首页 > 最新文献

Perspectives on Psychological Science最新文献

英文 中文
Artificial Intelligence and the Psychology of Human Connection. 人工智能与人际关系心理学。
IF 12.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2026-01-29 DOI: 10.1177/17456916251404394
Ryan L Boyd,David M Markowitz
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly embedded in social life, understanding its interpersonal and psychological implications is urgent yet undertheorized. This article introduces the machine-integrated relational adaptation (MIRA) model, a transdisciplinary, middle-range theoretical framework that provides a foundational account of when, how, and why AI functions as a relational entity in human ecosystems. MIRA distinguishes two crucial roles of AI: relational partner (direct-interaction companion) and relational mediator (shaping human-to-human communication). Synthesizing psychosocial theories of human relationships, interpersonal communication theory, psycholinguistics, and human-computer interaction, MIRA structures AI's relational impact within antecedents, processes, moderators, and outcomes. Central to MIRA are four principles describing how AI fosters social adaptation: linguistic reciprocity, psychological proximity, interpersonal trust, and relational substitution versus enhancement. These principles illuminate how adaptive AI language and behavior can elicit emotional investment, simulate mutual understanding, or even supplant human interaction. MIRA integrates established theories-attachment theory, social exchange theory, and epistemic trust frameworks-and proposes a research agenda that bridges foundational psychology with emerging sociotechnical contexts. Rather than offering a deterministic view, MIRA provides a generative, testable structure for investigating the evolving role of AI in relational life and guiding future human-AI-connection research.
随着人工智能(AI)越来越多地融入社会生活,理解其对人际和心理的影响迫在眉睫,但理论化程度还不够。本文介绍了机器集成关系适应(MIRA)模型,这是一个跨学科的中程理论框架,提供了人工智能何时、如何以及为什么在人类生态系统中作为关系实体发挥作用的基础说明。MIRA区分了人工智能的两个关键角色:关系伙伴(直接互动伙伴)和关系中介(塑造人与人之间的沟通)。MIRA综合了人际关系的社会心理理论、人际沟通理论、心理语言学和人机交互,在前件、过程、调节因素和结果中构建了人工智能的关系影响。MIRA的核心是描述人工智能如何促进社会适应的四个原则:语言互惠、心理接近、人际信任和关系替代与增强。这些原则阐明了适应性人工智能语言和行为如何引发情感投入,模拟相互理解,甚至取代人类互动。MIRA整合了已有的理论——依恋理论、社会交换理论和认知信任框架——并提出了一个研究议程,将基础心理学与新兴的社会技术背景联系起来。MIRA不是提供确定性的观点,而是提供了一个生成的、可测试的结构,用于研究人工智能在关系生活中的不断发展的作用,并指导未来的人类与人工智能连接研究。
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence and the Psychology of Human Connection.","authors":"Ryan L Boyd,David M Markowitz","doi":"10.1177/17456916251404394","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251404394","url":null,"abstract":"As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly embedded in social life, understanding its interpersonal and psychological implications is urgent yet undertheorized. This article introduces the machine-integrated relational adaptation (MIRA) model, a transdisciplinary, middle-range theoretical framework that provides a foundational account of when, how, and why AI functions as a relational entity in human ecosystems. MIRA distinguishes two crucial roles of AI: relational partner (direct-interaction companion) and relational mediator (shaping human-to-human communication). Synthesizing psychosocial theories of human relationships, interpersonal communication theory, psycholinguistics, and human-computer interaction, MIRA structures AI's relational impact within antecedents, processes, moderators, and outcomes. Central to MIRA are four principles describing how AI fosters social adaptation: linguistic reciprocity, psychological proximity, interpersonal trust, and relational substitution versus enhancement. These principles illuminate how adaptive AI language and behavior can elicit emotional investment, simulate mutual understanding, or even supplant human interaction. MIRA integrates established theories-attachment theory, social exchange theory, and epistemic trust frameworks-and proposes a research agenda that bridges foundational psychology with emerging sociotechnical contexts. Rather than offering a deterministic view, MIRA provides a generative, testable structure for investigating the evolving role of AI in relational life and guiding future human-AI-connection research.","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":"30 1","pages":"17456916251404394"},"PeriodicalIF":12.6,"publicationDate":"2026-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146073118","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}
引用次数: 0
How U.S. Funding Restrictions Endanger the Future of Psychology: Consequences for Research, Training, and Clinical Care. 美国资金限制如何危及心理学的未来:对研究、培训和临床护理的影响。
IF 12.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2026-01-28 DOI: 10.1177/17456916251413523
Kaitlyn A Kaiser
In 2025, U.S. policy changes imposed sweeping limits on the scope of research eligible for federal support alongside sharp reductions to science-agency budgets, threatening the foundations of psychological science. This article examines the consequences of these shifts across three interrelated domains. First, topic-based restrictions curtail inquiry into key areas such as gender and sexual identity, social determinants of mental health, and systemic disparities, jeopardizing the continuation and expansion of research essential to evidence-based policy and interventions. Second, shrinking budgets and reduced funding opportunities destabilize graduate and postdoctoral training systems, constraining opportunities for emerging scholars and weakening the pipeline of future researchers. Third, cutbacks to health-agency budgets and programs diminish the delivery of mental-health services, with immediate and long-term consequences for public well-being. Although the analysis centers on the United States, the implications extend globally given the reach of U.S. investments, collaborations, and training infrastructure. The article concludes that although systemic challenges are formidable, psychologists at all career stages retain tools to resist their most harmful effects and to safeguard the field's scientific integrity and societal impact.
2025年,美国的政策变化对有资格获得联邦资助的研究范围施加了全面限制,同时大幅削减了科学机构的预算,威胁到心理科学的基础。本文将研究这些变化在三个相互关联的领域中的后果。首先,基于主题的限制限制了对性别和性认同、心理健康的社会决定因素和系统性差异等关键领域的调查,危及对循证政策和干预措施至关重要的研究的继续和扩大。其次,预算的缩减和资助机会的减少破坏了研究生和博士后培训体系的稳定,限制了新兴学者的机会,削弱了未来研究人员的渠道。第三,卫生机构预算和项目的削减减少了心理健康服务的提供,对公众福祉产生了直接和长期的影响。尽管该分析以美国为中心,但考虑到美国的投资、合作和培训基础设施的影响,其影响将扩展到全球。这篇文章的结论是,尽管系统性的挑战是可怕的,但处于所有职业阶段的心理学家都保留了抵御其最有害影响的工具,并维护了该领域的科学完整性和社会影响。
{"title":"How U.S. Funding Restrictions Endanger the Future of Psychology: Consequences for Research, Training, and Clinical Care.","authors":"Kaitlyn A Kaiser","doi":"10.1177/17456916251413523","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251413523","url":null,"abstract":"In 2025, U.S. policy changes imposed sweeping limits on the scope of research eligible for federal support alongside sharp reductions to science-agency budgets, threatening the foundations of psychological science. This article examines the consequences of these shifts across three interrelated domains. First, topic-based restrictions curtail inquiry into key areas such as gender and sexual identity, social determinants of mental health, and systemic disparities, jeopardizing the continuation and expansion of research essential to evidence-based policy and interventions. Second, shrinking budgets and reduced funding opportunities destabilize graduate and postdoctoral training systems, constraining opportunities for emerging scholars and weakening the pipeline of future researchers. Third, cutbacks to health-agency budgets and programs diminish the delivery of mental-health services, with immediate and long-term consequences for public well-being. Although the analysis centers on the United States, the implications extend globally given the reach of U.S. investments, collaborations, and training infrastructure. The article concludes that although systemic challenges are formidable, psychologists at all career stages retain tools to resist their most harmful effects and to safeguard the field's scientific integrity and societal impact.","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":"296 1","pages":"17456916251413523"},"PeriodicalIF":12.6,"publicationDate":"2026-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146069857","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}
引用次数: 0
To Be FAIR: Theory Specification Needs an Update. 公平地说:理论规范需要更新。
IF 12.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2026-01-22 DOI: 10.1177/17456916251401850
Caspar J Van Lissa,Aaron Peikert,Maximilian S Ernst,Noah N N van Dongen,Felix D Schönbrodt,Andreas M Brandmaier
Open science innovations have focused on rigorous theory testing, yet methods for specifying, sharing, and iteratively improving theories remain underdeveloped. To address this limitation, we introduce FAIR theory, a standard for specifying theories as findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable digital objects. FAIR theories are findable in well-established archives; accessible in terms of their availability and ability to be understood; interoperable for specific purposes, such as selecting control variables; and reusable in that they can be iteratively and collaboratively improved on. This article adapts the FAIR principles for theory; reflects on current FAIR practices in relation to psychological theory; and discusses FAIR theories' potential impact in terms of reducing research waste, enabling metaresearch on theories' structure and development, and incorporating theory into reproducible research workflows-from hypothesis generation to simulation studies. We present a conceptual workflow for FAIRifying theory that builds on existing open science principles and infrastructures. More detailed tutorials, worked examples, and convenience functions to automate this workflow are available in the theorytools R package. FAIR theory constitutes a structured protocol for archiving, communicating about, and iteratively improving theory, addressing a critical gap in open scholarly practices and potentially increasing the efficiency of cumulative knowledge acquisition in psychology and beyond.
开放科学创新的重点是严格的理论检验,但具体说明、分享和迭代改进理论的方法仍然不发达。为了解决这一限制,我们引入FAIR理论,这是一个将理论指定为可查找、可访问、可互操作和可重用的数字对象的标准。公平的理论可以在完善的档案中找到;无障碍的:在可获得性和被理解的能力方面是无障碍的;可用于特定目的的互操作,例如选择控制变量;并且是可重用的,因为它们可以迭代地和协作地改进。本文将FAIR原则应用于理论;从心理学的角度对当前公平实践进行反思;并讨论了FAIR理论在减少研究浪费、实现理论结构和发展的元研究以及将理论纳入可重复的研究工作流程(从假设生成到模拟研究)方面的潜在影响。我们提出了一个基于现有开放科学原理和基础设施的公平化理论的概念性工作流程。在theorytools R包中可以获得更详细的教程、工作示例和自动化此工作流的便利函数。FAIR理论构成了一个结构化的协议,用于存档、交流和迭代改进理论,解决了开放学术实践中的关键差距,并有可能提高心理学和其他领域累积知识获取的效率。
{"title":"To Be FAIR: Theory Specification Needs an Update.","authors":"Caspar J Van Lissa,Aaron Peikert,Maximilian S Ernst,Noah N N van Dongen,Felix D Schönbrodt,Andreas M Brandmaier","doi":"10.1177/17456916251401850","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251401850","url":null,"abstract":"Open science innovations have focused on rigorous theory testing, yet methods for specifying, sharing, and iteratively improving theories remain underdeveloped. To address this limitation, we introduce FAIR theory, a standard for specifying theories as findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable digital objects. FAIR theories are findable in well-established archives; accessible in terms of their availability and ability to be understood; interoperable for specific purposes, such as selecting control variables; and reusable in that they can be iteratively and collaboratively improved on. This article adapts the FAIR principles for theory; reflects on current FAIR practices in relation to psychological theory; and discusses FAIR theories' potential impact in terms of reducing research waste, enabling metaresearch on theories' structure and development, and incorporating theory into reproducible research workflows-from hypothesis generation to simulation studies. We present a conceptual workflow for FAIRifying theory that builds on existing open science principles and infrastructures. More detailed tutorials, worked examples, and convenience functions to automate this workflow are available in the theorytools R package. FAIR theory constitutes a structured protocol for archiving, communicating about, and iteratively improving theory, addressing a critical gap in open scholarly practices and potentially increasing the efficiency of cumulative knowledge acquisition in psychology and beyond.","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":"4 1","pages":"17456916251401850"},"PeriodicalIF":12.6,"publicationDate":"2026-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146021572","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}
引用次数: 0
Social Psychology's Empty-Self Metaphor and the Replication Crisis. 社会心理学的空我隐喻与复制危机。
IF 12.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2026-01-06 DOI: 10.1177/17456916251401849
Jack W Klein,William B Swann
Since the early 20th century, an emphasis on the causal power of situations in social psychology has fostered the view that the self is an empty vessel filled by the contents of the situation. We label this the "empty-self metaphor," with incarnations including situationism and elements of theories of self-presentation, self-perception, social identity, the dramaturgical movement, and others. The persistence of this metatheoretical assumption has led to an underappreciation of an enduring, unique self and to the development of contemporary paradigms (e.g., social priming and embodied cognition) that have hinged on the implicit premise that the self is empty or passive. The self is not empty, of course, and new preliminary evidence we have collected indicates that research predicated on the empty-self metaphor is far less likely to replicate. Although we emphasize that the power of the situation has yielded important theoretical and practical insights, we propose that the field would be strengthened by better accounting for the chronic, dispositional motivations that emanate from an enduring self. We offer suggestions-both theoretical and methodological-that can help social psychologists achieve this goal.
自20世纪初以来,社会心理学对情境因果力量的强调培养了这样一种观点,即自我是一个被情境内容填满的空容器。我们将其称为“空自我隐喻”,其化身包括情境主义和自我呈现、自我感知、社会认同、戏剧运动等理论元素。这种元理论假设的持续存在导致了对一个持久的、独特的自我的低估,并导致了当代范式(例如,社会启动和具身认知)的发展,这些范式依赖于自我是空的或被动的隐含前提。当然,自我不是空的,我们收集到的新的初步证据表明,基于空自我隐喻的研究不太可能被复制。虽然我们强调情境的力量已经产生了重要的理论和实践见解,但我们建议,通过更好地解释来自持久自我的慢性、性格动机,该领域将得到加强。我们提供的建议——从理论上和方法上——可以帮助社会心理学家实现这一目标。
{"title":"Social Psychology's Empty-Self Metaphor and the Replication Crisis.","authors":"Jack W Klein,William B Swann","doi":"10.1177/17456916251401849","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251401849","url":null,"abstract":"Since the early 20th century, an emphasis on the causal power of situations in social psychology has fostered the view that the self is an empty vessel filled by the contents of the situation. We label this the \"empty-self metaphor,\" with incarnations including situationism and elements of theories of self-presentation, self-perception, social identity, the dramaturgical movement, and others. The persistence of this metatheoretical assumption has led to an underappreciation of an enduring, unique self and to the development of contemporary paradigms (e.g., social priming and embodied cognition) that have hinged on the implicit premise that the self is empty or passive. The self is not empty, of course, and new preliminary evidence we have collected indicates that research predicated on the empty-self metaphor is far less likely to replicate. Although we emphasize that the power of the situation has yielded important theoretical and practical insights, we propose that the field would be strengthened by better accounting for the chronic, dispositional motivations that emanate from an enduring self. We offer suggestions-both theoretical and methodological-that can help social psychologists achieve this goal.","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":"84 1","pages":"17456916251401849"},"PeriodicalIF":12.6,"publicationDate":"2026-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145907524","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}
引用次数: 0
The Bots Ruining Social Science Are Not Bots at All. 破坏社会科学的机器人根本不是机器人。
IF 12.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2026-01-06 DOI: 10.1177/17456916251404872
Shalom N Jaffe,Aaron J Moss,Rachel Hartman,Cheskie Rosenzweig,Richa Gautam,Jonathan Robinson,Leib Litman
Researchers who employ online data collection from human subjects currently face a conundrum: It is both essential to how behavioral science functions and threatened by low-quality data. It is often assumed that random, inconsistent, and otherwise incomprehensible data in online surveys comes mainly from bots. Despite this assumption, few studies have directly examined where problematic data comes from, even though identifying the source has important implications for creating the right solutions. We examined this issue on several popular participant-recruitment platforms, including Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and Lucid. Across four studies spanning 5 years using multiple methods, we here provide evidence that most of the data-quality problems affecting online research using online panels can be tied to fraudulent users from outside of the United States-not bots. We identify many of the telltale signs that humans leave behind and describe the most effective ways of blocking problematic human responses to address the online data-quality problem.
利用在线收集人类受试者数据的研究人员目前面临一个难题:这对行为科学的功能至关重要,但又受到低质量数据的威胁。人们通常认为,在线调查中的随机、不一致和其他不可理解的数据主要来自机器人。尽管有这种假设,但很少有研究直接检查问题数据的来源,尽管确定来源对创建正确的解决方案具有重要意义。我们在几个流行的参与者招聘平台上研究了这个问题,包括Mechanical Turk (MTurk)和Lucid。在跨越5年的四项研究中,我们使用了多种方法,我们在这里提供了证据,证明大多数影响在线研究的数据质量问题都与来自美国以外的欺诈用户有关,而不是机器人。我们确定了人类留下的许多迹象,并描述了阻止有问题的人类反应以解决在线数据质量问题的最有效方法。
{"title":"The Bots Ruining Social Science Are Not Bots at All.","authors":"Shalom N Jaffe,Aaron J Moss,Rachel Hartman,Cheskie Rosenzweig,Richa Gautam,Jonathan Robinson,Leib Litman","doi":"10.1177/17456916251404872","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251404872","url":null,"abstract":"Researchers who employ online data collection from human subjects currently face a conundrum: It is both essential to how behavioral science functions and threatened by low-quality data. It is often assumed that random, inconsistent, and otherwise incomprehensible data in online surveys comes mainly from bots. Despite this assumption, few studies have directly examined where problematic data comes from, even though identifying the source has important implications for creating the right solutions. We examined this issue on several popular participant-recruitment platforms, including Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and Lucid. Across four studies spanning 5 years using multiple methods, we here provide evidence that most of the data-quality problems affecting online research using online panels can be tied to fraudulent users from outside of the United States-not bots. We identify many of the telltale signs that humans leave behind and describe the most effective ways of blocking problematic human responses to address the online data-quality problem.","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":"29 1","pages":"17456916251404872"},"PeriodicalIF":12.6,"publicationDate":"2026-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145907523","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}
引用次数: 0
Socializing While Alone: Loss of Impact and Engagement When Interacting Remotely via Technology. 独自社交:当通过技术远程互动时,失去影响和参与。
IF 12.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2026-01-06 DOI: 10.1177/17456916251404368
Roy F Baumeister,Michaela T Bibby,Dianne M Tice,Brad J Bushman
This article pulls together diverse published findings on computer-mediated communication (CMC) to test the hypothesis that it reduces psychological engagement and impact compared with face-to-face (FTF) interactions. Although gaps and questions remain, the evidence mostly confirms reduced engagement and impact. Compared with FTF interactions, CMC elicits less positive emotion, with mixed results for negative emotions. Physiological arousal is often lower. Relationships, trust, and group cohesion develop more slowly (although perhaps eventually reaching the same levels). Information processing is reduced. Inhibitions are also reduced, leading to greater willingness to criticize, to bring up alternate perspectives and suggestions, and to neglect to respond. The disinhibition may improve participation by shy persons. Group performance and group decision-making are often impaired, although some studies found no difference. Teaching and learning go less well. Impact and engagement lose more with asynchronous than synchronous CMC. FTF interactions boost well-being compared with not interacting, but CMC is in between. When CMC augments FTF relationships, there may be benefits, but when it replaces them, there are psychological costs. Technology has enabled marvelous advances in long-distance communication, but there is still no fully satisfactory substitute for actually being together in person.
本文汇集了各种已发表的关于计算机媒介交流(CMC)的研究结果,以验证与面对面交流(FTF)相比,它会减少心理参与和影响的假设。尽管差距和问题仍然存在,但证据大多证实了参与度和影响力的下降。与FTF互动相比,CMC引发的积极情绪较少,负面情绪的结果好坏参半。生理唤醒通常较低。人际关系、信任和团队凝聚力发展得更慢(尽管最终可能达到相同的水平)。减少了信息处理。抑制也减少了,导致更愿意批评,提出不同的观点和建议,而忽略了回应。抑制解除可能会提高害羞者的参与程度。群体表现和群体决策常常受损,尽管一些研究没有发现差异。教与学不太顺利。与同步CMC相比,异步CMC的影响和参与度损失更大。与不互动相比,FTF互动能提高幸福感,但CMC介于两者之间。当CMC增强FTF关系时,可能会有好处,但当它取代它们时,就会有心理成本。科技使远距离交流取得了惊人的进步,但仍然没有完全令人满意的东西可以代替面对面的交流。
{"title":"Socializing While Alone: Loss of Impact and Engagement When Interacting Remotely via Technology.","authors":"Roy F Baumeister,Michaela T Bibby,Dianne M Tice,Brad J Bushman","doi":"10.1177/17456916251404368","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251404368","url":null,"abstract":"This article pulls together diverse published findings on computer-mediated communication (CMC) to test the hypothesis that it reduces psychological engagement and impact compared with face-to-face (FTF) interactions. Although gaps and questions remain, the evidence mostly confirms reduced engagement and impact. Compared with FTF interactions, CMC elicits less positive emotion, with mixed results for negative emotions. Physiological arousal is often lower. Relationships, trust, and group cohesion develop more slowly (although perhaps eventually reaching the same levels). Information processing is reduced. Inhibitions are also reduced, leading to greater willingness to criticize, to bring up alternate perspectives and suggestions, and to neglect to respond. The disinhibition may improve participation by shy persons. Group performance and group decision-making are often impaired, although some studies found no difference. Teaching and learning go less well. Impact and engagement lose more with asynchronous than synchronous CMC. FTF interactions boost well-being compared with not interacting, but CMC is in between. When CMC augments FTF relationships, there may be benefits, but when it replaces them, there are psychological costs. Technology has enabled marvelous advances in long-distance communication, but there is still no fully satisfactory substitute for actually being together in person.","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":"29 1","pages":"17456916251404368"},"PeriodicalIF":12.6,"publicationDate":"2026-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145907525","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}
引用次数: 0
Judgments of Responsibility for Inequality: A Framework and Review. 不平等责任的判断:一个框架与回顾。
IF 12.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2026-01-06 DOI: 10.1177/17456916251393206
Casey Lewry,Tania Lombrozo
Decades of psychological research have led to a better understanding of the factors that influence people's causal explanations of inequalities, such as the racial wealth gap. But our understanding of the psychology of inequality remains limited because this research has largely focused on causal and retrospective judgments. In this article, we argue that two distinctions are valuable for clarifying judgments of responsibility for inequality: the moral-causal distinction and the retrospective-prospective distinction. The moral-causal distinction differentiates judgments of agents' blameworthiness and obligation (moral) from judgments of their contribution to an outcome (causal). The retrospective-prospective distinction differentiates judgments about the agents, actions, and conditions that led to historical or present inequalities (retrospective) from judgments about what agents can or should do to remedy existing inequalities and prevent them in the future (prospective). We summarize existing research on how sociocultural, emotional, motivational, and cognitive factors affect the four categories of judgments defined by this framework. In doing so, we identify important gaps and highlight directions for future research that will allow us to better explain, predict, and shape judgments relating to inequality.
几十年的心理学研究让我们更好地理解了影响人们对不平等的因果解释的因素,比如种族贫富差距。但我们对不平等心理的理解仍然有限,因为这项研究主要集中在因果关系和回顾性判断上。在本文中,我们认为两种区分对于澄清不平等责任的判断是有价值的:道德-因果区分和回顾-前瞻性区分。道德-因果区分区分了对行为者的应受谴责和义务的判断(道德)和对其对结果的贡献的判断(因果)。回顾性-前瞻性区分了对导致历史或当前不平等的行为主体、行为和条件的判断(回顾性)和对行为主体能够或应该做什么来补救现有不平等并防止未来不平等的判断(前瞻性)。我们总结了社会文化、情感、动机和认知因素如何影响这一框架所定义的四类判断的现有研究。在此过程中,我们发现了重要的差距,并强调了未来研究的方向,这将使我们能够更好地解释、预测和塑造与不平等有关的判断。
{"title":"Judgments of Responsibility for Inequality: A Framework and Review.","authors":"Casey Lewry,Tania Lombrozo","doi":"10.1177/17456916251393206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251393206","url":null,"abstract":"Decades of psychological research have led to a better understanding of the factors that influence people's causal explanations of inequalities, such as the racial wealth gap. But our understanding of the psychology of inequality remains limited because this research has largely focused on causal and retrospective judgments. In this article, we argue that two distinctions are valuable for clarifying judgments of responsibility for inequality: the moral-causal distinction and the retrospective-prospective distinction. The moral-causal distinction differentiates judgments of agents' blameworthiness and obligation (moral) from judgments of their contribution to an outcome (causal). The retrospective-prospective distinction differentiates judgments about the agents, actions, and conditions that led to historical or present inequalities (retrospective) from judgments about what agents can or should do to remedy existing inequalities and prevent them in the future (prospective). We summarize existing research on how sociocultural, emotional, motivational, and cognitive factors affect the four categories of judgments defined by this framework. In doing so, we identify important gaps and highlight directions for future research that will allow us to better explain, predict, and shape judgments relating to inequality.","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":"18 1","pages":"17456916251393206"},"PeriodicalIF":12.6,"publicationDate":"2026-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145907537","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}
引用次数: 0
How Important Is Language for Human-Like Intelligence? 语言对类人智能有多重要?
IF 8.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-07 DOI: 10.1177/17456916251398539
Gary Lupyan, Hunter Gentry, Martin Zettersten

We use language to communicate our thoughts. But is language merely the expression of thoughts, which are themselves produced by other, nonlinguistic parts of our minds? Or does language play a more transformative role in human cognition, allowing us to have thoughts that we otherwise could (or would) not have? Recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and cognitive science have reinvigorated this old question. We argue that language may hold the key to the emergence of both more general AI systems and central aspects of human intelligence. We highlight two related properties of language that make it such a powerful tool for developing domain-general abilities. First, language offers compact representations that make it easier to represent and reason about many abstract concepts (e.g., exact numerosity). Second, these compressed representations are the iterated output of collective minds. In learning a language, we learn a treasure trove of culturally evolved abstractions. Taken together, these properties mean that a sufficiently powerful learning system exposed to language-whether biological or artificial-learns a compressed model of the world, reverse engineering many of the conceptual and causal structures that support human (and human-like) thought.

我们用语言来交流我们的思想。但是,语言仅仅是思想的表达吗?思想本身是由我们头脑中的其他非语言部分产生的吗?还是语言在人类认知中扮演着更具变革性的角色,让我们拥有原本可能(或不会)拥有的想法?人工智能(AI)和认知科学的最新发展使这个古老的问题重新焕发了活力。我们认为,语言可能是更通用的人工智能系统和人类智能核心方面出现的关键。我们强调了语言的两个相关属性,使它成为开发领域通用能力的强大工具。首先,语言提供了紧凑的表示,使它更容易表示和推理许多抽象概念(例如,精确的数字)。其次,这些压缩的表征是集体思维的迭代输出。在学习一门语言的过程中,我们学习了文化进化的抽象概念的宝库。综上所述,这些特性意味着一个足够强大的学习系统——无论是生物的还是人工的——可以学习一个压缩的世界模型,对许多支持人类(和类人类)思维的概念和因果结构进行逆向工程。
{"title":"How Important Is Language for Human-Like Intelligence?","authors":"Gary Lupyan, Hunter Gentry, Martin Zettersten","doi":"10.1177/17456916251398539","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17456916251398539","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We use language to communicate our thoughts. But is language merely the expression of thoughts, which are themselves produced by other, nonlinguistic parts of our minds? Or does language play a more transformative role in human cognition, allowing us to have thoughts that we otherwise could (or would) not have? Recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and cognitive science have reinvigorated this old question. We argue that language may hold the key to the emergence of both more general AI systems and central aspects of human intelligence. We highlight two related properties of language that make it such a powerful tool for developing domain-general abilities. First, language offers compact representations that make it easier to represent and reason about many abstract concepts (e.g., exact numerosity). Second, these compressed representations are the iterated output of collective minds. In learning a language, we learn a treasure trove of culturally evolved abstractions. Taken together, these properties mean that a sufficiently powerful learning system exposed to language-whether biological or artificial-learns a compressed model of the world, reverse engineering many of the conceptual and causal structures that support human (and human-like) thought.</p>","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":"115-120"},"PeriodicalIF":8.4,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145918190","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}
引用次数: 0
Gender Bias in Creativity: A Process Model for Understanding the Gender Gap in Creative Achievement. 创造性中的性别偏见:理解创造性成就中的性别差异的过程模型。
IF 8.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-13 DOI: 10.1177/17456916251360739
Christa L Taylor

The gender gap in creative achievement, wherein women are underrepresented as high-achieving creators across domains, has far-reaching consequences for individuals and society. Current explanations of what leads to gender discrepancies in creative achievement, despite minimal differences between men and women in creative potential and ability, are incomplete. One vital factor in this process may be gender bias in the attributions of creativity given that both men and women have been found to attribute greater creativity to men. However, the antecedents and consequences of gender bias in attributions of creativity, as well as the processes by which bias impacts gender differences in creative achievement, remain unclear. This article seeks to fill this gap by presenting a model describing how the social environment shapes gender bias in attributions of creativity, how bias influences gender differences in internal and external factors related to creativity, and how these factors interact to impact gender differences in creative behavior and achievement. The proposed model promotes a dynamic, multilevel understanding of the gender gap in creative achievement and provides a strong theoretical foundation for developing interventions to promote greater creative equity.

创意成就方面的性别差距,即女性在各个领域的高成就创造者中所占比例不足,对个人和社会都产生了深远的影响。尽管男性和女性在创造潜力和能力上存在很小的差异,但目前对导致创造性成就的性别差异的解释是不完整的。这个过程中的一个重要因素可能是在创造力的归属上的性别偏见,因为研究发现男性和女性都将更大的创造力归因于男性。然而,性别偏见在创造力归因中的前因和后果,以及偏见影响创造性成就中的性别差异的过程,仍不清楚。本文试图通过提出一个模型来填补这一空白,该模型描述了社会环境如何塑造创造力归因中的性别偏见,偏见如何影响与创造力相关的内部和外部因素中的性别差异,以及这些因素如何相互作用以影响创造性行为和成就中的性别差异。所提出的模型促进了对创造性成就中的性别差距的动态、多层次的理解,并为制定干预措施以促进更大的创造性平等提供了强有力的理论基础。
{"title":"Gender Bias in Creativity: A Process Model for Understanding the Gender Gap in Creative Achievement.","authors":"Christa L Taylor","doi":"10.1177/17456916251360739","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17456916251360739","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The gender gap in creative achievement, wherein women are underrepresented as high-achieving creators across domains, has far-reaching consequences for individuals and society. Current explanations of what leads to gender discrepancies in creative achievement, despite minimal differences between men and women in creative potential and ability, are incomplete. One vital factor in this process may be gender bias in the attributions of creativity given that both men and women have been found to attribute greater creativity to men. However, the antecedents and consequences of gender bias in attributions of creativity, as well as the processes by which bias impacts gender differences in creative achievement, remain unclear. This article seeks to fill this gap by presenting a model describing how the social environment shapes gender bias in attributions of creativity, how bias influences gender differences in internal and external factors related to creativity, and how these factors interact to impact gender differences in creative behavior and achievement. The proposed model promotes a dynamic, multilevel understanding of the gender gap in creative achievement and provides a strong theoretical foundation for developing interventions to promote greater creative equity.</p>","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":"3-24"},"PeriodicalIF":8.4,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144848237","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}
引用次数: 0
Letter to the Editor. 给编辑的信。
IF 8.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-13 DOI: 10.1177/17456916251362851
Andrew Gelman
{"title":"Letter to the Editor.","authors":"Andrew Gelman","doi":"10.1177/17456916251362851","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17456916251362851","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":"121"},"PeriodicalIF":8.4,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144848238","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}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Perspectives on Psychological Science
全部 Geobiology Appl. Clay Sci. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta J. Hydrol. Org. Geochem. Carbon Balance Manage. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. Int. J. Biometeorol. IZV-PHYS SOLID EART+ J. Atmos. Chem. Acta Oceanolog. Sin. Acta Geophys. ACTA GEOL POL ACTA PETROL SIN ACTA GEOL SIN-ENGL AAPG Bull. Acta Geochimica Adv. Atmos. Sci. Adv. Meteorol. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. Am. J. Sci. Am. Mineral. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. Appl. Geochem. Aquat. Geochem. Ann. Glaciol. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. ARCHAEOMETRY ARCT ANTARCT ALP RES Asia-Pac. J. Atmos. Sci. ATMOSPHERE-BASEL Atmos. Res. Aust. J. Earth Sci. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Atmos. Meas. Tech. Basin Res. Big Earth Data BIOGEOSCIENCES Geostand. Geoanal. Res. GEOLOGY Geosci. J. Geochem. J. Geochem. Trans. Geosci. Front. Geol. Ore Deposits Global Biogeochem. Cycles Gondwana Res. Geochem. Int. Geol. J. Geophys. Prospect. Geosci. Model Dev. GEOL BELG GROUNDWATER Hydrogeol. J. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Hydrol. Processes Int. J. Climatol. Int. J. Earth Sci. Int. Geol. Rev. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. Int. J. Geomech. Int. J. Geog. Inf. Sci. Isl. Arc J. Afr. Earth. Sci. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. J APPL METEOROL CLIM J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys. J. Clim. J. Earth Sci. J. Earth Syst. Sci. J. Environ. Eng. Geophys. J. Geog. Sci. Mineral. Mag. Miner. Deposita Mon. Weather Rev. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Nat. Clim. Change Nat. Geosci. Ocean Dyn. Ocean and Coastal Research npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. Ocean Modell. Ocean Sci. Ore Geol. Rev. OCEAN SCI J Paleontol. J. PALAEOGEOGR PALAEOCL PERIOD MINERAL PETROLOGY+ Phys. Chem. Miner. Polar Sci. Prog. Oceanogr. Quat. Sci. Rev. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. RADIOCARBON Pure Appl. Geophys. Resour. Geol. Rev. Geophys. Sediment. Geol.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1