Psychological bulletin最新文献

Cognitive abilities, including general intelligence and domain-specific abilities such as fluid reasoning, comprehension knowledge, working memory capacity, and processing speed, are regarded as some of the most stable psychological traits, yet there exist no large-scale systematic efforts to document the specific patterns by which their rank-order stability changes over age and time interval, or how their stability differs across abilities, tests, and populations. Determining the conditions under which cognitive abilities exhibit high or low degrees of stability is critical not just to theory development but to applied contexts in which cognitive assessments guide decisions regarding treatment and intervention decisions with lasting consequences for individuals. In order to supplement this important area of research, we present a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies investigating the stability of cognitive abilities. The meta-analysis relied on data from 205 longitudinal studies that involved a total of 87,408 participants, resulting in 1,288 test-retest correlation coefficients among manifest variables. For an age of 20 years and a test-retest interval of 5 years, we found a mean rank-order stability of ρ = .76. The effect of mean sample age on stability was best described by a negative exponential function, with low stability in preschool children, rapid increases in stability in childhood, and consistently high stability from late adolescence to late adulthood. This same functional form continued to best describe age trends in stability after adjusting for test reliability. Stability declined with increasing test-retest interval. This decrease flattened out from an interval of approximately 5 years onward. According to the age and interval moderation models, minimum stability sufficient for individual-level diagnostic decisions (r_tt = .80) can only be expected over the age of 7 and for short time intervals in children. In adults, stability levels meeting this criterion are obtained for over 5 years. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

In a largely sleep-deprived society, quantifying the effects of sleep loss on emotion is critical for promoting psychological health. This preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis quantified the effects of various forms of sleep loss on multiple aspects of emotional experiences. Eligible studies used experimental reductions of sleep via total sleep deprivation, partial sleep restriction, or sleep fragmentation in healthy populations to examine effects on positive affect, negative affect, general mood disturbances, emotional reactivity, anxiety symptoms, and/or depressive symptoms. In total, 1,338 effect sizes across 154 studies were included (N = 5,717; participant age range = 7-79 years). Random effects models were conducted, and all forms of sleep loss resulted in reduced positive affect (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.27 to -1.14), increased anxiety symptoms (SMD = 0.57-0.63), and blunted arousal in response to emotional stimuli (SMD = -0.20 to -0.53). Findings for negative affect, reports of emotional valence in response to emotional stimuli, and depressive symptoms were mixed and depended on the type of sleep loss. Nonlinear effects for the amount of sleep loss as well as differences based on the stage of sleep restricted (i.e., rapid eye movement sleep or slow-wave sleep) were also detected. This study represents the most comprehensive quantitative synthesis of experimental sleep and emotion research to date and provides strong evidence that periods of extended wakefulness, shortened sleep duration, and/or nighttime awakenings adversely influence human emotional functioning. Findings provide an integrative foundation for future research on sleep and emotion and elucidate the precise ways that inadequate sleep may impact our daytime emotional lives. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Physical cleansing is a human universal. It serves health and survival functions. It also carries rich psychological meanings that interest scholars across disciplines. What psychological effects result from cleansing? What psychological states trigger cleansing? The present meta-analysis takes stock of all experimental studies examining the psychological consequences and antecedents of cleansing-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., feeling less guilty after cleansing; spontaneously cleansing oneself after thinking of unwelcomed sexual encounter). It includes 129 records, 230 experiments, and 551 effects from 42,793 participants. Effect sizes were synthesized in random-effects models using robust variance estimates with small-sample corrections, supplemented by other techniques. Outliers were excluded using leave-one-out diagnostics and sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was assessed and corrected for using eight methods. Theoretical, methodological, sample, and report moderators were coded. After excluding outliers, without bias correction, the synthesized effect size estimate was g = 0.315, 95% CI [0.277, 0.354]. Using various bias correction methods, the estimate ranged from g = 0.103 to 0.331 and always exhibited considerable heterogeneity. Effect sizes were especially large for behavioral measures and varied significantly between sample types, sample regions, and report types. Meanwhile, effects were domain-general (observed in the moral domain and beyond), bidirectional (physical cleansing ↔ psychological variables), and robust across theoretical types, manipulation operationalizations, and study designs. Limitations included mixed replicability, suboptimal methodological rigor, and restricted sample diversity. We recommend future studies to (a) incorporate power analysis, preregistration, and replication; (b) investigate generalizability across samples; (c) strengthen discriminant validity; and (d) test competing theoretical accounts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Spatial skills are key predictors of achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines, despite being acquired through everyday life and not formally taught in schools. Spatial skills include a diverse group of abilities broadly related to reasoning about properties of space such as distance and direction. Recently, more research has investigated the link between spatial skills and spatial anxiety, defined as a fear or apprehension felt when engaged in spatial thinking. There has yet to be a meta-analytic review summarizing these findings. Thus, the goal of this preregistered meta-analytic review is to provide an estimate of the size of the relation between spatial anxiety and spatial skills while considering several moderators (grade/age group, sex, spatial skills measure/subtype, spatial anxiety measure/subtype, geographical region of sample, publication type/year, and risk of bias). Analyzing 283 effect sizes accumulated from research conducted between 1994 and 2020, we found a small, negative, and statistically significant (r = -.14) correlation between spatial anxiety and spatial skills. Results showed that effect sizes including mental manipulation anxiety, scalar comparison anxiety, and navigation skill were often significantly stronger than effect sizes including measures of other subtypes. The magnitude of the relation was not significantly different in children and adults, though effect sizes tended to be weaker for younger samples (r = -.08). Our results are consistent with previous findings of a significant relation between spatial anxiety and skills, and this work bridges a gap in the existing research, lending support to future research efforts investigating spatial cognition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analyses (NMA) of psychotherapy and pharmacologic treatments for individuals with co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol or other drug use disorder (AOD). A comprehensive search spanning 1995-2019 yielded a pool of 39 studies for systematic review, including 24 randomized controlled trials for the NMA. Study interventions were grouped by target of treatment (PTSD + AOD, PTSD-only, and AOD-only) and approach (psychotherapy or medication). Standardized mean differences (SMD) from the NMA yielded evidence that at the end of treatment, integrated, trauma-focused therapy for PTSD + AOD was more effective at reducing PTSD symptoms than integrated, non-trauma-focused therapy (SMD = -0.30), AOD-focused psychotherapy (SMD = -0.29), and other control psychotherapies (SMD = -0.43). End-of-treatment alcohol use severity was less for AOD medication compared to placebo medication (SMD = -0.36) and trauma-focused therapy for PTSD + placebo medication (SMD = -0.67), and less for trauma-focused psychotherapy + AOD medication compared to PTSD medication (SMD = -0.53), placebo medication (SMD = -0.50), and trauma-focused psychotherapy + placebo medication (SMD = -0.81). Key limitations include the small number of studies in the NMA for pharmacologic treatments and the lack of demographic diversity apparent in the existing literature. Findings suggest room for new studies that can address limitations in study sample composition, sample sizes, retention, and apply new techniques for conducting comparative effectiveness in PTSD + AOD treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

This meta-analysis explores the long-standing and heavily debated question of whether religiosity is associated with prosocial and antisocial behavior at the individual level. In an analysis of 701 effects across 237 samples, encompassing 811,663 participants, a significant relationship of r = .13 was found between religiosity and prosociality (and antisociality, which was treated as its inverse). Nevertheless, there was substantial heterogeneity of effect sizes, and several potential moderators were explored. The effect was most heavily moderated by the type of measurement used to assess prosocial or antisocial behavior. Religiosity correlated more strongly with self-reported prosociality (r = .15) than with directly measured prosocial behavior (r = .06). Three possible interpretations of this moderation are discussed, namely, that (a) lab-based methods do not accurately or fully capture actual religious prosociality; (b) the self-report effect is explained by religious self-enhancement and overreports actual prosociality; or (c) both religiosity and self-reported prosociality are explained by self-enhancement. The question of whether religiosity more strongly positively predicts prosociality or negatively predicts antisociality is also explored. This moderation is, at most, weak. We test additional potential moderators, including the aspect of religiosity and type of behavior measured, the ingroup or outgroup nature of the recipient, and study characteristics. Finally, we recommend a shift in how researchers investigate questions of religiosity and prosociality in the future. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

This meta-analysis synthesizes experimental studies on the immediate effects of discrimination on mental health, exploring the effects of different paradigms and discrimination types on diverse facets of mental health. We analyzed data from a systematic literature search (73 studies; 12,097 participants; 245 effect sizes) for randomized controlled trials with manipulation of discrimination as a predictor and mental health as an outcome using a three-level random-effects model. Experimentally manipulated discrimination led to poorer mental health (g = -0.30), also after controlling for publication year, region, education level, and methodological quality. Moderator analyses revealed stronger effects for pervasive (g = -0.55) compared to single-event manipulations (g = -0.25) and a trend toward weaker effects for samples with nonmarginalized (g = -0.16) compared to marginalized identities (g = -0.34). Gender and age did not moderate the effect. Discrimination had the largest effects on externalizing (g = -0.66) and distress-related outcomes (g = -0.41); heterosexism (g = -0.66), racism (g = -0.32), and sexism (g = -0.30) had the largest effects on mental health. Convenience sampling compromised generalizability to subgroups and the general population, downgrading methodological quality for all included studies. When interpreting the findings, selective samples (mostly young female adults with higher education), often limited ecological validity, and ethical restrictions of lab-induced discrimination need to be considered. These constraints likely led to conservative estimates of the mental health effects of discrimination in this meta-analysis. Future research should investigate more diverse samples, further explain the heterogeneity of findings, and explore protective factors of the effects of discrimination on mental health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Theories have proposed diverse reasons for why individual differences such as personality traits lead to social status attainment in face-to-face groups. We integrated these different theoretical standpoints into a model with four paths from individual differences to status: a dominance, a competence, a virtue, and a micropolitics path. To investigate these paths, we meta-analyzed over 100 years of research on bivariate associations of personality traits, cognitive abilities, and physical size with the attainment of status-related outcomes in face-to-face groups (1,064 effects from 276 samples including 56,153 participants). The status-related outcome variables were admiring respect, social influence, popularity (i.e., being liked by others), leadership emergence, and a mixture of outcome variables. The meta-analytic correlations we found were largely in line with the micropolitics path, tentatively in line with the competence and virtue paths, and only partly in line with the dominance path. These findings suggest that status attainment depends not only on the competence and virtue of an individual but also on how individuals can enhance their apparent competence or virtue by behaving assertively, by being extraverted, or through self-monitoring. We also investigated how the relations between individual differences and status-related outcomes were moderated by kind of status-related outcome, nature of the group task, culture (collectivism/individualism), and length of acquaintance. The moderation analysis yielded mixed and inconclusive results. The review ends with directions for research, such as the need to separately assess and study the different status-related outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Attention has a seemingly inevitable tendency to turn inward toward our thoughts. Mind-wandering refers to moments when this inward focus diverts attention away from the current task-at-hand. Mind-wandering is thought to be ubiquitous, having been estimated to occur between 30% and 50% of our waking moments. Yet, it is unclear whether this frequency is similar within-task performance contexts and unknown whether mind-wandering systematically increases with time-on-task for a broad range of tasks. We conducted a systematic literature search and individual participant data meta-analysis of rates of occurrence of mind-wandering during task performance. Our search located 68 research reports providing almost a half-million total responses to experience sampling mind-wandering probes from more than 10,000 unique individuals. Latent growth curve models estimated the initial occurrence of mind-wandering and linear change in mind-wandering over sequential probes for each study sample, and effects were summarized using multivariate meta-analysis. Our results confirm that mind-wandering increases in frequency over time during task performance, implicating mind-wandering in characteristic within-task psychological changes, such as increasing boredom and patterns of worsening behavioral performance with time-on-task. The systematic search and meta-analysis provide the most comprehensive assessment of normative rates of mind-wandering during task performance reported to date. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).