Marianna Galligani

- Tutor core group of six, second through fourth grade students performing below grade level
- Create Reading comprehension and curriculum-based questions and assignments
- Assess student abilities in Reading and Math
- Tailor activities to match student abilities
- Create and execute fun and creative learning activities
- Correspond regularly with classroom teachers and parents
- Assist with homework and independent reading
- Follow Math and Reading Curriculum and Instruction

• Worked effectively in check-in and check-out of youth ages 7–18 • Oversaw a group of youth; responsible for their safety • Assisted students in memorizing theatrical material for a production given for the community

Perceptions of chronic pain, the role of proximity, and the impact of Catastrophic Thinking were examined. The current literature regarding perceptions of pain in others largely revolves around acute pain and suggests that those who catastrophize rate pain higher than those who do not, and nurses in supervisory roles rate pain as less important to address than nurses in bed side roles (proximity). Ninety-eight participants from a small liberal arts university in the Midwest observed a stimulus either in video or in writing of an individual in either acute or chronic pain and completed a pain rating question, importance of addressing the pain rating question, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) Daily Version, and a demographics questionnaire. Those who observed a chronic pain stimulus (M = 8.65, SD = 1.60) rated the pain significantly higher than those who observed an acute pain stimulus (M = 8.02, SD = 1.20), t(96) = 2.19, p < .05, d = .44. There were no significant differences between the Write-Up Groups and the Video Groups nor between the High PCS Group and the Low PCS Group. There was a significant effect of race on the pain rating, F (92, 5) = 4.70, p < .01, η2 = .20. These results indicate that Catastrophic Thinking may be a more complex concept impacting the perception of pain in intricate ways and is a topic that needs greater research.

Relational aggression has been studied in many research experiments. While research in the past has seen how normative beliefs correlate with relational aggression perpetration, it has failed to determine if viewing the aftermath or impacts of relationally aggressive interactions may have an impact on individual’s normative beliefs on a short-term basis. Furthermore, past research has not controlled the model of relational aggression that subjects are witnessing; rather, researchers have drawn on past experiences. This study examined how college students perceive relational aggression compared to their gender, social anxiety, and the presented video model. One group of participants watched a video clip depicting relational aggression. The other group of participants watched a video testimonial of someone who experienced/witnessed relational aggression. The purpose was to see if the presented video model pertaining to relational aggression correlated with short-term normative beliefs about relational aggression.

The impact of valence of emotions and personality on emotional contagion were examined. The current state of the literature regarding emotional contagion levels and valence of emotions is conflicting and inconclusive, and there is research suggesting that personality traits, such as neuroticism, play a role in emotional contagion processes. Fifty-five participants from a small liberal arts university in the Midwest completed the Positive and Negative Mood Scales at three times (baseline, after sad faces, and after happy faces), the Big Five Inventory – 2, and a demographics questionnaire. Participants viewed straight-on happy and sad faces from the Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces database. Emotional contagion was not detected; therefore, valence of emotions and personality’s impact on emotional contagion could not be directly examined. Post hoc analyses revealed that extraversion, contentiousness, and neuroticism collectively explained for 31% of the positive baseline mood, F(3, 51) = 9.01, p < .01, adjusted R2 = .31, 37% of negative baseline mood, F(3, 51) = 11.36, p < .01, adjusted R2 = .37, and 29% of the negative mood after sad faces, F(3, 51) = 8.42, p < .01, adjusted R2 = .29. These results indicate that mood is largely based on stable and pervasive personality traits.