Psychological bulletin最新文献

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).

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).

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.

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).

How to cite this article: Tissingh EK, Wright J, Calder P. Early Weight Bearing in Lengthening Nails. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2023;18(1):63.