Pub Date : 2025-10-30DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102204
Catherine T. Kwantes, Saba Ghadiri, Suzanne McMurphy
Cultures of trust are characterized by norms that promote trusting behaviors and by the expectation that others will act in trustworthy ways. Trust in science is embedded within cultures, as perceptions of the trustworthiness of science, and scientists, are shaped by cultural contexts. Organizations often serve as the visible “face” of science, such that the presence or absence of organizational or institutional cultures of trust within scientific institutions functions as a proxy through which public trust in science is evaluated. Thus, in addition to personal characteristics, understanding trust in science requires attention to the interplay of societal, organizational, and institutional cultures that collectively shape how science and its representatives are perceived.
{"title":"Cultures of trust and trust in science","authors":"Catherine T. Kwantes, Saba Ghadiri, Suzanne McMurphy","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102204","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102204","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cultures of trust are characterized by norms that promote trusting behaviors and by the expectation that others will act in trustworthy ways. Trust in science is embedded within cultures, as perceptions of the trustworthiness of science, and scientists, are shaped by cultural contexts. Organizations often serve as the visible “face” of science, such that the presence or absence of organizational or institutional cultures of trust within scientific institutions functions as a proxy through which public trust in science is evaluated. Thus, in addition to personal characteristics, understanding trust in science requires attention to the interplay of societal, organizational, and institutional cultures that collectively shape how science and its representatives are perceived.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102204"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145404683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-30DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102207
I. Žeželj, M.B. Petrović
Questionable health behaviors, such as intentional non-adherence to medical recommendations and the use of traditional, complementary and alternative medicine pose a global threat to public health. These behaviors do not reflect a mere dismissal of scientific authority, but rather a specific reconfiguration of epistemic trust, where selective scepticism is applied, marked by exaggerated doubt towards evidence-based authority and simultaneous uncritical acceptance of pseudoscientific claims. We review key psychological drivers of these behaviors - i.e. irrational beliefs - and different ways they interact with science. We then examine communication strategies that divert trust from unreliable sources and encourage trust in reliable ones. Understanding and reshaping the way dialogue and trust is cultivated is essential in countering the rise of questionable health practices.
{"title":"Cultivating new ways to trust science amid the rise of questionable health practices","authors":"I. Žeželj, M.B. Petrović","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102207","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102207","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Questionable health behaviors, such as intentional non-adherence to medical recommendations and the use of traditional, complementary and alternative medicine pose a global threat to public health. These behaviors do not reflect a mere dismissal of scientific authority, but rather a specific reconfiguration of epistemic trust, where selective scepticism is applied, marked by exaggerated doubt towards evidence-based authority and simultaneous uncritical acceptance of pseudoscientific claims. We review key psychological drivers of these behaviors - i.e. irrational beliefs - and different ways they interact with science. We then examine communication strategies that divert trust from unreliable sources and encourage trust in reliable ones. Understanding and reshaping the way dialogue and trust is cultivated is essential in countering the rise of questionable health practices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102207"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145404728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-30DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102201
Ben Seyd
Public trust in science and scientists contributes to important social beliefs and behaviours. Yet it is sometimes believed to be in crisis. This article reviews what trust consists of and how it is typically measured. Drawing on national and international survey data, it shows there is little evidence of a public crisis of trust. While there is evidence of a polarisation of trust in certain countries, this picture does not apply more widely. Nonetheless, initiatives to maintain public trust are important; but these should focus on scientists’ wider social position and roles rather than simply emphasising their competence. If there is a problem, it lies in the limited influence of scientific messages rather than in public distrust of scientists.
{"title":"What is trust (in science and scientists) and is it in crisis?","authors":"Ben Seyd","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102201","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102201","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Public trust in science and scientists contributes to important social beliefs and behaviours. Yet it is sometimes believed to be in crisis. This article reviews what trust consists of and how it is typically measured. Drawing on national and international survey data, it shows there is little evidence of a public crisis of trust. While there is evidence of a polarisation of trust in certain countries, this picture does not apply more widely. Nonetheless, initiatives to maintain public trust are important; but these should focus on scientists’ wider social position and roles rather than simply emphasising their competence. If there is a problem, it lies in the limited influence of scientific messages rather than in public distrust of scientists.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102201"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145404727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-30DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102205
Monique Chambon , Bastiaan T. Rutjens
Positive public attitudes towards science are of pivotal importance in combating societal and environmental challenges. To better understand these attitudes, an integration of different research lines is needed. We argue that adopting a psychological network approach presents one viable way towards such integration. In this paper, we present a brief summary of the field's current research lines, explain the psychological network approach towards attitudes and how it can improve our understanding of science attitudes, and finally present an empirical case study to exemplify this network approach and its added value. Adopting the psychological network approach will improve our understanding of science attitudes, which will help inform theory as well as strategies for improving public attitudes towards science.
{"title":"Utilizing a psychological network approach to improve insights into science attitudes","authors":"Monique Chambon , Bastiaan T. Rutjens","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102205","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102205","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Positive public attitudes towards science are of pivotal importance in combating societal and environmental challenges. To better understand these attitudes, an integration of different research lines is needed. We argue that adopting a psychological network approach presents one viable way towards such integration. In this paper, we present a brief summary of the field's current research lines, explain the psychological network approach towards attitudes and how it can improve our understanding of science attitudes, and finally present an empirical case study to exemplify this network approach and its added value. Adopting the psychological network approach will improve our understanding of science attitudes, which will help inform theory as well as strategies for improving public attitudes towards science.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102205"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145404831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-29DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102203
Sukayna Younger-Khan
Public trust in science and in scientists is often conflated, yet these are distinct concepts shaped by different factors. This review synthesizes recent scholarship to highlight three insights. First, separating trust in science (confidence in scientific claims) from trust in scientists (judgments of credibility and motives) can help resolve persistent inconsistencies across disciplines. Second, sociocultural and political environments exert stronger influences on trust than commonly acknowledged, explaining cross-national variation. Third, science is not monolithic: trust levels differ across domains and issues, partly due to politicization. The review identifies important gaps, including the need for multi-dimensional measures, globally comparative research, and strategies to convey uncertainty without eroding credibility. Addressing these challenges can help advance both theory and practice.
{"title":"Mapping patterns of trust in science and scientists","authors":"Sukayna Younger-Khan","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102203","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102203","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Public trust in science and in scientists is often conflated, yet these are distinct concepts shaped by different factors. This review synthesizes recent scholarship to highlight three insights. First, separating trust in science (confidence in scientific claims) from trust in scientists (judgments of credibility and motives) can help resolve persistent inconsistencies across disciplines. Second, sociocultural and political environments exert stronger influences on trust than commonly acknowledged, explaining cross-national variation. Third, science is not monolithic: trust levels differ across domains and issues, partly due to politicization. The review identifies important gaps, including the need for multi-dimensional measures, globally comparative research, and strategies to convey uncertainty without eroding credibility. Addressing these challenges can help advance both theory and practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102203"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145396474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-27DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102200
Sabirah Adams , Shazly Savahl , Ravinder Barn , Tobia Fattore , Susann Fegter , Maria van der Harst , Daniel Stoecklin , Ferran Casas
Children's engagement with nature enhances their well-being at both individual and community levels, yet systemic inequalities within local contexts shape children's access, proximity, quality, and safety in natural spaces. Research shows that children's understandings of nature and community are formed through their access to these spaces during their formative years. This article examines environmental subjective well-being (ESWB), an emerging interdisciplinary focus that captures the benefits of children's interactions with the natural environment and their influence on subjective well-being from a child-centred perspective. Understanding ESWB requires a nuanced contextualisation of place and inequality. We synthesise current evidence on children's engagement with nature in community settings and identify priorities for future research. We position children's engagement with nature as a social justice and children's rights imperative, with implications for policy and practice globally, particularly for the Global South.
{"title":"Children's environmental subjective well-being: Considering the intersecting role of nature, inequalities, and community","authors":"Sabirah Adams , Shazly Savahl , Ravinder Barn , Tobia Fattore , Susann Fegter , Maria van der Harst , Daniel Stoecklin , Ferran Casas","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102200","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102200","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Children's engagement with nature enhances their well-being at both individual and community levels, yet systemic inequalities within local contexts shape children's access, proximity, quality, and safety in natural spaces. Research shows that children's understandings of nature and community are formed through their access to these spaces during their formative years. This article examines environmental subjective well-being (ESWB), an emerging interdisciplinary focus that captures the benefits of children's interactions with the natural environment and their influence on subjective well-being from a child-centred perspective. Understanding ESWB requires a nuanced contextualisation of place and inequality. We synthesise current evidence on children's engagement with nature in community settings and identify priorities for future research. We position children's engagement with nature as a social justice and children's rights imperative, with implications for policy and practice globally, particularly for the Global South.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102200"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145397491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-24DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102199
Martina Olcese , Francesco Madera , Paola Cardinali , Laura Migliorini
Nature connectedness, which refers to the subjective sense of one's relationship with the natural world, is a multidimensional construct encompassing emotional, cognitive, and experiential ties, closely linked to personal and collective well-being. Strengthening this connection, especially among children and young people, requires active involvement in the places where they live and act. This article reviews evidence on two main areas: (1) immersive and regenerative experiences in natural contexts, and (2) nature contact in urban contexts. Across both domains, participatory methods, such as Youth Participatory Action Research and Photovoice, emerge as a transversal approach that transforms individual experiences into shared responsibilities, fostering ecological citizenship, community belonging, and sustainable, locally rooted relationships with nature.
{"title":"Contact with nature and youth well-being: Insights from natural and urban contexts","authors":"Martina Olcese , Francesco Madera , Paola Cardinali , Laura Migliorini","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102199","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102199","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Nature connectedness, which refers to the subjective sense of one's relationship with the natural world, is a multidimensional construct encompassing emotional, cognitive, and experiential ties, closely linked to personal and collective well-being. Strengthening this connection, especially among children and young people, requires active involvement in the places where they live and act. This article reviews evidence on two main areas: (1) immersive and regenerative experiences in natural contexts, and (2) nature contact in urban contexts. Across both domains, participatory methods, such as Youth Participatory Action Research and Photovoice, emerge as a transversal approach that transforms individual experiences into shared responsibilities, fostering ecological citizenship, community belonging, and sustainable, locally rooted relationships with nature.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102199"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145382753","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-17DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102197
Karin Matko, Nicholas T. Van Dam
Despite the growing popularity of mindfulness, mindfulness-based programs (MBPs), and meditation, potential harms have largely been overlooked. Recent studies reveal that 25–87 % of those who engage in meditation report adverse effects (AEs), with 3–37 % experiencing functional impairment (e.g., inability to work). It remains unclear to what extent AEs reflect transitory discomfort vs. lasting harm. Common AEs include anxiety, depression, and traumatic re-experiencing. Factors such as retreat attendance and pre-existing mental health conditions may increase the risk of AEs, though causality remains unclear. The review emphasises the need for thorough screening, informed consent, and ongoing monitoring in clinical practice. Recommendations include setting clear expectations, offering psychoeducational support, and adapting interventions when necessary and where appropriate. By addressing these concerns, clinicians can better balance the potential benefits with the potential risks, ensuring more responsible implementation of mindfulness and meditation in mental health care and beyond.
{"title":"Beyond serenity: Adverse effects of meditation and mindfulness in clinical practice","authors":"Karin Matko, Nicholas T. Van Dam","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102197","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102197","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Despite the growing popularity of mindfulness, mindfulness-based programs (MBPs), and meditation, potential harms have largely been overlooked. Recent studies reveal that 25–87 % of those who engage in meditation report adverse effects (AEs), with 3–37 % experiencing functional impairment (e.g., inability to work). It remains unclear to what extent AEs reflect transitory discomfort <em>vs.</em> lasting harm. Common AEs include anxiety, depression, and traumatic re-experiencing. Factors such as retreat attendance and pre-existing mental health conditions may increase the risk of AEs, though causality remains unclear. The review emphasises the need for thorough screening, informed consent, and ongoing monitoring in clinical practice. Recommendations include setting clear expectations, offering psychoeducational support, and adapting interventions when necessary and where appropriate. By addressing these concerns, clinicians can better balance the potential benefits with the potential risks, ensuring more responsible implementation of mindfulness and meditation in mental health care and beyond.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102197"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145424245","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-16DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102198
Henry Otgaar , Sanne T.L. Houben
We reviewed the evidence on the memory undermining effects of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) and imagery rescripting. Both therapies appear to undermine memory quality by making memories less vivid and emotionally-negative. Also, while eye movements used in EMDR seem to increase spontaneous false memories, they do not increase the susceptibility to suggestion. Inconsistent findings have emerged on the effects of imagery rescripting on false memory generation. Furthermore, a substantial number of clinicians who use EMDR strongly believe in the notion of repressed memory and EMDR has been associated with the occurrence of recovered memories. The belief in repressed memory might encourage suggestive therapeutic techniques, thereby increasing the risk of false memory creation. Overall, nuance is required on potential memory undermining effects of EMDR and imagery rescripting.
{"title":"Nuances in the memory undermining effects of EMDR and imagery rescripting","authors":"Henry Otgaar , Sanne T.L. Houben","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102198","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102198","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We reviewed the evidence on the memory undermining effects of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) and imagery rescripting. Both therapies appear to undermine memory quality by making memories less vivid and emotionally-negative. Also, while eye movements used in EMDR seem to increase spontaneous false memories, they do not increase the susceptibility to suggestion. Inconsistent findings have emerged on the effects of imagery rescripting on false memory generation. Furthermore, a substantial number of clinicians who use EMDR strongly believe in the notion of repressed memory and EMDR has been associated with the occurrence of recovered memories. The belief in repressed memory might encourage suggestive therapeutic techniques, thereby increasing the risk of false memory creation. Overall, nuance is required on potential memory undermining effects of EMDR and imagery rescripting.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102198"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145402566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-15DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102196
Lucy Foulkes, Carolina Guzman Holst, Jack L. Andrews
Universal school-based mental health interventions involve lessons delivered to whole classes of young people irrespective of need, with the overall aim of improving mental health literacy, preventing mental health problems and/or reducing those that have already started. A number of high-quality trials show that universal interventions can have a range of negative effects, with participants in the intervention group experiencing worsening mental health or other negative outcomes. In this review, we summarise what we know so far about these negative effects, which we refer to as ‘potential harm’. Two important questions remain poorly understood. First, the mechanisms driving potential harm are unknown, including whether negative effects are driven by reporting phenomena, the content of the intervention itself, or both. Second, individual differences in susceptibility to these effects is unclear. In the second half of the paper, we explore whether further universal trials should be run and argue that, if they are, the crucial issue of negative effects must be considered at all stages. In particular, we recommend that trials be designed in such a way to test mechanisms and individual differences in response. Information can then be provided to schools and policymakers about why young people might respond in different ways to an intervention, and how to support vulnerable students. Ultimately, this will lead to more effective and less harmful interventions for everyone.
{"title":"Potential harm from universal school-based mental health interventions: Candidate mechanisms and future directions","authors":"Lucy Foulkes, Carolina Guzman Holst, Jack L. Andrews","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102196","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102196","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Universal school-based mental health interventions involve lessons delivered to whole classes of young people irrespective of need, with the overall aim of improving mental health literacy, preventing mental health problems and/or reducing those that have already started. A number of high-quality trials show that universal interventions can have a range of negative effects, with participants in the intervention group experiencing worsening mental health or other negative outcomes. In this review, we summarise what we know so far about these negative effects, which we refer to as ‘potential harm’. Two important questions remain poorly understood. First, the mechanisms driving potential harm are unknown, including whether negative effects are driven by reporting phenomena, the content of the intervention itself, or both. Second, individual differences in susceptibility to these effects is unclear. In the second half of the paper, we explore whether further universal trials should be run and argue that, if they are, the crucial issue of negative effects must be considered at all stages. In particular, we recommend that trials be designed in such a way to test mechanisms and individual differences in response. Information can then be provided to schools and policymakers about why young people might respond in different ways to an intervention, and how to support vulnerable students. Ultimately, this will lead to more effective and less harmful interventions for everyone.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102196"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145379440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号