首页 > 最新文献

Psychological bulletin最新文献

英文 中文
The conspiratorial mind: A meta-analytic review of motivational and personological correlates. 阴谋心理:动机与人格相关的元分析回顾。
IF 22.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2023-06-26 DOI: 10.1037/bul0000392
Shauna M Bowes, Thomas H Costello, Arber Tasimi

A tidal wave of research has tried to uncover the motivational and personological correlates of conspiratorial ideation, often studying these two classes of correlates in parallel. Here, we synthesize this vast and piecemeal literature through a multilevel meta-analytic review that spanned 170 studies, 257 samples, 52 variables, 1,429 effect sizes, and 158,473 participants. Overall, we found that the strongest correlates of conspiratorial ideation pertained to (a) perceiving danger and threat, (b) relying on intuition and having odd beliefs and experiences, and (c) being antagonistic and acting superior. Considerable heterogeneity was found within these relations--especially when individual variables were lumped together under a single domain--and we identified potential boundary conditions in these relations (e.g., type of conspiracy). Given that the psychological correlates of conspiratorial ideation have often been classified as belonging to one of two broad domains-motivation or personality-we aim to understand the implications of such heterogeneity for frameworks of conspiratorial ideation. We conclude with directions for future research that can lead to a unified account of conspiratorial ideation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

一股研究浪潮试图揭示阴谋思想的动机和人格关联,通常是并行研究这两类关联。在这里,我们通过一个多层次的荟萃分析综述,包括170项研究,257个样本,52个变量,1429个效应量,158,473名参与者,综合了这些庞大而零碎的文献。总的来说,我们发现阴谋思想的最强相关性与(a)感知危险和威胁,(b)依赖直觉,有奇怪的信仰和经验,以及(c)敌对和表现优越。在这些关系中发现了相当大的异质性——特别是当单个变量被集中在一个域中时——我们确定了这些关系中的潜在边界条件(例如,阴谋类型)。考虑到阴谋思想的心理关联通常被归类为属于两大领域——动机或人格——我们的目标是理解这种异质性对阴谋思想框架的影响。我们总结了未来研究的方向,可以导致阴谋思想的统一说明。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
{"title":"The conspiratorial mind: A meta-analytic review of motivational and personological correlates.","authors":"Shauna M Bowes,&nbsp;Thomas H Costello,&nbsp;Arber Tasimi","doi":"10.1037/bul0000392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000392","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A tidal wave of research has tried to uncover the motivational and personological correlates of conspiratorial ideation, often studying these two classes of correlates in parallel. Here, we synthesize this vast and piecemeal literature through a multilevel meta-analytic review that spanned 170 studies, 257 samples, 52 variables, 1,429 effect sizes, and 158,473 participants. Overall, we found that the strongest correlates of conspiratorial ideation pertained to (a) perceiving danger and threat, (b) relying on intuition and having odd beliefs and experiences, and (c) being antagonistic and acting superior. Considerable heterogeneity was found within these relations--especially when individual variables were lumped together under a single domain--and we identified potential boundary conditions in these relations (e.g., type of conspiracy). Given that the psychological correlates of conspiratorial ideation have often been classified as belonging to one of two broad domains-motivation or personality-we aim to understand the implications of such heterogeneity for frameworks of conspiratorial ideation. We conclude with directions for future research that can lead to a unified account of conspiratorial ideation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9776164","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: 2
Child maltreatment and alexithymia: A meta-analytic review. 儿童虐待与述情障碍:元分析综述。
IF 22.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2023-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-01 DOI: 10.1037/bul0000391
Julia Ditzer, Eileen Y Wong, Rhea N Modi, Maciej Behnke, James J Gross, Anat Talmon

Alexithymia refers to difficulties identifying and describing one's emotions. Growing evidence suggests that alexithymia is a key transdiagnostic risk factor. Despite its clinical importance, the etiology of alexithymia is largely unknown. The present study employs meta-analytic methods to summarize findings on the role of one hypothesized antecedent of adult alexithymia, namely child maltreatment. We obtained effect size estimates from 99 independent samples reported in 78 unique sources that reported both child maltreatment history and adult levels of alexithymia. These studies involved a total of 36,141 participants. Using correlation coefficients as our effect size index, we found that child maltreatment was positively related to overall adult alexithymia (r = .23 [.19, .27]). Notably, emotional abuse (r = .18 [.13, .23]), emotional neglect (r = .21 [.16, .26]), and physical neglect (r = .18 [.15, .22]) were the strongest predictors. Effects were moderated by gender, affiliation with clinical versus nonclinical samples, and publication status. Overall results were robust to publication bias and the presence of outliers. These findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the complex connection between different types of child maltreatment and alexithymia, providing greater insight into the early environmental influences on alexithymia. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

述情障碍是指难以识别和描述自己的情绪。越来越多的证据表明述情障碍是一个关键的跨诊断风险因素。尽管述情障碍具有重要的临床意义,但其病因在很大程度上是未知的。本研究采用元分析方法总结了成人述情障碍的一个假设先行因素,即儿童虐待的作用。我们从78个独特来源的99个独立样本中获得了效应大小估计,这些样本报告了儿童虐待史和成人述情障碍水平。这些研究共涉及36141名参与者。使用相关系数作为我们的效应大小指数,我们发现儿童虐待与整体成人述情障碍呈正相关(r=.23[.19,.27])。值得注意的是,情绪虐待(r=.18[.13,.23])、情绪忽视(r=.21[.16,.26])和身体忽视(r=.18[15,.22])是最强的预测因素。影响受性别、与临床样本和非临床样本的关系以及发表状态的影响。总体结果对发表偏倚和异常值的存在具有稳健性。这些发现有助于更细致地理解不同类型的儿童虐待和述情障碍之间的复杂联系,从而更深入地了解早期环境对述情障碍的影响。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
{"title":"Child maltreatment and alexithymia: A meta-analytic review.","authors":"Julia Ditzer,&nbsp;Eileen Y Wong,&nbsp;Rhea N Modi,&nbsp;Maciej Behnke,&nbsp;James J Gross,&nbsp;Anat Talmon","doi":"10.1037/bul0000391","DOIUrl":"10.1037/bul0000391","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Alexithymia refers to difficulties identifying and describing one's emotions. Growing evidence suggests that alexithymia is a key transdiagnostic risk factor. Despite its clinical importance, the etiology of alexithymia is largely unknown. The present study employs meta-analytic methods to summarize findings on the role of one hypothesized antecedent of adult alexithymia, namely child maltreatment. We obtained effect size estimates from 99 independent samples reported in 78 unique sources that reported both child maltreatment history and adult levels of alexithymia. These studies involved a total of 36,141 participants. Using correlation coefficients as our effect size index, we found that child maltreatment was positively related to overall adult alexithymia (<i>r</i> = .23 [.19, .27]). Notably, emotional abuse (<i>r</i> = .18 [.13, .23]), emotional neglect (<i>r</i> = .21 [.16, .26]), and physical neglect (<i>r</i> = .18 [.15, .22]) were the strongest predictors. Effects were moderated by gender, affiliation with clinical versus nonclinical samples, and publication status. Overall results were robust to publication bias and the presence of outliers. These findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the complex connection between different types of child maltreatment and alexithymia, providing greater insight into the early environmental influences on alexithymia. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 5-6","pages":"311-329"},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9878027","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
Knowing before doing: Review and mega-analysis of action understanding in prereaching infants. 先知后做:对学前教育婴儿动作理解的回顾和大型分析。
IF 22.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2023-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-29 DOI: 10.1037/bul0000393
Shari Liu, Melyssa Almeida

The relationship between experience and knowledge is one of the oldest and deepest questions in psychology. In developmental science, research on this question has focused on prereaching infants who cannot yet retrieve objects by reaching for and grasping them. Over the past 2 decades, behavioral research in this population has produced two seemingly contradictory findings: After first-person experience with reaching via "sticky mittens" training, (a) infants come to expect that people reach efficiently, toward goal objects, but (b) under some conditions, they can express these expectations without training. We hypothesize that prereaching infants' understanding of other people's actions is driven by the representational demands of the tasks used to test their abilities, rather than by first-person motor experience per se. We conducted a qualitative review and a quantitative, preregistered "mega-analysis" of the original data from this past work (i.e., an analysis of looking responses from N = 650 infants, 30 conditions, and 8 articles). We found that the manipulations with the strongest effects (measured via effect sizes and Bayes factors) on infants' understanding of other people's goals and physical constraints, controlling for infant age, were abstract features of action: Whether the action produced an observable effect in the world on contact and provided unambiguous evidence for the actor's goal. We end by presenting a broad hypothesis about how young infants learn about other people's minds and actions, centered on an early intuitive theory of action planning, to be tested with future work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

经验和知识之间的关系是心理学中最古老、最深刻的问题之一。在发展科学中,对这个问题的研究集中在那些还不能通过伸手和抓住物体来取回物体的预教育婴儿身上。在过去的20年里,对这一人群的行为研究产生了两个看似矛盾的发现:在第一人称体验到通过“粘性手套”训练达到目的后,(a)婴儿开始期望人们能够有效地达到目标物体,但(b)在某些条件下,他们可以在没有训练的情况下表达这些期望。我们假设,幼儿对他人行为的理解是由用于测试其能力的任务的代表性需求驱动的,而不是由第一人称运动体验本身驱动的,对过去工作中的原始数据进行预先注册的“大型分析”(即,对650名婴儿、30种情况和8篇文章的视觉反应进行分析)。我们发现,在控制婴儿年龄的情况下,对婴儿理解他人目标和身体约束具有最强影响(通过效应大小和贝叶斯因子测量)的操作是行为的抽象特征:该行为是否在世界上对接触产生了可观察的影响,并为行为者的目标提供了明确的证据。最后,我们提出了一个关于婴儿如何了解他人思想和行为的广泛假设,以早期的行动计划直觉理论为中心,并在未来的工作中进行测试。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
{"title":"Knowing before doing: Review and mega-analysis of action understanding in prereaching infants.","authors":"Shari Liu, Melyssa Almeida","doi":"10.1037/bul0000393","DOIUrl":"10.1037/bul0000393","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The relationship between experience and knowledge is one of the oldest and deepest questions in psychology. In developmental science, research on this question has focused on prereaching infants who cannot yet retrieve objects by reaching for and grasping them. Over the past 2 decades, behavioral research in this population has produced two seemingly contradictory findings: After first-person experience with reaching via \"sticky mittens\" training, (a) infants come to expect that people reach efficiently, toward goal objects, but (b) under some conditions, they can express these expectations without training. We hypothesize that prereaching infants' understanding of other people's actions is driven by the representational demands of the tasks used to test their abilities, rather than by first-person motor experience per se. We conducted a qualitative review and a quantitative, preregistered \"mega-analysis\" of the original data from this past work (i.e., an analysis of looking responses from <i>N</i> = 650 infants, 30 conditions, and 8 articles). We found that the manipulations with the strongest effects (measured via effect sizes and Bayes factors) on infants' understanding of other people's goals and physical constraints, controlling for infant age, were abstract features of action: Whether the action produced an observable effect in the world on contact and provided unambiguous evidence for the actor's goal. We end by presenting a broad hypothesis about how young infants learn about other people's minds and actions, centered on an early intuitive theory of action planning, to be tested with future work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 5-6","pages":"294-310"},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9881449","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 vicious cycle of psychopathology and stressful life events: A meta-analytic review testing the stress generation model. 精神病理学和压力生活事件的恶性循环:一项测试压力产生模型的元分析综述。
IF 22.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2023-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-01 DOI: 10.1037/bul0000390
Katerina Rnic, Angela C Santee, Jennifer-Ashley Hoffmeister, Hallie Liu, Katharine K Chang, Rachel X Chen, Richard W J Neufeld, Daniel A Machado, Lisa R Starr, David J A Dozois, Joelle LeMoult

Stress generation theory initially posited that depression elevates risk for some stressful events (i.e., dependent events) but not others (i.e., independent events). This preregistered meta-analytic review examined whether stress generation occurs transdiagnostically by examining 95 longitudinal studies with 38,228 participants (537 total effect sizes) from over 30 years of research. Our multilevel meta-analyses found evidence of stress generation across a broad range of psychopathology, as evidenced by significantly larger prospective effects for dependent (overall psychopathology: r = .23) than independent (overall psychopathology: r = .10) stress. We also identified unique patterns of effects across specific types of psychopathology. For example, effects were larger for depression than anxiety. Furthermore, effects were sometimes larger in studies with younger participants, shorter time lags between assessments, checklist measures of stress, and for interpersonal stressors. Finally, a multilevel meta-analytic structural equation model suggested that dependent stress exacerbates psychopathology symptoms over time (β = .04), possibly contributing to chronicity. Interventions targeting the prevention of stress generation may mitigate chronic psychopathology. Conclusions of this study are limited by the predominance of depression effect sizes in the literature and our review of only English language articles. On the other hand, the findings are strengthened by rigorous inclusion criteria, lack of publication bias, and absence of moderating effects by publication year. The latter underscores the replicability of the stress generation effect over the last 30 years. Taken together, the review provides robust evidence that stress generation is a cross-diagnostic phenomenon that contributes to a vicious cycle of increasing stress and psychopathology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

压力产生理论最初认为,抑郁症会增加一些压力事件(即依赖性事件)的风险,但不会增加其他事件(即独立性事件)。这篇预先注册的荟萃分析综述通过检查来自30多年研究的95项纵向研究,对38228名参与者(537个总效应大小)进行了研究,检验了压力产生是否通过跨诊断方式发生。我们的多层次荟萃分析发现,在广泛的精神病理学中存在压力产生的证据,依赖性(整体精神病理学:r=.23)压力的预期影响明显大于独立性(整体精神病学:r=.10)压力。我们还确定了特定类型精神病理学的独特影响模式。例如,抑郁的影响大于焦虑。此外,在年轻参与者、评估之间的时间滞后更短、压力清单测量以及人际压力源的研究中,影响有时更大。最后,一个多水平元分析结构方程模型表明,随着时间的推移,依赖性压力会加剧精神病理学症状(β=0.04),可能导致慢性病。针对预防压力产生的干预措施可以缓解慢性精神病理学。这项研究的结论受到文献中抑郁效应大小占主导地位以及我们仅对英语文章的综述的限制。另一方面,严格的纳入标准、缺乏出版偏见以及缺乏按出版年份划分的调节效应加强了研究结果。后者强调了过去30年压力产生效应的可复制性。总之,这篇综述提供了强有力的证据,证明压力的产生是一种交叉诊断现象,会导致压力和精神病理学的恶性循环。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
{"title":"The vicious cycle of psychopathology and stressful life events: A meta-analytic review testing the stress generation model.","authors":"Katerina Rnic,&nbsp;Angela C Santee,&nbsp;Jennifer-Ashley Hoffmeister,&nbsp;Hallie Liu,&nbsp;Katharine K Chang,&nbsp;Rachel X Chen,&nbsp;Richard W J Neufeld,&nbsp;Daniel A Machado,&nbsp;Lisa R Starr,&nbsp;David J A Dozois,&nbsp;Joelle LeMoult","doi":"10.1037/bul0000390","DOIUrl":"10.1037/bul0000390","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stress generation theory initially posited that depression elevates risk for some stressful events (i.e., dependent events) but not others (i.e., independent events). This preregistered meta-analytic review examined whether stress generation occurs transdiagnostically by examining 95 longitudinal studies with 38,228 participants (537 total effect sizes) from over 30 years of research. Our multilevel meta-analyses found evidence of stress generation across a broad range of psychopathology, as evidenced by significantly larger prospective effects for dependent (overall psychopathology: <i>r</i> = .23) than independent (overall psychopathology: <i>r</i> = .10) stress. We also identified unique patterns of effects across specific types of psychopathology. For example, effects were larger for depression than anxiety. Furthermore, effects were sometimes larger in studies with younger participants, shorter time lags between assessments, checklist measures of stress, and for interpersonal stressors. Finally, a multilevel meta-analytic structural equation model suggested that dependent stress exacerbates psychopathology symptoms over time (β = .04), possibly contributing to chronicity. Interventions targeting the prevention of stress generation may mitigate chronic psychopathology. Conclusions of this study are limited by the predominance of depression effect sizes in the literature and our review of only English language articles. On the other hand, the findings are strengthened by rigorous inclusion criteria, lack of publication bias, and absence of moderating effects by publication year. The latter underscores the replicability of the stress generation effect over the last 30 years. Taken together, the review provides robust evidence that stress generation is a cross-diagnostic phenomenon that contributes to a vicious cycle of increasing stress and psychopathology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 5-6","pages":"330-369"},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9883490","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: 4
Why Meta-Analyses of Growth Mindset and Other Interventions Should Follow Best Practices for Examining Heterogeneity: Commentary on Macnamara and Burgoyne (2023) and Burnette et al. (2023). 为什么生长心态的元分析和其他干预措施应该遵循检查异质性的最佳实践:对Macnamara和Burgoyne(2023)以及Burnette等人(2023年)的评论。
IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI: 10.1037/bul0000384
Elizabeth Tipton, Christopher Bryan, Jared Murray, Mark McDaniel, Barbara Schneider, David S Yeager

Meta-analysts often ask a yes-or-no question: Is there an intervention effect or not? This traditional, all-or-nothing thinking stands in contrast with current best practice in meta-analysis, which calls for a heterogeneity-attuned approach (i.e., focused on the extent to which effects vary across procedures, participant groups, or contexts). This heterogeneity-attuned approach allows researchers to understand where effects are weaker or stronger and reveals mechanisms. The current article builds on a rare opportunity to compare two recent meta-analyses that examined the same literature (growth mindset interventions) but used different methods and reached different conclusions. One meta-analysis used a traditional approach (Macnamara and Burgoyne, in press), which aggregated effect sizes for each study before combining them and examined moderators one-by-one by splitting the data into small subgroups. The second meta-analysis (Burnette et al., in press) modeled the variation of effects within studies-across subgroups and outcomes-and applied modern, multi-level meta-regression methods. The former concluded that growth mindset effects are biased, but the latter yielded nuanced conclusions consistent with theoretical predictions. We explain why the practices followed by the latter meta-analysis were more in line with best practices for analyzing large and heterogeneous literatures. Further, an exploratory re-analysis of the data showed that applying the modern, heterogeneity-attuned methods from Burnette et al. (in press) to the dataset employed by Macnamara and Burgoyne (in press) confirmed Burnette et al.'s conclusions; namely, that there was a meaningful, significant effect of growth mindset in focal (at-risk) groups. This article concludes that heterogeneity-attuned meta-analysis is important both for advancing theory and for avoiding the boom-or-bust cycle that plagues too much of psychological science.

Meta分析师经常会问一个是或否的问题:是否有干预效果?这种传统的要么全有要么全无的思维与当前荟萃分析的最佳实践形成了鲜明对比,后者要求采用异质性协调的方法(即,关注不同程序、参与者群体或背景的影响差异程度)。这种异质性协调的方法使研究人员能够了解哪些影响较弱或较强,并揭示其机制。当前的文章建立在一个难得的机会上,比较了最近的两项荟萃分析,这两项分析检查了相同的文献(成长心态干预),但使用了不同的方法,得出了不同的结论。一项荟萃分析使用了一种传统的方法(Macnamara和Burgoyne,出版中),在将每项研究合并之前,对其影响大小进行汇总,并通过将数据划分为小组来逐一检查调节因子。第二项荟萃分析(Burnette等人,出版中)模拟了研究中各亚组和结果的影响变化,并应用了现代多层次元回归方法。前者得出的结论是增长心态效应是有偏见的,但后者得出的结论与理论预测一致。我们解释了为什么后一项荟萃分析所遵循的实践更符合分析大型和异质文献的最佳实践。此外,对数据的探索性重新分析表明,将Burnett等人(出版中)的现代、异质性协调方法应用于Macnamara和Burgoyne(出版中的)使用的数据集,证实了Burnette等人的结论;即,在重点(风险)群体中,成长心态产生了有意义的显著影响。这篇文章的结论是,异质性协调的荟萃分析对于推进理论和避免困扰太多心理科学的繁荣或萧条周期都很重要。
{"title":"Why Meta-Analyses of Growth Mindset and Other Interventions Should Follow Best Practices for Examining Heterogeneity: Commentary on Macnamara and Burgoyne (2023) and Burnette et al. (2023).","authors":"Elizabeth Tipton, Christopher Bryan, Jared Murray, Mark McDaniel, Barbara Schneider, David S Yeager","doi":"10.1037/bul0000384","DOIUrl":"10.1037/bul0000384","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Meta-analysts often ask a yes-or-no question: Is there an intervention effect or not? This traditional, all-or-nothing thinking stands in contrast with current best practice in meta-analysis, which calls for a heterogeneity-attuned approach (i.e., focused on the extent to which effects vary across procedures, participant groups, or contexts). This heterogeneity-attuned approach allows researchers to understand where effects are weaker or stronger and reveals mechanisms. The current article builds on a rare opportunity to compare two recent meta-analyses that examined the same literature (growth mindset interventions) but used different methods and reached different conclusions. One meta-analysis used a traditional approach (Macnamara and Burgoyne, in press), which aggregated effect sizes for each study before combining them and examined moderators one-by-one by splitting the data into small subgroups. The second meta-analysis (Burnette et al., in press) modeled the variation of effects within studies-across subgroups and outcomes-and applied modern, multi-level meta-regression methods. The former concluded that growth mindset effects are biased, but the latter yielded nuanced conclusions consistent with theoretical predictions. We explain why the practices followed by the latter meta-analysis were more in line with best practices for analyzing large and heterogeneous literatures. Further, an exploratory re-analysis of the data showed that applying the modern, heterogeneity-attuned methods from Burnette et al. (in press) to the dataset employed by Macnamara and Burgoyne (in press) confirmed Burnette et al.'s conclusions; namely, that there was a meaningful, significant effect of growth mindset in focal (at-risk) groups. This article concludes that heterogeneity-attuned meta-analysis is important both for advancing theory and for avoiding the boom-or-bust cycle that plagues too much of psychological science.</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 3-4","pages":"229-241"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10495100/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10261929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A systematic review and meta-analysis of growth mindset interventions: For whom, how, and why might such interventions work? 成长心态干预的系统综述和荟萃分析:这种干预对谁、如何以及为什么有效?
IF 22.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2023-03-01 Epub Date: 2022-10-13 DOI: 10.1037/bul0000368
Jeni L Burnette, Joseph Billingsley, George C Banks, Laura E Knouse, Crystal L Hoyt, Jeffrey M Pollack, Stefanie Simon

As growth mindset interventions increase in scope and popularity, scientists and policymakers are asking: Are these interventions effective? To answer this question properly, the field needs to understand the meaningful heterogeneity in effects. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we focused on two key moderators with adequate data to test: Subsamples expected to benefit most and implementation fidelity. We also specified a process model that can be generative for theory. We included articles published between 2002 (first mindset intervention) through the end of 2020 that reported an effect for a growth mindset intervention, used a randomized design, and featured at least one of the qualifying outcomes. Our search yielded 53 independent samples testing distinct interventions. We reported cumulative effect sizes for multiple outcomes (i.e., mindsets, motivation, behavior, end results), with a focus on three primary end results (i.e., improved academic achievement, mental health, or social functioning). Multilevel metaregression analyses with targeted subsamples and high fidelity for academic achievement yielded, d = 0.14, 95% CI [.06, .22]; for mental health, d = 0.32, 95% CI [.10, .54]. Results highlighted the extensive variation in effects to be expected from future interventions. Namely, 95% prediction intervals for focal effects ranged from -0.08 to 0.35 for academic achievement and from 0.07 to 0.57 for mental health. The literature is too nascent for moderators for social functioning, but average effects are d = 0.36, 95% CI [.03, .68], 95% PI [-.50, 1.22]. We conclude with a discussion of heterogeneity and the limitations of meta-analyses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

随着增长心态干预措施的范围和受欢迎程度的增加,科学家和政策制定者正在问:这些干预措施有效吗?为了正确回答这个问题,该领域需要理解效应中有意义的异质性。在目前的系统综述和荟萃分析中,我们重点关注两个有足够数据可供测试的关键调节因素:预计受益最大的子样本和实现保真度。我们还指定了一个可以为理论生成的过程模型。我们纳入了2002年(第一次心态干预)至2020年底发表的文章,这些文章报告了成长心态干预的效果,使用了随机设计,并介绍了至少一种合格的结果。我们的搜索产生了53个测试不同干预措施的独立样本。我们报告了多种结果(即心态、动机、行为、最终结果)的累积效应大小,重点关注三个主要最终结果(即学习成绩、心理健康或社会功能的改善)。具有目标子样本和学术成就高保真度的多水平元回归分析得出,d=0.14,95%CI[.06,.22];对于心理健康,d=0.32,95%置信区间[.10,.54]。结果强调了未来干预措施预期效果的广泛差异。也就是说,对于学业成绩,95%的焦点效应预测区间在-0.08到0.35之间,对于心理健康,95%的预测区间在0.07到0.57之间。对于社会功能的调节者来说,文献还太初级,但平均效应为d=0.36,95%CI[.03,.68],95%PI[-.501.22]。我们最后讨论了异质性和荟萃分析的局限性。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
{"title":"A systematic review and meta-analysis of growth mindset interventions: For whom, how, and why might such interventions work?","authors":"Jeni L Burnette,&nbsp;Joseph Billingsley,&nbsp;George C Banks,&nbsp;Laura E Knouse,&nbsp;Crystal L Hoyt,&nbsp;Jeffrey M Pollack,&nbsp;Stefanie Simon","doi":"10.1037/bul0000368","DOIUrl":"10.1037/bul0000368","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As growth mindset interventions increase in scope and popularity, scientists and policymakers are asking: Are these interventions effective? To answer this question properly, the field needs to understand the meaningful heterogeneity in effects. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we focused on two key moderators with adequate data to test: Subsamples expected to benefit most and implementation fidelity. We also specified a process model that can be generative for theory. We included articles published between 2002 (first mindset intervention) through the end of 2020 that reported an effect for a growth mindset intervention, used a randomized design, and featured at least one of the qualifying outcomes. Our search yielded 53 independent samples testing distinct interventions. We reported cumulative effect sizes for multiple outcomes (i.e., mindsets, motivation, behavior, end results), with a focus on three primary end results (i.e., improved academic achievement, mental health, or social functioning). Multilevel metaregression analyses with targeted subsamples and high fidelity for academic achievement yielded, <i>d</i> = 0.14, 95% CI [.06, .22]; for mental health, <i>d</i> = 0.32, 95% CI [.10, .54]. Results highlighted the extensive variation in effects to be expected from future interventions. Namely, 95% prediction intervals for focal effects ranged from -0.08 to 0.35 for academic achievement and from 0.07 to 0.57 for mental health. The literature is too nascent for moderators for social functioning, but average effects are <i>d</i> = 0.36, 95% CI [.03, .68], 95% PI [-.50, 1.22]. We conclude with a discussion of heterogeneity and the limitations of meta-analyses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 3-4","pages":"174-205"},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9832981","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: 29
The daily association between affect and alcohol use: A meta-analysis of individual participant data. 情感与饮酒之间的日常关联:个体参与者数据的荟萃分析。
IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1037/bul0000387
Jonas Dora, Marilyn Piccirillo, Katherine T Foster, Kelly Arbeau, Stephen Armeli, Marc Auriacombe, Bruce Bartholow, Adriene M Beltz, Shari M Blumenstock, Krysten Bold, Erin E Bonar, Abby Braitman, Ryan W Carpenter, Kasey G Creswell, Tracy De Hart, Robert D Dvorak, Noah Emery, Matthew Enkema, Catharine Fairbairn, Anne M Fairlie, Stuart G Ferguson, Teresa Freire, Fallon Goodman, Nisha Gottfredson, Max Halvorson, Maleeha Haroon, Andrea L Howard, Andrea Hussong, Kristina M Jackson, Tiffany Jenzer, Dominic P Kelly, Adam M Kuczynski, Alexis Kuerbis, Christine M Lee, Melissa Lewis, Ashley N Linden-Carmichael, Andrew Littlefield, David M Lydon-Staley, Jennifer E Merrill, Robert Miranda, Cynthia Mohr, Jennifer P Read, Clarissa Richardson, Roisin O'Connor, Stephanie S O'Malley, Lauren Papp, Thomas M Piasecki, Paul Sacco, Nichole Scaglione, Fuschia Serre, Julia Shadur, Kenneth J Sher, Yuichi Shoda, Tracy L Simpson, Michele R Smith, Angela Stevens, Brittany Stevenson, Howard Tennen, Michael Todd, Hayley Treloar Padovano, Timothy Trull, Jack Waddell, Katherine Walukevich-Dienst, Katie Witkiewitz, Tyler Wray, Aidan G C Wright, Andrea M Wycoff, Kevin M King

Influential psychological theories hypothesize that people consume alcohol in response to the experience of both negative and positive emotions. Despite two decades of daily diary and ecological momentary assessment research, it remains unclear whether people consume more alcohol on days they experience higher negative and positive affect in everyday life. In this preregistered meta-analysis, we synthesized the evidence for these daily associations between affect and alcohol use. We included individual participant data from 69 studies (N = 12,394), which used daily and momentary surveys to assess affect and the number of alcoholic drinks consumed. Results indicate that people are not more likely to drink on days they experience high negative affect, but are more likely to drink and drink heavily on days high in positive affect. People self-reporting a motivational tendency to drink-to-cope and drink-to-enhance consumed more alcohol, but not on days they experienced higher negative and positive affect. Results were robust across different operationalizations of affect, study designs, study populations, and individual characteristics. These findings challenge the long-held belief that people drink more alcohol following increases in negative affect. Integrating these findings under different theoretical models and limitations of this field of research, we collectively propose an agenda for future research to explore open questions surrounding affect and alcohol use.

有影响力的心理学理论假设人们饮酒是对消极和积极情绪的反应。尽管进行了20年的日常日记和生态瞬时评估研究,但仍不清楚人们在日常生活中受到更高负面和正面影响的日子是否会饮酒更多。在这项预先登记的荟萃分析中,我们综合了情感和饮酒之间日常关联的证据。我们纳入了69项研究(N=12394)的个人参与者数据,这些研究使用日常和瞬时调查来评估饮酒的影响和数量。结果表明,人们在经历高度负面情绪的日子里不太可能喝酒,但在积极情绪高涨的日子里更可能酗酒。人们自我报告有饮酒以应对和饮酒以增强的动机倾向,他们会消耗更多的酒精,但在经历更高的负面和正面影响的日子里却没有。在情感、研究设计、研究人群和个体特征的不同操作中,结果是稳健的。这些发现挑战了人们长期以来的看法,即人们在负面情绪增加后会饮酒更多。在不同的理论模型和该研究领域的局限性下整合这些发现,我们共同提出了未来研究的议程,以探索围绕情感和酒精使用的悬而未决的问题。
{"title":"The daily association between affect and alcohol use: A meta-analysis of individual participant data.","authors":"Jonas Dora, Marilyn Piccirillo, Katherine T Foster, Kelly Arbeau, Stephen Armeli, Marc Auriacombe, Bruce Bartholow, Adriene M Beltz, Shari M Blumenstock, Krysten Bold, Erin E Bonar, Abby Braitman, Ryan W Carpenter, Kasey G Creswell, Tracy De Hart, Robert D Dvorak, Noah Emery, Matthew Enkema, Catharine Fairbairn, Anne M Fairlie, Stuart G Ferguson, Teresa Freire, Fallon Goodman, Nisha Gottfredson, Max Halvorson, Maleeha Haroon, Andrea L Howard, Andrea Hussong, Kristina M Jackson, Tiffany Jenzer, Dominic P Kelly, Adam M Kuczynski, Alexis Kuerbis, Christine M Lee, Melissa Lewis, Ashley N Linden-Carmichael, Andrew Littlefield, David M Lydon-Staley, Jennifer E Merrill, Robert Miranda, Cynthia Mohr, Jennifer P Read, Clarissa Richardson, Roisin O'Connor, Stephanie S O'Malley, Lauren Papp, Thomas M Piasecki, Paul Sacco, Nichole Scaglione, Fuschia Serre, Julia Shadur, Kenneth J Sher, Yuichi Shoda, Tracy L Simpson, Michele R Smith, Angela Stevens, Brittany Stevenson, Howard Tennen, Michael Todd, Hayley Treloar Padovano, Timothy Trull, Jack Waddell, Katherine Walukevich-Dienst, Katie Witkiewitz, Tyler Wray, Aidan G C Wright, Andrea M Wycoff, Kevin M King","doi":"10.1037/bul0000387","DOIUrl":"10.1037/bul0000387","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Influential psychological theories hypothesize that people consume alcohol in response to the experience of both negative and positive emotions. Despite two decades of daily diary and ecological momentary assessment research, it remains unclear whether people consume more alcohol on days they experience higher negative and positive affect in everyday life. In this preregistered meta-analysis, we synthesized the evidence for these daily associations between affect and alcohol use. We included individual participant data from 69 studies (<i>N</i> = 12,394), which used daily and momentary surveys to assess affect and the number of alcoholic drinks consumed. Results indicate that people are not more likely to drink on days they experience high negative affect, but are more likely to drink and drink heavily on days high in positive affect. People self-reporting a motivational tendency to drink-to-cope and drink-to-enhance consumed more alcohol, but not on days they experienced higher negative and positive affect. Results were robust across different operationalizations of affect, study designs, study populations, and individual characteristics. These findings challenge the long-held belief that people drink more alcohol following increases in negative affect. Integrating these findings under different theoretical models and limitations of this field of research, we collectively propose an agenda for future research to explore open questions surrounding affect and alcohol use.</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 1-2","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10409490/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10369474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Priming behavior: A meta-analysis of the effects of behavioral and nonbehavioral primes on overt behavioral outcomes. 启动行为:行为和非行为启动对显性行为结果影响的荟萃分析。
IF 22.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-13 DOI: 10.1037/bul0000374
Wenhao Dai, Tianshu Yang, Benjamin X White, Ryan Palmer, Emily K Sanders, Jack A McDonald, Melody Leung, Dolores Albarracín

Past meta-analyses of the effects of priming on overt behavior have not examined whether the effects and processes of priming behavioral or nonbehavioral concepts (e.g., priming action through the word go and priming religion through the word church) differ, even though these possibilities are important to our understanding of concept accessibility and behavior. Hence, we meta-analyzed 351 studies (224 reports and 862 effect sizes) involving incidental presentation of behavioral or nonbehavioral primes, a neutral control group, and at least one behavioral outcome. Our random-effects analyses, which used the correlated and hierarchical effects model with robust variance estimation (Pustejovsky & Tipton, 2021; Tanner-Smith et al., 2016), revealed a moderate priming effect (d = 0.37) that remained stable across behavioral and nonbehavioral primes and across different methodological procedures and adjustments for possible inclusion/publication biases (e.g., sensitivity analyses from Mathur & VanderWeele, 2020; sensitivity analyses from Vevea & Woods, 2005). Although the findings suggest that associative processes explain both the effects of behavioral and nonbehavioral primes, lowering the value of a behavior weakened the effect only when the primes were behavioral. These findings support the possibility that even though both types of primes activate associations that promote behavior, behavioral (vs. nonbehavioral) primes may provide a greater opportunity for goals to control the effect of the primes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

过去对启动对公开行为影响的荟萃分析没有检验启动行为或非行为概念(例如,通过go一词启动行动和通过church一词启动宗教)的影响和过程是否不同,尽管这些可能性对我们理解概念的可及性和行为很重要。因此,我们对351项研究(224份报告和862个效应大小)进行了荟萃分析,这些研究涉及行为或非行为素数的偶然呈现、中性对照组和至少一种行为结果。我们的随机效应分析使用了具有稳健方差估计的相关和分层效应模型(Pustejovsky和Tipton,2021;Tanner-Smith等人,2016),揭示了一种中等的启动效应(d=0.37),在行为和非行为启动以及不同的方法学程序和对可能的纳入/发表偏差的调整中保持稳定(例如,Mathur&VanderWeele的敏感性分析,2020;Vevea&Woods的敏感性分析,2005)。尽管研究结果表明,联想过程可以解释行为素数和非行为素数的影响,但只有当素数是行为素数时,降低行为的价值才会削弱这种影响。这些发现支持了这样一种可能性,即即使这两种类型的素数都激活了促进行为的关联,但行为(与非行为)素数可能会为目标提供更大的机会来控制素数的效果。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
{"title":"Priming behavior: A meta-analysis of the effects of behavioral and nonbehavioral primes on overt behavioral outcomes.","authors":"Wenhao Dai,&nbsp;Tianshu Yang,&nbsp;Benjamin X White,&nbsp;Ryan Palmer,&nbsp;Emily K Sanders,&nbsp;Jack A McDonald,&nbsp;Melody Leung,&nbsp;Dolores Albarracín","doi":"10.1037/bul0000374","DOIUrl":"10.1037/bul0000374","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Past meta-analyses of the effects of priming on overt behavior have not examined whether the effects and processes of priming behavioral or nonbehavioral concepts (e.g., priming action through the word <i>go</i> and priming religion through the word <i>church</i>) differ, even though these possibilities are important to our understanding of concept accessibility and behavior. Hence, we meta-analyzed 351 studies (224 reports and 862 effect sizes) involving incidental presentation of behavioral or nonbehavioral primes, a neutral control group, and at least one behavioral outcome. Our random-effects analyses, which used the correlated and hierarchical effects model with robust variance estimation (Pustejovsky & Tipton, 2021; Tanner-Smith et al., 2016), revealed a moderate priming effect (<i>d</i> = 0.37) that remained stable across behavioral and nonbehavioral primes and across different methodological procedures and adjustments for possible inclusion/publication biases (e.g., sensitivity analyses from Mathur & VanderWeele, 2020; sensitivity analyses from Vevea & Woods, 2005). Although the findings suggest that associative processes explain both the effects of behavioral and nonbehavioral primes, lowering the value of a behavior weakened the effect only when the primes were behavioral. These findings support the possibility that even though both types of primes activate associations that promote behavior, behavioral (vs. nonbehavioral) primes may provide a greater opportunity for goals to control the effect of the primes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 1-2","pages":"67-98"},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9657931","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: 3
Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. 人格稳定与改变:纵向研究的元分析。
IF 22.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI: 10.1037/bul0000365
Wiebke Bleidorn, Ted Schwaba, Anqing Zheng, Christopher J Hopwood, Susana S Sosa, Brent W Roberts, D A Briley

Past research syntheses provided evidence that personality traits are both stable and changeable throughout the life span. However, early meta-analytic estimates were constrained by a relatively small universe of longitudinal studies, many of which tracked personality traits in small samples over moderate time periods using measures that were only loosely related to contemporary trait models such as the Big Five. Since then, hundreds of new studies have emerged allowing for more precise estimates of personality trait stability and change across the life span. Here, we updated and extended previous research syntheses on personality trait development by synthesizing novel longitudinal data on rank-order stability (total k = 189, total N = 178,503) and mean-level change (total k = 276, N = 242,542) from studies published after January 1, 2005. Consistent with earlier meta-analytic findings, the rank-order stability of personality traits increased significantly throughout early life before reaching a plateau in young adulthood. These increases in stability coincide with mean-level changes in the direction of greater maturity. In contrast to previous findings, we found little evidence for increasing rank-order stabilities after Age 25. Moreover, cumulative mean-level trait changes across the life span were slightly smaller than previously estimated. Emotional stability, however, increased consistently and more substantially across the life span than previously found. Moderator analyses indicated that narrow facet-level and maladaptive trait measures were less stable than broader domain and adaptive trait measures. Overall, the present findings draw a more precise picture of the life span development of personality traits and highlight important gaps in the personality development literature. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

过去的研究综合提供的证据表明,人格特征在整个生命周期中既稳定又多变。然而,早期的元分析估计受到相对较小的纵向研究范围的限制,其中许多研究在中等时间内追踪小样本的人格特征,使用的测量方法与当代特征模型(如大五人格模型)只有松散的关系。从那以后,出现了数百项新的研究,可以更精确地估计人格特质在整个生命周期中的稳定性和变化。本文通过综合2005年1月1日以后发表的研究中关于秩序稳定性(total k = 189, total N = 178,503)和平均水平变化(total k = 276, N = 242,542)的新纵向数据,更新和扩展了以往关于人格特质发展的研究综合。与早期的荟萃分析结果一致,人格特质的等级稳定性在早期生活中显著增加,然后在青年期达到平台期。这些稳定性的增加与更高成熟度方向上的平均水平变化相一致。与之前的研究结果相反,我们发现25岁以后等级顺序稳定性增加的证据很少。此外,在整个生命周期中,累积平均水平的性状变化略小于先前的估计。然而,与之前的发现相比,情绪稳定性在整个生命周期中持续增长,而且增长幅度更大。调节因子分析表明,窄面水平和适应不良性状测量比宽领域和适应性状测量更不稳定。总的来说,目前的研究结果更准确地描绘了人格特质的生命周期发展,并突出了人格发展文献中的重要空白。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
{"title":"Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.","authors":"Wiebke Bleidorn,&nbsp;Ted Schwaba,&nbsp;Anqing Zheng,&nbsp;Christopher J Hopwood,&nbsp;Susana S Sosa,&nbsp;Brent W Roberts,&nbsp;D A Briley","doi":"10.1037/bul0000365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000365","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Past research syntheses provided evidence that personality traits are both stable and changeable throughout the life span. However, early meta-analytic estimates were constrained by a relatively small universe of longitudinal studies, many of which tracked personality traits in small samples over moderate time periods using measures that were only loosely related to contemporary trait models such as the Big Five. Since then, hundreds of new studies have emerged allowing for more precise estimates of personality trait stability and change across the life span. Here, we updated and extended previous research syntheses on personality trait development by synthesizing novel longitudinal data on rank-order stability (total <i>k</i> = 189, total <i>N</i> = 178,503) and mean-level change (total <i>k</i> = 276, <i>N</i> = 242,542) from studies published after January 1, 2005. Consistent with earlier meta-analytic findings, the rank-order stability of personality traits increased significantly throughout early life before reaching a plateau in young adulthood. These increases in stability coincide with mean-level changes in the direction of greater maturity. In contrast to previous findings, we found little evidence for increasing rank-order stabilities after Age 25. Moreover, cumulative mean-level trait changes across the life span were slightly smaller than previously estimated. Emotional stability, however, increased consistently and more substantially across the life span than previously found. Moderator analyses indicated that narrow facet-level and maladaptive trait measures were less stable than broader domain and adaptive trait measures. Overall, the present findings draw a more precise picture of the life span development of personality traits and highlight important gaps in the personality development literature. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"148 7-8","pages":"588-619"},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9242509","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: 49
The enactment effect: A systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioral, neuroimaging, and patient studies. 制定效应:对行为、神经影像学和患者研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
IF 22.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI: 10.1037/bul0000360
Brady R T Roberts, Colin M MacLeod, Myra A Fernandes

The enactment effect is the phenomenon that physically performing an action represented by a word or phrase (e.g., clap, clap your hands) results in better memory than does simply reading it. We examined data from three different methodological approaches to provide a comprehensive review of the enactment effect across 145 behavioral, 7 neuroimaging, and 31 neurological patient studies. Boosts in memory performance following execution of a physical action were compared to those produced by reading words or phrases, by watching an experimenter perform actions, or by engaging in self-generated imagery. Across the behavioral studies, we employed random-effects meta-regression with robust variance estimation (RVE) to reveal an average enactment effect size of g = 1.23. Further meta-analyses revealed that variations in study design and comparison task reliably influence the size of the enactment effect, whereas four other experiment factors-test format, learning instruction type, retention interval, and the presence of objects during encoding-likely do not influence the effect. Neuroimaging studies demonstrated enactment-related activation to be prevalent in the motor cortex and inferior parietal lobule. Patient studies indicated that, regardless of whether impairments of memory (e.g., Alzheimer's) or of motor capability (e.g., Parkinson's) were present, patients were able to benefit from enactment. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis highlight two components accounting for the memory benefit from enactment: a primary mental contribution relating to planning the action and a secondary physical contribution of the action itself. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

动作效应是指在身体上做一个单词或短语所代表的动作(例如,拍手,拍手)比简单地阅读它能提高记忆力的现象。我们检查了来自三种不同方法的数据,对145项行为研究、7项神经影像学研究和31项神经学患者研究的颁布效应进行了全面回顾。在进行物理动作后,记忆力的提高与阅读单词或短语、观看实验者的动作或参与自我生成的想象所产生的记忆效果进行了比较。在行为研究中,我们采用随机效应元回归与稳健方差估计(RVE),发现平均制定效应大小g = 1.23。进一步的元分析显示,研究设计和比较任务的变化可靠地影响了制定效应的大小,而其他四个实验因素-测试格式,学习教学类型,保留时间间隔和编码过程中物体的存在-可能不影响效果。神经影像学研究表明,动作相关的激活在运动皮层和下顶叶中普遍存在。患者研究表明,无论是否存在记忆障碍(如阿尔茨海默氏症)或运动能力障碍(如帕金森症),患者都能够从立法中受益。这项系统回顾和荟萃分析的发现突出了两个因素,说明了制定行动对记忆的好处:与计划行动有关的主要精神贡献和行动本身的次要身体贡献。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA,版权所有)。
{"title":"The enactment effect: A systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioral, neuroimaging, and patient studies.","authors":"Brady R T Roberts,&nbsp;Colin M MacLeod,&nbsp;Myra A Fernandes","doi":"10.1037/bul0000360","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000360","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The enactment effect is the phenomenon that physically performing an action represented by a word or phrase (e.g., clap, clap your hands) results in better memory than does simply reading it. We examined data from three different methodological approaches to provide a comprehensive review of the enactment effect across 145 behavioral, 7 neuroimaging, and 31 neurological patient studies. Boosts in memory performance following execution of a physical action were compared to those produced by reading words or phrases, by watching an experimenter perform actions, or by engaging in self-generated imagery. Across the behavioral studies, we employed random-effects meta-regression with robust variance estimation (RVE) to reveal an average enactment effect size of <i>g</i> = 1.23. Further meta-analyses revealed that variations in study design and comparison task reliably influence the size of the enactment effect, whereas four other experiment factors-test format, learning instruction type, retention interval, and the presence of objects during encoding-likely do not influence the effect. Neuroimaging studies demonstrated enactment-related activation to be prevalent in the motor cortex and inferior parietal lobule. Patient studies indicated that, regardless of whether impairments of memory (e.g., Alzheimer's) or of motor capability (e.g., Parkinson's) were present, patients were able to benefit from enactment. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis highlight two components accounting for the memory benefit from enactment: a primary mental contribution relating to planning the action and a secondary physical contribution of the action itself. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"148 5-6","pages":"397-434"},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10415768","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: 7
期刊
Psychological bulletin
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
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:481959085
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