Pub Date : 2021-03-26DOI: 10.1177/1089268021995168
Rikki H. Sargent, L. Newman
Pluralistic ignorance occurs when group members mistakenly believe others’ cognitions and/or behaviors are systematically different from their own. More than 20 years have passed since the last review of pluralistic ignorance from a psychological framework, with more than 60 empirical articles assessing pluralistic ignorance published since then. Previous reviews took an almost entirely conceptual approach with minimal review of methodology, making existing reviews outdated and limited in the extent to which they can provide guidelines for researchers. The goal of this review is to evaluate and integrate the literature on pluralistic ignorance, clarify important conceptual issues, identify inconsistencies in the literature, and provide guidance for future research. We provide a comprehensive definition for the phenomenon, with a focus on its status as a group-level phenomenon. We highlight three areas of variation in particular in the current scoping review: variation in topics assessed, variation in measurement, and (especially) variation in methods for assessing the implications of individual-level misperceptions that, in aggregate, lead to pluralistic ignorance. By filling these gaps in the literature, we ultimately hope to motivate further analysis of the phenomenon.
{"title":"Pluralistic Ignorance Research in Psychology: A Scoping Review of Topic and Method Variation and Directions for Future Research","authors":"Rikki H. Sargent, L. Newman","doi":"10.1177/1089268021995168","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268021995168","url":null,"abstract":"Pluralistic ignorance occurs when group members mistakenly believe others’ cognitions and/or behaviors are systematically different from their own. More than 20 years have passed since the last review of pluralistic ignorance from a psychological framework, with more than 60 empirical articles assessing pluralistic ignorance published since then. Previous reviews took an almost entirely conceptual approach with minimal review of methodology, making existing reviews outdated and limited in the extent to which they can provide guidelines for researchers. The goal of this review is to evaluate and integrate the literature on pluralistic ignorance, clarify important conceptual issues, identify inconsistencies in the literature, and provide guidance for future research. We provide a comprehensive definition for the phenomenon, with a focus on its status as a group-level phenomenon. We highlight three areas of variation in particular in the current scoping review: variation in topics assessed, variation in measurement, and (especially) variation in methods for assessing the implications of individual-level misperceptions that, in aggregate, lead to pluralistic ignorance. By filling these gaps in the literature, we ultimately hope to motivate further analysis of the phenomenon.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"163 - 184"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268021995168","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47936306","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 : 2021-03-23DOI: 10.1177/1089268021989688
Tchilissila Alicerces Simões, B. de Sousa, I. Alberto
In this study, we sought to empirically validate the model of development of urban families in Southern Angola. The study was carried out with a sample of 256 participants (n = 130, 50.78% women; n = 126, 49.22% men) from urban centers of Southern Angola, aged between 18–79 years. We aimed, particularly, to identify women’s and men’s perceptions of their family functioning (SCORE-15), family vulnerability to stress (FILE), family strengths (FSQ), and family investment in rituals and routines (FRQ-R). The results from the structured additive regression models (STAR) demonstrated the adequacy of this model to explain and organize the data from the sample studied. Moreover, the results identified the perception of an adjusted family functioning, despite the high levels of family vulnerability to stress and low levels of family strength, compared with international studies. This study also showed a great investment in family rituals and routines. Results from STAR highlight the consistency of women throughout family evolution, and greater fluctuations in the results presented by men, particularly those who are in the stages of families with an adolescent or a young adult child and families in the “sandwich” generation. These results contribute to the enrichment of Simões and Alberto’s model and a better understanding of the family reality in urban Southern Angola.
{"title":"Urban Families in Southern Angola: What Makes Them Work? The Empirical Validation of a Family Life Cycle Model","authors":"Tchilissila Alicerces Simões, B. de Sousa, I. Alberto","doi":"10.1177/1089268021989688","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268021989688","url":null,"abstract":"In this study, we sought to empirically validate the model of development of urban families in Southern Angola. The study was carried out with a sample of 256 participants (n = 130, 50.78% women; n = 126, 49.22% men) from urban centers of Southern Angola, aged between 18–79 years. We aimed, particularly, to identify women’s and men’s perceptions of their family functioning (SCORE-15), family vulnerability to stress (FILE), family strengths (FSQ), and family investment in rituals and routines (FRQ-R). The results from the structured additive regression models (STAR) demonstrated the adequacy of this model to explain and organize the data from the sample studied. Moreover, the results identified the perception of an adjusted family functioning, despite the high levels of family vulnerability to stress and low levels of family strength, compared with international studies. This study also showed a great investment in family rituals and routines. Results from STAR highlight the consistency of women throughout family evolution, and greater fluctuations in the results presented by men, particularly those who are in the stages of families with an adolescent or a young adult child and families in the “sandwich” generation. These results contribute to the enrichment of Simões and Alberto’s model and a better understanding of the family reality in urban Southern Angola.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"185 - 202"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268021989688","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41397454","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 : 2021-03-22DOI: 10.1177/10892680211002441
Harrison J. Schmitt, Isaac F. Young, Lucas A. Keefer, R. Palitsky, Sheridan A Stewart, Alexis N. Goad, Daniel Sullivan
Coloniality describes the way in which racialized conceptions of being, personhood, and morality inherent in colonial regimes are maintained long after the formal end of colonial enterprises. Central to coloniality has been the material and psychological colonization of space and time, largely by Western and industrialized nations. We propose the importance of understanding the coloniality of time and space through a historically grounded framework called time-space distanciation (TSD). This framework posits that via the global spread of capitalism through colonization, psychological understandings of time and space have been separated from one another, such that they are now normatively treated as distinct entities, each with their own abstract and quantifiable value. We discuss the construct and its centrality to coloniality, as well as the ways in which contemporary psychology has been complicit in proliferating the coloniality of psychologies of time and space. Finally, we discuss ways to employ the decolonial strategies of denaturalization, indigenization, and accompaniment in the context of future research on the psychology of time and space. TSD contributes to decolonial efforts by combatting the reification of hegemonic psychological constructs, showing how these constructs arise as a function of historical changes in understanding, experience, and use of time and space.
{"title":"Time-Space Distanciation as a Decolonizing Framework for Psychology","authors":"Harrison J. Schmitt, Isaac F. Young, Lucas A. Keefer, R. Palitsky, Sheridan A Stewart, Alexis N. Goad, Daniel Sullivan","doi":"10.1177/10892680211002441","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211002441","url":null,"abstract":"Coloniality describes the way in which racialized conceptions of being, personhood, and morality inherent in colonial regimes are maintained long after the formal end of colonial enterprises. Central to coloniality has been the material and psychological colonization of space and time, largely by Western and industrialized nations. We propose the importance of understanding the coloniality of time and space through a historically grounded framework called time-space distanciation (TSD). This framework posits that via the global spread of capitalism through colonization, psychological understandings of time and space have been separated from one another, such that they are now normatively treated as distinct entities, each with their own abstract and quantifiable value. We discuss the construct and its centrality to coloniality, as well as the ways in which contemporary psychology has been complicit in proliferating the coloniality of psychologies of time and space. Finally, we discuss ways to employ the decolonial strategies of denaturalization, indigenization, and accompaniment in the context of future research on the psychology of time and space. TSD contributes to decolonial efforts by combatting the reification of hegemonic psychological constructs, showing how these constructs arise as a function of historical changes in understanding, experience, and use of time and space.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"405 - 421"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/10892680211002441","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42383996","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 : 2021-03-22DOI: 10.1177/10892680211002437
J. S. Fernández, C. Sonn, R. Carolissen, Garth Stevens
Recent psychology scholarship has engaged topics of decoloniality, from conferences to journal publications to edited volumes. These efforts are examples of the decolonial turn, a paradigm shift oriented to interrupting the colonial legacies of power, knowledge, and being. As critical community psychologists, we contend that decoloniality/decolonization is an epistemic and ontological process of continuously disrupting the coloniality of power that is the hegemonic Western Eurocentric approach to theory, research, and practice. To document and critically understand this process of colonial disruption—the roots and routes toward decoloniality within and outside of community psychology—we collected information at conference workshops and an open-ended online survey disseminated across international contexts. Through an analysis of two conference workshops (Chile; United States) and a survey, we describe four orientations that capture how participants engage with a decolonizing praxis. The four orientations include Generating knowledge With and from Within, Sociohistorical Intersectional Consciousness, Relationships of Mutual Accountability, and Unsettling Subjectivities of Power/Privilege. The coloniality of power, which characterizes the ethics and tensions within the discipline, is uprooted through these orientations, thereby enabling possibilities to trek a route away from colonial theory, research, and practice, and toward the decolonial turn in community psychology.
{"title":"Roots and Routes Toward Decoloniality Within and Outside Psychology Praxis","authors":"J. S. Fernández, C. Sonn, R. Carolissen, Garth Stevens","doi":"10.1177/10892680211002437","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211002437","url":null,"abstract":"Recent psychology scholarship has engaged topics of decoloniality, from conferences to journal publications to edited volumes. These efforts are examples of the decolonial turn, a paradigm shift oriented to interrupting the colonial legacies of power, knowledge, and being. As critical community psychologists, we contend that decoloniality/decolonization is an epistemic and ontological process of continuously disrupting the coloniality of power that is the hegemonic Western Eurocentric approach to theory, research, and practice. To document and critically understand this process of colonial disruption—the roots and routes toward decoloniality within and outside of community psychology—we collected information at conference workshops and an open-ended online survey disseminated across international contexts. Through an analysis of two conference workshops (Chile; United States) and a survey, we describe four orientations that capture how participants engage with a decolonizing praxis. The four orientations include Generating knowledge With and from Within, Sociohistorical Intersectional Consciousness, Relationships of Mutual Accountability, and Unsettling Subjectivities of Power/Privilege. The coloniality of power, which characterizes the ethics and tensions within the discipline, is uprooted through these orientations, thereby enabling possibilities to trek a route away from colonial theory, research, and practice, and toward the decolonial turn in community psychology.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"354 - 368"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/10892680211002437","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45094485","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 : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.1177/1089268020969113
Leopold Kislinger
One of the most important things people see is what other people do. In photographs of actions, people see what other people have done. This analysis focuses on photographs of motor actions or interactions taken in naturally occurring situations. I suggest that such photographs represent special meanings, which I call action-related meanings. I examined the hypothesis that viewers understand these meanings by establishing motor and somatosensory neural representations of pictured actions, which would also be activated if viewers would actually perform these actions. This correspondence provides a special access to bodily meanings of pictured actions. Based on findings on vision and reactions to photographs from multiple research areas, I developed a novel framework that describes the neural basis of understanding action-related meanings of photographs; how these meanings differ from conceptual meanings; the characteristics of pictured actions, which influence the strength of motor and somatosensory responses; the processes making these responses accessible to conscious experiencing; and the potential emotional, social, and cultural value of photographs picturing actions. The proposed framework contains a number of predictions, which can be tested by future empirical investigations. The analysis aims to contribute to a better understanding of the meanings represented by photographs of actions.
{"title":"Photographs Beyond Concepts: Access to Actions and Sensations","authors":"Leopold Kislinger","doi":"10.1177/1089268020969113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020969113","url":null,"abstract":"One of the most important things people see is what other people do. In photographs of actions, people see what other people have done. This analysis focuses on photographs of motor actions or interactions taken in naturally occurring situations. I suggest that such photographs represent special meanings, which I call action-related meanings. I examined the hypothesis that viewers understand these meanings by establishing motor and somatosensory neural representations of pictured actions, which would also be activated if viewers would actually perform these actions. This correspondence provides a special access to bodily meanings of pictured actions. Based on findings on vision and reactions to photographs from multiple research areas, I developed a novel framework that describes the neural basis of understanding action-related meanings of photographs; how these meanings differ from conceptual meanings; the characteristics of pictured actions, which influence the strength of motor and somatosensory responses; the processes making these responses accessible to conscious experiencing; and the potential emotional, social, and cultural value of photographs picturing actions. The proposed framework contains a number of predictions, which can be tested by future empirical investigations. The analysis aims to contribute to a better understanding of the meanings represented by photographs of actions.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"44 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020969113","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45226681","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 : 2021-02-27DOI: 10.1177/10892680211002443
Michael M. Prinzing
There are presently two approaches to the study of well-being. Philosophers typically focus on normative theorizing, attempting to identify the things that are ultimately good for a person, while largely ignoring empirical research. The idea is that empirical attention cannot be directed to the right place without a rigorous theory. Meanwhile, social scientists typically focus on empirical research, attempting to identify the causes and consequences of well-being, while largely ignoring normative theorizing. The idea is that conceptual and theoretical clarity will come with time and more data. This article argues that neither is a good approach to the study of well-being. The traditional philosophical approach underappreciates the vital importance of empirical investigation, whereas the atheoretical empirical approach underappreciates the vital importance of normative theorizing. The proposed solution is to bring these methods together. Well-being research should be interdisciplinary. The article proposes a “conceptual engineering” approach as a novel alternative. This approach involves an iterative process of normative theorizing, empirical investigation, and conceptual revision, with the aim of articulating concepts and theories of well-being that optimally suit particular interests and purposes.
{"title":"How to Study Well-Being: A Proposal for the Integration of Philosophy With Science","authors":"Michael M. Prinzing","doi":"10.1177/10892680211002443","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211002443","url":null,"abstract":"There are presently two approaches to the study of well-being. Philosophers typically focus on normative theorizing, attempting to identify the things that are ultimately good for a person, while largely ignoring empirical research. The idea is that empirical attention cannot be directed to the right place without a rigorous theory. Meanwhile, social scientists typically focus on empirical research, attempting to identify the causes and consequences of well-being, while largely ignoring normative theorizing. The idea is that conceptual and theoretical clarity will come with time and more data. This article argues that neither is a good approach to the study of well-being. The traditional philosophical approach underappreciates the vital importance of empirical investigation, whereas the atheoretical empirical approach underappreciates the vital importance of normative theorizing. The proposed solution is to bring these methods together. Well-being research should be interdisciplinary. The article proposes a “conceptual engineering” approach as a novel alternative. This approach involves an iterative process of normative theorizing, empirical investigation, and conceptual revision, with the aim of articulating concepts and theories of well-being that optimally suit particular interests and purposes.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"152 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/10892680211002443","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49137442","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 : 2021-02-01DOI: 10.1177/1089268020985509
R. Sternberg, Sareh Karami
In this article, we propose a “6P” unified framework for understanding wisdom and accounts of wisdom: purpose, press, problems, persons, processes, products. We discuss wisdom in terms of these 6Ps, which expand and elaborate upon 4Ps originally suggested for models of creativity. We open the article with a discussion of the importance of wisdom. Then, we consider some past accounts of wisdom. We begin by considering explicit models of wisdom and then implicit models (folk theories) of wisdom, first Western and then non-Western. Next, we elaborate upon the 6P framework. We then consider how existing models differ from one another in terms of the 6P framework. Then, we discuss how the 6P framework elucidates the development of wisdom. Finally, we draw conclusions, in particular, that a complete model of wisdom ultimately would need to specify all of the 6Ps, but it is not clear that any current models do so.
{"title":"What Is Wisdom? A Unified 6P Framework","authors":"R. Sternberg, Sareh Karami","doi":"10.1177/1089268020985509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020985509","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we propose a “6P” unified framework for understanding wisdom and accounts of wisdom: purpose, press, problems, persons, processes, products. We discuss wisdom in terms of these 6Ps, which expand and elaborate upon 4Ps originally suggested for models of creativity. We open the article with a discussion of the importance of wisdom. Then, we consider some past accounts of wisdom. We begin by considering explicit models of wisdom and then implicit models (folk theories) of wisdom, first Western and then non-Western. Next, we elaborate upon the 6P framework. We then consider how existing models differ from one another in terms of the 6P framework. Then, we discuss how the 6P framework elucidates the development of wisdom. Finally, we draw conclusions, in particular, that a complete model of wisdom ultimately would need to specify all of the 6Ps, but it is not clear that any current models do so.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"134 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020985509","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41899948","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 : 2020-12-24DOI: 10.1177/1089268020985004
{"title":"Corrigendum to Drawing the Line Between Essential and Nonessential Interventions on Intersex Characteristics With European Health Care Professionals","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/1089268020985004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020985004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"115 - 115"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2020-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020985004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42986487","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 : 2020-12-14DOI: 10.1177/1089268020977173
J. Best
It is well known that people who read fiction have many reasons for doing so. But perhaps one of the most understudied reasons people have for reading fiction is their belief that reading will result in their acquisition of certain forms of knowledge or skill. Such expectations have long been fostered by literary theorists, critics, authors, and readers who have asserted that reading may indeed be among the best ways to learn particular forms of knowledge. Modern psychological research has borne out many of these claims. For example, readers of fiction learn cognitive skills such as mentalizing or theory of mind. Reading fiction is also associated with greater empathic skills, especially among avid or lifelong readers. For readers who are emotionally transported into the fictional world they are reading about, powerful emotional truths are often discovered that may subsequently help readers build, or change, their identities. Fiction readers acquire factual information about places or people they may not have any other access to. But reading fiction also presents opportunities to acquire inaccurate factual information that may diminish access to previously learned accurate information. If readers are provided with inaccurate information that is encoded, they have opportunities to make faulty inferences, whose invalidity the reader is often incapable of detecting. Readers of fiction use schematic world knowledge to navigate fictional texts. But if the border between fiction and reality becomes blurred, as might be the case of avid readers of fiction, there is a risk that they may export schematic knowledge from the world of fiction to the everyday world, where it may not be applicable. These and other findings suggest that the varieties of learning from fiction form a complex, nuanced pattern deserving of greater attention by researchers.
{"title":"To Teach and Delight: The Varieties of Learning From Fiction","authors":"J. Best","doi":"10.1177/1089268020977173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020977173","url":null,"abstract":"It is well known that people who read fiction have many reasons for doing so. But perhaps one of the most understudied reasons people have for reading fiction is their belief that reading will result in their acquisition of certain forms of knowledge or skill. Such expectations have long been fostered by literary theorists, critics, authors, and readers who have asserted that reading may indeed be among the best ways to learn particular forms of knowledge. Modern psychological research has borne out many of these claims. For example, readers of fiction learn cognitive skills such as mentalizing or theory of mind. Reading fiction is also associated with greater empathic skills, especially among avid or lifelong readers. For readers who are emotionally transported into the fictional world they are reading about, powerful emotional truths are often discovered that may subsequently help readers build, or change, their identities. Fiction readers acquire factual information about places or people they may not have any other access to. But reading fiction also presents opportunities to acquire inaccurate factual information that may diminish access to previously learned accurate information. If readers are provided with inaccurate information that is encoded, they have opportunities to make faulty inferences, whose invalidity the reader is often incapable of detecting. Readers of fiction use schematic world knowledge to navigate fictional texts. But if the border between fiction and reality becomes blurred, as might be the case of avid readers of fiction, there is a risk that they may export schematic knowledge from the world of fiction to the everyday world, where it may not be applicable. These and other findings suggest that the varieties of learning from fiction form a complex, nuanced pattern deserving of greater attention by researchers.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"27 - 43"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2020-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020977173","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44055144","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 : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1177/10892680211015635
M. Gollwitzer, J. Schwabe
We scrutinize the argument that unsuccessful replications—and heterogeneous effect sizes more generally—may reflect an underappreciated influence of context characteristics. Notably, while some of these context characteristics may be conceptually irrelevant (as they merely affect psychometric properties of the measured/manipulated variables), others are conceptually relevant as they qualify a theory. Here, we present a conceptual and analytical framework that allows researchers to empirically estimate the extent to which effect size heterogeneity is due to conceptually relevant versus irrelevant context characteristics. According to this framework, contextual characteristics are conceptually relevant when the observed heterogeneity of effect sizes cannot be attributed to psychometric properties. As an illustrative example, we demonstrate that the observed heterogeneity of the “moral typecasting” effect, which had been included in the ManyLabs 2 replication project, is more likely attributable to conceptually relevant rather than irrelevant context characteristics, which suggests that the psychological theory behind this effect may need to be specified. In general, we argue that context dependency should be taken more seriously and treated more carefully by replication research.
{"title":"Context Dependency as a Predictor of Replicability","authors":"M. Gollwitzer, J. Schwabe","doi":"10.1177/10892680211015635","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211015635","url":null,"abstract":"We scrutinize the argument that unsuccessful replications—and heterogeneous effect sizes more generally—may reflect an underappreciated influence of context characteristics. Notably, while some of these context characteristics may be conceptually irrelevant (as they merely affect psychometric properties of the measured/manipulated variables), others are conceptually relevant as they qualify a theory. Here, we present a conceptual and analytical framework that allows researchers to empirically estimate the extent to which effect size heterogeneity is due to conceptually relevant versus irrelevant context characteristics. According to this framework, contextual characteristics are conceptually relevant when the observed heterogeneity of effect sizes cannot be attributed to psychometric properties. As an illustrative example, we demonstrate that the observed heterogeneity of the “moral typecasting” effect, which had been included in the ManyLabs 2 replication project, is more likely attributable to conceptually relevant rather than irrelevant context characteristics, which suggests that the psychological theory behind this effect may need to be specified. In general, we argue that context dependency should be taken more seriously and treated more carefully by replication research.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"241 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/10892680211015635","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46115782","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：