Pub Date : 2026-01-01Epub Date: 2025-03-27DOI: 10.1037/pspa0000444
Lewend Mayiwar, Erik Løhre, Subramanya Prasad Chandrashekar, Thorvald Hærem
Overconfidence is prevalent despite being linked to various negative outcomes for individuals, organizations, and even societies. To explain this puzzling phenomenon, C. Anderson, Brion, et al. (2012) proposed a status-enhancement theory of overconfidence: Expressing overconfidence helps individuals attain social status. In this registered report, we conducted a direct replication of Study 5 by C. Anderson, Brion, et al. (2012), who found that individual differences in desire for status were positively correlated with being overconfident about one's task performance relative to others. We also tested the generalizability of the key relationship to a different measure of desire for status. Furthermore, we complemented traditional significance testing with equivalence testing and Bayesian analysis to test a set of null hypotheses in the original study. We found support for the status-enhancement hypothesis: Desire for status had a positive association with overconfidence using both the original measure of desire for status (β = 0.19, 95% CI [0.09, 0.28]) and the alternative measure (β = 0.31, 95% CI [0.22, 0.39]). A follow-up extension study aimed to test this relationship causally by manipulating the social context where status motives may be stronger (a competitive vs. cooperative context) and testing whether such an effect is driven by state-level desire for status. We did not find a direct causal effect of social context on overconfidence but an indirect association via state-level desire for status: A competitive (vs. cooperative) group context increased desire for status (β = 0.34, 95% CI [0.18, 0.51]), which in turn predicted greater overconfidence (β = 0.38, 95% CI [0.31, 0.46]). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Desire for status is positively associated with overconfidence: A replication and extension of study 5 in C. Anderson, Brion, et al. (2012).","authors":"Lewend Mayiwar, Erik Løhre, Subramanya Prasad Chandrashekar, Thorvald Hærem","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000444","DOIUrl":"10.1037/pspa0000444","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Overconfidence is prevalent despite being linked to various negative outcomes for individuals, organizations, and even societies. To explain this puzzling phenomenon, C. Anderson, Brion, et al. (2012) proposed a status-enhancement theory of overconfidence: Expressing overconfidence helps individuals attain social status. In this registered report, we conducted a direct replication of Study 5 by C. Anderson, Brion, et al. (2012), who found that individual differences in desire for status were positively correlated with being overconfident about one's task performance relative to others. We also tested the generalizability of the key relationship to a different measure of desire for status. Furthermore, we complemented traditional significance testing with equivalence testing and Bayesian analysis to test a set of null hypotheses in the original study. We found support for the status-enhancement hypothesis: Desire for status had a positive association with overconfidence using both the original measure of desire for status (β = 0.19, 95% CI [0.09, 0.28]) and the alternative measure (β = 0.31, 95% CI [0.22, 0.39]). A follow-up extension study aimed to test this relationship causally by manipulating the social context where status motives may be stronger (a competitive vs. cooperative context) and testing whether such an effect is driven by state-level desire for status. We did not find a direct causal effect of social context on overconfidence but an indirect association via state-level desire for status: A competitive (vs. cooperative) group context increased desire for status (β = 0.34, 95% CI [0.18, 0.51]), which in turn predicted greater overconfidence (β = 0.38, 95% CI [0.31, 0.46]). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":" ","pages":"16-35"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143730518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
People's unwillingness to engage with others who hold views that differ from their own-in other words, their lack of receptiveness to opposing views-is a growing problem globally. We explore the possibility that something as simple as how people frame their position can shape disagreeing others' receptiveness to them. Specifically, we investigate the role of support-oppose framing-that is, whether people frame their position in terms of what they support or what they oppose. In five main studies spanning 5,971 participants, we find a disparity in how communicators and disagreeing others perceive support- versus oppose-framed messages. Communicators believe that disagreeing others will be more receptive to them if they use support rather than oppose framing. One contributor to this effect is value congruence: Communicators perceive a message articulating their own position in support terms to be more value congruent. However, disagreeing others are actually less receptive to support-framed messages than to oppose-framed messages. We find that disagreeing others perceive support framing as less congruent with their values, which predicts decreased receptiveness. This effect manifests in self-reported receptiveness and a variety of downstream consequences and predicts greater attitude change following oppose- rather than support-framed messages. Thus, by framing their positions in terms of what they oppose (rather than support), people can elicit greater receptiveness from disagreeing others. Consistent with a value-congruence account, this framing effect fully reverses for people with the same values as the communicator. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
人们不愿意与持不同观点的人交往，换句话说，他们对反对意见缺乏接受能力，这是一个日益严重的全球性问题。我们探讨了一些简单的事情的可能性，比如人们如何构建自己的立场，可以塑造持不同意见的人对他们的接受程度。具体来说，我们调查了支持-反对框架的作用，也就是说，人们是否根据他们支持或反对的东西来构建他们的立场。在五项涉及5971名参与者的主要研究中，我们发现沟通者和持不同意见的人对支持和反对信息的看法存在差异。沟通者相信，如果他们使用支持而不是反对框架，持不同意见的人会更容易接受他们。造成这种效果的一个因素是价值一致性：沟通者认为在支持术语中表达自己立场的信息更具有价值一致性。然而，持不同意见的人实际上更不容易接受支持框架的信息，而不是反对框架的信息。我们发现，持不同意见的人认为支持框架与他们的价值观不太一致，这预示着接受度会下降。这种效应体现在自我报告的接受度和各种下游后果中，并预测在反对而不是支持框架的信息之后，态度会发生更大的变化。因此，根据他们反对（而不是支持）的观点来构建他们的立场，人们可以从反对他人中获得更大的接受能力。与价值一致性理论相一致的是，对于与传播者具有相同价值观的人，这种框架效应完全相反。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"Talking about what we support versus oppose affects others' openness to our views.","authors":"Rhia Catapano,Zakary L Tormala","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000473","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000473","url":null,"abstract":"People's unwillingness to engage with others who hold views that differ from their own-in other words, their lack of receptiveness to opposing views-is a growing problem globally. We explore the possibility that something as simple as how people frame their position can shape disagreeing others' receptiveness to them. Specifically, we investigate the role of support-oppose framing-that is, whether people frame their position in terms of what they support or what they oppose. In five main studies spanning 5,971 participants, we find a disparity in how communicators and disagreeing others perceive support- versus oppose-framed messages. Communicators believe that disagreeing others will be more receptive to them if they use support rather than oppose framing. One contributor to this effect is value congruence: Communicators perceive a message articulating their own position in support terms to be more value congruent. However, disagreeing others are actually less receptive to support-framed messages than to oppose-framed messages. We find that disagreeing others perceive support framing as less congruent with their values, which predicts decreased receptiveness. This effect manifests in self-reported receptiveness and a variety of downstream consequences and predicts greater attitude change following oppose- rather than support-framed messages. Thus, by framing their positions in terms of what they oppose (rather than support), people can elicit greater receptiveness from disagreeing others. Consistent with a value-congruence account, this framing effect fully reverses for people with the same values as the communicator. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145752783","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The appraisal-tendency framework proposed that specific emotions predispose individuals to appraise future events corresponding to the core appraisal themes of the emotions. In a registered report with a U.S. American online Amazon Mechanical Turk CloudResearch sample (N = 780), we conducted an independent close replication of Experiments 1, 2, and 3 in Lerner and Keltner (2001). We found support for the appraisal-tendency framework for risk optimism in general, risk optimism for positive events, and risk optimism for ambiguous events, but not for risk preference and risk optimism for negative events. Extending the replication, we added hope as a positive-valence dispositional emotion with low certainty and control and failed to find support for the assumptions of the appraisal-tendency framework. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
评价倾向框架认为，特定情绪会使个体倾向于评价与这些情绪的核心评价主题相对应的未来事件。在美国在线Amazon Mechanical Turk CloudResearch样本（N = 780）的注册报告中，我们对Lerner和Keltner（2001）的实验1、2和3进行了独立的密切复制。我们发现一般风险乐观主义、积极事件的风险乐观主义和模棱两可事件的风险乐观主义的评估倾向框架得到支持，但不支持风险偏好和消极事件的风险乐观主义。扩展复制，我们增加了希望作为低确定性和控制的正效价倾向情绪，未能找到对评价倾向框架假设的支持。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"Associations of fear, anger, happiness, and hope with risk judgments: Revisiting appraisal-tendency framework with a replication and extensions registered report of Lerner and Keltner (2001).","authors":"Sirui Lu,Emir Efendić,Gilad Feldman","doi":"10.1037/pspp0000586","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000586","url":null,"abstract":"The appraisal-tendency framework proposed that specific emotions predispose individuals to appraise future events corresponding to the core appraisal themes of the emotions. In a registered report with a U.S. American online Amazon Mechanical Turk CloudResearch sample (N = 780), we conducted an independent close replication of Experiments 1, 2, and 3 in Lerner and Keltner (2001). We found support for the appraisal-tendency framework for risk optimism in general, risk optimism for positive events, and risk optimism for ambiguous events, but not for risk preference and risk optimism for negative events. Extending the replication, we added hope as a positive-valence dispositional emotion with low certainty and control and failed to find support for the assumptions of the appraisal-tendency framework. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145752782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Yige Yin,Yuling Wang,Xiaohan Wu,Xiaoqi Sun,Joshua A Hicks,Tim Wildschut,Constantine Sedikides,Tonglin Jiang
Although not everyone shapes history, everyone is present as it unfolds. Recognizing oneself as a witness to history may become especially important in an era marked by frequent landmark events. In this research, we locate individuals in the ongoing process of history and examine its existential benefits. Specifically, we hypothesize that witnessing history (i.e., the subjective sense of witnessing or being present as history unfolds) enhances meaning in life, both in terms of the presence of meaning and the search for meaning. Through five investigations, using a multimethod approach that includes large-scale field data from Weibo (2,317,527 posts) alongside experimental and field studies (N = 1,945), we found that witnessing history contributes to or increases the presence of and search for meaning. Further, connectedness to history mediates the effect of witnessing history on the presence of meaning and a broadened perspective mediates its effect on the search for meaning. Our research provides a novel insight into how situating individuals within the ongoing process of history can benefit their meaningful existence and highlights the importance of cultivating a historical awareness and preserving historical heritage. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
虽然不是每个人都能塑造历史，但每个人都参与了历史的发展。在一个标志性事件频发的时代，承认自己是历史的见证者可能变得尤为重要。在这项研究中，我们将个体定位在历史的持续过程中，并考察其存在的利益。具体来说，我们假设见证历史（即，见证或在历史展开时在场的主观感觉）可以增强生活中的意义，无论是在意义的存在还是在寻找意义方面。通过五项调查，使用多方法方法，包括微博的大规模现场数据（2,317,527条帖子）以及实验和现场研究（N = 1,945），我们发现见证历史有助于或增加对意义的存在和寻找。此外，与历史的联系介导了见证历史对意义存在的影响，而扩大的视角介导了其对寻找意义的影响。我们的研究提供了一种新颖的见解，即将个人置于正在进行的历史进程中如何有利于他们有意义的存在，并强调了培养历史意识和保护历史遗产的重要性。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"Being present: Witnessing landmark historical events boosts meaning in life.","authors":"Yige Yin,Yuling Wang,Xiaohan Wu,Xiaoqi Sun,Joshua A Hicks,Tim Wildschut,Constantine Sedikides,Tonglin Jiang","doi":"10.1037/pspi0000511","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000511","url":null,"abstract":"Although not everyone shapes history, everyone is present as it unfolds. Recognizing oneself as a witness to history may become especially important in an era marked by frequent landmark events. In this research, we locate individuals in the ongoing process of history and examine its existential benefits. Specifically, we hypothesize that witnessing history (i.e., the subjective sense of witnessing or being present as history unfolds) enhances meaning in life, both in terms of the presence of meaning and the search for meaning. Through five investigations, using a multimethod approach that includes large-scale field data from Weibo (2,317,527 posts) alongside experimental and field studies (N = 1,945), we found that witnessing history contributes to or increases the presence of and search for meaning. Further, connectedness to history mediates the effect of witnessing history on the presence of meaning and a broadened perspective mediates its effect on the search for meaning. Our research provides a novel insight into how situating individuals within the ongoing process of history can benefit their meaningful existence and highlights the importance of cultivating a historical awareness and preserving historical heritage. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"64 7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145752763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A common strategy to address social inequity in organizations is to implement mandatory diversity training policies. But how do people react to such mandates? Mandating such training can signal the importance of diversity-related issues (e.g., discrimination), potentially increasing acknowledgment of these problems. However, integrating the theory of psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966) with the notion of solution aversion (Campbell & Kay, 2014), we suggest that learning about mandatory diversity training initiatives (compared to optional ones) could also exert an opposing effect, engendering negative emotional responses (i.e., reactance) which fuel increased political polarization surrounding beliefs that diversity-related problems still persist (i.e., solution aversion). Four preregistered experiments support this hypothesis. Study 1 and Study 2a demonstrate that recalling or anticipating mandatory (compared to optional) diversity training leads to increased reactance, which in turn leads to increased denial that social inequity is a problem. Study 2b shows that the effect is unique to mandatory diversity training, but not mandatory training unrelated to diversity. Study 3, via tests of parallel mediation, demonstrates that this effect counteracts the positive effect that mandating training policies have via signaled importance of the problem. Importantly, in all studies, we observe a consistent pattern of moderation by political orientation, such that reactance-induced negative emotions predict denial of discrimination more strongly for more politically conservative (compared to liberal) participants. Our research has significant implications for understanding the repercussions of mandatory diversity training policies, as well as the potential role of imposing solutions on exacerbating political polarization surrounding issues of social inequity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
解决组织中社会不平等的一个常见策略是实施强制性的多样性培训政策。但人们对这样的命令有何反应？规定这种培训可以表明与多样性有关的问题（例如歧视）的重要性，从而可能增加对这些问题的认识。然而，将心理抗拒理论（Brehm, 1966）与解决方案厌恶概念（Campbell & Kay, 2014）相结合，我们认为学习强制性多样性培训计划（与可选计划相比）也会产生相反的效果，产生负面情绪反应（即抗拒），从而加剧围绕多样性相关问题仍然存在的信念（即解决方案厌恶）的政治两极分化。四个预先注册的实验支持这一假设。研究1和研究2a表明，回忆或预期强制性（与可选性相比）多样性培训会导致更强的抗拒，这反过来又会导致更多人否认社会不平等是一个问题。研究2b表明，这种效果是强制性多样性培训所特有的，而不是与多样性无关的强制性培训。研究3通过平行中介的检验表明，这种效应抵消了强制性培训政策通过问题的重要性所产生的积极效应。重要的是，在所有的研究中，我们观察到一种一致的政治取向缓和模式，例如，对于政治上更保守的参与者（与自由主义者相比），抗拒引起的负面情绪更强烈地预测拒绝歧视。我们的研究对于理解强制性多样性培训政策的影响，以及围绕社会不平等问题强加解决方案对加剧政治两极分化的潜在作用具有重要意义。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"Exploring the counteractive effects of mandating diversity training: Solution aversion, reactance, and polarized social beliefs.","authors":"Peter Jin,Gavan J Fitzsimons,Aaron C Kay","doi":"10.1037/pspi0000510","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000510","url":null,"abstract":"A common strategy to address social inequity in organizations is to implement mandatory diversity training policies. But how do people react to such mandates? Mandating such training can signal the importance of diversity-related issues (e.g., discrimination), potentially increasing acknowledgment of these problems. However, integrating the theory of psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966) with the notion of solution aversion (Campbell & Kay, 2014), we suggest that learning about mandatory diversity training initiatives (compared to optional ones) could also exert an opposing effect, engendering negative emotional responses (i.e., reactance) which fuel increased political polarization surrounding beliefs that diversity-related problems still persist (i.e., solution aversion). Four preregistered experiments support this hypothesis. Study 1 and Study 2a demonstrate that recalling or anticipating mandatory (compared to optional) diversity training leads to increased reactance, which in turn leads to increased denial that social inequity is a problem. Study 2b shows that the effect is unique to mandatory diversity training, but not mandatory training unrelated to diversity. Study 3, via tests of parallel mediation, demonstrates that this effect counteracts the positive effect that mandating training policies have via signaled importance of the problem. Importantly, in all studies, we observe a consistent pattern of moderation by political orientation, such that reactance-induced negative emotions predict denial of discrimination more strongly for more politically conservative (compared to liberal) participants. Our research has significant implications for understanding the repercussions of mandatory diversity training policies, as well as the potential role of imposing solutions on exacerbating political polarization surrounding issues of social inequity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"170 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145752764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Plamen Akaliyski, Vivian L. Vignoles, Christian Welzel, Michael Minkov
{"title":"Individualism–collectivism: Reconstructing Hofstede’s dimension of cultural differences.","authors":"Plamen Akaliyski, Vivian L. Vignoles, Christian Welzel, Michael Minkov","doi":"10.1037/pspp0000580","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000580","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"112 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145718333","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-11DOI: 10.1037/pspi0000511.supp
{"title":"Supplemental Material for Being Present: Witnessing Landmark Historical Events Boosts Meaning in Life","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/pspi0000511.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000511.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145717823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-11DOI: 10.1037/pspa0000469.supp
{"title":"Supplemental Material for Unnecessarily Divided: Civil Conversations Reduce Attitude Polarization More Than People Expect","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000469.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000469.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145718302","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-08DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000586.supp
{"title":"Supplemental Material for Associations of Fear, Anger, Happiness, and Hope With Risk Judgments: Revisiting Appraisal-Tendency Framework With a Replication and Extensions Registered Report of Lerner and Keltner (2001)","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/pspp0000586.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000586.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145703895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Máire McGeehan, Angelina R. Sutin, Stephen Gallagher, Antonio Terracciano, Nicholas A. Turiano, Elayne Ahern, Emma M. Kirwan, Martina Luchetti, Eileen K. Graham, Páraic S. O'Súilleabháin
{"title":"Personality and mortality risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal data.","authors":"Máire McGeehan, Angelina R. Sutin, Stephen Gallagher, Antonio Terracciano, Nicholas A. Turiano, Elayne Ahern, Emma M. Kirwan, Martina Luchetti, Eileen K. Graham, Páraic S. O'Súilleabháin","doi":"10.1037/pspp0000577","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000577","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145703896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号