Current Opinion in Psychology最新文献

Underutilization of mental health services is a complex problem that requires the investigation of new strategies to facilitate treatment-seeking. Nudging is a relatively new approach which has shown promise in promoting healthy behaviors in a variety of domains, though little work has investigated how nudges may be applied to the initiation of mental health treatment. In this paper, we review the limited work examining nudging related to treatment initiation and discuss findings from a study evaluating the impact of nudges on treatment-seeking. Findings provide insights into the acceptability and efficacy of nudging as a strategy for increasing treatment, and implications for future work exploring this approach for improving treatment access are discussed.

As nudges—subtle changes to the way options are presented to guide choice—have gained popularity across policy domains in the past 15 years, healthcare systems and researchers have eagerly deployed these light-touch interventions to improve clinical decision-making. However, recent research has identified the limitations of nudges. Although nudges may modestly improve clinical decisions in some contexts, these interventions (particularly nudges implemented as electronic health record alerts) can also backfire and have unintended consequences. Further, emerging research on crowd-out effects suggests that healthcare nudges may direct attention and resources toward the clinical encounter and away from the main structural drivers of poor health outcomes. It is time to move beyond nudges and toward the development of multi-level, structurally focused interventions.

Misinformation has risen in recent years, negatively affecting domains ranging from politics to health. To curb the spread of misinformation it is useful to consider why, how, and when people decide to share information. Here we suggest that information-sharing decisions are value-based choices, in which sharers strive to maximize rewards and minimize losses to themselves and/or others. These outcomes can be tangible, in the form of monetary rewards or losses, or intangible, in the form of social feedback. On social media platforms these rewards and losses are not clearly tied to the accuracy of information shared. Thus, sharers have little incentive to avoid disseminating misinformation. Based on this framework, we propose ways to nudge sharers to prioritize accuracy during information-sharing.

Does self-control express or suppress our true selves? This article reviews the emerging body of literature on the effect of self-control on authentic self-expression from the actors' (self-signaling) and the observers’ (other-signaling) perspective. While actors can experience self-control as either expression or suppression of the self, individual differences in decision-making or personal values can predict when self-control is more likely to be experienced in one way or the other. Self-control also signals to observers both positive (e.g., competent, trustworthy, powerful) and negative (e.g., inauthentic, robotic, less warm) identities, with specific inferences depending on the context (e.g., work vs. fun). Overall, the relationship between self-control and self-expression is more nuanced than earlier research suggested, and several open questions await further investigation.

Over the past decade, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have transformed numerous facets of our lives. In this article, we summarize key themes in emerging AI research in behavioral science. In doing so, we aim to unravel the multifaceted impacts of AI on people's emotions, cognition, and behaviors, offering nuanced insights into this rapidly evolving landscape. This article concludes with proposing promising avenues for future research, outlining areas for further exploration and methodological approaches to consider.

Trait self-control is highly valued, often equated with moral righteousness and associated with numerous positive life outcomes. This paper challenges the conventional conflation of trait self-control and state self-control. We suggest that while trait self-control is consistently linked to success, state self-control is not the causal mechanism driving these benefits. Trait self-control, sometimes also referred to as conscientiousness, grit, and the ability to delay gratification, predicts better health, wealth, and academic achievement. Conventional wisdom has it that people high in trait self-control reap all these benefits because they engage in more state self-control, defined as the momentary act of resolving conflict between goals and fleeting desires. Despite its intuitive appeal, there are problems with extolling state self-control because of our love for trait self-control. First, empirical evidence suggests that individuals high in trait self-control do not engage in more state self-control but engage it less. Second, changes to state self-control do not reliably and sustainably improve people's outcomes, as least in the long-term. And third, despite the possibility of dramatic improvements in trait self-control, these improvements are often short lived, with people returning to their baseline trait level over longer time horizons. The roots of this problem are numerous: Imprecise and inaccurate naming of our constructs that lead to construct drift and contamination; ignoring the numerous other facets of conscientiousness like orderliness or industriousness; and not appreciating that traits are sometimes not reducible to states. We suggest that the celebrated benefits of trait self-control arise from mechanisms beyond state self-control and highlight the need for a broader conceptualization of self-control in psychological research and practical interventions.

A popular topic in developmental science is self-regulation, an aspect of functioning viewed as contributing to optimal development. Of particular theoretical importance is top-down (frontal cortically based) self-regulation (TDSR). This article briefly reviews recent research on TDSR's relation to four areas of development: maladjustment, social competence, prosocial development, and academic development. Recent studies on the topic often involve sophisticated methods and designs; moreover, several relevant meta-analyses have been published in the recent past. In general, a higher level of TDSR has been associated with better adjustment, social competence, prosociality, and success in the school setting. Limitations in the research and extant meta-analyses are briefly noted.

Episodic future thinking (EFT), the ability to imagine future autobiographical events, is both an everyday and clinically significant cognitive process. With a focus on depression and suicidality, here we discuss evidence connecting EFT with psychopathology. Emotional valence of imagined future events has emerged as the most widely established feature of EFT detected to date, with less positive EFT being associated with depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. This pattern may not be merely a byproduct of sadness or anhedonia. Promising directions for future research include clarifying the temporal association between EFT and clinical outcomes, investigating the potential benefits and drawbacks of positive EFT, and refining assessments for youth to measure EFT either preceding or soon after onset of psychopathology.

Psychological interventions tend to be confrontational in nature. That is, when psychologists seek to bring about change in beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors, they often do so by directly confronting the presumed barrier to change. Confrontational approaches can be effective, but suffer from limitations to their efficacy, such as the possibility of arousing discomfort or defensiveness from the recipient. The current piece seeks to highlight an alternative strategy that we refer to as bypassing, which refers to a general approach for bringing about behavior change without confrontation. Leveraging insights from research on misinformation, stereotypes, and persuasion, we present evidence that non-confrontational approaches can be as effective, if not more so, than the traditional confrontational paradigm.

Suicide is a leading cause of death for young people globally. Professional organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend suicide screening for every young person at every healthcare contact and these guidelines are now being implemented across the US. To optimize deployment of these guidelines, we draw on insights from two parallel fields, implementation science – or the study of how to support clinicians in providing evidence-based care within organizational constraints – and behavioral economics, which centers human decision-making. In this brief review, we offer potential barriers to suicide screening and strategies to address barriers drawing on these two literatures, illustrating how best to integrate insights from these fields for maximal impact.