London & Home Counties Branch


Dr David Hardman, Senior Research Analyst at the Rail Safety and Standards Board.

Many thanks to the attentive and engaged audience who passed up the opportunity to watch the Belgium vs. France World Cup semi-final in order to hear my presentation to the branch on 10th July (note: I am also a committee member for this branch). As no-one was allocated to write a blog for this event, our Chair (James Barr) asked if I would give a short summary here.

There have been numerous popular books about decision making over the last decade or so, perhaps spurred by the rising interest in ‘behavioural economics’ in the wake of the economic crash in 2008 (behavioural economics is essentially the application of psychological ideas within the realm of economics). The most notable of these is ‘Thinking: Fast and Slow’ by the Nobel laureate, Daniel Kahneman. The story of his academic partnership and friendship with the late Amos Tversky has been memorably told in Michael Lewis’s book ‘The Undoing Project’. My own textbook, ‘Judgment and Decision Making: Psychological Perspectives’, appeared in 2009 and would have been in preparation at the publisher just as the world economy was going into meltdown.

There are a number of strong general conclusions to be drawn from the JDM literature, of which I’ll mention three. Firstly, many studies have shown that people struggle to combine and compare multiple items of information when making judgments (despite any subjective feelings that they are doing so). Instead, they often fall back on simplifying heuristics. Kahneman has shown how people unconsciously replace difficult questions with easy ones, such as when they replace a question about probability with one about typicality.

A second conclusion is that people do not have stable preferences that are revealed by the choices they make, but rather they construct their preferences at the moment of choice. Because of this, people’s preferences can be influenced by the context of the choice. For example, in several studies Chris Hsee showed that two choice options were valued differently, depending on whether participants saw the two options together or just one of the options. In one such study, people who were able to compare two tubs of ice cream placed a higher value on a larger quantity scoop that didn’t reach the brim of a tall cup, as compared to a smaller quantity scoop that was overfilling the brim of a tiny cup. However, these valuations were reversed in two groups of people who only viewed one of the cups.

Thirdly, when making choices, people don’t choose between ‘things’; they choose between descriptions of things. In the well-known ‘Disease Problem’, participants are asked to choose between one of two medical programmes in response to a disease that is expected to take 600 lives. When the options are described in terms of the number of lives expected to be ‘saved’ people tend to opt for an option that will save 200 lives for sure, as opposed to a ‘risky’ option that has a one-third chance of saving everybody and a two-thirds chance of saving nobody; but when the options are described in terms of the number of people who are likely to die, participants more often choose the risky option.

The ‘framing effect’ observed in the disease problem was predicted and explained by Prospect Theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). This theory says that people represent potential outcomes as gains or losses from a subjective reference point. People are especially sensitive to changes near the reference point and are more sensitive to perceived losses than to gains of an equivalent amount. Consequently, people tend to be risk averse when considering potential gains and risk-seeking when they consider potential losses.

In my talk I discussed some recent developments in the JDM field, including some earlier results that have come under question. The first of these concerned the ‘hot hand fallacy’. In American basketball there is a longstanding belief that players who have successfully placed the ball in the basket on successive attempts are more likely to be successful on their next attempt (as compared to players who have had a series of misses). These players are said to have the ‘hot hand’. In a much-cited 1985 paper, Gilovich, Vallone and Tversky analysed the performance nine top players over the course of a year and found that a sequence of hits was not more likely to be followed by another hit than was a sequence of misses. They labelled belief in the hot hand as a fallacy. However, a reanalysis by Miller and Sanjurjo, currently in press at Econometrica, shows that Gilovich and colleagues themselves made a conceptual error in their original analysis, and that the players they studied really did demonstrate a hot hand effect. The explanation for this is beyond the scope of this blog, except to say that the error in the original analysis lies in the fact that the authors identified target attempts on the basis of having already identified that they were preceded by a sequence of hits or misses. A relatively accessible account of their analysis can be found at The Conversation.

Another textbook bias that has come under scrutiny is that of unrealistic optimism, the phenomenon whereby people perceive that they are less likely to experience negative events than the average person (and more likely to experience positive events, although in fact the empirical evidence is weaker for positive events). Adam Harris at UCL, and his colleagues, has argued that the appearance of unrealistic optimism in laboratory studies is an artifact arising from the rarity of the events that are assessed and the restricted nature of the scale that participants are asked to use for their responses. Through a thought experiment he has shown that even fully rational participants can give the appearance of unrealistic optimism. In experiments that control for some of the shortcomings of earlier research, he has found no evidence for unrealistic optimism.

My talk also examined a couple of studies questioning how far Prospect Theory can go in explaining everyday behaviour. The original prospect theory paper referred to the ‘last race of the day effect’, identified in a 1956 paper, whereby race track bettors increasingly bet on longshots on the last race of the day. Kahneman and Tversky explained this in terms of loss aversion, whereby bettors who had lost money during the course of the day (the majority!) switched to longshots on the final race in an attempt to recoup their losses. However, some more recent research has failed to find the last-race-of-the-day effect, suggesting that either the original research suffered from sampling error or that savvy bettors have got wise to the effect and changed their behaviour. In a 2016 paper, Craig McKenzie ran three experiments designed as simulations of the race track, in which participants - not experienced bettors -  placed bets on each of several rounds, always knowing when the last round was about to happen. McKenzie did find an increased tendency to bet on longshots in the final round, but - contrary to Prospect Theory - this effect was true for bettors who had previously made gains as well as the ones who had made losses. He concluded that most people just like to “go out with a bang”.

In a 1997 paper, Colin Camerer also called upon loss aversion as an explanation for the behaviour of New York cab drivers, who did not appear to structure their working hours so as to maximise their earnings. Through an analysis of their trip sheets, Camerer found that they tended to quit early on busy days and to work longer on days when there were fewer customers. He argued that the drivers set themselves a daily earnings target (their reference point, in Prospect Theory terminology), and quit once this target was met.

However, critics have suggested that this study failed to control for certain confounds. For instance, New York cab drivers often hold down more than one job. It could be that events such as public holidays and major sports events could influence demand in their other job, as well as the demand for cabs. Likewise, some drivers may prefer to attend a sporting event rather than drive their cab when it is on. Tess Stafford, in a 2015 paper, analysed a group of workers less susceptible to such confounds - the commercial spiny lobster fishermen of Florida. These workers require a license to work, typically own their own boat, and have to submit a trip sheet to the local conservation body. Moreover, variations in the availability of lobster are fairly predictable. The supply is higher earlier in the season and during the period of the new moon. Stafford found that these workers did not demonstrate the reference-dependence observed in the NYC cabbies; rather they did structure their work in such a way as to maximise their earnings.

The original research that was included in the 1979 Prospect Theory paper was of the pencil-and-paper type, where participants had to choose between different hypothetical options. Whilst this identified the behaviour described earlier - risk aversion for gains and risk-seeking for losses - it also found the reverse of this when very small probabilities were involved. Small probabilities were said to have a large impact on behaviour, as with people’s purchase of lottery tickets and insurance. Over the last 16 years, a series of studies have looked at what happens when people experience decision outcomes rather than simply considering them as hypothetical scenarios (Decisions from Experience vs. Decisions from Description).

In decisions from experience participants typically make a sequence of choices between one of two doors that appear on a computer screen. After each choice they learn what the outcome is. The outcomes for each door represent a distribution of outcomes that can be summarised as probabilities. In some studies, people receive a payoff with each choice. In other studies, people sample from each door without a payoff, but once they feel they have sampled enough then they make a choice that does deliver a real payoff. These studies show an opposite pattern to decisions from description in that people are less rather than more sensitive to small probabilities. The findings are not necessarily in contradiction to Prospect Theory, though, because it may be that some participants never actually sample the low probability outcome. There is some evidence that Prospect Theory does actually account for decisions, when the analysis is based on the outcomes that people experienced.

One area of JDM that has aroused some controversy is that relating to the role of unconscious processes, and especially work on unconscious priming. Chapter 4 in Kahneman’s book ‘Thinking: Fast and Slow’ discusses these studies. Yet a prominent failure to replicate one of the best-known priming studies (in which people walk more slowly after being exposed to stereotypes of older age) has led much of this work to be criticised. This blog article reports analyses that suggest most of the studies discussed in Kahneman’s fourth chapter are statistically under-powered. The problem with social priming studies relates to the ongoing replication crisis (so-called) within psychology. Chris Chambers has published a terrific book, ‘The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology’, in which he forensically analyses the problems in much methodological practice that have given rise to many false findings being published. Chambers also proposes a number of remedies that researchers should apply (or be made to apply) in order to clean up their act.

Unconscious processes are also addressed in a provocative recent book, ‘The Mind is Flat’ by Nick Chater. Chater argues that, contrary to decades of psychoanalytic theory, the mind has no ‘hidden depths’ because it has no depths. That is not to say that there are no unconscious processes. Clearly there are, but these processes are not concealed versions of potentially conscious thoughts. Rather, our conscious thoughts arise out of these unconscious processes. For Chater, the brain is a sense-making machine, piecing together myriad sensory impressions and memory fragments to make sense of the world in the moment. Specifically, the brain has evolved to provide us with a stable picture of the world, but not to provide us with an account of its own workings in doing so.

Many of Chater’s examples come from visual perception, such as the fact that the erratic saccades of our eyes are completely missing from our seamless perceptions. Similarly, most of our visual receptors are specialised for black and white vision, yet we perceive the world in colour. This is simply the result of our brain’s sense-making activities. Some of the implications for JDM are discussed in Chater’s Chapter 6. For instance, in one extraordinary series of studies, Petter Johansson and his colleagues asked participants to choose the most attractive face from a pair, each of which was presented on cards. After making their choice, the experimenter used sleight-of-hand to present them with their non-preferred face whilst telling them this was the face they had chosen. Under questioning, most participants then had no difficulty in providing an explanation as to why they had chosen a face that they had not in fact chosen.

Chater’s view of the brain/mind is consistent with the preference construction notion, described earlier, according to which (contrary to classical economics) people construct their preferences at the moment of choice according to the context of that choice. Chater also presents evidence from work on attention, showing that people are, to all intents and purposes, only able to focus on one thing at a time. This fits with decades of JDM research showing that people struggle to integrate multiple items of information when making judgments and decisions, typically falling back on heuristics.

This, then, was where my talk finished. Questions from the audience at this point asked about a variety of things I hadn’t covered in my talk, including personality and individual differences, and workplace applications of JDM research. JDM is a wide-ranging area, and I suspect the audience for the talk also came from a variety of backgrounds (a show of hands revealed there were very few who were actually working in academia). Nonetheless, some of these topics are covered in my own textbook!

Dr David Hardman is author of the book:


Tue, 24/07/2018 - 21:31

The conference was held at Nottingham University this year. There are some pictures on Twitter (@bpsconference).

Several awards were given during the conference. The award for Innovation in Psychology Programmes was won by LHC’s vice-chair, Professor Carolyn Mair, for developing the MSc Applied Psychology of Fashion course at the London College of Fashion. Carolyn also won the 2017 award for Distinguished Contributions to Psychology Education this year and will be presented with it at next year’s conference.

Carolyn gave a keynote presentation in the Student Conference in which she described her career. It is an inspirational story, particularly for those who have not followed the linear academic escalator of A-levels, university and job, or those who have completed university and are now trying to find their way forward. Being a bit of a rebel in her youth Carolyn left school and worked in a range of jobs, including graphic designer, portrait artist and teacher of English as a foreign language, before travelling to Australia with her partner and a young child. Returning to England, she studied psychology as a (relatively) mature student, gained a Masters in research methods, became a lecturer and eventually a professor of psychology. She recently moved on from her academic position to become a successful consultant (, author (‘The Psychology of Fashion’), blogger and commentator on the intersection of psychology and fashion (e.g. in Vogue, New York Times, Radio 4, Loose Women etc). As a branch we wish her well as she leaves the committee LHC, although she still remains very active within the BPS.

The Student Conference was introduced by LHC branch member Natasha White (also one of the organisers of the Middlesex University Psychology Career Conference), Madeleine Pownall (Chair of the Student Section) and Lloyd Emeka (an advertising executive based in London).

The second keynote speaker in the student stream was Dan O’Hare who gave an excellent description of the work involved in educational and child psychology. Based on a case study, he demonstrated his interventions at the individual, parental, teacher and school policy levels. I missed the third student stream speaker, Julie Hulme of Keele University who spoke about teaching in higher education, and the fourth, Professor Roger Bretherton of Lincoln University, who spoke about careers and character strengths. The final keynote speaker was Dee Anand, chair of the Forensic Psychology division. He gave a thought-provoking presentation about how forensic psychology should help move the press and the public away from out-dated and prejudiced ways of thinking about offenders (in terms of intrinsic characteristics and harsh punishment) and help create a culture of prevention and rehabilitation based on the assumption that people can change.

A number of other awards were given during the conference: Marcus Munafo of Bristol University (Presidents Award for Contributions to Psychological Knowledge), Dr Emmanuelle Peters of Kings College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation (Distinguished Contributions to Psychology in Practice) and Professor Peter Hegarty (Promoting Equality of Opportunity). The Lifetime Achievement Award went to Dr Trevor Powell who has worked in the Thames Valley as a clinical psychologist for many years.

I attended a session giving recognition to three early career researchers: Dr Anne-Lise Goddings for her outstanding doctoral research contributions to psychology. She gave a presentation describing her work on the neuropsychology of puberty. Puberty is a difficult thing to measure which means that some departures from gradual age-related in the development of brain volume and fMRI activity may be artefacts. Which removes the adolescent’s excuse for their wayward behaviour that it is caused by unusual changes in their brain.

There were two joint winners of the Spearman Award for early career stage researchers: Dr Claire Haworth of Bristol University who described work on the dynamics of genetics, demonstrating that the genetic effects of many characteristics and behaviours actually intensify with age. Dr Rachel Jack of Glasgow University, using computer generated images of human faces (computational social psychophysics) blew out of the water Eklund’s theory that there is a limited repertoire of universal human expressions (and therefore emotions). Professor Daryl O’Connor (University of Leeds and Chair of the BPS Research Board) who introduced the session, remarked that the three presentations comprised the most impressive set of consecutive talks he had seen at any BPS conference.

The first keynote of the conference was by Professor Brian Nosak of the University of Virginia. He described the incredible amount of work he and the Center for Open Science have been doing to address the research crises that have hit psychology over the years. There is still a long way to go but great gains have been made in pre-registering research, open accessibility to data, open publications, improvements to peer review, use of more representative statistics etc. What came as a surprise to me is that psychology is in the vanguard of this movement and Professor Novak regularly gives presentations to scientists in other fields such as Chemistry, encouraging them to follow suit.

The presentation was followed by a session on Innovations in Open Science which I unfortunately had to miss. Later that evening there was an entertaining fringe event hosted by Daryl, in which a panel discussed and debated open science, qualitative methods and the role of publishers. It featured Brian Nosek, Professor Brian Hughes of the National University of Ireland, Dr Peter Branney of Bradford University and the BPS Qualitative Methods section, Dr Lisa Morrison Coulthard, BPS Lead Policy Advisor and Rebecca Harkin, a representative of Wiley, the publishers.

Other keynotes included Professor Cathy Creswell of Reading University who described her research and development of cost-effective interventions to help children with anxiety by enrolling and supporting their parents.

In Professor Steven Reicher’s keynote, he gave a comprehensive re-evaluation of the Milgram studies. Through examining the original experimental notes, and considering all the studies (rather than just the well-known baseline study), different interpretations emerge than those traditionally recounted in secondary sources. More people than are usually described, refused to administer harmful electric shocks. Giving lethal punishments was much less common than is normally recounted. Professor Reicher accepts that while so-called normal people undoubtedly do have the capacity for cruelty, even in the original studies there was much more of a willingness to stand up to authority than Milgram concluded. Evil is not as banal as he would lead us to believe.

The final keynote, and presentation of the conference was by Professor John Antonakis of Lausanne University, who reviewed his findings on charismatic leadership. Having concluded that evidence based on questionnaires is flawed, he set up an experiment, in conjunction with a charity, in which groups of people were asked to carry out a genuine task: filling and sending envelopes asking for donations. Participants were shown a video by an actor claiming to be their manager, giving instructions and encouragement about carrying out the work. One group was also placed on a piece-rate bonus system, intended to boost productivity, the other was not. A third group was shown a motivational, charismatic, version of the introduction video by the same actor (with enhanced intonation, body language, rhetorical techniques and the use of imagery etc). Professor Antonakis found the group offered the bonus outperformed the baseline group given the standard introduction. However, the third group produced a similar level of performance boost to those offered the financial bonus, as a result of the charismatic management style. This was a concrete, tangible demonstration of the effect of charisma in a real task as opposed to a questionnaire study.

The main reason I attended the conference was to participate in the Branch Forum, the annual meeting of branch chairs. This was also attended by the BPS’s new CEO, Sarb Bajwa, Annjanette Wells, Member Services Manager and Helen Barnett, Manager of Member Network Services (the team who, tirelessly, behind the scenes, set up events, book venues, send emails and feedback forms for events for our branch and other networks, and deal with members’ emails and phone calls). Iain MacLeod, the branch representative on the new Structural Review group gave an update on their first meeting, held a couple of days earlier. Each of the chairs had submitted a review of their activity over the year to date. One part of the meeting discussed how the branches and Member Network Services can work more closely together to share best practice in order to improve the quality of events and communication with members.

There was also a branch strand to the conference, under a theme of case studies contributing to community and society introduced by Dr Beth Bell of York St John’s University and chair of the branch forum. It featured presentations by Ho Law of the East of England branch; Lorna Hamilton also of York St John’s University who described a thriving community of practice for people working in autism in the York area. Fiona Butcher of the Wessex branch described the military psychology conference which they have run each year since 2010. It has grown over the years in size and international reach, to the extent that it will be taken over by the newly formed BPS Military Psychology section. Barbara McConnell of the Northern Ireland branch described the work she has done with schools on A level Psychology.

The 2019 conference will be held in Harrogate. If anyone in LHC wants to submit a paper for the Branch Symposium strand, please get in touch with me on the email address below.

Dr James Barr, CPsychol. Chair BPS London & Home Counties Branch
[email protected]

Wed, 30/05/2018 - 00:09


The London & Home Counties branch sponsored the Poster Award at the 2018 Psychology of Creativity Conference held in Canterbury earlier this month. We're very pleased to announce that the winner was Anna Kauer. The picture shows her accepting the award from Dr Ian Hocking, one of the conference organisers.

Kauer, A., Sowden, P.T., Cohen Kadosh, K., & Winstone, N.E. (2018). Taking everything in: a new approach to leaky attention and creative achievement. UK Researchers’ 2018 Psychology of Creativity Conference, Canterbury, UK 22 May 2018.
Research into creative achievement has looked at the role of diffuse early attention; i.e. leaky sensory gating that allows seemingly irrelevant information to be noticed. This is believed to enhance creativity by keeping the mind open to a wider range of possibilities, enabling the generation of more original ideas. However, creative individuals also need strong executive function to manage this greater flow of information. Although a variety of tasks have been used to measure this in adults, including Latent Inhibition (LI) tasks, these measures do not adapt well to other populations and therefore new behavioural measures are needed. As a first step towards this goal, we are benchmarking adult performance on Perceptual Load (PL) tasks against LI, in order to establish their concurrent validity as a measure of filtering related to creativity. Similar to LI tasks, which assess whether an individual remains aware of irrelevant stimuli, PL performance depends on the ability to screen out distractors. In addition, PL tasks are more reliable, have been used with a wide variety of populations and are part of a more established experimental framework. A sample of 120 university students (of which 70 have already been collected) will complete the following measures: 1) creative achievement; 2) creative potential (divergent thinking); 3) an LI task; 4) a low, medium and high PL task. Analysis will test 1) whether PL performance predicts LI, and 2) if LI and PL performance predict creative achievement. Covariates controlled for in the analysis include sleep, IQ, processing speed and Openness. This will provide evidence as to whether PL tasks can be used as a measure of leaky attention related to creativity. If so, they would enable the development of a new measure which could be used with other populations, including children.

(Article posted by Professor Carolyn Mair, member of the organising committee of the 2018 Psychology of Creativity Conference and past-chair of the LHC branch.)

Fri, 25/05/2018 - 12:24

It is usually a bit of a coffee-fuelled challenge to get yourself off to an evening lecture about evidence-based practice after just finishing a whole day of lecturing. Well, that and being an evidence-based management denialist, still relatively fresh from the trauma of having submitted a PhD in the last few years which was a ‘no holds barred’ comment on the futility of ‘evidence-based’ performance targets in the healthcare sector.

So, what a joy it was to be sucked into Rob Briner’s rather irreverent world of debunking our cognitive biases with the help of a banana guard no less - Rob says we are drawn to fad products with limited long-term utility in much the same way that new-fangled HR practices with little evidence behind them appeal to us. 

Along with gaining personal existential insights about misguided kitchen appliance purchases, I reflected about making sure that inadvertently I do not peddle ‘millennial’ post truth ‘facts’ about stability of tenure and job satisfaction to my management students. Interestingly, I learned that despite deep-seated beliefs to the contrary, in the past ten years, average job tenure appears to have increased slightly and job satisfaction in the UK has roughly stayed the same.

Rob delivered his presentation not only with comical flair, but with a powerful lasting message – that management and HR practices typically lack any sort of evidence-base and that we need to do something about this. Indeed, unlike many an academic speaker, Rob also proposed some operationalisable solutions. For instance, Rob provided the audience with systematic ways of approaching evidence (e.g. the 6A model) and also keen ways to be able to spot the latest managerese soaked craze from a mile off.  In this vein, I must remember to stop referring to measures as ‘metrics’, but I am a former NHS manager turned academic after all. 

In my former field, very much stemming from the language and culture of evidence-based medicine and randomised clinical trials, evidence-based practice abounds. Though, I am not the only one of the view that this can be a limited reductionist lens with which to view the human condition. Therefore, I was delighted to see that within Rob’s model, experiential skills and knowledge are very much seen as forming a part of a legitimate evidence-base for addressing important business problems, and in a way which is more likely to make a positive and sustained difference to working lives. And with that persuasive message, I came away doubting whether I had needed a coffee far more than the importance of embedding evidence-based HR.

Maria Kordowicz

Thu, 03/05/2018 - 14:51

Our Past Chair, Prof Carolyn Mair PhD, CPsychol, FBPsS, has recently published her new book, The Psychology of Fashion, as part of Routledge’s Psychology of Everything series. The book is designed to engage a general audience with a new field of applied psychology: the psychology of fashion. The book explores the reciprocal influences between fashion and human behaviour and discusses how fashion can be used as a vehicle for enhancing wellbeing.

Fashion touches everyone; we all wear clothes. It is an important global economy which employs millions. As a result, the fashion industry affects us psychologically at individual, societal and global levels. The Psychology of Fashion explains how clothing serves many purposes beyond functionality and shelter: it conveys symbolic meaning, meets the demands of individual taste, modesty and cultural expectations and can display social status and gender preference. In addition, at a broader level, the behaviour of the fashion industry influences the mental health and psychological wellbeing of its employees, its consumers and the environment. Sadly, the influence is not always for the better. However, a few studies have demonstrated potential benefits of clothing on mood and cognition. The Psychology of Fashion discusses how findings from these studies can be applied to make clothing work for us.

Humans are social animals and motivated to belong to social groups. We can enhance our sense of self and identity through self-enhancement tactics such as aligning with desirable social groups and subcultures and portraying this through our clothing. Our affiliations and feedback from others influence our self-concept and self-esteem. Yet, feedback based on appearance alone is fast and often flawed. Fat talk, self-hate and photo-editing increase dissatisfaction with appearance. A lack of diversity within the industry marginalises many minorities who feel unrepresented. Although we are witnessing a slight improvement in terms of diversity in fashion imagery, pressure to achieve the ‘ideal’ appearance is increasingly being felt by all genders across the age span. Outcomes manifest in unhealthy eating behaviour, risky lifestyles and increases in demand for cosmetic interventions.

Psychologists researching reasons behind our shopping behaviour have found that we shop for many different reasons including the desire to satisfy a need as well as simply for pleasure. However, psychologists working in fashion aim to educate and empower consumers to make more informed and considered purchasing decisions in line with Dame Vivienne Westwood who encourages us to “Buy less. Choose well. Make it last. Quality, not quantity. Everybody's buying far too many clothes.” Clothing can empower us and enhance our thinking in ways we may not have considered. The intention of the psychology of fashion, as a discipline, is to go beyond understanding what our clothes say about us and to understand human behaviour across the fashion industries. The overarching aim is to make a positive difference to the lives of its workers, its consumers and the environment in which we all live and work.

The Psychology of Fashion is available from Routledge here.

Prof Carolyn Mair is a Chartered Psychologist and Fellow of the British Psychological Society. Prior to establishing her consultancy, she was Professor of Psychology for Fashion at London College of Fashion, University of the Arts London, where she created and led the world's first Masters programmes to apply psychology within the broad context of the fashion industry. Carolyn works with the fashion industry and fashion educators and is frequently featured in press and other media. Carolyn has a PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience, MSc in Research Methods Psychology and BSc (Hons) in Applied Psychology and Computing. In her earlier professional life, Carolyn worked as a visual merchandiser, graphic designer, dressmaker and portrait artist.


 Prof Mair with Dr Jon Sutton, Editor of the Psychologist


Mon, 26/03/2018 - 17:58



Share page with AddThis