Psychological bulletin最新文献

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).

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.

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).