Pub Date : 2025-09-29DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102187
Thomas van der Velde , Johanna Swartswe , Koen Schruers , Teresa Schuhmann
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive treatment for psychiatric and neurological disorders, especially major depressive disorder. While generally well-tolerated and associated with fewer side effects than pharmacological alternatives, TMS is not without risks. Common adverse effects include transient headaches, scalp discomfort, nausea, and dizziness. Seizures, the most serious event, are rare (7 per 100,000 sessions) and typically occur early in treatment among high-risk individuals. Psychological side effects, particularly nocebo responses, are underexplored and warrant attention due to their potential impact. Cognitive side effects are rare and typically mild or transient, with some evidence of cognitive benefit in specific protocols. With expanding clinical use, standardized monitoring tools and open-access registries are needed to ensure accurate reporting and transparency.
{"title":"Monitoring adverse effects in TMS: From controlled trials to clinical reality","authors":"Thomas van der Velde , Johanna Swartswe , Koen Schruers , Teresa Schuhmann","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102187","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102187","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive treatment for psychiatric and neurological disorders, especially major depressive disorder. While generally well-tolerated and associated with fewer side effects than pharmacological alternatives, TMS is not without risks. Common adverse effects include transient headaches, scalp discomfort, nausea, and dizziness. Seizures, the most serious event, are rare (7 per 100,000 sessions) and typically occur early in treatment among high-risk individuals. Psychological side effects, particularly nocebo responses, are underexplored and warrant attention due to their potential impact. Cognitive side effects are rare and typically mild or transient, with some evidence of cognitive benefit in specific protocols. With expanding clinical use, standardized monitoring tools and open-access registries are needed to ensure accurate reporting and transparency.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102187"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145242032","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 : 2025-09-24DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102183
Aart van Stekelenburg
Science communication research provides insight into the role of science literacy in the acceptance of scientific facts. While it makes intuitive sense to expect the ability to understand and use science to be positively related to belief in scientific facts, some influential works have instead suggested that science literacy leads to polarization on controversial science topics. More recent studies, made possible by developments in the definition and measurement of science literacy, indicate that it is positively correlated with belief in scientific facts and likely does not lead to belief polarization in most situations. Still, more research investigating the various aspects of science literacy, testing the causal effect of improving it, and with samples from various countries and clear reporting of outcome variables is needed.
{"title":"Science literacy and the acceptance of scientific facts","authors":"Aart van Stekelenburg","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102183","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102183","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Science communication research provides insight into the role of science literacy in the acceptance of scientific facts. While it makes intuitive sense to expect the ability to understand and use science to be positively related to belief in scientific facts, some influential works have instead suggested that science literacy leads to polarization on controversial science topics. More recent studies, made possible by developments in the definition and measurement of science literacy, indicate that it is positively correlated with belief in scientific facts and likely does not lead to belief polarization in most situations. Still, more research investigating the various aspects of science literacy, testing the causal effect of improving it, and with samples from various countries and clear reporting of outcome variables is needed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102183"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145181231","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 : 2025-09-23DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102186
Charles B. Stone
Collective memories are the result of a nuanced interplay between what is collectively remembered and forgotten. Indeed, much like individual memory, collective forgetting is the rule, not the exception and thus plays a profound role in shaping how mnemonic communities collectively remember their past. And while it may be assumed that silence, or what my colleagues and I refer to as mnemonic silence, is associated with forgetting, this is not necessarily always the case. Indeed, the association between mnemonic silence, forgetting and collective memory are nuanced and, in some cases, counter-intuitive. To demonstrate this, I will discuss a taxonomy of mnemonic silence in terms of covertness, intentionality and relatedness as they relate to collective memories. Subsequently, I will discuss pressing, future issues surrounding mnemonic silence as they relate to both analog (e.g., monuments) and digital (e.g., social media) forms of cultural artifacts and their importance in understanding how and when collective memories will be forged and forgotten.
{"title":"Collective forgetting? Mnemonic silence and its nuanced role in shaping collective remembering","authors":"Charles B. Stone","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102186","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102186","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Collective memories are the result of a nuanced interplay between what is collectively remembered <em>and</em> forgotten. Indeed, much like individual memory, collective forgetting is the rule, not the exception and thus plays a profound role in shaping how mnemonic communities collectively remember their past. And while it may be assumed that silence, or what my colleagues and I refer to as mnemonic silence, is associated with forgetting, this is not necessarily always the case. Indeed, the association between mnemonic silence, forgetting and collective memory are nuanced and, in some cases, counter-intuitive. To demonstrate this, I will discuss a taxonomy of mnemonic silence in terms of covertness, intentionality and relatedness as they relate to collective memories. Subsequently, I will discuss pressing, future issues surrounding mnemonic silence as they relate to both analog (e.g., monuments) and digital (e.g., social media) forms of cultural artifacts and their importance in understanding how and when collective memories will be forged <em>and</em> forgotten.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102186"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145242034","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 : 2025-09-22DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102184
Natalia Zarzeczna , Travis Proulx
Currently, ideologically-motivated discourses are actively undermining perceived value of science, with evidence-based policy-making being increasingly replaced with antiscience agendas shaped by political, spiritual, or conspiratorial ideologies. We propose that motivated science rejection is driven by compensatory mechanisms serving to maintain a coherent understanding of reality when this understanding conflicts with science. Drawing on the meaning maintenance model and the assumption of fluid compensation—any belief framework can be replaced with another to restore meaning—we argue that when science violates meaning, it is rejected in favour of an alternative framework of ideological beliefs, regardless of their epistemic validity. Interventions that align science with meaning-maintenance needs to minimise compensatory responses may prove promising in reducing science rejection.
{"title":"Meaning maintenance drives science rejection","authors":"Natalia Zarzeczna , Travis Proulx","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102184","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102184","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Currently, ideologically-motivated discourses are actively undermining perceived value of science, with evidence-based policy-making being increasingly replaced with antiscience agendas shaped by political, spiritual, or conspiratorial ideologies. We propose that motivated science rejection is driven by compensatory mechanisms serving to maintain a coherent understanding of reality when this understanding conflicts with science. Drawing on the meaning maintenance model and the assumption of fluid compensation—any belief framework can be replaced with another to restore meaning—we argue that when science violates meaning, it is rejected in favour of an alternative framework of ideological beliefs, regardless of their epistemic validity. Interventions that align science with meaning-maintenance needs to minimise compensatory responses may prove promising in reducing science rejection.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102184"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145181232","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 : 2025-09-22DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102185
Petr Houdek, Štěpán Bahník
This article examines how willful ignorance among (mostly) honest individuals contributes to the persistence and escalation of unethical behavior within certain environments. When individuals choose to avoid morally relevant information, they disengage from situations that would compel ethical action. This disengagement not only permits dishonesty to continue but also drives selection and sorting processes by which ethically flexible individuals are drawn to and retained in ever-more-corrupt environments. Over time, this dynamic cements systemic corruption and makes it more difficult for honest individuals to intervene. The article presents a conceptual framework outlining these self-reinforcing mechanisms and discusses implications for organizational and societal ethics. The framework clarifies why common countermeasures against dishonesty (entry barriers, shaming, or transparency) often backfire. The described self-reinforcing dynamics (where environments shape who enters, and the entrants then solidify the environment) are often overlooked in experimental psychological research, which focuses on emphasizing random assignment over self-selection, sorting, and endogenous-emergence designs.
{"title":"When honesty checks-out: Willful ignorance and the persistence of unethical environments","authors":"Petr Houdek, Štěpán Bahník","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102185","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102185","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article examines how willful ignorance among (mostly) honest individuals contributes to the persistence and escalation of unethical behavior within certain environments. When individuals choose to avoid morally relevant information, they disengage from situations that would compel ethical action. This disengagement not only permits dishonesty to continue but also drives selection and sorting processes by which ethically flexible individuals are drawn to and retained in ever-more-corrupt environments. Over time, this dynamic cements systemic corruption and makes it more difficult for honest individuals to intervene. The article presents a conceptual framework outlining these self-reinforcing mechanisms and discusses implications for organizational and societal ethics. The framework clarifies why common countermeasures against dishonesty (entry barriers, shaming, or transparency) often backfire. The described self-reinforcing dynamics (where environments shape who enters, and the entrants then solidify the environment) are often overlooked in experimental psychological research, which focuses on emphasizing random assignment over self-selection, sorting, and endogenous-emergence designs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102185"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145181246","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 : 2025-09-20DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102181
G. Hochman , T. Kalagy , S. Malul , R. Yosef
Willful ignorance is the motivated avoidance of information. This robust behavioral tendency is typically explained through individual psychological mechanisms like self-image protection, emotional regulation, and moral leniency. However, existing theories underemphasize the social, cultural, and institutional contexts that fundamentally shape what people choose not to know. Drawing on extant literature and cross-cultural data from pension planning in Israel's three primary sociocultural groups, we demonstrate that willful ignorance often functions as a socially embedded practice, not merely an individual bias. For marginalized communities, such avoidance may represent adaptive responses to structural barriers, distrust, and cultural misalignment. To account for these dynamics, we propose the Sociocultural Architecture Model of Willful Ignorance. This integrative framework conceptualizes the meaning and adaptive function of willful ignorance as emerging from the interplay of individual, emotional, cultural, and structural factors. Addressing these factors is crucial for designing interventions that provide genuine inclusion for all.
{"title":"Choosing not to know: The emotional and sociocultural architecture of pension willful ignorance","authors":"G. Hochman , T. Kalagy , S. Malul , R. Yosef","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102181","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102181","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Willful ignorance is the motivated avoidance of information. This robust behavioral tendency is typically explained through individual psychological mechanisms like self-image protection, emotional regulation, and moral leniency. However, existing theories underemphasize the social, cultural, and institutional contexts that fundamentally shape what people choose not to know. Drawing on extant literature and cross-cultural data from pension planning in Israel's three primary sociocultural groups, we demonstrate that willful ignorance often functions as a socially embedded practice, not merely an individual bias. For marginalized communities, such avoidance may represent adaptive responses to structural barriers, distrust, and cultural misalignment. To account for these dynamics, we propose the Sociocultural Architecture Model of Willful Ignorance. This integrative framework conceptualizes the meaning and adaptive function of willful ignorance as emerging from the interplay of individual, emotional, cultural, and structural factors. Addressing these factors is crucial for designing interventions that provide genuine inclusion for all.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102181"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145181234","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 : 2025-09-20DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102182
Guy Itzchakov , Geoff Haddock
Willful ignorance is a pervasive phenomenon with significant consequences for decision-making, belief maintenance, and social polarization. While past research has identified various motivational and contextual factors underlying this behavior, less attention has been paid to attitude characteristics that shape the likelihood of engaging in willful ignorance. Addressing this gap, this paper introduces attitude strength as a critical and heretofore unexplored psychological factor that should affect when and why individuals engage in willful ignorance. We argue that strong attitudes, such as those held with certainty, are highly accessible, or are perceived as morally relevant, are particularly likely to elicit willful ignorance. Drawing on cognitive dissonance theory and motivated reasoning, we synthesize findings across domains, from political partisanship to responses to misinformation and AI-mediated communication.
{"title":"Attitude strength as a novel predictor of willful ignorance","authors":"Guy Itzchakov , Geoff Haddock","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102182","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102182","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Willful ignorance is a pervasive phenomenon with significant consequences for decision-making, belief maintenance, and social polarization. While past research has identified various motivational and contextual factors underlying this behavior, less attention has been paid to attitude characteristics that shape the likelihood of engaging in willful ignorance. Addressing this gap, this paper introduces attitude strength as a critical and heretofore unexplored psychological factor that should affect when and why individuals engage in willful ignorance. We argue that strong attitudes, such as those held with certainty, are highly accessible, or are perceived as morally relevant, are particularly likely to elicit willful ignorance. Drawing on cognitive dissonance theory and motivated reasoning, we synthesize findings across domains, from political partisanship to responses to misinformation and AI-mediated communication.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102182"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145181233","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 : 2025-09-20DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102180
Shiri Noy , Timothy L. O'Brien
As two of society's most influential cultural authorities, science and religion shape perceptions of both truth and morality. While science is often linked to factual knowledge and religion to moral judgment, their boundaries are often blurred and contested. This review integrates insights from sociology and psychology to examine how science and religion assert, sustain, and lose authority in contemporary societies. Drawing on recent empirical research, including cross-national comparisons, time-trend analysis, and the role of moral framing, we show that trust in science and religion is context-dependent and shaped by institutional settings, social identities, and moral resonance. We argue that cultural authority is not fixed but constructed through interactions among individuals, institutions, and widely shared narratives about empirical truth and moral values. Future research should engage comparative, intersectional, and moral dimensions to better understand how science and religion function as competing or complementary sources of cultural authority.
{"title":"The cultural authority of science and religion","authors":"Shiri Noy , Timothy L. O'Brien","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102180","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102180","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As two of society's most influential cultural authorities, science and religion shape perceptions of both truth and morality. While science is often linked to factual knowledge and religion to moral judgment, their boundaries are often blurred and contested. This review integrates insights from sociology and psychology to examine how science and religion assert, sustain, and lose authority in contemporary societies. Drawing on recent empirical research, including cross-national comparisons, time-trend analysis, and the role of moral framing, we show that trust in science and religion is context-dependent and shaped by institutional settings, social identities, and moral resonance. We argue that cultural authority is not fixed but constructed through interactions among individuals, institutions, and widely shared narratives about empirical truth and moral values. Future research should engage comparative, intersectional, and moral dimensions to better understand how science and religion function as competing or complementary sources of cultural authority.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102180"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145181235","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 : 2025-09-18DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102179
Paula Pyrcz , Marta Marchlewska , Piotr Michalski
This article proposes a theoretical model linking collective narcissism, need for cognitive closure, and willful ignorance as important mechanisms driving intergroup bias and conspiracy beliefs. The model suggests that individuals strongly identified with their group in a narcissistic way are motivated to avoid information threatening ingroup image, especially when they also seek cognitive certainty. This deliberate ignorance serves to protect group image and reinforce prejudice. The framework applies symmetrically to both religious (Catholics) and non-religious (atheists) groups, highlighting a universal psychological mechanism. Secure group identification, in contrast, is posited to buffer against these effects.
{"title":"Blinded by bad identity: The role of collective narcissism, need for cognitive closure and willful ignorance in fostering intergroup bias and hostility among Catholics and atheists","authors":"Paula Pyrcz , Marta Marchlewska , Piotr Michalski","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102179","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102179","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article proposes a theoretical model linking collective narcissism, need for cognitive closure, and willful ignorance as important mechanisms driving intergroup bias and conspiracy beliefs. The model suggests that individuals strongly identified with their group in a narcissistic way are motivated to avoid information threatening ingroup image, especially when they also seek cognitive certainty. This deliberate ignorance serves to protect group image and reinforce prejudice. The framework applies symmetrically to both religious (Catholics) and non-religious (atheists) groups, highlighting a universal psychological mechanism. Secure group identification, in contrast, is posited to buffer against these effects.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102179"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145181236","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 : 2025-09-12DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102174
Rodoljub Jovanović , Angela Bermúdez
Starting from Galtung's typology of violence, we first track differing ways in which direct violence on one hand, and structural and cultural violence on the other, are remembered and represented. Following this, we examine research demonstrating how narratives of past violence are constructed in various cultural products, with the focus on history textbooks narratives, their tendency to distort, normalize and justify violence, as well as potential to do the opposite. Furthermore, we explore history education and its potential to help students engage with the memory of violence in a critical way. Finally, we look at how assuming the role of victim or being assigned a role of the perpetrator critically determines a sophisticated interplay between the memory of violence, social identities and moral perspectives.
{"title":"Memory of violence","authors":"Rodoljub Jovanović , Angela Bermúdez","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102174","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102174","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Starting from Galtung's typology of violence, we first track differing ways in which direct violence on one hand, and structural and cultural violence on the other, are remembered and represented. Following this, we examine research demonstrating how narratives of past violence are constructed in various cultural products, with the focus on history textbooks narratives, their tendency to distort, normalize and justify violence, as well as potential to do the opposite. Furthermore, we explore history education and its potential to help students engage with the memory of violence in a critical way. Finally, we look at how assuming the role of victim or being assigned a role of the perpetrator critically determines a sophisticated interplay between the memory of violence, social identities and moral perspectives.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102174"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145094162","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