INQUIRY

INQUIRY • Volume 19, 2015
choices governments have in order to elicit greater cooperation
from their citizens without the use of coercion. It also
contributes to insights on the bases of effective democratic
governance.
Same Shapes, Different Ways: Investigating Individual
Differences on the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices
Terence Tan, History, Psychology
Sponsor: Professor Samuel Juni, Applied Psychology,
Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human
Development
Standardized intelligence quotient (IQ) tests reward
correct answers not the thought processes behind one’s
solution. However, two individuals who arrive at the correct
answer might employ very different strategies and problemsolving
heuristics. What are these strategies, and what can
they tell us about the individuals who choose them? This
study explores individual differences in problem-solving
strategies on a widely used multiple-choice test of fluid
intelligence, the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices
(RAPM). Participants explained their thoughts and strategies
as they solved 18 items on the RAPM. Each subject’s
explanation for each item was coded along five dimensions
that assessed, for example, how subjects grouped given
elements in each item. Finally, correlations amongst these
five dimensions were assessed in two ways: between items
and between individuals. It was found that individuals who
scored highly were different from those who scored poorly
in four ways: their solutions were less novel, they construed
the matrix in distinct rows and columns, they used all parts of
the matrix when solving it and they spent more time forming
an idealized response before looking at the response choices.
The results suggest there are qualitative differences between
high and low scorers on the RAPM that are inadequately
captured by the unitary nature of an IQ score. Implications
on the makeup of intelligence are discussed.
The New Narrative: Unraveling Misconceptions about
Rape on College Campuses
Kristine Thomason, Journalism, Psychology
Sponsor: Professor Jason Samuels, Journalism
This online multimedia project and short documentary
film highlights survivors’ stories with the goal of understanding
and dispelling misconceptions about sexual assault,
specifically in a university setting. One Justice Department
survey found that only twelve percent of college sexual
assault victims reported the crime. What is keeping them
from coming forward? After talking to multiple survivors,
it became clear that one reason is they don’t know to label
their experience as sexual assault since it doesn’t align with
the stereotypical rape narrative present in society. Then, if
they do acknowledge and report their assault, their stories
are often cast off by administrators, law enforcement,
friends and family who hold similar stereotypes. Even
more troubling, these accepted ideas create a setting where
perpetrators can not only get away with assaults but also
believe they haven’t truly committed a crime. In this project,
survivors, activists and specialists were interviewed in order
to seek to understand where misunderstandings about rape
come from and why they’re perpetuated. One major goal of
this project is to help reconstruct the common narrative by
shining a spotlight on survivor voices that aren’t normally
heard and, in doing so, uncover how, as a society, we can
begin to reshape the conversation about rape.
Swaying Science: How Congressional Characteristics
Affect Science Roll Call Behavior
Kelly Tripathi, Chemistry, Politics
Sponsor: Professor Oeindrila Dube, Politics
The 2000s represented what has come to be called the
“War on Science,” characterized by the massive reduction
of stem cell research, refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol
and the rise of global climate change denial. This study
considers the impact of legislators’ characteristics, from
gender, party, military experience, religion and occupational
backgrounds on their science related voting. It explores the
difference between voting behavior on “Academic” votes,
votes that determine the general process by which science is
produced and promoted by subject area, against “Political”
votes, votes that determine how scientific discoveries are
regulated and implemented by issue. An empirical analysis
shows characteristics influence political votes more so than
academic. These findings suggest that when scientific issues
become most salient to the public, legislators are more
affected by their characteristics than by their constituents’
preferences. It was further found that legislators with a
medical background vote more frequently against science
policy compared to their counterparts. This finding suggests
a science background does not lead to more pro-science
voting behavior. In addition, this study seeks to show the
quantitative effect of President Bush’s term and a Republican
majority in Congress on the increasing polarization of
science across party lines.
Asymmetric Dominance in Gastronomy: An Experimental
Study
Ahileas Tsahiridis-Krausser, Economics, Philosophy
Sponsor: Professor Andrew Paizis, Economics
This paper investigates how the choices of agents in a
food and beverage environment change under the influence
of adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives. An asymmetrically
dominated alternative is dominated by one item
in a choice set but not by another. As various behavioral
economists have shown, adding such an alternative to a
69