workshop provide us with many new theoretical and methodological insights, but also lots of valuable advice on how to be a better researcher (basically, forget everything you thought you knew) and life hacks (NEVER change the language in Excel to Hebrew out of curiosity, if you do not know the language). Besides, we took a walk through the dark random forest and almost got caught in the webs of the social network.

Needless to say, the summer school was not only about work, but we also went on numerous adventures. During a journey through the old town of Wrocław, we had countless encounters with friendly metal dwarves. In the Japanese garden, we had to cross a raging river to get to a magic fountain. In the town of Bolesławiec, we could try our skills in the arts of pottery and painted ceramic cows.

The summer school concluded with a memorable conference, at which we presented our ground-breaking research proposals and even some Ig Nobel Prize worthy findings (The number of blankets is the best predictor of glucose intake? Who would have thunk!). After that, we all celebrated the finale of two unforgettable weeks at the beach bar ZaZoo, where the on-setting rain could not stop us from dancing bare feet in the sand. Possibly the most important lesson we all could learn from the Summer School: Work hard, party harder!

Written and edited by Sonja Kunz

3. Additional Workshops and Keynote Lectures

Participants could take part in additional two workshops that were run in the afternoons. One was dedicated to open-science and pre-registration, led by Katarzyna Jaśko (Jagiellonian University) and the other one was on meta-analysis as a tool in desk research conducted by Agata Gąsiorowska (SWPS University). The two workshops were widely attended by the participants and we hope that the events enriched participants in practical knowledge on the issues covered during the workshops. There were also three keynote lectures planned during the Summer School. We had to cancel one of them as unfortunately Małgorzata Kossowska (Jagiellonian University) couldn’t deliver the talk due to health issues. Eventually the talks were delivered by Agnieszka Sorokowska (University of Wroclaw), Eerika Finell (University of Eastern Finland) and Bogdan Wojciszke (SWPS University). The talks elicited lively discussions and we hope that they were inspiring for the participants that attended them.

4. The Final Day of Presentations

During the last day of the Summer School, participants presented their research ideas divided in subgroups of around 3-4 participants. That day resembled a regular conference day. It was amazing to see how over the course of less than two weeks the participants were able to come up with interesting and reasonable research ideas. We hope that they conduct the research they developed during the Summer School and we see it published in excellent scientific journals afterwards. We are keeping our fingers crossed!

5. Volunteering and Panel

The Summer School was conducted when Poland’s neighbors, the Ukrainians were being invaded by Russia. It was difficult not to discuss it during the Summer School. We have prepared volunteering that many participants and teachers engaged in. What was mostly desired by the Ukrainian refugees at the time of the Summer School were Speaking Clubs that allowed the immigrants to deepen their knowledge of English language (either in general or more specifically, e.g., how to prepare a resume). The Speaking Clubs were organized online, which was both the most convenient and safest for everybody, given the pandemic. Many participants declared that they want to continue helping Ukrainian immigrants after they are back in their home country. Aside from this, we organized a Discussion Panel on Ukraine and International Scientific Cooperation. In this concise discussion, answers to our questions were given by the most informed and experienced specialists in their fields: Dr Olga Polotska, Executive Director of the National Research Foundation of Ukraine (https://nrfu.org.ua/en/), Dr Mariana Velykodna, Associate Professor at Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University, certified EuroPsy specialist and Psychoanalyst and Igor Lisin, Vice-president of the board of Foundation Ukraine (https://fundacjaukraina.eu/?lang=en). Those participants and teachers that took part in the panel learned about current needs of Ukrainian scientists. It is important to get current information from the person one wants to help, as they know their needs the best. Additionally, we all learned that in the fast-changing environment, it is crucial to be flexible when offering help.

6. Social Events

Last but not least, we wanted to offer to the participants a rich social program. This was even more strongly encouraged by the organizers of the EASP Summer School in Zurich, whom we contacted when preparing the Summer School and who were kind enough to offer some tips on the dos and don’ts related to the organization of the event. We started with a reception, when participants and the teachers could get to know each other in a more informal context. During one of the first days of the event we offered a tour with a guide over the Old Town, so that everybody could get to know Wroclaw. We wanted everybody to stay active not only when it comes to intellectual activities, so we invited everyone to join us in one of the parks next to the university where they could play boule, badminton, volleyball or just relax sitting on the grass. During the weekend most participants visited the Live Pottery Museum in Bolesławiec, where they could see how traditional pottery is made and be creative when decorating their own pottery items. Some teachers also decided to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum of Nazi Concentration Camp on Sunday, which was an intense and worthy experience. We ended the Summer School with a Farewell Party, which was much needed and desired after almost two weeks of hard work.

To sum up, there were times when the amount of work related to the organization of the Summer School was so big that we would have to remind ourselves why we have decided to do it. BUT, many of us, the organizers, have been past EASP Summer School participants and we knew that EASP Summer Schools offer an unforgettable experience that has a positive influence on the academic and personal life. This was a very strong motivator that kept us going. We could not do it without the help from the Dean of The Faculty of Psychology in Wroclaw, SWPS University: Tomasz Grzyb, and academics: Jakub Kuś, Yehor Hrymchak, Aleksandra Penza, Jakub Michalik and Izabela Poświstak. We could also count on our IT specialists (special thanks to Tomasz Hawron and Łukasz Dutkiewicz!) at SWPS University in Wroclaw and administration staff that was there to help us. We are also thankful to the EASP Executive Committee, who were there to offer friendly advice and support, when needed.

We want to think that the 2022 EASP Summer School was a positive and thought-provoking experience for the participants (and who knows: maybe for the teachers as well…). We hope that in five, ten years from now, some of the participants of the Summer School in Wroclaw will organize one of the next EASP Summer Schools… Whoever organizes the next Summer School is welcome to contact us, if they want any advice on what (not) to do.

Kasia Cantarero
Kasia Byrka
Olga Białobrzeska
Darek Dolinski