Psychological bulletin最新文献

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 147(7) of Psychological Bulletin (see record 2022-08521-004). In the article, there was an error in the calculation of the effect sizes from one study. The three effect sizes for Wolff et al. (2016) listed in Table B1 of the online supplemental materials should have been "r = .09, r = -.02, r = -.05," rather than "r = -.18, r = .53, r = -.35." We rechecked the calculations for other studies and effect sizes and found no additional errors. Further, analyses rerun with the revised data set resulted in no changes in significance for any analyses that included this study; hence, no conclusions were changed because of this error. In the article, the sentences in the final paragraph of the Statistical Analyses section that described this study as an outlier were deleted and replaced with "No such outliers were found." All versions of this article have been corrected.] Meta-analyses suggest that religiousness/spirituality (R/S) is consistently and positively associated with health (average r = .15); however, the strength and direction of this relationship is much less clear among sexual minorities, and many sexual minorities experience tension related to R/S. To address this, we present results from the first meta-analysis of the relationship between R/S and health among sexual minorities. Using 279 effect sizes nested within 73 studies, multilevel meta-analyses suggest a small but positive overall relationship between R/S and health among sexual minorities (r = .05), with a substantial amount of residual heterogeneity. Moderator analyses clarify that this relationship is particularly positive when R/S is conceptualized as spirituality (r = .14) or as religious cognition (e.g., belief; r = .10). The relationship between R/S and health disappears or becomes negative when participants are sampled from sexual minority venues (e.g., bars/clubs; r = .01). Minority stress, structural stigma, and causal pathways theories provide some structure to understand results; however, none of these theories is able to explain results fully. We synthesize these theories to provide an initial theoretical explanation: the degree to which R/S promotes or harms sexual minorities' health depends on (a) where the individual is in their sexual identity development/integration; (b) what their current R/S beliefs, practices, and motivations are; and (c) how well their environmental circumstances support their sexual and/or religious identities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

For decades, psychological research has examined the extent to which children's and adolescents' behavior is influenced by the behavior of their peers (i.e., peer influence effects). This review provides a comprehensive synthesis and meta-analysis of this vast field of psychological science, with a goal to quantify the magnitude of peer influence effects across a broad array of behaviors (externalizing, internalizing, academic). To provide a rigorous test of peer influence effects, only studies that employed longitudinal designs, controlled for youths' baseline behaviors, and used "external informants" (peers' own reports or other external reporters) were included. These criteria yielded a total of 233 effect sizes from 60 independent studies across four different continents. A multilevel meta-analytic approach, allowing the inclusion of multiple dependent effect sizes from the same study, was used to estimate an average cross-lagged regression coefficient, indicating the extent to which peers' behavior predicted changes in youths' own behavior over time. Results revealed a peer influence effect that was small in magnitude (β¯ = .08) but significant and robust. Peer influence effects did not vary as a function of the behavioral outcome, age, or peer relationship type (one close friend vs. multiple friends). Time lag and peer context emerged as significant moderators, suggesting stronger peer influence effects over shorter time periods, and when the assessment of peer relationships was not limited to the classroom context. Results provide the most thorough and comprehensive synthesis of childhood and adolescent peer influence to date, indicating that peer influence occurs similarly across a broad range of behaviors and attitudes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Considerable literature on the role of attentional focus in motor performance and learning has accumulated for over two decades. We report the results of comprehensive meta-analyses that address the impact of an external focus (EF, on intended movement effects) versus internal focus (IF, on movements of body parts) of attention on the performance and learning of motor skills. Values of effect sizes (ES) from 73 studies with 1,824 participants and 40 studies with 1,274 participants were used for examining the effects of EF versus IF on behavioral outcomes of motor performance and learning (separately for retention and transfer phases) respectively. The EF condition was more effective than the IF condition for performance, Hedges' g value = 0.264 (95% CI [0.217, 0.310]), retention learning, Hedges' g value = 0.583 (95% CI [0.425, 0.741]), and transfer learning, Hedges' g value = 0.584 (95% CI [0.325, 0.842]). Multivariable metaregression analyses on behavioral measures further indicated that neither age group, health status, or skill level, nor their two-way interactions, moderated the ES differences between EF and IF in performance, retention, and transfer models (all p > .100). A secondary analysis on 12 studies with 216 participants that examined the effects of EF versus IF on electromyographic outcomes of motor performance also indicated that EF was associated with more efficient neuromuscular processing, Hedges' g value = 0.833 (95% CI [0.453, 1.213]). From nine studies with 272 participants, performance measured by behavioral outcomes was found to be more effective when a more distal, rather than proximal, EF was used, Hedges' g value = 0.224 (95% CI [0.019, 0.429]). Overall, the meta-analytic results are consistent with prior narrative reviews and indicate that an external focus is superior to an internal focus whether considering tests of motor performance or learning, and regardless of age, health condition, and level of skill expertise. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Mathematical thinking is in high demand in the global market, but approximately 6 percent of school-age children across the globe experience math difficulties (Shalev et al., 2000). The home math environment (HME), which includes all math-related activities, attitudes, beliefs, expectations, and utterances in the home, may be associated with children's math development. To examine the relation between the HME and children's math abilities, a preregistered meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the average weighted correlation coefficient (r) between the HME and children's math achievement and how potential moderators (i.e., assessment, study, and sample features) might contribute to study heterogeneity. A multilevel correlated effects model using 631 effect sizes from 64 quantitative studies comprising 68 independent samples found a positive, statistically significant average weighted correlation of r = .13 (SE = .02, p < .001). Our combined sensitivity analyses showed that the present findings were robust and that the sample of studies has evidential value. A number of assessment, study, and sample characteristics contributed to study heterogeneity, showing that no single feature of HME research was driving the large between-study differences found for the association between the HME and children's math achievement. These findings indicate that children's environments and interactions related to their learning are supported in the specific context of math learning. Our results also show that the HME represents a setting in which children learn about math through social interactions with their caregivers (Vygotsky, 1978) and what they learn depends on the influence of many levels of environmental input (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and the specificity of input children receive (Bornstein, 2002). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Visual attention is a fundamental aspect of most everyday decisions, and governments and companies spend vast resources competing for the attention of decision makers. In natural environments, choice options differ on a variety of visual factors, such as salience, position, or surface size. However, most decision theories ignore such visual factors, focusing on cognitive factors such as preferences as determinants of attention. To provide a systematic review of how the visual environment guides attention we meta-analyze 122 effect sizes on eye movements in decision making. A psychometric meta-analysis and Top10 sensitivity analysis show that visual factors play a similar or larger role than cognitive factors in determining attention. The visual factors that most influence attention are positioning information centrally, ρ = .43 (Top10 = .67), increasing the surface size, ρ = .35 (Top10 = .43), reducing the set size of competing information elements, ρ = .24 (Top10 = .24), and increasing visual salience, ρ = .13 (Top10 = .24). Cognitive factors include attending more to preferred choice options and attributes, ρ = .36 (Top10 = .31), effects of task instructions on attention, ρ = .35 (Top10 = .21), and attending more to the ultimately chosen option, ρ = .59 (Top10 = .26). Understanding real-world decision making will require the integration of both visual and cognitive factors in future theories of attention and decision making. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Within just 7 years, behavioral decision research in psychology underwent a dramatic change: In 1967, Peterson and Beach (1967) reviewed more than 160 experiments concerned with people's statistical intuitions. Invoking the metaphor of the mind as an intuitive statistician, they concluded that "probability theory and statistics can be used as the basis for psychological models that integrate and account for human performance in a wide range of inferential tasks" (p. 29). Yet in a 1974 Science article, Tversky and Kahneman rejected this conclusion, arguing that "people rely on a limited number of heuristic principles which reduce the complex tasks of assessing probabilities and predicting values to simple judgmental operations" (p. 1124). With that, they introduced the heuristics-and-biases research program, which has profoundly altered how psychology, and the behavioral sciences more generally, view the mind's competences and rationality. How was this radical transformation possible? We examine a previously neglected driver: The heuristics-and-biases program established an experimental protocol in behavioral decision research that relied on described scenarios rather than learning and experience. We demonstrate this shift with an analysis of 604 experiments, which shows that the descriptive protocol has dominated post-1974 research. Specifically, we examine two lines of research addressed in the intuitive-statistician program (Bayesian reasoning and judgments of compound events) and two lines of research spurred by the heuristics-and-biases program (framing and anchoring and adjustment). We conclude that the focus on description at the expense of learning has profoundly shaped the influential view of the error-proneness of human cognition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Cognitive stimulation (CS) is a nonpharmacological intervention often involving group activities and social interaction used to treat cognitive declines in people with dementia. This preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of CS in producing benefits on cognition (primary outcome) and quality of life, activities of daily living, and psychological symptoms (secondary outcomes) across 44 randomized-controlled trials comprising 45 comparisons including 2,444 participants. A medium-sized effect (g = .49) on global cognition was found immediately after the intervention and was supported by decisive Bayesian evidence. Clinical relevance is defined as a reduction of 3 to 4 points on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive subscale; the average attenuation of cognitive decline observed was 2.41 points (after removing 1 outlier). Therefore, the observed decline was of borderline clinical relevance. CS was also found to significantly improve memory, activities of daily living, depressive symptoms, and dementia ratings; most of these effects were supported by substantial and strong Bayesian evidence. No significant effects were found for global cognition at 1 to 10 months follow-up assessment for language, quality of life, anxiety, and behavior symptoms. However, evidence for the absence of these effects was ambiguous. A review of study bias highlighted that most studies lacked active, double-blinded controls, potentially leading to an overestimation of the effect, and making it difficult to conclusively attribute the observed improvements to the CS intervention. Hence, although effects are promising, the methodological issues highlight there is still a need for better controlled studies that provide more compelling evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Communication is a core challenge for individuals on the autism spectrum, and many autistic individuals experience challenges with language. Prospective studies of younger siblings of children with autism show that siblings not only have an increased likelihood of developing autism themselves, but that even siblings without an autism spectrum diagnosis are more likely to have a language delay as toddlers than their peers without familial history of autism (Marrus et al., 2018). While there is substantial variability in the communicative abilities of siblings of children with autism in toddlerhood, it is not clear how these differences translate beyond the first 3 years of life. The present study used meta-analysis to evaluate a wide range of literature and determine whether siblings of children with autism (Sibs-A) over 48 months of age differ from comparison groups in their language and communication abilities. A total of 26 studies describing 22 cohorts were included. Over 2,000 Sibs-A were compared with neurotypical individuals without familial history of autism or siblings of individuals with another neurodevelopmental disability. Meta-analysis revealed a small but significant effect such that Sibs-A performed lower than comparison peers in overall language and communication. Effects were strongest for expressive language and linguistic processing speed, and there were substantially larger differences for experimenter-administered measures than for parent-report, though findings must be considered in the context of other study characteristics. Suggestions based on this meta-analytic review are provided to guide future research in understanding individual differences in the communicative development and outcomes of Sibs-A. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

This preregistered meta-analysis theoretically and empirically integrates the two research strands on effort gains and effort losses in teams. Theoretically, we built on Shepperd's (1993) framework of productivity loss in groups and Karau and Williams' (1993) Collective Effort model (CEM) and developed the Team member Effort Expenditure model (TEEM), an extended Expectancy × Value framework with the explicit addition of an individual work baseline. Empirically, we included studies that allowed calculating a relevant effect size, which represents the difference between an individual's effort under individual work and under teamwork conditions. Overall, we included 622 effect sizes (N = 320,632). We did not find a main effect of teamwork on effort. As predicted, however, multilevel modeling revealed that the (in-)dispensability of the own contribution to the team performance, social comparison potential, and evaluation potential moderated the effect of teamwork versus individual work on expended effort. Depending specifically on the level of (in-)dispensability and the potential to engage in social comparisons, people showed either effort gains or losses in teams. As predicted, we also found that people's self-reports indicated effort gains when they had objectively shown such gains, whereas their self-reports did not indicate effort losses when they had shown such losses. Contrary to our hypotheses, team formation (i.e., ad hoc vs. not ad hoc teams) and task meaningfulness did not emerge as moderators. Altogether, people showed either effort gains or losses in teams depending on the specific design of teamwork. We discuss implications for future research, theory development, and teamwork design in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).