首页 > 最新文献

Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society最新文献

英文 中文
Improving Students' Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology. 用有效的学习技巧提高学生的学习:认知与教育心理学的发展方向。
1区 心理学 Q1 Psychology Pub Date : 2013-01-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100612453266
John Dunlosky, Katherine A Rawson, Elizabeth J Marsh, Mitchell J Nathan, Daniel T Willingham

Many students are being left behind by an educational system that some people believe is in crisis. Improving educational outcomes will require efforts on many fronts, but a central premise of this monograph is that one part of a solution involves helping students to better regulate their learning through the use of effective learning techniques. Fortunately, cognitive and educational psychologists have been developing and evaluating easy-to-use learning techniques that could help students achieve their learning goals. In this monograph, we discuss 10 learning techniques in detail and offer recommendations about their relative utility. We selected techniques that were expected to be relatively easy to use and hence could be adopted by many students. Also, some techniques (e.g., highlighting and rereading) were selected because students report relying heavily on them, which makes it especially important to examine how well they work. The techniques include elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, summarization, highlighting (or underlining), the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, rereading, practice testing, distributed practice, and interleaved practice. To offer recommendations about the relative utility of these techniques, we evaluated whether their benefits generalize across four categories of variables: learning conditions, student characteristics, materials, and criterion tasks. Learning conditions include aspects of the learning environment in which the technique is implemented, such as whether a student studies alone or with a group. Student characteristics include variables such as age, ability, and level of prior knowledge. Materials vary from simple concepts to mathematical problems to complicated science texts. Criterion tasks include different outcome measures that are relevant to student achievement, such as those tapping memory, problem solving, and comprehension. We attempted to provide thorough reviews for each technique, so this monograph is rather lengthy. However, we also wrote the monograph in a modular fashion, so it is easy to use. In particular, each review is divided into the following sections: General description of the technique and why it should work How general are the effects of this technique?  2a. Learning conditions  2b. Student characteristics  2c. Materials  2d. Criterion tasks Effects in representative educational contexts Issues for implementation Overall assessment The review for each technique can be read independently of the others, and particular variables of interest can be easily compared across techniques. To foreshadow our final recommendations, the techniques vary widely with respect to their generalizability and promise for improving student learning. Practice testing and distributed practice received high utility assessments because they benefit learners of different ages and abilities and have been shown to boost students' performance across many criterion tasks and even in

许多学生被一些人认为处于危机中的教育体系抛在了后面。提高教育成果需要多方面的努力,但本专著的一个中心前提是,解决方案的一部分包括帮助学生通过使用有效的学习技巧来更好地管理他们的学习。幸运的是,认知和教育心理学家一直在开发和评估易于使用的学习技巧,这些技巧可以帮助学生实现学习目标。在这本专著中,我们详细讨论了10种学习技术,并就它们的相对效用提出了建议。我们选择了相对容易使用的技术,因此可以被许多学生采用。此外,选择一些技巧(例如,突出显示和重读)是因为学生报告严重依赖它们,这使得检查它们的效果变得尤为重要。这些技巧包括精细化的询问、自我解释、总结、高亮(或下划线)、关键词助记、文本学习中的图像使用、重读、练习测试、分布式练习和交错练习。为了提供有关这些技术的相对效用的建议,我们评估了它们的好处是否可以概括为四类变量:学习条件、学生特征、材料和标准任务。学习条件包括实施该技术的学习环境的各个方面,例如学生是单独学习还是与小组一起学习。学生的特征包括年龄、能力和先验知识水平等变量。材料从简单的概念到数学问题再到复杂的科学文本都有。标准任务包括与学生成绩相关的不同结果测量,例如挖掘记忆、解决问题和理解能力。我们试图为每一种技术提供全面的回顾,所以这本专著相当长。然而,我们也以模块化的方式编写了专论,因此它很容易使用。特别地,每篇综述分为以下几个部分:该技术的一般描述及其工作原理该技术的效果有多普遍?2 a。学习条件学生特点材料2 d。标准任务在代表性教育环境中的影响实施的问题总体评估每种技术的评论都可以独立于其他技术阅读,并且可以很容易地比较不同技术之间的特定变量。为了预示我们最后的建议,这些技术在其通用性和改善学生学习的承诺方面差异很大。实践测试和分布式实践获得了很高的效用评估,因为它们有益于不同年龄和能力的学习者,并且已被证明可以提高学生在许多标准任务甚至教育环境中的表现。详细的询问、自我解释和交叉练习获得中等效用评估。这些技术的好处确实跨越了一些变量,然而,尽管它们有希望,但由于其有效性的证据有限,它们缺乏高效用评估。例如,在教育背景下,详细的审讯和自我解释还没有得到充分的评估,交错的好处才刚刚开始被系统地探索,所以这些技术的最终效果目前是未知的。尽管如此,获得中等效用评级的技术显示出足够的前景,我们可以在适当的情况下推荐它们的使用,我们将在对每种技术的回顾中详细描述。总结、高亮、关键词助记、文本学习中使用图像和重读这五种技巧的效用评估较低。由于许多原因,这些技术被评为低效用。摘要和图像在文本学习中的使用已经被证明可以帮助一些学生完成一些标准任务,但是这些技术产生效益的条件是有限的,仍然需要大量的研究来充分探索它们的整体有效性。关键字助记在某些情况下很难实现,它似乎有利于学生有限数量的材料和较短的记忆间隔。大多数学生报告说重读和强调,然而这些技巧并不能持续提高学生的表现,所以应该使用其他技巧来代替它们(例如,练习测试而不是重读)。我们希望这本专著能够促进学生学习的进步,不仅通过展示哪些学习技术可能具有最普遍的效果,而且通过鼓励研究人员继续研究最有前途的技术。 因此,在我们的结束语中,我们讨论了教师和学生如何实施这些技术的一些问题,并指出了未来的研究方向。
{"title":"Improving Students' Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology.","authors":"John Dunlosky,&nbsp;Katherine A Rawson,&nbsp;Elizabeth J Marsh,&nbsp;Mitchell J Nathan,&nbsp;Daniel T Willingham","doi":"10.1177/1529100612453266","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many students are being left behind by an educational system that some people believe is in crisis. Improving educational outcomes will require efforts on many fronts, but a central premise of this monograph is that one part of a solution involves helping students to better regulate their learning through the use of effective learning techniques. Fortunately, cognitive and educational psychologists have been developing and evaluating easy-to-use learning techniques that could help students achieve their learning goals. In this monograph, we discuss 10 learning techniques in detail and offer recommendations about their relative utility. We selected techniques that were expected to be relatively easy to use and hence could be adopted by many students. Also, some techniques (e.g., highlighting and rereading) were selected because students report relying heavily on them, which makes it especially important to examine how well they work. The techniques include elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, summarization, highlighting (or underlining), the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, rereading, practice testing, distributed practice, and interleaved practice. To offer recommendations about the relative utility of these techniques, we evaluated whether their benefits generalize across four categories of variables: learning conditions, student characteristics, materials, and criterion tasks. Learning conditions include aspects of the learning environment in which the technique is implemented, such as whether a student studies alone or with a group. Student characteristics include variables such as age, ability, and level of prior knowledge. Materials vary from simple concepts to mathematical problems to complicated science texts. Criterion tasks include different outcome measures that are relevant to student achievement, such as those tapping memory, problem solving, and comprehension. We attempted to provide thorough reviews for each technique, so this monograph is rather lengthy. However, we also wrote the monograph in a modular fashion, so it is easy to use. In particular, each review is divided into the following sections: General description of the technique and why it should work How general are the effects of this technique?  2a. Learning conditions  2b. Student characteristics  2c. Materials  2d. Criterion tasks Effects in representative educational contexts Issues for implementation Overall assessment The review for each technique can be read independently of the others, and particular variables of interest can be easily compared across techniques. To foreshadow our final recommendations, the techniques vary widely with respect to their generalizability and promise for improving student learning. Practice testing and distributed practice received high utility assessments because they benefit learners of different ages and abilities and have been shown to boost students' performance across many criterion tasks and even in","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"14 1","pages":"4-58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612453266","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34007344","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}
引用次数: 177
Knowing Our Options for Setting the Record Straight, When Doing So Is Particularly Important. 当这样做的时候,了解我们的选择是特别重要的。
1区 心理学 Q1 Psychology Pub Date : 2012-12-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100612457647
Edward Maibach
{"title":"Knowing Our Options for Setting the Record Straight, When Doing So Is Particularly Important.","authors":"Edward Maibach","doi":"10.1177/1529100612457647","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612457647","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"13 3","pages":"105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612457647","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34007341","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}
引用次数: 13
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. 错误信息及其纠正:持续影响和成功消除偏见。
1区 心理学 Q1 Psychology Pub Date : 2012-12-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018
Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K H Ecker, Colleen M Seifert, Norbert Schwarz, John Cook

The widespread prevalence and persistence of misinformation in contemporary societies, such as the false belief that there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism, is a matter of public concern. For example, the myths surrounding vaccinations, which prompted some parents to withhold immunization from their children, have led to a marked increase in vaccine-preventable disease, as well as unnecessary public expenditure on research and public-information campaigns aimed at rectifying the situation. We first examine the mechanisms by which such misinformation is disseminated in society, both inadvertently and purposely. Misinformation can originate from rumors but also from works of fiction, governments and politicians, and vested interests. Moreover, changes in the media landscape, including the arrival of the Internet, have fundamentally influenced the ways in which information is communicated and misinformation is spread. We next move to misinformation at the level of the individual, and review the cognitive factors that often render misinformation resistant to correction. We consider how people assess the truth of statements and what makes people believe certain things but not others. We look at people's memory for misinformation and answer the questions of why retractions of misinformation are so ineffective in memory updating and why efforts to retract misinformation can even backfire and, ironically, increase misbelief. Though ideology and personal worldviews can be major obstacles for debiasing, there nonetheless are a number of effective techniques for reducing the impact of misinformation, and we pay special attention to these factors that aid in debiasing. We conclude by providing specific recommendations for the debunking of misinformation. These recommendations pertain to the ways in which corrections should be designed, structured, and applied in order to maximize their impact. Grounded in cognitive psychological theory, these recommendations may help practitioners-including journalists, health professionals, educators, and science communicators-design effective misinformation retractions, educational tools, and public-information campaigns.

在当代社会中,错误信息的广泛流行和持续存在,例如错误地认为儿童接种疫苗与自闭症之间存在联系,这是一个公众关注的问题。例如,围绕疫苗接种的误解促使一些父母不让子女接种疫苗,这导致疫苗可预防疾病的显著增加,以及在旨在纠正这种情况的研究和宣传运动方面的不必要的公共开支。我们首先研究了这种错误信息在社会中传播的机制,无论是无意的还是故意的。错误信息可能来自谣言,但也可能来自小说作品、政府和政治家,以及既得利益集团。此外,媒体格局的变化,包括互联网的出现,从根本上影响了信息的传播和错误信息的传播方式。接下来,我们将讨论个人层面的错误信息,并回顾导致错误信息难以纠正的认知因素。我们考虑人们如何评估陈述的真实性,以及是什么让人们相信某些事情而不相信其他事情。我们观察人们对错误信息的记忆,并回答以下问题:为什么撤销错误信息在记忆更新中如此无效,为什么撤销错误信息的努力甚至会适得其反,具有讽刺意味的是,会增加误解。尽管意识形态和个人世界观可能是消除偏见的主要障碍,但仍然有许多有效的技术可以减少错误信息的影响,我们特别关注这些有助于消除偏见的因素。最后,我们提供了揭穿错误信息的具体建议。这些建议涉及如何设计、组织和应用纠正,以最大限度地发挥其影响。基于认知心理学理论,这些建议可以帮助从业者——包括记者、卫生专业人员、教育工作者和科学传播者——设计有效的错误信息撤回、教育工具和公共信息运动。
{"title":"Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing.","authors":"Stephan Lewandowsky,&nbsp;Ullrich K H Ecker,&nbsp;Colleen M Seifert,&nbsp;Norbert Schwarz,&nbsp;John Cook","doi":"10.1177/1529100612451018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The widespread prevalence and persistence of misinformation in contemporary societies, such as the false belief that there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism, is a matter of public concern. For example, the myths surrounding vaccinations, which prompted some parents to withhold immunization from their children, have led to a marked increase in vaccine-preventable disease, as well as unnecessary public expenditure on research and public-information campaigns aimed at rectifying the situation. We first examine the mechanisms by which such misinformation is disseminated in society, both inadvertently and purposely. Misinformation can originate from rumors but also from works of fiction, governments and politicians, and vested interests. Moreover, changes in the media landscape, including the arrival of the Internet, have fundamentally influenced the ways in which information is communicated and misinformation is spread. We next move to misinformation at the level of the individual, and review the cognitive factors that often render misinformation resistant to correction. We consider how people assess the truth of statements and what makes people believe certain things but not others. We look at people's memory for misinformation and answer the questions of why retractions of misinformation are so ineffective in memory updating and why efforts to retract misinformation can even backfire and, ironically, increase misbelief. Though ideology and personal worldviews can be major obstacles for debiasing, there nonetheless are a number of effective techniques for reducing the impact of misinformation, and we pay special attention to these factors that aid in debiasing. We conclude by providing specific recommendations for the debunking of misinformation. These recommendations pertain to the ways in which corrections should be designed, structured, and applied in order to maximize their impact. Grounded in cognitive psychological theory, these recommendations may help practitioners-including journalists, health professionals, educators, and science communicators-design effective misinformation retractions, educational tools, and public-information campaigns. </p>","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"13 3","pages":"106-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612451018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34007342","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}
引用次数: 1000
Commentary on The Science of Training and Development in Organizations: What Matters in Practice. 《组织培训与发展的科学:实践中的重要问题》评注。
1区 心理学 Q1 Psychology Pub Date : 2012-06-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100612437320
Paul W Thayer
{"title":"Commentary on The Science of Training and Development in Organizations: What Matters in Practice.","authors":"Paul W Thayer","doi":"10.1177/1529100612437320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612437320","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"13 2","pages":"73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612437320","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34007339","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}
引用次数: 3
The Science of Training and Development in Organizations: What Matters in Practice. 组织培训与发展的科学:在实践中什么很重要。
1区 心理学 Q1 Psychology Pub Date : 2012-06-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100612436661
Eduardo Salas, Scott I Tannenbaum, Kurt Kraiger, Kimberly A Smith-Jentsch
Organizations in the United States alone spend billions on training each year. These training and development activities allow organizations to adapt, compete, excel, innovate, produce, be safe, improve service, and reach goals. Training has successfully been used to reduce errors in such high-risk settings as emergency rooms, aviation, and the military. However, training is also important in more conventional organizations. These organizations understand that training helps them to remain competitive by continually educating their workforce. They understand that investing in their employees yields greater results. However, training is not as intuitive as it may seem. There is a science of training that shows that there is a right way and a wrong way to design, deliver, and implement a training program. The research on training clearly shows two things: (a) training works, and (b) the way training is designed, delivered, and implemented matters. This article aims to explain why training is important and how to use training appropriately. Using the training literature as a guide, we explain what training is, why it is important, and provide recommendations for implementing a training program in an organization. In particular, we argue that training is a systematic process, and we explain what matters before, during, and after training. Steps to take at each of these three time periods are listed and described and are summarized in a checklist for ease of use. We conclude with a discussion of implications for both leaders and policymakers and an exploration of issues that may come up when deciding to implement a training program. Furthermore, we include key questions that executives and policymakers should ask about the design, delivery, or implementation of a training program. Finally, we consider future research that is important in this area, including some still unanswered questions and room for development in this evolving field. Language: en
{"title":"The Science of Training and Development in Organizations: What Matters in Practice.","authors":"Eduardo Salas,&nbsp;Scott I Tannenbaum,&nbsp;Kurt Kraiger,&nbsp;Kimberly A Smith-Jentsch","doi":"10.1177/1529100612436661","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661","url":null,"abstract":"Organizations in the United States alone spend billions on training each year. These training and development activities allow organizations to adapt, compete, excel, innovate, produce, be safe, improve service, and reach goals. Training has successfully been used to reduce errors in such high-risk settings as emergency rooms, aviation, and the military. However, training is also important in more conventional organizations. These organizations understand that training helps them to remain competitive by continually educating their workforce. They understand that investing in their employees yields greater results. However, training is not as intuitive as it may seem. There is a science of training that shows that there is a right way and a wrong way to design, deliver, and implement a training program. The research on training clearly shows two things: (a) training works, and (b) the way training is designed, delivered, and implemented matters. This article aims to explain why training is important and how to use training appropriately. Using the training literature as a guide, we explain what training is, why it is important, and provide recommendations for implementing a training program in an organization. In particular, we argue that training is a systematic process, and we explain what matters before, during, and after training. Steps to take at each of these three time periods are listed and described and are summarized in a checklist for ease of use. We conclude with a discussion of implications for both leaders and policymakers and an exploration of issues that may come up when deciding to implement a training program. Furthermore, we include key questions that executives and policymakers should ask about the design, delivery, or implementation of a training program. Finally, we consider future research that is important in this area, including some still unanswered questions and room for development in this evolving field. Language: en","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"13 2","pages":"74-101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612436661","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34007340","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}
引用次数: 771
Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science. 网络约会:心理科学视角下的批判性分析。
1区 心理学 Q1 Psychology Pub Date : 2012-01-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100612436522
Eli J Finkel, Paul W Eastwick, Benjamin R Karney, Harry T Reis, Susan Sprecher
Many of us enter the dating pool looking for that special someone, but finding a romantic partner can be difficult. With the rise of the digital age, it is no surprise that people have flocked to the Internet as a way to take control of their dating lives and find their “soulmate.” But is online dating essentially different than conventional dating, and does it promote better romantic outcomes? In this new report, Eli J. Finkel (Northwestern University), Paul W. Eastwick (Texas A & M University), Benjamin R. Karney (UCLA), Harry T. Reis (University of Rochester), and Susan Sprecher (Illinois State University) take a comprehensive look at the access, communication, and matching services provided by online dating sites.
{"title":"Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science.","authors":"Eli J Finkel,&nbsp;Paul W Eastwick,&nbsp;Benjamin R Karney,&nbsp;Harry T Reis,&nbsp;Susan Sprecher","doi":"10.1177/1529100612436522","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436522","url":null,"abstract":"Many of us enter the dating pool looking for that special someone, but finding a romantic partner can be difficult. With the rise of the digital age, it is no surprise that people have flocked to the Internet as a way to take control of their dating lives and find their “soulmate.” But is online dating essentially different than conventional dating, and does it promote better romantic outcomes? In this new report, Eli J. Finkel (Northwestern University), Paul W. Eastwick (Texas A & M University), Benjamin R. Karney (UCLA), Harry T. Reis (University of Rochester), and Susan Sprecher (Illinois State University) take a comprehensive look at the access, communication, and matching services provided by online dating sites.","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"13 1","pages":"3-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612436522","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34007338","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}
引用次数: 489
Online Dating: The Current Status-and Beyond. 在线约会:现状及未来。
1区 心理学 Q1 Psychology Pub Date : 2012-01-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100612438173
Arthur Aron
Finkel, Eastwick, Karney, Reis, and Sprecher (2012, this issue) have provided a remarkably comprehensive, thoughtful, scholarly, and timely monograph. It is also extremely important. As the data they cite show, online dating, particularly in developed countries, already accounts for a substantial proportion of the initiation of romantic relationships—a proportion growing at a rate suggesting it may soon account for the majority of such meetings. Thus, online dating is significant as a major social phenomenon. More crucially, the quality of our close relationships is the single biggest contributor to personal well-being and one of the largest contributors to health and longevity. Thus, understanding a phenomenon that is changing the landscape for the formation of such relationships bears on fundamental issues in human life. (As an aside, this monograph also contributes to the basic science of relationships by offering a wonderfully thorough and up-to-date review of the research literature on key factors in romantic attraction and on the predictors of relationship success.) Frankly, although my original intention was a quick read while waiting for the take off of a plane I was on, I found myself so engaged that by the time I had read it (and often reread sections while making a zillion little notes), the pilot was announcing it was time to prepare for landing. Several conclusions, all well supported, from their review stand out about online dating as it currently exists. First, it has significant benefits: increased opportunities to meet potential partners, minimally threatening contexts for initiating relationships, and the possibility of “omitting from the dating pool people who are likely to be poor relationship partners in gen
{"title":"Online Dating: The Current Status-and Beyond.","authors":"Arthur Aron","doi":"10.1177/1529100612438173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612438173","url":null,"abstract":"Finkel, Eastwick, Karney, Reis, and Sprecher (2012, this issue) have provided a remarkably comprehensive, thoughtful, scholarly, and timely monograph. It is also extremely important. As the data they cite show, online dating, particularly in developed countries, already accounts for a substantial proportion of the initiation of romantic relationships—a proportion growing at a rate suggesting it may soon account for the majority of such meetings. Thus, online dating is significant as a major social phenomenon. More crucially, the quality of our close relationships is the single biggest contributor to personal well-being and one of the largest contributors to health and longevity. Thus, understanding a phenomenon that is changing the landscape for the formation of such relationships bears on fundamental issues in human life. (As an aside, this monograph also contributes to the basic science of relationships by offering a wonderfully thorough and up-to-date review of the research literature on key factors in romantic attraction and on the predictors of relationship success.) Frankly, although my original intention was a quick read while waiting for the take off of a plane I was on, I found myself so engaged that by the time I had read it (and often reread sections while making a zillion little notes), the pilot was announcing it was time to prepare for landing. Several conclusions, all well supported, from their review stand out about online dating as it currently exists. First, it has significant benefits: increased opportunities to meet potential partners, minimally threatening contexts for initiating relationships, and the possibility of “omitting from the dating pool people who are likely to be poor relationship partners in gen","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"13 1","pages":"1-2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100612438173","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34007337","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}
引用次数: 7
Current Scientific Views of Psychopathy. 精神病的当代科学观点。
1区 心理学 Q1 Psychology Pub Date : 2011-12-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100611429679
Don C Fowles
It is not impossible that there is some value in making diagnoses of psychopathy in a forensic context, but this review ( Skeem, et al; doi: 10.1177/1529100611426706 ) should give everyone pause until research has actually established the validity of such applications. If in fact the construct of psychopathy does not have important predictive value, it is morally dubious to make important decisions on the basis of the diagnosis. Language: en
{"title":"Current Scientific Views of Psychopathy.","authors":"Don C Fowles","doi":"10.1177/1529100611429679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611429679","url":null,"abstract":"It is not impossible that there is some value in making diagnoses of psychopathy in a forensic context, but this review ( Skeem, et al; doi: 10.1177/1529100611426706 ) should give everyone pause until research has actually established the validity of such applications. If in fact the construct of psychopathy does not have important predictive value, it is morally dubious to make important decisions on the basis of the diagnosis. Language: en","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"12 3","pages":"93-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100611429679","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34279762","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}
引用次数: 9
Psychopathic Personality: Bridging the Gap Between Scientific Evidence and Public Policy. 精神病人格:弥合科学证据与公共政策之间的差距。
1区 心理学 Q1 Psychology Pub Date : 2011-12-01 DOI: 10.1177/1529100611426706
Jennifer L Skeem, Devon L L Polaschek, Christopher J Patrick, Scott O Lilienfeld
Few psychological concepts evoke simultaneously as much fascination and misunderstanding as psychopathic personality, or psychopathy. Typically, individuals with psychopathy are misconceived as fundamentally different from the rest of humanity and as inalterably dangerous. Popular portrayals of "psychopaths" are diverse and conflicting, ranging from uncommonly impulsive and violent criminal offenders to corporate figures who callously and skillfully manuever their way to the highest rungs of the social ladder. Despite this diversity of perspectives, a single well- validated measure of psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991; 2003), has come to dominate clinical and legal practice over recent years. The items of the PCL-R cover two basic content domains--an interpersonal-affective domain that encompasses core traits such as callousness and manipulativeness and an antisocial domain that entails disinhibition and chronic antisocial behavior. In most Western countries, the PCL-R and its derivatives are routinely applied to inform legal decisions about criminal offenders that hinge upon issues of dangerousness and treatability. In fact, clinicians in many cases choose the PCL-R over other, purpose-built risk-assessment tools to inform their opinions about what sentence offenders should receive, whether they should be indefinitely incarcerated as a "dangerous offender" or "sexually violent predator," or whether they should be transferred from juvenile to adult court. The PCL-R has played an extraordinarily generative role in research and practice over the past three decades--so much so, that concerns have been raised that the measure has become equated in many minds with the psychopathy construct itself (Skeem & Cooke 2010a). Equating a measure with a construct may impede scientific progress because it disregards the basic principle that measures always imperfectly operationalize constructs and that our understanding of a construct is ever-evolving (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). In virtually any domain, the construct-validation process is an incremental one that entails shifts in conceptualization and measurement at successive points in the process of clarifying the nature and boundaries of a hypothetical entity. Despite the predominance of the PCL-R measurement model in recent years, vigorous scientific debates have continued regarding what psychopathy is and what it is not. Should adaptive, positive-adjustment features (on one hand) and criminal and antisocial behaviors (on the other) be considered essential features of the construct? Are anxious and emotionally reactive people that are identified as psychopaths by the PCL-R and other measures truly psychopathic? More fundamentally, is psychopathy a unitary entity (i.e., a global syndrome with a discrete underlying cause), or is it rather a configuration of several distinguishable, but intersecting trait dimensions? Although these and other controversies remain unresolved, theory
{"title":"Psychopathic Personality: Bridging the Gap Between Scientific Evidence and Public Policy.","authors":"Jennifer L Skeem,&nbsp;Devon L L Polaschek,&nbsp;Christopher J Patrick,&nbsp;Scott O Lilienfeld","doi":"10.1177/1529100611426706","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611426706","url":null,"abstract":"Few psychological concepts evoke simultaneously as much fascination and misunderstanding as psychopathic personality, or psychopathy. Typically, individuals with psychopathy are misconceived as fundamentally different from the rest of humanity and as inalterably dangerous. Popular portrayals of \"psychopaths\" are diverse and conflicting, ranging from uncommonly impulsive and violent criminal offenders to corporate figures who callously and skillfully manuever their way to the highest rungs of the social ladder. Despite this diversity of perspectives, a single well- validated measure of psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991; 2003), has come to dominate clinical and legal practice over recent years. The items of the PCL-R cover two basic content domains--an interpersonal-affective domain that encompasses core traits such as callousness and manipulativeness and an antisocial domain that entails disinhibition and chronic antisocial behavior. In most Western countries, the PCL-R and its derivatives are routinely applied to inform legal decisions about criminal offenders that hinge upon issues of dangerousness and treatability. In fact, clinicians in many cases choose the PCL-R over other, purpose-built risk-assessment tools to inform their opinions about what sentence offenders should receive, whether they should be indefinitely incarcerated as a \"dangerous offender\" or \"sexually violent predator,\" or whether they should be transferred from juvenile to adult court. The PCL-R has played an extraordinarily generative role in research and practice over the past three decades--so much so, that concerns have been raised that the measure has become equated in many minds with the psychopathy construct itself (Skeem & Cooke 2010a). Equating a measure with a construct may impede scientific progress because it disregards the basic principle that measures always imperfectly operationalize constructs and that our understanding of a construct is ever-evolving (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). In virtually any domain, the construct-validation process is an incremental one that entails shifts in conceptualization and measurement at successive points in the process of clarifying the nature and boundaries of a hypothetical entity. Despite the predominance of the PCL-R measurement model in recent years, vigorous scientific debates have continued regarding what psychopathy is and what it is not. Should adaptive, positive-adjustment features (on one hand) and criminal and antisocial behaviors (on the other) be considered essential features of the construct? Are anxious and emotionally reactive people that are identified as psychopaths by the PCL-R and other measures truly psychopathic? More fundamentally, is psychopathy a unitary entity (i.e., a global syndrome with a discrete underlying cause), or is it rather a configuration of several distinguishable, but intersecting trait dimensions? Although these and other controversies remain unresolved, theory","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"12 3","pages":"95-162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100611426706","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34279763","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}
引用次数: 418
Are Mentoring Programs a Worthwhile Social Investment? 辅导项目是一项有价值的社会投资吗?
1区 心理学 Q1 Psychology Pub Date : 2011-08-01 Epub Date: 2011-10-20 DOI: 10.1177/1529100611415351
Joseph A Durlak
It is well recognized that practice far exceeds research in the social services. For a variety of reasons, some interventions are so appealing that they become very popular and proliferate in many communities despite the absence of careful documentation of their impact. Examples of such efforts in the field of youth services include therapeutic camps, after-school programs, service learning, tutoring, and mentoring. If one includes the many unevaluated school-based educational and psychosocial programs, then each year tens of millions of youth are exposed to interventions of one kind or another whose value is unknown. This is not to say that popular, established programs are without merit; researchers do not have a monopoly on good ideas and can learn from educators, clinical practitioners, and child advocates of all stripes. Among the many youth programs in existence that have not been subjected to any outcome evaluations, some are probably beneficial while others probably have little or no demonstrable positive effect—but a few might be harmful, at least to some portion of their participants. It is essential to learn which programs fall into which of these categories. The wise use of available resources from a public health and policy perspective requires credible answers to at least four fundamental questions: (a) how much impact do programs have; (b) in what ways do participants change; (c) what characteristics of the participants, programs, or their evaluations are associated with more desirable results; and, (d) do programs inadvertently have harmful effects? Notice that the first question is not whether programs achieve statistical significance at some conventional probability level; we are now beyond that basic criterion. Well-done meta-analyses can now tell us not only about the statistical significance of change but also something about its magnitude—which can assist policy makers, funders, and administrators in deciding which programs to support. David DuBois and Jean Rhodes are widely recognized experts on mentoring, and in their article they have teamed with a previous collaborator (Jeffrey Valentine) and others (Nelson Portillo and Naida Silverthorn) to provide an up-todate systematic review of mentoring programs (DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011, this issue). These authors are to be applauded for addressing the four fundamental questions noted above (as well as several others) in a careful, defensible, and systematic way in their article. Among their major conclusions is that mentoring programs can be successful interventions that lead to positive changes in youths’ behaviors, attitudes, and academic performance. Most important, they place the magnitude of change achieved in different outcome areas in context by comparing them to changes of similar magnitude obtained by other psychosocial programs for young people. In doing so, mentoring is placed alongside other effective interventions for youth. Another ve
{"title":"Are Mentoring Programs a Worthwhile Social Investment?","authors":"Joseph A Durlak","doi":"10.1177/1529100611415351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611415351","url":null,"abstract":"It is well recognized that practice far exceeds research in the social services. For a variety of reasons, some interventions are so appealing that they become very popular and proliferate in many communities despite the absence of careful documentation of their impact. Examples of such efforts in the field of youth services include therapeutic camps, after-school programs, service learning, tutoring, and mentoring. If one includes the many unevaluated school-based educational and psychosocial programs, then each year tens of millions of youth are exposed to interventions of one kind or another whose value is unknown. This is not to say that popular, established programs are without merit; researchers do not have a monopoly on good ideas and can learn from educators, clinical practitioners, and child advocates of all stripes. Among the many youth programs in existence that have not been subjected to any outcome evaluations, some are probably beneficial while others probably have little or no demonstrable positive effect—but a few might be harmful, at least to some portion of their participants. It is essential to learn which programs fall into which of these categories. The wise use of available resources from a public health and policy perspective requires credible answers to at least four fundamental questions: (a) how much impact do programs have; (b) in what ways do participants change; (c) what characteristics of the participants, programs, or their evaluations are associated with more desirable results; and, (d) do programs inadvertently have harmful effects? Notice that the first question is not whether programs achieve statistical significance at some conventional probability level; we are now beyond that basic criterion. Well-done meta-analyses can now tell us not only about the statistical significance of change but also something about its magnitude—which can assist policy makers, funders, and administrators in deciding which programs to support. David DuBois and Jean Rhodes are widely recognized experts on mentoring, and in their article they have teamed with a previous collaborator (Jeffrey Valentine) and others (Nelson Portillo and Naida Silverthorn) to provide an up-todate systematic review of mentoring programs (DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, & Valentine, 2011, this issue). These authors are to be applauded for addressing the four fundamental questions noted above (as well as several others) in a careful, defensible, and systematic way in their article. Among their major conclusions is that mentoring programs can be successful interventions that lead to positive changes in youths’ behaviors, attitudes, and academic performance. Most important, they place the magnitude of change achieved in different outcome areas in context by comparing them to changes of similar magnitude obtained by other psychosocial programs for young people. In doing so, mentoring is placed alongside other effective interventions for youth. Another ve","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":"12 2","pages":"55-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100611415351","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"33898384","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}
引用次数: 8
期刊
Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1