Journal of Experimental Psychology: General最新文献

Common ground is crucial to ensure the effectiveness and harmony of a dialogue. However, even if the information forming the common ground is, by its very nature, shared between two collaborating partners, biases related to individual processes (production and emotional effects) may shape its accessibility in memory for each partner. The aim of this work was to examine the respective roles of individual and collective processes in dialogue memory by showing that they are implemented differently at the beginning versus the end of the grounding process. Using an adapted referential communication task, we developed three complementary studies to investigate memory for the content (i.e., what was said) and source (i.e., who said it) of information through the study of repeated reference to a set of referents. The results confirmed that individual processes impact memory for information provided at the beginning of the interaction, whereas no significant effect was observed for information provided at the end of the interaction. In contrast, the role of each partner (director vs. matcher) in the collaborative task appears to have an influence on memory, as the director enjoyed greater conceptual pact accessibility and better source memory, highlighting the collective processes at play. Taken together, these results enhance current understanding of the dynamic by which collective and individual processes contribute to common ground construction during dialogue. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Recent widespread social movements (e.g., Occupy) stress the importance of dismantling societal privilege-group-based advantages such as White privilege or class privilege. Although research shows that recognizing privilege can increase advantaged group members' support for equality between groups, such recognition is often avoided (Knowles et al., 2014; Shuman et al., 2025), and it is unclear whether there is even consensus about what privilege "is." We test how lay people define privilege (i.e., lay beliefs of privilege) across 12 studies, using both qualitative and experimental methods. We find substantial variance in people's lay beliefs of privilege and, furthermore, that these variations are related to support for equality-enhancing action. Specifically, lay beliefs encompassing the structural and pervasive nature of privilege are associated with greater recognition of privilege and support for equality-enhancing action, whereas conceptualizations emphasizing invisibility and controllability can impede recognition. Overall, results suggest that privilege discourse ought to consider people's underlying lay beliefs of privilege, which can affect support for equality-enhancing efforts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Perspective taking (PT) is the ability to imagine viewpoints different from our own. However, the nature of PT as a construct and its underlying cognitive mechanisms are not well established. Some researchers propose that understanding what others believe (cognitive PT), feel (affective PT), and see (spatial PT) forms a single behavioral dimension, relying on the orienting of attention between competing frame-of-reference representations. Others propose that PT mechanisms are dissociable, although there are three different proposals about such dissociations. The present study examined behavioral associations among measures of spatial, cognitive, and affective PT and attentional control in neurotypical young adults. There was a lack of convergent validity for measures of cognitive and affective PT, pointing to the need for more psychometric work on these dimensions. Much better convergence was found for spatial PT measures. There was little to no behavioral association between spatial PT and either social form of PT (cognitive or affective) or attentional control measures. This pattern suggests support for a dissociated model in which spatial PT is a distinct cognitive construct. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).