Psychological bulletin最新文献

Empathy, sympathy, and emotion regulation are core components of social-emotional development. Regulating vicariously induced negative emotions is thought to support feeling empathy and sympathy for others in need, but empirical evidence for such effects is mixed. Moreover, despite the longstanding conceptual distinction between empathy and sympathy, most researchers refer to and measure these constructs interchangeably. This meta-analysis examined associations between emotion regulation and empathy and/or sympathy in childhood and adolescence, as well as potential methodological, study, and sample moderators. Analyses were conducted on 58 studies (75 effect sizes; N = 25,831). There was a significant and positive overall association between emotion regulation and empathy/sympathy (r = .19, p < .001); however, most scales assessing empathy were conflated with other constructs. Accounting for conflation, emotion regulation was related to sympathy (r = .24, p < .001) but not empathy (r = .04, p = .38). Moreover, the association between emotion regulation and empathy/sympathy was not significant when baseline respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) and RSA reactivity were examined as proxies of emotion regulation. Results were largely similar across sample characteristics (e.g., age group, sex, and culture). Conceptual implications for differentiating empathy and sympathy are discussed, as well as methodological considerations to maximize the quality and clarity of research on emotion regulation, empathy, and sympathy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

According to ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996), the coexistence of gendered power differences and mutual interdependence creates two apparently opposing but complementary sexist ideologies: hostile sexism (HS; viewing women as manipulative competitors who seek to gain power over men) coincides with benevolent sexism (BS; a chivalrous view of women as pure and moral, yet weak and passive, deserving men's protection and admiration, as long as they conform). The research on these ideologies employs the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, used extensively in psychology and allied disciplines, often to understand the roles sexist attitudes play in reinforcing gender inequality. Following contemporary guidelines, this systematic review utilizes a principled approach to synthesize the multidisciplinary empirical literature on ambivalent sexism. After screening 1,870 potentially relevant articles and fully reviewing 654 eligible articles, five main domains emerge in ambivalent sexism research (social ideologies, violence, workplace, stereotypes, intimate relationships). The accumulating evidence across domains offers bottom-up empirical support for ambivalent sexism as a coordinated system to maintain control over women (and sometimes men). Hostile sexism acts through the direct and diverse paths of envious/resentful prejudices, being more sensitive to power and sexuality cues; Benevolent sexism acts through prejudices related to interdependence (primarily gender-based paternalism and gender-role differentiation), enforcing traditional gender relations and being more sensitive to role-related cues. Discussion points to common methodological limitations, suggests guidelines, and finds future avenues for ambivalent sexism research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

While diagnostic assessments for autism routinely screen for reduced frequency of gestures, evidence supporting reduced gesture production in autism is inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to clarify differences in frequency of gestures between autistic and neurotypical individuals. Included studies compared frequency of gestures between autistic and neurotypical individuals. Database searches (APA PsycInfo, ERIC, MEDLINE, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global) and a call for unpublished data on the International Society for Gesture Studies listserv identified research from January 1994 to March 2023. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Designs. Quantitative synthesis involved a narrative review of all findings and meta-analysis of articles allowing effect size calculations, stratified by the type of gesture. Thirty-one articles comparing frequency of gestures between 701 autistic and 860 neurotypical individuals were included in the narrative review, 25 of which were also included in the meta-analysis. Compared to neurotypical individuals, meta-analyses found that autistic individuals produced significantly less total, deictic, and emblematic gestures. While the number of iconic gestures appeared comparable between groups, studies investigating iconic gestures exhibited an almost equal trend of both positive and negative effect sizes, which were mostly nonsignificant. The way gesture production was measured, age, observer familiarity, and task structure (but not overall study quality) moderated the effect size, albeit inconsistently across the types of gestures. Findings have implications relating to profiling gesture use in diagnostic assessments for autism and highlight gaps in our understanding of differences in gesture production in autism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).