Current Opinion in Psychology最新文献

英文中文

Potential harm from universal school-based mental health interventions: Candidate mechanisms and future directions 普遍学校心理健康干预的潜在危害：候选机制和未来方向。

IF 6.9 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Current Opinion in Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-10-15 DOI: 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.

普遍的以学校为基础的心理健康干预措施包括向整个班级的年轻人提供课程，无论他们是否需要，其总体目标是提高心理健康素养，预防心理健康问题和/或减少已经开始出现的问题。一些高质量的试验表明，普遍干预可能产生一系列负面影响，干预组的参与者会出现精神健康恶化或其他负面结果。在这篇综述中，我们总结了迄今为止我们所知道的这些负面影响，我们称之为“潜在危害”。两个重要的问题仍未得到充分理解。首先，造成潜在危害的机制尚不清楚，包括负面影响是由报告现象、干预本身的内容还是两者兼而有之。其次，对这些影响的易感性的个体差异尚不清楚。在本文的后半部分，我们探讨了是否应该进行进一步的普遍试验，并认为，如果是这样，那么在所有阶段都必须考虑负面影响的关键问题。特别是，我们建议以这种方式设计试验，以测试反应的机制和个体差异。然后可以向学校和政策制定者提供信息，说明为什么年轻人可能以不同的方式对干预作出反应，以及如何支持弱势学生。最终，这将为每个人带来更有效、危害更小的干预措施。

{"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}

引用次数: 0

A signal detection theory meta-analysis of psychological inoculation against misinformation 误传心理接种的信号检测理论元分析

IF 6.9 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Current Opinion in Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-10-14 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102194

Almog Simchon , Tomer Zipori , Louis Teitelbaum , Stephan Lewandowsky , Sander van der Linden

The spread of harmful misinformation poses a growing global threat, undermining trust in science, public health, and democracy. Psychological inoculation (i.e. “prebunking”) offers a promising approach to help people distinguish credible from manipulative content. We re-analyzed 33 inoculation experiments (combined N = 37, 025) using Signal Detection Theory within a hierarchical Bayesian framework. Results show that both gamified and video-based interventions consistently improve discrimination between reliable and unreliable news, without increasing response bias—that is, participants did not become more uniformly skeptical or credulous. Our findings highlight the effectiveness of psychological inoculation in enhancing discrimination while avoiding unintended side effects on trust in credible news, offering robust support for its use as a scalable misinformation intervention.

有害的错误信息的传播构成了日益严重的全球威胁，破坏了人们对科学、公共卫生和民主的信任。心理接种（即“预掩体”）提供了一种很有希望的方法来帮助人们区分可信内容和操纵内容。我们使用层次贝叶斯框架中的信号检测理论重新分析了33个接种实验（合计N = 37,025）。结果表明，游戏化和基于视频的干预都能持续提高对可靠和不可靠新闻的区分，而不会增加反应偏差——也就是说，参与者不会变得更加一致地怀疑或轻信。我们的研究结果强调了心理接种在增强歧视方面的有效性，同时避免了对可信新闻信任的意外副作用，为其作为可扩展的错误信息干预提供了强有力的支持。

引用次数: 0

Differentiating behavioral trust and trustworthiness beliefs to improve science communication practice and research 区分行为信任与可信赖信念，促进科学传播实践与研究

IF 6.9 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Current Opinion in Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-10-09 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102192

John C. Besley, Alexandra Benitez Gonzalez, Leigh Anne Tiffany

This review summarizes research on the importance of distinguishing between behavioral trust and trustworthiness beliefs in the context of science communication research and practice. It argues that the scientific community would benefit from discussing and measuring trust-related beliefs and behaviors separately to help foster a more nuanced understanding of how specific groups think about scientists and to help focus communication efforts on areas of weakness. Although the labels used vary, key trustworthiness beliefs addressed by past research often include beliefs about scientists’ abilities (i.e., expertise, competence), benevolence (i.e., goodwill, caring), and integrity (i.e., honesty). Science communication researchers are also often interested in openness beliefs. While there is general agreement on key concepts, much of the available work is correlational. The review found only a limited number of experiments focused on providing the scientific community with data on how to demonstrate specific dimensions of trustworthiness and thus argues for additional research.

本文综述了在科学传播研究与实践的背景下，区分行为信任与可信度信念的重要性。它认为，科学界将受益于单独讨论和衡量与信任相关的信念和行为，以帮助培养对特定群体如何看待科学家的更细致的理解，并帮助将沟通努力集中在弱点领域。尽管所使用的标签各不相同，但过去研究中涉及的关键可信度信念通常包括对科学家能力（即专业知识、能力）、仁慈（即善意、关怀）和正直（即诚实）的信念。科学传播研究者也经常对开放性信念感兴趣。虽然在关键概念上有普遍的共识，但许多可用的工作都是相关的。审查发现，只有数量有限的实验专注于向科学界提供如何证明可信度具体维度的数据，因此需要进行更多的研究。

{"title":"Differentiating behavioral trust and trustworthiness beliefs to improve science communication practice and research","authors":"John C. Besley, Alexandra Benitez Gonzalez, Leigh Anne Tiffany","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102192","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102192","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This review summarizes research on the importance of distinguishing between behavioral trust and trustworthiness beliefs in the context of science communication research and practice. It argues that the scientific community would benefit from discussing and measuring trust-related beliefs and behaviors separately to help foster a more nuanced understanding of how specific groups think about scientists and to help focus communication efforts on areas of weakness. Although the labels used vary, key trustworthiness beliefs addressed by past research often include beliefs about scientists’ abilities (i.e., expertise, competence), benevolence (i.e., goodwill, caring), and integrity (i.e., honesty). Science communication researchers are also often interested in openness beliefs. While there is general agreement on key concepts, much of the available work is correlational. The review found only a limited number of experiments focused on providing the scientific community with data on how to demonstrate specific dimensions of trustworthiness and thus argues for additional research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102192"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145261777","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}

引用次数: 0

When ‘blind’ selection works—and when it doesn't 什么时候“盲目”选择起作用，什么时候不起作用

IF 6.9 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Current Opinion in Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-10-09 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102195

Hagai Rabinovitch

Efforts to reduce bias in selection often rely on blindfolding—concealing job-irrelevant factors such as race or gender. While this approach can reduce bias, it may also obscure and preserve it when selection tools are themselves biased. This paper introduces a novel framework showing when revealing sensitive information enables more accurate and fair decisions. By leveraging hidden correlations between potentially biasing factors and test scores, decision-makers can correct for bias and improve selection decisions. The framework offers guidance for policymakers and institutions. It also highlights resistance to revealing such information, rooted in the desire to preserve a positive social image. This tension between perceived and actual fairness helps explain reluctance to adjust biased tools.

减少选择偏见的努力往往依赖于掩盖与工作无关的因素，如种族或性别。虽然这种方法可以减少偏见，但当选择工具本身有偏见时，它也可能模糊和保留偏见。本文介绍了一个新的框架，显示了当披露敏感信息时，决策更准确和公平。通过利用潜在的偏见因素和考试成绩之间隐藏的相关性，决策者可以纠正偏见并改进选择决策。该框架为政策制定者和机构提供了指导。这也凸显了人们对披露此类信息的抵制，这种抵制根植于保持正面社会形象的愿望。这种感知到的公平和实际的公平之间的紧张关系有助于解释为什么人们不愿意调整有偏见的工具。

引用次数: 0

“A community of unknowledge”: A social-psychological model of the self-reinforcing cycle of social identity-driven willful ignorance and conspiracy beliefs “一个无知的社区”：社会身份驱动的故意无知和阴谋信仰的自我强化循环的社会心理学模型

IF 6.9 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Current Opinion in Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-10-08 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102193

Theofilos Gkinopoulos , Malgorzata Kossowska , Eva Walther

This paper explores willful ignorance as a socially motivated, group-based phenomenon closely tied to conspiracy beliefs. While prior research has emphasized individual motives, we highlight how groups actively ignore dissonant information to protect identity, cohesion, and status. Drawing on organizational, socio-political, and historical contexts, we show how both powerful and marginalized groups use willful ignorance to sustain conspiratorial narratives that affirm their worldview and deflect moral accountability. We propose the Social Identity-Driven Willful Ignorance and Conspiracy Beliefs (SIDWI-CB) model, a dual group-based motivational pathways framework that explains how intergroup symbolic and realistic motivations drive selective ignorance fueled by conspiracy beliefs. This framework offers a new lens for understanding how identity and power dynamics shape belief persistence, with broad implications for addressing polarization, misinformation and conspiracy beliefs, and collective decision making.

本文探讨了故意无知作为一种社会动机，基于群体的现象，与阴谋信仰密切相关。虽然先前的研究强调个人动机，但我们强调群体如何主动忽略不和谐信息以保护身份，凝聚力和地位。借助组织、社会政治和历史背景，我们展示了强大和边缘化群体如何利用故意无知来维持阴谋论叙事，以肯定他们的世界观并转移道德责任。我们提出了一个基于双重群体的动机路径框架，解释了群体间的象征性动机和现实动机如何驱动选择性无知。这个框架为理解身份和权力动态如何塑造信念持久性提供了一个新的视角，对解决两极分化、错误信息和集体决策具有广泛的意义。

{"title":"“A community of unknowledge”: A social-psychological model of the self-reinforcing cycle of social identity-driven willful ignorance and conspiracy beliefs","authors":"Theofilos Gkinopoulos , Malgorzata Kossowska , Eva Walther","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102193","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102193","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper explores willful ignorance as a socially motivated, group-based phenomenon closely tied to conspiracy beliefs. While prior research has emphasized individual motives, we highlight how groups actively ignore dissonant information to protect identity, cohesion, and status. Drawing on organizational, socio-political, and historical contexts, we show how both powerful and marginalized groups use willful ignorance to sustain conspiratorial narratives that affirm their worldview and deflect moral accountability. We propose the Social Identity-Driven Willful Ignorance and Conspiracy Beliefs (SIDWI-CB) model, a dual group-based motivational pathways framework that explains how intergroup symbolic and realistic motivations drive selective ignorance fueled by conspiracy beliefs. This framework offers a new lens for understanding how identity and power dynamics shape belief persistence, with broad implications for addressing polarization, misinformation and conspiracy beliefs, and collective decision making.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102193"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145261688","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}

引用次数: 0

Are there ideological differences in science denial? 否认科学存在意识形态上的差异吗？

IF 6.9 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Current Opinion in Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-10-03 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102190

Linda J. Skitka

Debates about issues such anthropomorphic climate change have raised alarm that there may be systematic differences in liberals' and conservatives' trust in science. Indeed, conservatives in the U.S. are much more skeptical of science than their liberal counterparts. However, there is little to no association between political orientation and trust in science in most non-U.S. countries and the cognitive processes underlying science denial are symmetric across ideological lines. Where ideological gaps emerge, politics is highly polarized, and one side has strategically sown doubt about scientific findings. Whether liberals trust science more than conservatives or vice versa depends on which side's party, leaders, and media promote skepticism about ideologically “inconvenient” scientific findings.

关于拟人化气候变化等问题的争论已经敲响了警钟，自由派和保守派对科学的信任可能存在系统性差异。事实上，美国的保守派比他们的自由派同行更怀疑科学。然而，在大多数非美国国家中，政治倾向和对科学的信任之间几乎没有联系。国家和否定科学的认知过程在意识形态上是对称的。在意识形态分歧出现的地方，政治高度两极化，一方在战略上播下了对科学发现的怀疑。自由主义者是否比保守主义者更信任科学，或者相反，取决于哪一方的政党、领导人和媒体对意识形态上“不方便”的科学发现持怀疑态度。

引用次数: 0

Antecedents and consequences of science-related conspiracy beliefs 与科学有关的阴谋论的前因后果

IF 6.9 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Current Opinion in Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-10-03 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102191

Karen M. Douglas

Many social, political, and psychological factors influence the extent to which people put their trust in science. The current article examines recent evidence for the role of conspiracy beliefs about science. The article examines the consequences of such beliefs, focusing on the domains of health (e.g., vaccinations) and the environment (e.g., climate change). Using the COVID-19 context as an example, the article focuses on the epistemic, existential, and social motives that underpin science-related conspiracy beliefs. Finally, the article considers whether science-related conspiracy beliefs satisfy these psychological motives, and what implications there are for future trust in science.

许多社会、政治和心理因素影响着人们对科学的信任程度。这篇文章检视了阴谋论在科学中的作用的最新证据。这篇文章考察了这种信念的后果，重点放在健康（例如，疫苗接种）和环境（例如，气候变化）领域。本文以2019冠状病毒病为例，重点关注支撑科学相关阴谋信念的认知、存在和社会动机。最后，本文考虑了与科学相关的阴谋信仰是否满足这些心理动机，以及对未来科学信任的影响。

引用次数: 0

Shared remembering as support against cognitive decline in aging and dementia 共同记忆有助于对抗衰老和痴呆的认知能力下降

IF 6.9 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Current Opinion in Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-10-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102189

Celia B. Harris, Ruth Brookman

Shared remembering is one of the most common ways we experience memory, and its role may become especially salient in aging and dementia. While laboratory studies of collaborative recall often show costs such as collaborative inhibition, research with older couples and families, and in care contexts highlights how joint remembering can provide essential memory support. In aging, collaboration with close others can facilitate memory, and in aged care, structured reminiscence interventions boost recall. In dementia, vicarious remembering by care partners can sustain identity and social connection, even when an individual's ability to recall and narrate past events is impaired. We highlight the mechanisms by which shared remembering can benefit older people, the conditions under which collaboration helps rather than hinders, and the practical value of translating this knowledge into care practices.

共同记忆是我们经历记忆的最常见方式之一，它在衰老和痴呆中的作用可能会变得特别突出。虽然协作记忆的实验室研究经常显示出协作抑制等代价，但对老年夫妇、家庭和护理环境的研究强调了共同记忆如何提供必要的支持。随着年龄的增长，与亲密的人合作可以促进记忆，在老年护理中，有组织的回忆干预可以提高记忆力。在痴呆症患者中，护理伙伴的替代记忆可以维持身份和社会联系，即使个人回忆和叙述过去事件的能力受损。我们强调共同记忆可以使老年人受益的机制，合作有助于而不是阻碍的条件，以及将这些知识转化为护理实践的实用价值。

引用次数: 0

History education: Past, present, and challenges for the future 历史教育：过去、现在和未来的挑战

IF 6.9 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Current Opinion in Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-10-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102188

María Rodríguez-Moneo , Mario Carretero , María Gutiérrez-Cano

This article reflects on present and past objectives of history education. Also, we analyze two main educational trends in history teaching and learning, historical thinking and historical consciousness. Different types of historical knowledge and historical narratives taught at schools are also considered as well as the impact that different educational objectives have on students learning. Finally, some challenges to improve history education in the future are presented.

本文对历史教育的目标和现状进行了反思。同时，我们还分析了历史教学的两种主要教育倾向：历史思维和历史意识。学校教授的不同类型的历史知识和历史叙事，以及不同的教育目标对学生学习的影响也被考虑在内。最后，提出了今后提高历史教育水平所面临的挑战。

引用次数: 0

The naturalness bias 自然偏差。

IF 6.9 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Current Opinion in Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-10-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102143

Brian P. Meier , Amanda J. Dillard , Courtney M. Lappas

Research shows that people have a natural-is-better belief whereby things described as “natural” are perceived as better than artificial, synthetic, or human-made items. For example, people report they would prefer a host of items when they are described as natural versus synthetic including drugs, vaccines, food, cigarettes, human talent, and lighting. Some people report preferring a natural item like a drug even when it is objectively less safe or effective than a synthetic counterpart. This naturalness bias is may become more widespread given the political climate in the U.S. and elsewhere in 2025 and beyond. However, there are many instances in which believing naturalness is better may be problematic, especially when it comes to health or medical behaviors. For example, people may forgo a synthetic or human-made medical treatment that has been rigorously tested in the laboratory and shown to influence a health condition in favor of a natural approach (e.g., herbal medicine). Research suggests that beliefs regarding the safety of natural items is one causal factor, but science skepticism is another factor that may be important. People who have a stronger naturalness bias may also be higher in science skepticism. Understanding how these two factors are connected could bring additional insight into how to reduce this bias. Implications of this connection and other ideas for future research related to the naturalness bias are discussed.

研究表明，人们有一种“自然就是更好”的信念，即被描述为“自然”的东西被认为比人工、合成或人造的东西更好。例如，人们报告说，当他们被描述为天然的而不是合成的东西时，他们更喜欢很多东西，包括药物、疫苗、食品、香烟、人才和照明。有些人更喜欢天然的东西，比如药物，即使它在客观上不如合成药物安全或有效。考虑到2025年及以后美国和其他地方的政治气候，这种自然偏见可能会变得更加普遍。然而，在很多情况下，相信自然更好可能是有问题的，尤其是在健康或医疗行为方面。例如，人们可能会放弃在实验室经过严格测试并证明会影响健康状况的合成或人造药物，而选择自然方法（例如草药）。研究表明，对天然食品安全性的信念是一个原因，但科学怀疑主义是另一个可能很重要的因素。自然偏见更强的人也可能对科学持更高的怀疑态度。了解这两个因素是如何联系在一起的，可以让我们进一步了解如何减少这种偏见。本文还讨论了这一联系的含义以及与自然性偏差相关的未来研究的其他想法。

{"title":"The naturalness bias","authors":"Brian P. Meier , Amanda J. Dillard , Courtney M. Lappas","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102143","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102143","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Research shows that people have a natural-is-better belief whereby things described as “natural” are perceived as better than artificial, synthetic, or human-made items. For example, people report they would prefer a host of items when they are described as natural versus synthetic including drugs, vaccines, food, cigarettes, human talent, and lighting. Some people report preferring a natural item like a drug even when it is objectively less safe or effective than a synthetic counterpart. This naturalness bias is may become more widespread given the political climate in the U.S. and elsewhere in 2025 and beyond. However, there are many instances in which believing naturalness is better may be problematic, especially when it comes to health or medical behaviors. For example, people may forgo a synthetic or human-made medical treatment that has been rigorously tested in the laboratory and shown to influence a health condition in favor of a natural approach (e.g., herbal medicine). Research suggests that beliefs regarding the safety of natural items is one causal factor, but science skepticism is another factor that may be important. People who have a stronger naturalness bias may also be higher in science skepticism. Understanding how these two factors are connected could bring additional insight into how to reduce this bias. Implications of this connection and other ideas for future research related to the naturalness bias are discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102143"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145214198","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}

引用次数: 0

首页上一页

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Current Opinion in Psychology

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.

﹀