Pub Date : 2024-11-01Epub Date: 2024-10-17DOI: 10.1037/rev0000514
Klaus Oberauer
Attention control has been proposed as an ability construct that explains individual differences in fluid intelligence. Evaluating this hypothesis is complicated by a lack of clarity in the definition of attention control. Here, I propose a definition of attention control, based on experimental research and computational models of what guides attention, and how cognitive processes are controlled. Attention is the selection of mental representations for prioritized processing, and the ability to control attention is the ability to prioritize those representations that are relevant for the person's current goal, thereby enabling them to think and act in accordance with their intentions. This definition can be used to identify appropriate and less appropriate ways to measure individual differences in attention control. An analysis of various approaches to measurement reveals that the current practice of measuring attention control leaves room for improvement. Aligning our psychometric measurements with a clear, theoretically grounded concept of attention control can lead to more valid measures of that construct. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
有人提出,注意力控制是一种能力结构,可以解释流体智力的个体差异。由于注意力控制的定义不够清晰,评估这一假设变得复杂起来。在此,我根据实验研究和计算模型,提出了注意力控制的定义,即什么会引导注意力,以及认知过程是如何被控制的。注意是选择优先处理的心理表征,而控制注意的能力是优先处理与人当前目标相关的表征的能力,从而使人能够按照自己的意图思考和行动。这一定义可用于确定衡量注意力控制个体差异的合适和不太合适的方法。对各种测量方法的分析表明,目前的注意力控制测量方法还有改进的余地。将我们的心理测量与一个明确的、有理论基础的注意控制概念相统一,可以使我们对该结构的测量更加有效。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
{"title":"The meaning of attention control.","authors":"Klaus Oberauer","doi":"10.1037/rev0000514","DOIUrl":"10.1037/rev0000514","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Attention control has been proposed as an ability construct that explains individual differences in fluid intelligence. Evaluating this hypothesis is complicated by a lack of clarity in the definition of attention control. Here, I propose a definition of attention control, based on experimental research and computational models of what guides attention, and how cognitive processes are controlled. Attention is the selection of mental representations for prioritized processing, and the ability to control attention is the ability to prioritize those representations that are relevant for the person's current goal, thereby enabling them to think and act in accordance with their intentions. This definition can be used to identify appropriate and less appropriate ways to measure individual differences in attention control. An analysis of various approaches to measurement reveals that the current practice of measuring attention control leaves room for improvement. Aligning our psychometric measurements with a clear, theoretically grounded concept of attention control can lead to more valid measures of that construct. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":" ","pages":"1509-1526"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142473482","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 : 2024-11-01Epub Date: 2023-12-14DOI: 10.1037/rev0000462
Andrea Bender, Larissa Mendoza Straffon, John B Gatewood, Sieghard Beller
Questions on early sapiens cognition, the cognitive abilities of our ancestors, are intriguing but notoriously hard to tackle. Leaving no hard traces in the archeological record, these abilities need to be inferred from indirect evidence, informed by our understanding of present-day cognition. Most of such attempts acknowledge the role that culture, as a faculty, has played for human evolution, but they underrate or even disregard the role of distinct cultural traditions and the ensuing diversity, both in present-day humans and as a dimension of past cognition. We argue that culture has exerted a profound impact on human cognition from the start in a dual manner: It scaffolds cognition through both development and evolution, and it thereby continually diversifies the form and content of human thinking. To unveil early sapiens cognition and retrace its evolutionary trajectories, this cognitive diversity must be considered. We present two strategies to achieve this: large-scale extrapolation and phylogenetic comparison. The former aims at filtering out diversity to determine what is basic and universal versus culturally shaped (illustrated for theory of mind abilities). The latter capitalizes on the diversity to reconstruct evolutionary trajectories (illustrated for religious beliefs). The two methods, in combination, advance our understanding of the cognitive abilities of our early sapiens ancestors and of how these abilities emerged and evolved. To conclude, we discuss the implications of this approach for our insights into early cognition itself and its scientific investigation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
关于早期智人的认知,也就是我们祖先的认知能力,这些问题很有意思,但却很难解决。考古记录中没有留下任何确凿的痕迹,这些能力需要我们根据对当今认知的理解,从间接证据中推断出来。大多数此类尝试都承认文化作为一种能力对人类进化所起的作用,但它们低估甚至无视独特文化传统的作用以及随之而来的多样性,无论是在当今人类身上还是作为过去认知的一个维度。我们认为,文化从一开始就以双重方式对人类认知产生了深远影响:它通过发展和进化为认知提供支架,从而不断丰富人类思维的形式和内容。要揭示早期智人的认知并追溯其进化轨迹,就必须考虑这种认知的多样性。为此,我们提出了两种策略:大规模外推法和系统发育比较法。前者旨在筛选出多样性,以确定哪些是基本的、普遍的,哪些是文化塑造的(以心智理论能力为例)。后者利用多样性重建进化轨迹(以宗教信仰为例)。这两种方法结合起来,有助于我们了解早期智人祖先的认知能力,以及这些能力是如何出现和进化的。最后,我们讨论了这种方法对我们了解早期认知本身及其科学研究的意义。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)。
{"title":"The dual role of culture for reconstructing early sapiens cognition.","authors":"Andrea Bender, Larissa Mendoza Straffon, John B Gatewood, Sieghard Beller","doi":"10.1037/rev0000462","DOIUrl":"10.1037/rev0000462","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Questions on early sapiens cognition, the cognitive abilities of our ancestors, are intriguing but notoriously hard to tackle. Leaving no hard traces in the archeological record, these abilities need to be inferred from indirect evidence, informed by our understanding of present-day cognition. Most of such attempts acknowledge the role that culture, as a faculty, has played for human evolution, but they underrate or even disregard the role of distinct cultural traditions and the ensuing diversity, both in present-day humans and as a dimension of past cognition. We argue that culture has exerted a profound impact on human cognition from the start in a dual manner: It scaffolds cognition through both development and evolution, and it thereby continually diversifies the form and content of human thinking. To unveil early sapiens cognition and retrace its evolutionary trajectories, this cognitive diversity must be considered. We present two strategies to achieve this: large-scale extrapolation and phylogenetic comparison. The former aims at filtering out diversity to determine what is basic and universal versus culturally shaped (illustrated for theory of mind abilities). The latter capitalizes on the diversity to reconstruct evolutionary trajectories (illustrated for religious beliefs). The two methods, in combination, advance our understanding of the cognitive abilities of our early sapiens ancestors and of how these abilities emerged and evolved. To conclude, we discuss the implications of this approach for our insights into early cognition itself and its scientific investigation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":" ","pages":"1411-1434"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138807774","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 : 2024-11-01Epub Date: 2024-09-19DOI: 10.1037/rev0000502
Rob Ranyard, Henry Montgomery, Ashley Luckman, Emmanouil Konstantinidis
Violations of transitive preference can be accounted for by both the noncompensatory lexicographic semiorder heuristic and the compensatory additive difference model. However, the two have not been directly compared. Here, we fully develop a simplified additive difference (SAD) model, which includes a graphical analysis of precisely which parameter values are consistent with adherence to, or violation of, transitive preference, as specified by weak stochastic transitivity (WST) and triangle inequalities (TI). The model is compatible with compensatory, within-dimension evaluation. We also develop a stochastic difference threshold model that also predicts intransitive preferences and encompasses a stochastic lexicographic semiorder model. We apply frequentist methods to compare the goodness of fit of both of these models to Tversky's (1969) data and four replications and Bayes factor methods to determine the strength of evidence for each model. We find that the two methods of analysis converge and that, for two thirds of the participants for whom predictions can be made, one of these models predicting violations of WST has a good and the best fit and has strong Bayesian support relative to an encompassing model. Furthermore, for about 20% of all participants, the SAD model (consistent with violations of WST or TI) is significantly better-fitting and has stronger Bayesian support than the stochastic difference threshold model. Finally, Bayes factor analysis finds strong evidence against transitive models for most participants for whom the SAD model consistent with violation of WST or TI is strongly supported. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
非补偿性的词法半阶启发式和补偿性的加法差分模型都可以解释违反传递偏好的情况。但是,这两种方法还没有进行过直接比较。在这里,我们完全建立了一个简化的加法差分(SAD)模型,其中包括对哪些参数值符合或违反弱随机传递性(WST)和三角形不等式(TI)规定的传递偏好的精确图形分析。该模型与补偿性、维度内评价兼容。我们还建立了一个随机差异阈值模型,它也能预测非传递性偏好,并包含一个随机词典半阶梯模型。我们采用频繁主义方法比较这两个模型与 Tversky(1969)的数据和四次复制的拟合程度,并采用贝叶斯因子方法确定每个模型的证据强度。我们发现,这两种分析方法趋于一致,而且对于三分之二可以进行预测的参与者来说,其中一个预测违反 WST 的模型具有良好和最佳的拟合度,并且相对于包含模型来说,具有很强的贝叶斯支持。此外,对于约 20%的参与者来说,SAD 模型(与违反 WST 或 TI 一致)的拟合效果明显优于随机差异阈值模型,并具有更强的贝叶斯支持。最后,贝叶斯因子分析发现,对于大多数参与者来说,与违反 WST 或 TI 相一致的 SAD 模型得到了强有力的支持,这有力地证明了反转模型的存在。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
{"title":"Violations of transitive preference: A comparison of compensatory and noncompensatory accounts.","authors":"Rob Ranyard, Henry Montgomery, Ashley Luckman, Emmanouil Konstantinidis","doi":"10.1037/rev0000502","DOIUrl":"10.1037/rev0000502","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Violations of transitive preference can be accounted for by both the noncompensatory lexicographic semiorder heuristic and the compensatory additive difference model. However, the two have not been directly compared. Here, we fully develop a simplified additive difference (SAD) model, which includes a graphical analysis of precisely which parameter values are consistent with adherence to, or violation of, transitive preference, as specified by weak stochastic transitivity (WST) and triangle inequalities (TI). The model is compatible with compensatory, within-dimension evaluation. We also develop a stochastic difference threshold model that also predicts intransitive preferences and encompasses a stochastic lexicographic semiorder model. We apply frequentist methods to compare the goodness of fit of both of these models to Tversky's (1969) data and four replications and Bayes factor methods to determine the strength of evidence for each model. We find that the two methods of analysis converge and that, for two thirds of the participants for whom predictions can be made, one of these models predicting violations of WST has a good and the best fit and has strong Bayesian support relative to an encompassing model. Furthermore, for about 20% of all participants, the SAD model (consistent with violations of WST or TI) is significantly better-fitting and has stronger Bayesian support than the stochastic difference threshold model. Finally, Bayes factor analysis finds strong evidence against transitive models for most participants for whom the SAD model consistent with violation of WST or TI is strongly supported. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":" ","pages":"1392-1410"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142294116","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 : 2024-11-01Epub Date: 2023-09-21DOI: 10.1037/rev0000446
Sudeep Bhatia
Induction-the ability to generalize from existing knowledge-is the cornerstone of intelligence. Cognitive models of human induction are largely limited to toy problems and cannot make quantitative predictions for the thousands of different induction arguments that have been studied by researchers, or to the countless induction arguments that could be encountered in everyday life. Leading large language models (LLMs) go beyond toy problems but fail to mimic observed patterns of human induction. In this article, we combine rich knowledge representations obtained from LLMs with theories of human inductive reasoning developed by cognitive psychologists. We show that this integrative approach can capture several benchmark empirical findings on human induction and generate human-like responses to natural language arguments with thousands of common categories and properties. These findings shed light on the cognitive mechanisms at play in human induction and show how existing theories in psychology and cognitive science can be integrated with new methods in artificial intelligence, to successfully model high-level human cognition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Inductive reasoning in minds and machines.","authors":"Sudeep Bhatia","doi":"10.1037/rev0000446","DOIUrl":"10.1037/rev0000446","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Induction-the ability to generalize from existing knowledge-is the cornerstone of intelligence. Cognitive models of human induction are largely limited to toy problems and cannot make quantitative predictions for the thousands of different induction arguments that have been studied by researchers, or to the countless induction arguments that could be encountered in everyday life. Leading large language models (LLMs) go beyond toy problems but fail to mimic observed patterns of human induction. In this article, we combine rich knowledge representations obtained from LLMs with theories of human inductive reasoning developed by cognitive psychologists. We show that this integrative approach can capture several benchmark empirical findings on human induction and generate human-like responses to natural language arguments with thousands of common categories and properties. These findings shed light on the cognitive mechanisms at play in human induction and show how existing theories in psychology and cognitive science can be integrated with new methods in artificial intelligence, to successfully model high-level human cognition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":" ","pages":"1373-1391"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41165565","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}
Donald J Robinaugh, Jonas M B Haslbeck, Lourens J Waldorp, Jolanda J Kossakowski, Eiko I Fried, Alexander J Millner, Richard J McNally, Oisín Ryan, Jill de Ron, Han L J van der Maas, Egbert H van Nes, Marten Scheffer, Kenneth S Kendler, Denny Borsboom
The network theory of psychopathology posits that mental disorders are systems of mutually reinforcing symptoms. This framework has proven highly generative but does not specify precisely how any specific mental disorder operates as such a system. Cognitive behavioral theories of mental disorders provide considerable insight into how these systems may operate. However, the development of cognitive behavioral theories has itself been stagnant in recent years. In this article, we advance both theoretical frameworks by developing a network theory of panic disorder rooted in cognitive behavioral theory and formalized as a computational model. We use this computational model to evaluate the theory's ability to explain five fundamental panic disorder-related phenomena. Our results demonstrate that the network theory of panic disorder can explain core panic disorder phenomena. In addition, by formalizing this theory as a computational model and using the model to evaluate the theory's implications, we reveal gaps in the empirical literature and shortcomings in theories of panic disorder. We use these limitations to develop a novel, theory-driven agenda for panic disorder research. This agenda departs from current research practices and places its focus on (a) addressing areas in need of more rigorous descriptive research, (b) investigating novel phenomena predicted by the computational model, and (c) ongoing collaborative development of formal theories of panic disorder, with explanation as a central criterion for theory evaluation. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of this work for research investigating mental disorders as complex systems. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
精神病理学的网络理论认为,精神障碍是症状相互强化的系统。这一框架已被证明是高度生成的,但并没有精确地说明任何特定的精神障碍是如何作为这样一个系统运作的。精神障碍的认知行为理论为这些系统如何运作提供了相当深入的见解。然而,近年来认知行为理论本身的发展却停滞不前。在这篇文章中,我们通过发展一个基于认知行为理论并形式化为计算模型的恐慌症网络理论来推进这两个理论框架。我们使用这个计算模型来评估该理论解释五种与恐慌症相关的基本现象的能力。研究结果表明,惊恐障碍的网络理论可以解释惊恐障碍的核心现象。此外,通过将该理论形式化为计算模型并使用该模型评估该理论的含义,我们揭示了经验文献中的空白和恐慌障碍理论的缺陷。我们利用这些限制为恐慌症研究制定了一个新颖的、理论驱动的议程。该议程偏离了当前的研究实践,并将其重点放在(a)解决需要更严格的描述性研究的领域,(b)调查计算模型预测的新现象,以及(c)正在进行的恐慌障碍正式理论的合作发展,并将解释作为理论评估的中心标准。最后,我们讨论了这项工作对研究精神障碍作为复杂系统的影响。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,版权所有)。
{"title":"Advancing the network theory of mental disorders: A computational model of panic disorder.","authors":"Donald J Robinaugh, Jonas M B Haslbeck, Lourens J Waldorp, Jolanda J Kossakowski, Eiko I Fried, Alexander J Millner, Richard J McNally, Oisín Ryan, Jill de Ron, Han L J van der Maas, Egbert H van Nes, Marten Scheffer, Kenneth S Kendler, Denny Borsboom","doi":"10.1037/rev0000515","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000515","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The network theory of psychopathology posits that mental disorders are systems of mutually reinforcing symptoms. This framework has proven highly generative but does not specify precisely how any specific mental disorder operates as such a system. Cognitive behavioral theories of mental disorders provide considerable insight into how these systems may operate. However, the development of cognitive behavioral theories has itself been stagnant in recent years. In this article, we advance both theoretical frameworks by developing a network theory of panic disorder rooted in cognitive behavioral theory and formalized as a computational model. We use this computational model to evaluate the theory's ability to explain five fundamental panic disorder-related phenomena. Our results demonstrate that the network theory of panic disorder can explain core panic disorder phenomena. In addition, by formalizing this theory as a computational model and using the model to evaluate the theory's implications, we reveal gaps in the empirical literature and shortcomings in theories of panic disorder. We use these limitations to develop a novel, theory-driven agenda for panic disorder research. This agenda departs from current research practices and places its focus on (a) addressing areas in need of more rigorous descriptive research, (b) investigating novel phenomena predicted by the computational model, and (c) ongoing collaborative development of formal theories of panic disorder, with explanation as a central criterion for theory evaluation. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of this work for research investigating mental disorders as complex systems. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":"131 6","pages":"1482-1508"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142882590","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 : 2024-11-01Epub Date: 2024-07-25DOI: 10.1037/rev0000486
Gregory E Cox
Memory theories distinguish between item and associative information, which are engaged by different tasks: item recognition uses item information to decide whether an event occurred in a particular context; associative recognition uses associative information to decide whether two events occurred together. Associative recognition is slower and less accurate than item recognition, suggesting that item and associative information may be represented in different forms and retrieved using different processes. Instead, I show how a dynamic model (Cox & Criss, 2020; Cox & Shiffrin, 2017) accounts for accuracy and response time distributions in both item and associative recognition with the same set of representations and processes. Item and associative information are both represented as vectors of features. Item and associative recognition both depend on comparing traces in memory with probes of memory in which item and associative features gradually accumulate. Associative features are slower to accumulate, but largely because they emerge from conjunctions of already-accumulated item features. I apply the model to data from 453 participants, each of whom performed an item and performed associative recognition following identical study conditions (Cox et al., 2018). Comparisons among restricted versions of the model show that its account of associative feature formation, coupled with limits on the rate at which features accumulate from multiple items, explains how and why the dynamics of associative recognition differ from those of item recognition even while both tasks rely on the same underlying representations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Dynamic retrieval of events and associations from memory: An integrated account of item and associative recognition.","authors":"Gregory E Cox","doi":"10.1037/rev0000486","DOIUrl":"10.1037/rev0000486","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Memory theories distinguish between item and associative information, which are engaged by different tasks: item recognition uses item information to decide whether an event occurred in a particular context; associative recognition uses associative information to decide whether two events occurred together. Associative recognition is slower and less accurate than item recognition, suggesting that item and associative information may be represented in different forms and retrieved using different processes. Instead, I show how a dynamic model (Cox & Criss, 2020; Cox & Shiffrin, 2017) accounts for accuracy and response time distributions in both item and associative recognition with the same set of representations and processes. Item and associative information are both represented as vectors of features. Item and associative recognition both depend on comparing traces in memory with probes of memory in which item and associative features gradually accumulate. Associative features are slower to accumulate, but largely because they emerge from conjunctions of already-accumulated item features. I apply the model to data from 453 participants, each of whom performed an item and performed associative recognition following identical study conditions (Cox et al., 2018). Comparisons among restricted versions of the model show that its account of associative feature formation, coupled with limits on the rate at which features accumulate from multiple items, explains how and why the dynamics of associative recognition differ from those of item recognition even while both tasks rely on the same underlying representations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":" ","pages":"1297-1336"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141760645","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 : 2024-11-01Epub Date: 2024-09-19DOI: 10.1037/rev0000490
Ed O'Brien
I propose a flexible threshold theory of change perception in self and social judgment. Traditionally, change perception is viewed as a basic cognitive process entailing the act of discriminating informational differences. This article takes a more dynamic view of change perception, highlighting people's motivations in interpreting those differences. Specifically, I propose people's change perceptions depend not only on the salience and quality of the evidence for change but they also depend on the adaptation implications of the change, as people are sensitive to whether their prompted response would be worth it. Variables that exacerbate perceived adaptation implications should thus lead people to contract their change perception thresholds (people should become less open to concluding things have changed and so less likely to act), while variables that alleviate perceived adaptation implications should thus lead people to expand their change perception thresholds (people should become more open to concluding things have changed and so more likely to act), all else equal in the evidence. Moreover, these effects should emerge for perceiving declines and improvements alike so long as change bears on adaptation implications. I review support for these proposals and use the theory to generate novel predictions, contributions, and applications. The theory can explain anew why people respond (or fail to respond) to changing climates and economies, worsening personal health, growing social progress, and many other self and social phenomena. Change perception is more than an act of discriminating differences-it also entails people's threshold judgments of whether and how these differences matter. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
我提出了一种关于自我和社会判断中变化感知的灵活阈值理论。传统上,变化感知被视为一种基本的认知过程,包含对信息差异的辨别行为。本文从更动态的角度来看待变化感知,强调人们在解释这些差异时的动机。具体来说,我认为人们的变化感知不仅取决于变化证据的显著性和质量,而且还取决于变化的适应影响,因为人们对自己的提示反应是否值得很敏感。因此,在其他证据相同的情况下,加剧所感知的适应影响的变量应导致人们收缩其变化感知阈值(人们应更不愿意得出事情已经发生变化的结论,因此更不可能采取行动),而减轻所感知的适应影响的变量应导致人们扩大其变化感知阈值(人们应更愿意得出事情已经发生变化的结论,因此更可能采取行动)。此外,只要变化对适应有影响,这些效应就会出现在对下降和改善的感知上。我回顾了对这些建议的支持,并利用该理论提出了新的预测、贡献和应用。该理论可以重新解释为什么人们会对不断变化的气候和经济、不断恶化的个人健康、不断增长的社会进步以及许多其他自我和社会现象做出反应(或不做出反应)。变化感知不仅仅是一种辨别差异的行为--它还包括人们对这些差异是否重要以及如何重要的阈值判断。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
{"title":"A flexible threshold theory of change perception in self, others, and the world.","authors":"Ed O'Brien","doi":"10.1037/rev0000490","DOIUrl":"10.1037/rev0000490","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>I propose a flexible threshold theory of change perception in self and social judgment. Traditionally, change perception is viewed as a basic cognitive process entailing the act of discriminating informational differences. This article takes a more dynamic view of change perception, highlighting people's motivations in interpreting those differences. Specifically, I propose people's change perceptions depend not only on the salience and quality of the evidence for change but they also depend on the adaptation implications of the change, as people are sensitive to whether their prompted response would be worth it. Variables that exacerbate perceived adaptation implications should thus lead people to contract their change perception thresholds (people should become less open to concluding things have changed and so less likely to act), while variables that alleviate perceived adaptation implications should thus lead people to expand their change perception thresholds (people should become more open to concluding things have changed and so more likely to act), all else equal in the evidence. Moreover, these effects should emerge for perceiving declines and improvements alike so long as change bears on adaptation implications. I review support for these proposals and use the theory to generate novel predictions, contributions, and applications. The theory can explain anew why people respond (or fail to respond) to changing climates and economies, worsening personal health, growing social progress, and many other self and social phenomena. Change perception is more than an act of discriminating differences-it also entails people's threshold judgments of whether and how these differences matter. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":" ","pages":"1435-1458"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142294104","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 : 2024-11-01Epub Date: 2024-06-06DOI: 10.1037/rev0000492
Rizqy Amelia Zein, Marlene Sophie Altenmüller, Mario Gollwitzer
Science and religion are influential social forces, and their interplay has been subject to many public and scholarly debates. The present article addresses how people mentally conceptualize the relationship between science and religion and how these conceptualizations can be systematized. To that end, we provide a comprehensive, integrative review of the pertinent literature. Moreover, we discuss how cognitive (in particular, epistemic beliefs) and motivational factors (in particular, epistemic needs, identity, and moral beliefs), as well as personality and contextual factors (e.g., rearing practices and cross-cultural exposure), are related to these mental conceptualizations. And finally, we provide a flowchart detailing the psychological processes leading to these mental conceptualizations. A comprehensive understanding of how individuals perceive the science-religion relationship is interesting in and of itself and practically relevant for managing societal challenges, such as science denial. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
科学和宗教是具有影响力的社会力量,它们之间的相互作用一直是公众和学术界争论的焦点。本文探讨了人们如何在心理上将科学与宗教之间的关系概念化,以及如何将这些概念系统化。为此,我们对相关文献进行了全面、综合的回顾。此外,我们还讨论了认知因素(尤其是认识论信念)和动机因素(尤其是认识论需求、身份认同和道德信念),以及人格和环境因素(如抚养实践和跨文化接触)与这些心理概念化之间的关系。最后,我们提供了一个流程图,详细说明了导致这些心理概念化的心理过程。全面了解个人如何看待科学与宗教的关系本身就很有趣,而且对于应对科学否定等社会挑战也具有实际意义。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
{"title":"Longtime nemeses or cordial allies? How individuals mentally relate science and religion.","authors":"Rizqy Amelia Zein, Marlene Sophie Altenmüller, Mario Gollwitzer","doi":"10.1037/rev0000492","DOIUrl":"10.1037/rev0000492","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Science and religion are influential social forces, and their interplay has been subject to many public and scholarly debates. The present article addresses how people mentally conceptualize the relationship between science and religion and how these conceptualizations can be systematized. To that end, we provide a comprehensive, integrative review of the pertinent literature. Moreover, we discuss how cognitive (in particular, epistemic beliefs) and motivational factors (in particular, epistemic needs, identity, and moral beliefs), as well as personality and contextual factors (e.g., rearing practices and cross-cultural exposure), are related to these mental conceptualizations. And finally, we provide a flowchart detailing the psychological processes leading to these mental conceptualizations. A comprehensive understanding of how individuals perceive the science-religion relationship is interesting in and of itself and practically relevant for managing societal challenges, such as science denial. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":" ","pages":"1459-1481"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141261228","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 : 2024-11-01Epub Date: 2024-07-25DOI: 10.1037/rev0000488
James Antony, Xiaonan L Liu, Yicong Zheng, Charan Ranganath, Randall C O'Reilly
Some neural representations gradually change across multiple timescales. Here we argue that modeling this "drift" could help explain the spacing effect (the long-term benefit of distributed learning), whereby differences between stored and current temporal context activity patterns produce greater error-driven learning. We trained a neurobiologically realistic model of the entorhinal cortex and hippocampus to learn paired associates alongside temporal context vectors that drifted between learning episodes and/or before final retention intervals. In line with spacing effects, greater drift led to better model recall after longer retention intervals. Dissecting model mechanisms revealed that greater drift increased error-driven learning, strengthened weights in slower drifting temporal context neurons (temporal abstraction), and improved direct cue-target associations (decontextualization). Intriguingly, these results suggest that decontextualization-generally ascribed only to the neocortex-can occur within the hippocampus itself. Altogether, our findings provide a mechanistic formalization for established learning concepts such as spacing effects and errors during learning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
有些神经表征会在多个时间尺度上逐渐发生变化。在这里,我们认为对这种 "漂移 "进行建模有助于解释间距效应(分布式学习的长期益处),即存储的和当前的时间背景活动模式之间的差异会产生更大的错误驱动学习。我们训练了一个符合神经生物学现实的内侧皮层和海马模型,让它与在学习发作之间和/或最终保留间隔之前漂移的时间上下文向量一起学习配对联想。与间距效应一致的是,漂移越大,保留间隔越长,模型的回忆效果越好。对模型机制的剖析显示,更大的漂移增加了错误驱动的学习,加强了漂移较慢的时空语境神经元的权重(时空抽象),并改善了线索与目标的直接关联(去语境化)。耐人寻味的是,这些结果表明,通常被认为只发生在新皮层的去语境化现象也可能发生在海马本身。总之,我们的研究结果为学习过程中的间距效应和错误等既定学习概念提供了机制上的形式化。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
{"title":"Memory out of context: Spacing effects and decontextualization in a computational model of the medial temporal lobe.","authors":"James Antony, Xiaonan L Liu, Yicong Zheng, Charan Ranganath, Randall C O'Reilly","doi":"10.1037/rev0000488","DOIUrl":"10.1037/rev0000488","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Some neural representations gradually change across multiple timescales. Here we argue that modeling this \"drift\" could help explain the spacing effect (the long-term benefit of distributed learning), whereby differences between stored and current temporal context activity patterns produce greater error-driven learning. We trained a neurobiologically realistic model of the entorhinal cortex and hippocampus to learn paired associates alongside temporal context vectors that drifted between learning episodes and/or before final retention intervals. In line with spacing effects, greater drift led to better model recall after longer retention intervals. Dissecting model mechanisms revealed that greater drift increased error-driven learning, strengthened weights in slower drifting temporal context neurons (temporal abstraction), and improved direct cue-target associations (decontextualization). Intriguingly, these results suggest that decontextualization-generally ascribed only to the neocortex-can occur within the hippocampus itself. Altogether, our findings provide a mechanistic formalization for established learning concepts such as spacing effects and errors during learning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":" ","pages":"1337-1372"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141760646","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}
Dominant theoretical accounts of interpersonal synchrony, the temporal coordination of biobehavioral processes between several individuals, have employed a linear approach, generally considering synchrony as a positive state, and utilizing aggregate scores. However, synchrony is known to take on a dynamical form with continuous shifts in its timeline. Acting as one continuously, is not always the optimal state, due to an intrinsic tension between individualistic and synergistic forms of action that exist in many social situations. We propose an alternative theory of flexible multimodal synchrony which highlights context as a key component that defines "pulls" toward synchrony and "pulls" toward segregation inherent to the social situation. Traitlike individual differences and relationship variables then sensitize individuals to these contextual "pulls." In this manner, context, individual differences, and relationship variables provide the backdrop to the emergence of flexible and dynamical synchrony patterns, which we consider adaptive, in several modalities-behavioral, physiological, and neural. We point to three consequences of synchrony patterns: social-, task, and self-oriented. We discuss multimodal associations that arise in different contexts considering the theory and delineate hypotheses that emanate from the theory. We then provide two empirical proofs-of-concept: First, we show how individual differences modulate the effect of context on synchrony's outcomes in a novel dyadic motor game. Second, we reanalyze previously reported data, to show how a "flexibility" approach to synchrony data analysis improves predictive ability when testing for synchrony's effects on social cohesion. We provide ways to standardize the characterization of context and guidelines for future synchrony research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"A theory of flexible multimodal synchrony.","authors":"Ilanit Gordon,Alon Tomashin,Oded Mayo","doi":"10.1037/rev0000495","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000495","url":null,"abstract":"Dominant theoretical accounts of interpersonal synchrony, the temporal coordination of biobehavioral processes between several individuals, have employed a linear approach, generally considering synchrony as a positive state, and utilizing aggregate scores. However, synchrony is known to take on a dynamical form with continuous shifts in its timeline. Acting as one continuously, is not always the optimal state, due to an intrinsic tension between individualistic and synergistic forms of action that exist in many social situations. We propose an alternative theory of flexible multimodal synchrony which highlights context as a key component that defines \"pulls\" toward synchrony and \"pulls\" toward segregation inherent to the social situation. Traitlike individual differences and relationship variables then sensitize individuals to these contextual \"pulls.\" In this manner, context, individual differences, and relationship variables provide the backdrop to the emergence of flexible and dynamical synchrony patterns, which we consider adaptive, in several modalities-behavioral, physiological, and neural. We point to three consequences of synchrony patterns: social-, task, and self-oriented. We discuss multimodal associations that arise in different contexts considering the theory and delineate hypotheses that emanate from the theory. We then provide two empirical proofs-of-concept: First, we show how individual differences modulate the effect of context on synchrony's outcomes in a novel dyadic motor game. Second, we reanalyze previously reported data, to show how a \"flexibility\" approach to synchrony data analysis improves predictive ability when testing for synchrony's effects on social cohesion. We provide ways to standardize the characterization of context and guidelines for future synchrony research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142490937","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}