Pub Date : 2016-10-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100616670674
D. Simons
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He received his Bachelor of Arts from Carleton College and his PhD in experimental psychology from Cornell University. His primary research explores the limits of awareness and memory, the reasons why we often are unaware of those limits, and the implications of such limits. He also maintains an active interest in research best practices and cognitive interventions. He is a Fellow and Charter Member of the Association for Psychological Science and an Alfred P. Sloan Fellow, and he received the American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology (in the area of perception/motor performance). He and Christopher F. Chabris jointly received the 2004 Ig Nobel Prize in Psychology and coauthored the New York Times bestselling book The Invisible Gorilla, and Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us. He has authored more than 100 publications, and he currently serves as a Special Associate Editor for Registered Replication Reports at Perspectives on Psychological Science.
{"title":"About the Authors","authors":"D. Simons","doi":"10.1177/1529100616670674","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616670674","url":null,"abstract":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He received his Bachelor of Arts from Carleton College and his PhD in experimental psychology from Cornell University. His primary research explores the limits of awareness and memory, the reasons why we often are unaware of those limits, and the implications of such limits. He also maintains an active interest in research best practices and cognitive interventions. He is a Fellow and Charter Member of the Association for Psychological Science and an Alfred P. Sloan Fellow, and he received the American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology (in the area of perception/motor performance). He and Christopher F. Chabris jointly received the 2004 Ig Nobel Prize in Psychology and coauthored the New York Times bestselling book The Invisible Gorilla, and Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us. He has authored more than 100 publications, and he currently serves as a Special Associate Editor for Registered Replication Reports at Perspectives on Psychological Science.","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"17 1","pages":"iii - v"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100616670674","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-10-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100616671516
J. Bailey, Paul L. Vasey, L. Diamond, S. Breedlove, E. Vilain, M. Epprecht
{"title":"\"Sexual orientation, controversy, and science\": Corrigendum.","authors":"J. Bailey, Paul L. Vasey, L. Diamond, S. Breedlove, E. Vilain, M. Epprecht","doi":"10.1177/1529100616671516","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616671516","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100616671516","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-10-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100616664716
J. McCabe, Thomas S. Redick, R. Engle
As is convincingly demonstrated in the target article (Simons et al., 2016, this issue), despite the numerous forms of brain training that have been tested and touted in the past 15 years, there’s little to no evidence that currently existing programs produce lasting, meaningful change in the performance of cognitive tasks that differ from the trained tasks. As detailed by Simons et al., numerous methodological issues cloud the interpretation of many studies claiming successful far transfer. These limitations include small sample sizes, passive control groups, single tests of outcomes, unblinded informantand self-report measures of functioning, and hypothesisinconsistent significant effects. (However, note that, with older adults, a successful result of the intervention could be to prevent decline in the training group, such that they stay at their pretest level while the control group declines.) These issues are separate from problems related to publication bias, selective reporting of significant and nonsignificant outcomes, use of unjustified one-tailed t tests, and failure to explicitly note shared data across publications. So, considering that the literature contains such potential false-positive publications (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011), it may be surprising and disheartening to many that some descriptive reviews (Chacko et al., 2013; Salthouse, 2006; Simons et al., 2016) and meta-analyses (Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016; Rapport, Orban, Kofler, & Friedman, 2013) have concluded that existing cognitive-training methods are relatively ineffective, despite their popularity and increasing market share. For example, a recent working-memory-training metaanalysis (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016) evaluated 87 studies examining transfer to working memory, intelligence, and various educationally relevant outcomes (e.g., reading comprehension, math, word decoding). The studies varied considerably in terms of the sample composition (age; typical vs. atypical functioning) and the nature of the working-memory training (verbal, nonverbal, or both verbal and nonverbal stimuli; n-back vs. span task methodology; few vs. many training sessions). Despite the diversity in the design and administration of the training, the results were quite clear. Following training, there were reliable improvements in performance on verbal and nonverbal working-memory tasks identical or similar to the trained tasks. However, in terms of far transfer, there was no convincing evidence of improvements, especially when working-memory training was compared to an active-control condition. The meta-analysis also demonstrated that, in the working-memory-training literature, the largest nonverbal-intelligence far-transfer effects are statistically more likely to come from studies with small sample sizes and passive control groups. This finding is not particularly surprising, given other work showing that most working-memory training studies are dramatically underpowered (Bogg &
正如目标文章中令人信服地证明的那样(Simons et al.， 2016，本期)，尽管在过去15年中已经测试和吹捧了多种形式的大脑训练，但几乎没有证据表明，目前现有的程序在认知任务的表现上产生了持久的、有意义的变化，这些变化与训练任务不同。正如Simons等人所详述的那样，许多方法上的问题使许多声称成功远程迁移的研究的解释变得模糊不清。这些限制包括小样本量、被动对照组、单一结果测试、非盲的信息提供者和自我报告功能测量，以及假设不一致的显著影响。(然而，请注意，对于老年人，干预的成功结果可能是防止训练组的下降，这样他们就保持在测试前的水平，而对照组则下降。)这些问题与发表偏倚、选择性报告重要和不重要的结果、使用不合理的单尾t检验以及未能明确注明出版物之间的共享数据相关的问题是分开的。因此，考虑到文献中包含这种潜在的假阳性出版物(Simmons, Nelson， & Simonsohn, 2011)，一些描述性评论(Chacko et al.， 2013)可能会让许多人感到惊讶和沮丧。Salthouse, 2006;Simons et al.， 2016)和荟萃分析(melby - lerv， Redick， & Hulme, 2016;Rapport, Orban, Kofler， & Friedman, 2013)得出的结论是，尽管现有的认知训练方法很受欢迎，市场份额也越来越大，但它们相对无效。例如，最近的一项工作记忆训练元分析(melby - lerv等人，2016)评估了87项研究，这些研究考察了向工作记忆、智力和各种教育相关结果(如阅读理解、数学、单词解码)的转移。这些研究在样本组成(年龄;典型与非典型功能)和工作记忆训练的性质(言语，非言语，或言语和非言语刺激;N-back vs. span任务方法;训练课程少vs.多)。尽管培训的设计和管理各不相同，但结果是相当明确的。训练后，在与训练任务相同或相似的言语和非言语工作记忆任务上，表现都有可靠的改善。然而，在远距离转移方面，没有令人信服的证据表明有改善，特别是当工作记忆训练与主动控制条件相比时。荟萃分析还表明，在工作记忆训练的文献中，从统计数据来看，最大的非语言智力远迁移效应更有可能来自小样本和被动对照组的研究。这一发现并不特别令人惊讶，因为其他研究表明，大多数工作记忆训练研究都严重不足(Bogg & Lasecki, 2015)，而且小样本量的不足研究更有可能产生夸大的效应(Button et al.， 2013)。此外，在各种工作记忆和电子游戏干预研究中，在对照组中观察到不规则的前测后测模式，主要是小样本的原因(回顾，见Redick, 2015;雷迪克和韦伯斯特，2014)。在这些研究中，推论统计和效应大小指标提供了训练“有效”的证据，但描述性统计的调查却讲述了一个不同的故事。具体来说，一些以儿童和年轻人为样本的研究检查了训练前后的智力或其他学业成就。仔细观察发现，训练相对于对照组“提高”了智力或学业成绩，因为对照组从前测到后测有所下降，即训练组从前测到后测没有显著变化。mcabe等。大脑训练悲观主义研究[j] . 2016
{"title":"Brain-Training Pessimism, but Applied-Memory Optimism","authors":"J. McCabe, Thomas S. Redick, R. Engle","doi":"10.1177/1529100616664716","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616664716","url":null,"abstract":"As is convincingly demonstrated in the target article (Simons et al., 2016, this issue), despite the numerous forms of brain training that have been tested and touted in the past 15 years, there’s little to no evidence that currently existing programs produce lasting, meaningful change in the performance of cognitive tasks that differ from the trained tasks. As detailed by Simons et al., numerous methodological issues cloud the interpretation of many studies claiming successful far transfer. These limitations include small sample sizes, passive control groups, single tests of outcomes, unblinded informantand self-report measures of functioning, and hypothesisinconsistent significant effects. (However, note that, with older adults, a successful result of the intervention could be to prevent decline in the training group, such that they stay at their pretest level while the control group declines.) These issues are separate from problems related to publication bias, selective reporting of significant and nonsignificant outcomes, use of unjustified one-tailed t tests, and failure to explicitly note shared data across publications. So, considering that the literature contains such potential false-positive publications (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011), it may be surprising and disheartening to many that some descriptive reviews (Chacko et al., 2013; Salthouse, 2006; Simons et al., 2016) and meta-analyses (Melby-Lervåg, Redick, & Hulme, 2016; Rapport, Orban, Kofler, & Friedman, 2013) have concluded that existing cognitive-training methods are relatively ineffective, despite their popularity and increasing market share. For example, a recent working-memory-training metaanalysis (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016) evaluated 87 studies examining transfer to working memory, intelligence, and various educationally relevant outcomes (e.g., reading comprehension, math, word decoding). The studies varied considerably in terms of the sample composition (age; typical vs. atypical functioning) and the nature of the working-memory training (verbal, nonverbal, or both verbal and nonverbal stimuli; n-back vs. span task methodology; few vs. many training sessions). Despite the diversity in the design and administration of the training, the results were quite clear. Following training, there were reliable improvements in performance on verbal and nonverbal working-memory tasks identical or similar to the trained tasks. However, in terms of far transfer, there was no convincing evidence of improvements, especially when working-memory training was compared to an active-control condition. The meta-analysis also demonstrated that, in the working-memory-training literature, the largest nonverbal-intelligence far-transfer effects are statistically more likely to come from studies with small sample sizes and passive control groups. This finding is not particularly surprising, given other work showing that most working-memory training studies are dramatically underpowered (Bogg &","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"17 1","pages":"187 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100616664716","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-09-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100616645327
H. V. D. Veer, A. Wiles
Disclaimer This White Paper is issued for information only. It does not constitute an official or agreed position of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), nor of its Members. The views expressed are entirely those of the author(s). ETSI declines all responsibility for any errors and any loss or damage resulting from use of the contents of this White Paper. ETSI also declines responsibility for any infringement of any third party's Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), but will be pleased to acknowledge any IPR and correct any infringement of which it is advised.
{"title":"About the Authors","authors":"H. V. D. Veer, A. Wiles","doi":"10.1177/1529100616645327","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616645327","url":null,"abstract":"Disclaimer This White Paper is issued for information only. It does not constitute an official or agreed position of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), nor of its Members. The views expressed are entirely those of the author(s). ETSI declines all responsibility for any errors and any loss or damage resulting from use of the contents of this White Paper. ETSI also declines responsibility for any infringement of any third party's Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), but will be pleased to acknowledge any IPR and correct any infringement of which it is advised.","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"17 1","pages":"iii - iv"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100616645327","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439542","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-05-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100615623268
D. Balota
Compared to listening to a speaker, reading seems more effortful. Why? An obvious difference is that the structure of visual language forces the reader to acquire information in a parasitic manner, looking at patterns of straight and squiggly lines, making eye movements to recognize words, and mapping these onto more “natural” auditory language abilities. But are there ways of bypassing (or minimizing) the extra demands of processing visual language? Many would lead us to believe that the answer is yes. Consider the potential benefits of reading 5 times more quickly than you currently read, with no loss in comprehension. For the past five decades (beginning with Evelyn Wood’s speed-reading programs), there have been training programs that claim to dramatically increase the speed of reading, taking advantage of the massive power of the human brain to leave readers unencumbered by the laborious additional demands of converting print to the system used for spoken language. The target article in this issue has brought together a dream team of researchers who have studied reading and rapid processing of visual information to evaluate the potential efficacy of speed-reading programs. Rayner, Schotter, Masson, Potter, and Treiman argue that if one wants to evaluate such programs, it is critical to first understand the processes that are involved in reading. Thus, the authors provide an in-depth review of the extensive literature on reading, from basic aspects of writing systems to higher-level comprehension. They also review the available empirical evidence evaluating the efficacy of speedreading programs. The review is an outstanding resource for anyone who is interested in reading and speed reading. Rayner et al argue from this literature that speed-reading training programs are unlikely to pay off as advertised because of well-established empirical facts about reading. For example, one approach espoused by speed-reading advocates is to fixate on only a few words within each line of text, thereby decreasing the number of time-consuming fixations that most words receive during normal reading. The notion here is that readers can pick up considerable information in the periphery while fixating a particular word or phrase. Rayner et al. point out that visual information quickly degrades in quality as it extends beyond the fovea and parafovea. Thus, by decreasing fixations, a reader will process fewer words, thereby decreasing comprehension. Another more recent approach is to take advantage of smart devices that use apps to present text one word after another at fixation. This strategy eliminates altogether the “wasted time” devoted to eye movements. There is a rich body of work on presenting text sequentially in this manner (called rapid serial visual presentation), and there is indeed evidence that participants can pick up some information at extraordinarily fast presentation rates. The appeal of this approach is captivating (it can be easily experienced
{"title":"Speed Reading","authors":"D. Balota","doi":"10.1177/1529100615623268","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615623268","url":null,"abstract":"Compared to listening to a speaker, reading seems more effortful. Why? An obvious difference is that the structure of visual language forces the reader to acquire information in a parasitic manner, looking at patterns of straight and squiggly lines, making eye movements to recognize words, and mapping these onto more “natural” auditory language abilities. But are there ways of bypassing (or minimizing) the extra demands of processing visual language? Many would lead us to believe that the answer is yes. Consider the potential benefits of reading 5 times more quickly than you currently read, with no loss in comprehension. For the past five decades (beginning with Evelyn Wood’s speed-reading programs), there have been training programs that claim to dramatically increase the speed of reading, taking advantage of the massive power of the human brain to leave readers unencumbered by the laborious additional demands of converting print to the system used for spoken language. The target article in this issue has brought together a dream team of researchers who have studied reading and rapid processing of visual information to evaluate the potential efficacy of speed-reading programs. Rayner, Schotter, Masson, Potter, and Treiman argue that if one wants to evaluate such programs, it is critical to first understand the processes that are involved in reading. Thus, the authors provide an in-depth review of the extensive literature on reading, from basic aspects of writing systems to higher-level comprehension. They also review the available empirical evidence evaluating the efficacy of speedreading programs. The review is an outstanding resource for anyone who is interested in reading and speed reading. Rayner et al argue from this literature that speed-reading training programs are unlikely to pay off as advertised because of well-established empirical facts about reading. For example, one approach espoused by speed-reading advocates is to fixate on only a few words within each line of text, thereby decreasing the number of time-consuming fixations that most words receive during normal reading. The notion here is that readers can pick up considerable information in the periphery while fixating a particular word or phrase. Rayner et al. point out that visual information quickly degrades in quality as it extends beyond the fovea and parafovea. Thus, by decreasing fixations, a reader will process fewer words, thereby decreasing comprehension. Another more recent approach is to take advantage of smart devices that use apps to present text one word after another at fixation. This strategy eliminates altogether the “wasted time” devoted to eye movements. There is a rich body of work on presenting text sequentially in this manner (called rapid serial visual presentation), and there is indeed evidence that participants can pick up some information at extraordinarily fast presentation rates. The appeal of this approach is captivating (it can be easily experienced","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"17 1","pages":"1 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100615623268","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-05-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100615625998
Ross Henderson
Normally, the author and publisher would be credited here. However, the publisher has asked for the customary Creative Commons attribution to the original publisher, authors, title, and book URI to be removed. Additionally, per the publisher's request, their name has been removed in some passages. More information is available on this project's attribution page (http://2012books.lardbucket.org/attribution.html?utm_source=header).
{"title":"About the Authors","authors":"Ross Henderson","doi":"10.1177/1529100615625998","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615625998","url":null,"abstract":"Normally, the author and publisher would be credited here. However, the publisher has asked for the customary Creative Commons attribution to the original publisher, authors, title, and book URI to be removed. Additionally, per the publisher's request, their name has been removed in some passages. More information is available on this project's attribution page (http://2012books.lardbucket.org/attribution.html?utm_source=header).","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"17 1","pages":"iii - iv"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100615625998","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439530","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-01-14DOI: 10.1177/1529100615623267
K. Rayner, Elizabeth R Schotter, M. Masson, M. Potter, R. Treiman
The prospect of speed reading—reading at an increased speed without any loss of comprehension—has undeniable appeal. Speed reading has been an intriguing concept for decades, at least since Evelyn Wood introduced her Reading Dynamics training program in 1959. It has recently increased in popularity, with speed-reading apps and technologies being introduced for smartphones and digital devices. The current article reviews what the scientific community knows about the reading process—a great deal—and discusses the implications of the research findings for potential students of speed-reading training programs or purchasers of speed-reading apps. The research shows that there is a trade-off between speed and accuracy. It is unlikely that readers will be able to double or triple their reading speeds (e.g., from around 250 to 500–750 words per minute) while still being able to understand the text as well as if they read at normal speed. If a thorough understanding of the text is not the reader’s goal, then speed reading or skimming the text will allow the reader to get through it faster with moderate comprehension. The way to maintain high comprehension and get through text faster is to practice reading and to become a more skilled language user (e.g., through increased vocabulary). This is because language skill is at the heart of reading speed.
{"title":"So Much to Read, So Little Time","authors":"K. Rayner, Elizabeth R Schotter, M. Masson, M. Potter, R. Treiman","doi":"10.1177/1529100615623267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615623267","url":null,"abstract":"The prospect of speed reading—reading at an increased speed without any loss of comprehension—has undeniable appeal. Speed reading has been an intriguing concept for decades, at least since Evelyn Wood introduced her Reading Dynamics training program in 1959. It has recently increased in popularity, with speed-reading apps and technologies being introduced for smartphones and digital devices. The current article reviews what the scientific community knows about the reading process—a great deal—and discusses the implications of the research findings for potential students of speed-reading training programs or purchasers of speed-reading apps. The research shows that there is a trade-off between speed and accuracy. It is unlikely that readers will be able to double or triple their reading speeds (e.g., from around 250 to 500–750 words per minute) while still being able to understand the text as well as if they read at normal speed. If a thorough understanding of the text is not the reader’s goal, then speed reading or skimming the text will allow the reader to get through it faster with moderate comprehension. The way to maintain high comprehension and get through text faster is to practice reading and to become a more skilled language user (e.g., through increased vocabulary). This is because language skill is at the heart of reading speed.","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"17 1","pages":"34 - 4"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2016-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100615623267","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-12-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100615610575
P. Cook
Police legitimacy is all too timely a topic. As I am writing this commentary, instances of police use of lethal force against unarmed civilians are prominent. In Cincinnati, North Charleston, Cleveland, Staten Island, and elsewhere, video recordings have documented what appears to be unprovoked or at least unwarranted violence by a uniformed officer against someone stopped for a minor violation. The fact that the victims in these publicized encounters are minorities, and that the officers’ version of events is sometimes contradicted by the video evidence, suggests that such attacks may be quite common, as has long been asserted by the African American community. Starting with the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the “Black Lives Matter” campaign has provided a slogan for a growing perception that young black men are targeted by the police in an all-too-literal sense. In June, Gallup reported a drop of 5 percentage points in the fraction of the adult American public who have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the police, as compared to the previous poll on this topic in 2013 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/183704/confidence-policelowest-years.aspx). While the police still enjoy more trust than most public institutions, it appears that the publicity given to unwarranted police violence has undercut their legitimacy, at least for the time being. What are the implications of this loss? Tom Tyler, Phillip Goff, and Robert MacCoun argue that police legitimacy is an end in itself but also an important asset in gaining the cooperation and compliance of the public, both with police authority and with the law itself. As the authors suggest, these ideas are becoming well established. In fact, they are supported by a 2004 report of an expert panel convened by the National Research Council (NRC), for which Tyler was a consultant and source (Skogan & Frydl, 2004). The NRC panel contrasted legitimacy with lawfulness, noting that “by legitimacy we mean the judgments that ordinary citizens make about the rightfulness of police conduct and the organizations that employ and supervise them” (p. 291). By this definition, legitimacy is subjective but influenced by the actions of police: “When they adhere to the rules, maintain their neutrality, and treat people with dignity and respect, police legitimacy increases” (p. 292). The NRC panel went on to observe that legitimacy is important not only in influencing the behavior of individual citizens but also in the political process: “If citizens trust the police, they will be willing to invest more authority in the police and spend more taxpayer dollars on them” (p. 291). Thus, the NRC panel’s analysis is the basis for a set of predictions about the consequences of the loss in public trust, such as has occurred over the last year or two:
{"title":"Will the Current Crisis in Police Legitimacy Increase Crime? Research Offers a Way Forward","authors":"P. Cook","doi":"10.1177/1529100615610575","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615610575","url":null,"abstract":"Police legitimacy is all too timely a topic. As I am writing this commentary, instances of police use of lethal force against unarmed civilians are prominent. In Cincinnati, North Charleston, Cleveland, Staten Island, and elsewhere, video recordings have documented what appears to be unprovoked or at least unwarranted violence by a uniformed officer against someone stopped for a minor violation. The fact that the victims in these publicized encounters are minorities, and that the officers’ version of events is sometimes contradicted by the video evidence, suggests that such attacks may be quite common, as has long been asserted by the African American community. Starting with the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the “Black Lives Matter” campaign has provided a slogan for a growing perception that young black men are targeted by the police in an all-too-literal sense. In June, Gallup reported a drop of 5 percentage points in the fraction of the adult American public who have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the police, as compared to the previous poll on this topic in 2013 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/183704/confidence-policelowest-years.aspx). While the police still enjoy more trust than most public institutions, it appears that the publicity given to unwarranted police violence has undercut their legitimacy, at least for the time being. What are the implications of this loss? Tom Tyler, Phillip Goff, and Robert MacCoun argue that police legitimacy is an end in itself but also an important asset in gaining the cooperation and compliance of the public, both with police authority and with the law itself. As the authors suggest, these ideas are becoming well established. In fact, they are supported by a 2004 report of an expert panel convened by the National Research Council (NRC), for which Tyler was a consultant and source (Skogan & Frydl, 2004). The NRC panel contrasted legitimacy with lawfulness, noting that “by legitimacy we mean the judgments that ordinary citizens make about the rightfulness of police conduct and the organizations that employ and supervise them” (p. 291). By this definition, legitimacy is subjective but influenced by the actions of police: “When they adhere to the rules, maintain their neutrality, and treat people with dignity and respect, police legitimacy increases” (p. 292). The NRC panel went on to observe that legitimacy is important not only in influencing the behavior of individual citizens but also in the political process: “If citizens trust the police, they will be willing to invest more authority in the police and spend more taxpayer dollars on them” (p. 291). Thus, the NRC panel’s analysis is the basis for a set of predictions about the consequences of the loss in public trust, such as has occurred over the last year or two:","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"16 1","pages":"71 - 74"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100615610575","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-12-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100615621094
About Authors
Mr. Peck is the managing partner of the Chicago law firm Peck Ritchey, LLC. He is past president of the 22,000-lawyer Chicago Bar Association. His clients include families, hospitals, banks, the State of Illinois, County of Cook, and City of Chicago. Mr. Peck was retained by the City of Chicago Department of Aging to rewrite the State of Illinois Elder Abuse and Neglect Act, and co-authored the book Alzheimer’s and the Law, published by the American Bar Association. Mr. Peck has also written articles for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Chicago Bar Association Record, Illinois State Bar Journal, and various other Bar Association journals and newspapers. He frequently teaches attorneys and healthcare professionals across the country.
他是芝加哥律师事务所Peck Ritchey, LLC的管理合伙人。他是拥有22,000名律师的芝加哥律师协会(Chicago Bar Association)的前任主席。他的客户包括家庭、医院、银行、伊利诺伊州、库克县和芝加哥市。他曾受聘于芝加哥市老龄部(City of Chicago Department of Aging)，负责重写伊利诺伊州虐待和忽视老年人法案(State of Illinois Abuse and Neglect Act)，并与人合著了《阿尔茨海默病与法律》(Alzheimer’s and the Law)一书，该书由美国律师协会(American Bar Association)出版。他还为《芝加哥每日法律公报》、《芝加哥律师协会记录》、《伊利诺伊州律师杂志》和其他各种律师协会期刊和报纸撰写文章。他经常在全国各地教授律师和医疗保健专业人员。
{"title":"About the Authors","authors":"About Authors","doi":"10.1177/1529100615621094","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615621094","url":null,"abstract":"Mr. Peck is the managing partner of the Chicago law firm Peck Ritchey, LLC. He is past president of the 22,000-lawyer Chicago Bar Association. His clients include families, hospitals, banks, the State of Illinois, County of Cook, and City of Chicago. Mr. Peck was retained by the City of Chicago Department of Aging to rewrite the State of Illinois Elder Abuse and Neglect Act, and co-authored the book Alzheimer’s and the Law, published by the American Bar Association. Mr. Peck has also written articles for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Chicago Bar Association Record, Illinois State Bar Journal, and various other Bar Association journals and newspapers. He frequently teaches attorneys and healthcare professionals across the country.","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"16 1","pages":"70 - 70"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100615621094","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-12-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100615617791
T. Tyler, P. A. Goff, R. MacCoun
The May 2015 release of the report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing highlighted a fundamental change in the issues dominating discussions about policing in America. That change has moved discussions away from a focus on what is legal or effective in crime control and toward a concern for how the actions of the police influence public trust and confidence in the police. This shift in discourse has been motivated by two factors—first, the recognition by public officials that increases in the professionalism of the police and dramatic declines in the rate of crime have not led to increases in police legitimacy, and second, greater awareness of the limits of the dominant coercive model of policing and of the benefits of an alternative and more consensual model based on public trust and confidence in the police and legal system. Psychological research has played an important role in legitimating this change in the way policymakers think about policing by demonstrating that perceived legitimacy shapes a set of law-related behaviors as well as or better than concerns about the risk of punishment. Those behaviors include compliance with the law and cooperation with legal authorities. These findings demonstrate that legal authorities gain by a focus on legitimacy. Psychological research has further contributed by articulating and demonstrating empirical support for a central role of procedural justice in shaping legitimacy, providing legal authorities with a clear road map of strategies for creating and maintaining public trust. Given evidence of the benefits of legitimacy and a set of guidelines concerning its antecedents, policymakers have increasingly focused on the question of public trust when considering issues in policing. The acceptance of a legitimacy-based consensual model of police authority building on theories and research studies originating within psychology illustrates how psychology can contribute to the development of evidence-based policies in the field of criminal law.
{"title":"The Impact of Psychological Science on Policing in the United States","authors":"T. Tyler, P. A. Goff, R. MacCoun","doi":"10.1177/1529100615617791","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615617791","url":null,"abstract":"The May 2015 release of the report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing highlighted a fundamental change in the issues dominating discussions about policing in America. That change has moved discussions away from a focus on what is legal or effective in crime control and toward a concern for how the actions of the police influence public trust and confidence in the police. This shift in discourse has been motivated by two factors—first, the recognition by public officials that increases in the professionalism of the police and dramatic declines in the rate of crime have not led to increases in police legitimacy, and second, greater awareness of the limits of the dominant coercive model of policing and of the benefits of an alternative and more consensual model based on public trust and confidence in the police and legal system. Psychological research has played an important role in legitimating this change in the way policymakers think about policing by demonstrating that perceived legitimacy shapes a set of law-related behaviors as well as or better than concerns about the risk of punishment. Those behaviors include compliance with the law and cooperation with legal authorities. These findings demonstrate that legal authorities gain by a focus on legitimacy. Psychological research has further contributed by articulating and demonstrating empirical support for a central role of procedural justice in shaping legitimacy, providing legal authorities with a clear road map of strategies for creating and maintaining public trust. Given evidence of the benefits of legitimacy and a set of guidelines concerning its antecedents, policymakers have increasingly focused on the question of public trust when considering issues in policing. The acceptance of a legitimacy-based consensual model of police authority building on theories and research studies originating within psychology illustrates how psychology can contribute to the development of evidence-based policies in the field of criminal law.","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":"16 1","pages":"109 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100615617791","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"65439408","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：