Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007702
Kristi A. Costabile, Abby S. Boytos
Sedikides’s immunity model of psychological homeostasis (this issue) presents a theoretical framework to understand a variety of self-protective social and cognitive psychological tendencies and biases, and in so doing encompasses a broad range of social-cognitive phenomena such as selfhandicapping (Jones & Berglas, 1978), social comparison (Festinger, 1954), and the fading affect bias (Ritchie et al., 2006). Here, we offer an examination and extension of the theoretical principles outlined by Sedikides as well as a discussion of future directions that follow from the ideas proposed in the target article. We focus our commentary on autobiographical narratives and how these narratives function to reflect, repair, and rewrite the self-concept. We will examine the dynamic relationship between autobiographical narratives and current self-views as well as the important role of social and cultural influences on narrative construction, perspectives that received less attention in the target article but which merit careful consideration when developing a greater understanding of the self-construction process.
Sedikides的心理稳态免疫模型(本期)提供了一个理论框架来理解各种自我保护的社会和认知心理倾向和偏见，这样做包含了广泛的社会认知现象，如自我设限(Jones & Berglas, 1978)、社会比较(Festinger, 1954)和逐渐减弱的影响偏见(Ritchie et al.， 2006)。在这里，我们提供了对Sedikides概述的理论原则的检查和扩展，以及对目标文章中提出的想法所遵循的未来方向的讨论。我们的评论重点是自传叙事，以及这些叙事如何反映、修复和重写自我概念。我们将研究自传体叙事与当前自我观点之间的动态关系，以及社会和文化影响对叙事构建的重要作用，这些观点在目标文章中受到的关注较少，但在对自我构建过程有更深入的了解时值得仔细考虑。
{"title":"Autobiographical Narratives Reflect, Repair, and Rewrite Self-Views","authors":"Kristi A. Costabile, Abby S. Boytos","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007702","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007702","url":null,"abstract":"Sedikides’s immunity model of psychological homeostasis (this issue) presents a theoretical framework to understand a variety of self-protective social and cognitive psychological tendencies and biases, and in so doing encompasses a broad range of social-cognitive phenomena such as selfhandicapping (Jones & Berglas, 1978), social comparison (Festinger, 1954), and the fading affect bias (Ritchie et al., 2006). Here, we offer an examination and extension of the theoretical principles outlined by Sedikides as well as a discussion of future directions that follow from the ideas proposed in the target article. We focus our commentary on autobiographical narratives and how these narratives function to reflect, repair, and rewrite the self-concept. We will examine the dynamic relationship between autobiographical narratives and current self-views as well as the important role of social and cultural influences on narrative construction, perspectives that received less attention in the target article but which merit careful consideration when developing a greater understanding of the self-construction process.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"275 - 283"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42511013","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 : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007701
S. Koole
A Dutch teenager begins hormone treatment to more fully transition to the woman she feels she is. An American real estate mogul slaps his name on his casinos, hotels, and skyscrapers. A Tibetan monk retreats in the mountains to meditate in poverty and isolation. These three individuals could hardly be more different from another. Nevertheless, their behavior can be readily understood in terms of a selfenhancement motive, or the desire to forge a self-image that satisfies one’s personal, social and cultural values (Sedikides & Strube, 1997). Self-enhancement is implicated in a vast array of human activities, from reckless driving (Ben-Ari, Florian, & Mikulincer, 1999) to ideological extremism (McGregor & Marigold, 2003) and nostalgic reveries (Luo, Liu, Cai, Wildschut, & Sedikides, 2016). Self-enhancement further has close ties to psychological health and emotional wellbeing (Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004). Consequently, is important to achieve a deeper scientific understanding of self-enhancement. Sedikides (this issue) furthers this aim by proposing a new theoretical model of self-enhancement. Central to the model is the notion that self-enhancement promotes psychological homeostasis, in the form of emotional wellbeing. More specifically, the homeostatic model draws an analogy between self-enhancement and the immune system. Just as the physical immune system protects the body from physical threats like germs or viruses, self-enhancement may form a psychological immune system that protects the person against psychological threats like loss or criticism. The homeostatic model thus connects self-enhancement to the dynamics of emotions and emotion regulation. Drawing from (social-) cognitive science, the adaptive functions of self-enhancement are assumed to be served through associative networks that contain identity themes, self-views, and autobiographical memories. The homeostatic model of self-enhancement (Sedikides, this issue) is a landmark achievement in the scientific study of the self. The model has both notable strengths and aspects that are in need of further development. In the remainder of this article, I take a closer look at the homeostatic model. First, I note some of the theoretical benefits of conceiving of self-enhancement as a biological adaptation. Second, I turn to the relation between physiological and psychological homeostasis. Third, I consider the analogy between self-enhancement and the immune system, and suggest that the digestive system may provide a useful alternative analogy. I end with some general conclusions and outlook on the self as a biological adaptation.
{"title":"The Homeostatic Ego: Self-Enhancement as a Biological Adaptation","authors":"S. Koole","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007701","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007701","url":null,"abstract":"A Dutch teenager begins hormone treatment to more fully transition to the woman she feels she is. An American real estate mogul slaps his name on his casinos, hotels, and skyscrapers. A Tibetan monk retreats in the mountains to meditate in poverty and isolation. These three individuals could hardly be more different from another. Nevertheless, their behavior can be readily understood in terms of a selfenhancement motive, or the desire to forge a self-image that satisfies one’s personal, social and cultural values (Sedikides & Strube, 1997). Self-enhancement is implicated in a vast array of human activities, from reckless driving (Ben-Ari, Florian, & Mikulincer, 1999) to ideological extremism (McGregor & Marigold, 2003) and nostalgic reveries (Luo, Liu, Cai, Wildschut, & Sedikides, 2016). Self-enhancement further has close ties to psychological health and emotional wellbeing (Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004). Consequently, is important to achieve a deeper scientific understanding of self-enhancement. Sedikides (this issue) furthers this aim by proposing a new theoretical model of self-enhancement. Central to the model is the notion that self-enhancement promotes psychological homeostasis, in the form of emotional wellbeing. More specifically, the homeostatic model draws an analogy between self-enhancement and the immune system. Just as the physical immune system protects the body from physical threats like germs or viruses, self-enhancement may form a psychological immune system that protects the person against psychological threats like loss or criticism. The homeostatic model thus connects self-enhancement to the dynamics of emotions and emotion regulation. Drawing from (social-) cognitive science, the adaptive functions of self-enhancement are assumed to be served through associative networks that contain identity themes, self-views, and autobiographical memories. The homeostatic model of self-enhancement (Sedikides, this issue) is a landmark achievement in the scientific study of the self. The model has both notable strengths and aspects that are in need of further development. In the remainder of this article, I take a closer look at the homeostatic model. First, I note some of the theoretical benefits of conceiving of self-enhancement as a biological adaptation. Second, I turn to the relation between physiological and psychological homeostasis. Third, I consider the analogy between self-enhancement and the immune system, and suggest that the digestive system may provide a useful alternative analogy. I end with some general conclusions and outlook on the self as a biological adaptation.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"267 - 274"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41597110","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 : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004822
D. A. Stinson, Elysia Desgrosseilliers, Jessica J. Cameron
There is much to admire about Sedikides’ (this issue) homeostatic model of identity maintenance. In brief, Sedikides argues that people possess a psychological immune system that helps them to maintain psychological homeostasis; “a routine, adaptive, process by which people monitor their internal and external environments for threats to their selfviews or, more generally, to their theories about their characteristics, relationships, and circumstances” (p. 215). The scope and complexity of the model effectively incorporate theories and empirical findings from the sprawling literature about the self, and thus provides an overarching structure apt to organize the field. The model’s focus on mind-body connections is also a welcome return to a holistic self-psychology that seemed lost for a while, but whose resurgence in recent years raises new questions and offers new opportunities for interdisciplinary cross-pollination. Framing the mechanisms that uphold a coherent sense of self as an immune system further emphasizes the inherently intertwined biological and psychological components of human life. Yet despite all of these strengths and the importance of the model as a whole, if we are being totally honest—and that seems to be the goal here—we suspect that some people could feel alienated when reading this paper. We agree that most people must contend with daily feedback that refutes their generally-positive self-views, including negative feedback from an employer, poor performance on a task for which they believe they are highly skilled, and criticism by a friend—all examples that Sedikides uses to illustrate his model—and we agree that those kinds of experiences can be highly distressing. Yet, when some people read those examples, a tiny voice in their heads may whisper, “That must be nice!” It must be nice to live in a social world where identity-threats can be easily countered if one “construe[s] their experiences optimistically” or “recall[s] selectively favorable information” (Sedikides, this issue, p. 211). It must be nice to enjoy positive self-views that meet “... survival and reproductive needs, including physical and social attractiveness, intellectual prowess, self-regulatory proficiency, and social status” (Sedikides, this issue, p. 197). It must be nice to have a psychological system whose primary goal is to simply feel good. Unfortunately, for people who possess one or more intersecting identities that are subject to social devaluation, or stigma, this is not always their lived reality, and we think that this perspective is missing from Sedikides’ model. This oversight is epistemologically costly, because from a population demographic perspective, most people possess characteristics or belong to groups that are subjected to stigma, and most of them belong to multiple stigmatized groups (Pachankis et al., 2018; Reinka, Pan-Weisz, Lawner, & Quinn, 2020). The proportion of the population that is disabled, fat, queer, or who are Black, In
Sedikides（本期）的身份维持稳态模型有很多值得钦佩的地方。简而言之，Sedikides认为，人们拥有一个心理免疫系统，可以帮助他们维持心理稳态；“一个常规的、适应性的过程，人们通过这个过程来监控他们的内部和外部环境，以寻找对他们的自我观点的威胁，或者更广泛地说，对他们关于自己的特征、关系和环境的理论的威胁”（第215页）。该模型的范围和复杂性有效地结合了关于自我的大量文献中的理论和经验发现，从而提供了一个易于组织该领域的总体结构。该模型对身心联系的关注也是对整体自我心理学的一次可喜的回归，这种心理学似乎已经消失了一段时间，但近年来它的复兴提出了新的问题，并为跨学科交叉授粉提供了新的机会。构建维持自我作为免疫系统的连贯感的机制，进一步强调了人类生活中固有的相互交织的生物和心理组成部分。然而，尽管有所有这些优势和整个模型的重要性，如果我们完全诚实——这似乎是我们的目标——我们怀疑有些人在阅读这篇论文时可能会感到疏远。我们同意，大多数人必须面对反驳他们普遍积极的自我观点的日常反馈，包括雇主的负面反馈、他们认为自己非常擅长的任务表现不佳，以及朋友的批评——所有这些都是Sedikides用来说明他的模型的例子——我们也同意，这些经历可能会非常令人痛苦。然而，当一些人读到这些例子时，他们脑海中可能会有一个微弱的声音在窃窃私语，“那一定很好！”生活在一个社会世界里，如果一个人“乐观地解释自己的经历”或“选择性地回忆有利的信息”，那么身份威胁就很容易得到应对，这一定很好（Sedikides，本期，第211页）。享受满足“…生存和生殖需求，包括身体和社会吸引力、智力、自律能力和社会地位”的积极自我观一定很好（Sedikides，本期，第197页）。拥有一个以感觉良好为主要目标的心理系统一定很好。不幸的是，对于那些拥有一个或多个交叉身份、受到社会贬低或污名化的人来说，这并不总是他们的生活现实，我们认为Sedikides的模型中缺少这一观点。这种监督在认识论上代价高昂，因为从人口统计学的角度来看，大多数人都具有特征或属于遭受污名化的群体，而且他们中的大多数人属于多个污名化群体（Pachankis et al.，2018；Reinka、Pan-Weisz、Lawner和Quinn，2020）。生活在美国和加拿大等后殖民/定居者社会中的残疾人、肥胖者、酷儿、黑人、原住民或有色人种的比例——仅举几个可能的交叉和污名化身份——远远超过不属于这些群体的人口比例，即使在每个群体都是“少数群体”的社会中也是如此。事实上，助长污名化的霸权社会制度就是这样运作的：少数人支配多数人，这种支配的一部分包括忽视和排斥“非规范”的生活经历（例如，Bos、Pryor、Reeder和Stutterheim，2013）。因此，我们想借此机会，探索Sedikides（这个问题）令人印象深刻、彻底和令人信服的身份维护稳态模型是如何扩展的，以解释人们的经历，他们不仅必须在宁愿自己不存在的社会环境中挣扎求生，但也必须努力忍受这种创伤的心理后果并从中恢复过来。因此，在接下来的讨论中，我们探讨了如何扩展Sedikides的模型，以解释那些必须与社会污名共存的人的经历，并希望有一天能从社会污名中恢复过来。
{"title":"Homeostasis, Interrupted: Living with and Recovering from a Stigmatized Identity","authors":"D. A. Stinson, Elysia Desgrosseilliers, Jessica J. Cameron","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004822","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004822","url":null,"abstract":"There is much to admire about Sedikides’ (this issue) homeostatic model of identity maintenance. In brief, Sedikides argues that people possess a psychological immune system that helps them to maintain psychological homeostasis; “a routine, adaptive, process by which people monitor their internal and external environments for threats to their selfviews or, more generally, to their theories about their characteristics, relationships, and circumstances” (p. 215). The scope and complexity of the model effectively incorporate theories and empirical findings from the sprawling literature about the self, and thus provides an overarching structure apt to organize the field. The model’s focus on mind-body connections is also a welcome return to a holistic self-psychology that seemed lost for a while, but whose resurgence in recent years raises new questions and offers new opportunities for interdisciplinary cross-pollination. Framing the mechanisms that uphold a coherent sense of self as an immune system further emphasizes the inherently intertwined biological and psychological components of human life. Yet despite all of these strengths and the importance of the model as a whole, if we are being totally honest—and that seems to be the goal here—we suspect that some people could feel alienated when reading this paper. We agree that most people must contend with daily feedback that refutes their generally-positive self-views, including negative feedback from an employer, poor performance on a task for which they believe they are highly skilled, and criticism by a friend—all examples that Sedikides uses to illustrate his model—and we agree that those kinds of experiences can be highly distressing. Yet, when some people read those examples, a tiny voice in their heads may whisper, “That must be nice!” It must be nice to live in a social world where identity-threats can be easily countered if one “construe[s] their experiences optimistically” or “recall[s] selectively favorable information” (Sedikides, this issue, p. 211). It must be nice to enjoy positive self-views that meet “... survival and reproductive needs, including physical and social attractiveness, intellectual prowess, self-regulatory proficiency, and social status” (Sedikides, this issue, p. 197). It must be nice to have a psychological system whose primary goal is to simply feel good. Unfortunately, for people who possess one or more intersecting identities that are subject to social devaluation, or stigma, this is not always their lived reality, and we think that this perspective is missing from Sedikides’ model. This oversight is epistemologically costly, because from a population demographic perspective, most people possess characteristics or belong to groups that are subjected to stigma, and most of them belong to multiple stigmatized groups (Pachankis et al., 2018; Reinka, Pan-Weisz, Lawner, & Quinn, 2020). The proportion of the population that is disabled, fat, queer, or who are Black, In","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"253 - 259"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49542942","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 : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004818
E. Jonas, Janine Stollberg
There is much to like about the target article by Sedikides as, among other things the author illuminates the important psychological construct of personal identity. He suggests that the construction and protection of a desired identity is an essential component of the human body’s harm protection system which serves to promote psychological homeostasis and supports the immune system of the body. Importantly, Sedikides sees psychological and biological immunity as two components in a coordinated and adaptive system that helps humans to adapt best to their environment. In doing so, he does not just use the immune system as a metaphor but emphasizes the actual influence of psychological states on biological processes. In addition, his article presents meaningful content with regard to the processes of identity construction, maintenance and protection. Although the field of social psychology is rich in research on defensive processes, Sedikides illustrates the creation and adaptation of narratives and thereby advances our understanding of how such narratives may increase homeostasis and thus support immunity. The idea that a psychological immune system is coordinated with the biological immune system to protect humans from harm is compelling. However, questions remain pertaining to how this coordination process works? For the author the idea of psychological homeostasis is fundamental and can be described as a regulatory process by which individuals strive to feel good and therefore try to modulate their affect within an acceptable range. Similar to the regulation of body temperature or blood sugar, the human body’s self-regulation can experience ups and downs and varies on a continuum from accurate to biased self-views. However, without these temporal biases or deviations, which manifest in self-protection and self-enhancement processes, the body would not be able to regain psychological homeostasis which is important for each individual to function well. Indeed, without homeostasis biological adaptation would be impeded and biological fitness would be reduced. Therefore, the body not only needs various well-functioning biological systems but also a psychological maintenance system. Identity processes which are connected with the human ability for conscious reflection, abstract representation and linguistic communication are an essential part of this psychological maintenance system. Humans build on their capacity for differentiation, continuity, and agency (which they share to a certain extent with animals) as well as on specific human capabilities for meta-beliefs (i.e., self-views as well as global and specific narratives about individual characteristic, attitudes, abilities, and beliefs). Especially conscious reflection, abstraction, and projection help people to protect themselves from harm, to adapt to their environment and to effectively control the environment. However, personal identity not only comes with benefits but also with costs in t
{"title":"Homeostasis as Affective-Motivational State: A Threat and Defense Perspective","authors":"E. Jonas, Janine Stollberg","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004818","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004818","url":null,"abstract":"There is much to like about the target article by Sedikides as, among other things the author illuminates the important psychological construct of personal identity. He suggests that the construction and protection of a desired identity is an essential component of the human body’s harm protection system which serves to promote psychological homeostasis and supports the immune system of the body. Importantly, Sedikides sees psychological and biological immunity as two components in a coordinated and adaptive system that helps humans to adapt best to their environment. In doing so, he does not just use the immune system as a metaphor but emphasizes the actual influence of psychological states on biological processes. In addition, his article presents meaningful content with regard to the processes of identity construction, maintenance and protection. Although the field of social psychology is rich in research on defensive processes, Sedikides illustrates the creation and adaptation of narratives and thereby advances our understanding of how such narratives may increase homeostasis and thus support immunity. The idea that a psychological immune system is coordinated with the biological immune system to protect humans from harm is compelling. However, questions remain pertaining to how this coordination process works? For the author the idea of psychological homeostasis is fundamental and can be described as a regulatory process by which individuals strive to feel good and therefore try to modulate their affect within an acceptable range. Similar to the regulation of body temperature or blood sugar, the human body’s self-regulation can experience ups and downs and varies on a continuum from accurate to biased self-views. However, without these temporal biases or deviations, which manifest in self-protection and self-enhancement processes, the body would not be able to regain psychological homeostasis which is important for each individual to function well. Indeed, without homeostasis biological adaptation would be impeded and biological fitness would be reduced. Therefore, the body not only needs various well-functioning biological systems but also a psychological maintenance system. Identity processes which are connected with the human ability for conscious reflection, abstract representation and linguistic communication are an essential part of this psychological maintenance system. Humans build on their capacity for differentiation, continuity, and agency (which they share to a certain extent with animals) as well as on specific human capabilities for meta-beliefs (i.e., self-views as well as global and specific narratives about individual characteristic, attitudes, abilities, and beliefs). Especially conscious reflection, abstraction, and projection help people to protect themselves from harm, to adapt to their environment and to effectively control the environment. However, personal identity not only comes with benefits but also with costs in t","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"247 - 252"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59940193","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 : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004813
Erin M. O’Mara Kunz, L. Gaertner
Sedikides (this issue) provides a comprehensive and compelling model detailing the adaptive nature of self-protection and self-enhancement as the drivers of psychological homeostasis. We consider through two examples that psychological homeostasis is adaptive, in part, because it promotes environmental control. The examples entail the role of specificity, which Sedikides incorporates in his Proposition 4 suggesting that broader (i.e., global) threats are harder to defend than specific (i.e., narrower) threats. We expand this proposition by considering specificity in regard to narratives, with the first exampling concerning what Sedikides refers to as a preemptive narrative and the second a reparative narrative.
{"title":"Psychological Homeostasis and Environmental Control via Preemptive and Reparative Narrative-Specificity","authors":"Erin M. O’Mara Kunz, L. Gaertner","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004813","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004813","url":null,"abstract":"Sedikides (this issue) provides a comprehensive and compelling model detailing the adaptive nature of self-protection and self-enhancement as the drivers of psychological homeostasis. We consider through two examples that psychological homeostasis is adaptive, in part, because it promotes environmental control. The examples entail the role of specificity, which Sedikides incorporates in his Proposition 4 suggesting that broader (i.e., global) threats are harder to defend than specific (i.e., narrower) threats. We expand this proposition by considering specificity in regard to narratives, with the first exampling concerning what Sedikides refers to as a preemptive narrative and the second a reparative narrative.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"222 - 223"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48011591","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 : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004817
Felipe De Brigard, Matthew L. Stanley
In 1998, Gilbert and Wilson et al. coined the term “psychological immune system” to refer to the set of cognitive mechanisms that help individuals fend off psychological discomfort and undesirable negative affect (Gilbert et al. 1998). Although, as they themselves acknowledged, this idea had been suggested previously in the literature (Freud, 1936; Vaillant, 1993), they utilized the term to explain and understand a number of different phenomena—including, of course, biases in affective forecasting (Gilbert, 2006). Gilbert, though, did not mean for the notion of a psychological immune system to be taken literally. A few years after the publication of that seminal paper, in an interview published by The New York Times, Gilbert explicitly stated that he and Wilson meant for the term to be interpreted metaphorically: “We’ve used the metaphor of the ‘psychological immune system’ –it’s just a metaphor, but not a bad one for that system of defenses that helps you feel better when bad things happen.” (Gertner, 2003). The claim that our mind is furnished with a psychological immune system was, therefore, offered as an attractive and useful strategy for explaining and understanding diverse psychological phenomena, and the interpretation of which was meant to be merely figurative. Gilbert’s ontological hesitation does not appeal to Sedikides, who has written an intriguing piece inviting us to think of the psychological immune system in a literal sense: as an actual, evolved set of cognitive mechanisms and operations whose adaptive purpose is to protect our sense of personal identity (Sedikides, this issue). The proposal builds heavily upon a series of connections drawn from features of our biological immune system and features of our putative psychological immune system. As a result, it comprises a large number of moving parts, some of which stand on shakier ground than others, and some of which leave us with more questions than they seem to answer. For instance, some of the evidence Sedikides adduces in support of his view comes from the fact that certain psychological tendencies and biases are conducive to beneficial behaviors for the organism. Since such individual benefits are taken to be adaptive, then the conclusion that the system that brought them about must have evolved for said purpose—i.e., psychological homeostasis—seems ineluctable. Unfortunately, the jump from “beneficial to me” to “selected for” or “having the function of” is often an unwarranted line of reasoning (Garson, 2016). One can easily engage in behaviors that are beneficial for oneself, but those behaviors can simultaneously be not-adaptive for organisms like us, in the sense of conferring evolutionary advantages. When psychologists use the term ‘adaptive’ they normally mean something like ‘non-detrimental for the organism’, which is not identical to the biologists’ sense of ‘adaptive’—meaning the organism’s propensity toward increased fitness in a local environment—which is the sen
我们主要关注我们个人身份的一个特定方面，即我们的道德身份。在过去的十年里
{"title":"Moral Memories and Identity Protection","authors":"Felipe De Brigard, Matthew L. Stanley","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004817","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004817","url":null,"abstract":"In 1998, Gilbert and Wilson et al. coined the term “psychological immune system” to refer to the set of cognitive mechanisms that help individuals fend off psychological discomfort and undesirable negative affect (Gilbert et al. 1998). Although, as they themselves acknowledged, this idea had been suggested previously in the literature (Freud, 1936; Vaillant, 1993), they utilized the term to explain and understand a number of different phenomena—including, of course, biases in affective forecasting (Gilbert, 2006). Gilbert, though, did not mean for the notion of a psychological immune system to be taken literally. A few years after the publication of that seminal paper, in an interview published by The New York Times, Gilbert explicitly stated that he and Wilson meant for the term to be interpreted metaphorically: “We’ve used the metaphor of the ‘psychological immune system’ –it’s just a metaphor, but not a bad one for that system of defenses that helps you feel better when bad things happen.” (Gertner, 2003). The claim that our mind is furnished with a psychological immune system was, therefore, offered as an attractive and useful strategy for explaining and understanding diverse psychological phenomena, and the interpretation of which was meant to be merely figurative. Gilbert’s ontological hesitation does not appeal to Sedikides, who has written an intriguing piece inviting us to think of the psychological immune system in a literal sense: as an actual, evolved set of cognitive mechanisms and operations whose adaptive purpose is to protect our sense of personal identity (Sedikides, this issue). The proposal builds heavily upon a series of connections drawn from features of our biological immune system and features of our putative psychological immune system. As a result, it comprises a large number of moving parts, some of which stand on shakier ground than others, and some of which leave us with more questions than they seem to answer. For instance, some of the evidence Sedikides adduces in support of his view comes from the fact that certain psychological tendencies and biases are conducive to beneficial behaviors for the organism. Since such individual benefits are taken to be adaptive, then the conclusion that the system that brought them about must have evolved for said purpose—i.e., psychological homeostasis—seems ineluctable. Unfortunately, the jump from “beneficial to me” to “selected for” or “having the function of” is often an unwarranted line of reasoning (Garson, 2016). One can easily engage in behaviors that are beneficial for oneself, but those behaviors can simultaneously be not-adaptive for organisms like us, in the sense of conferring evolutionary advantages. When psychologists use the term ‘adaptive’ they normally mean something like ‘non-detrimental for the organism’, which is not identical to the biologists’ sense of ‘adaptive’—meaning the organism’s propensity toward increased fitness in a local environment—which is the sen","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"240 - 246"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49103570","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 : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004815
André Vaz, André Mata, Clayton R. Critcher
ions of the mind. We begin by highlighting questions that arose from our efforts to fully embrace and play out the analogy. In so doing, we seek to clarify (and at times speculate on) the nature of the psychological immune system and thus the maladaptive traps into which it may fall. At that point, we turn to a consideration of the role of the interconnectedness of the self’s structures, a topic of particular interest both in understanding current social trends and in explaining previous research that was not considered through the lens of ego defense. Finally, we close by considering how social perceptions fit within the project of self-enhancement. In the process, we identify a basic question that, to our surprise, decades of research on self-enhancement seem not to have addressed. Understanding the Connection Between the Biological and Psychological Immune Systems What does the psychological immune system monitor versus aim to gauge? Several of the recent COVID-19 vaccines train the body to monitor for the spike protein on the virus’s surface in an effort to gauge the presence of the virus. Diabetics who use a glucometer monitor the numbers on their readers’ display in an effort to gauge their blood glucose levels. In each case, the symptom is ultimately dissociable from the underlying state. The mRNA vaccines encourage production of the spike protein but not the virus itself; glucose readers can malfunction. What one thus hopes to monitor (to decide if supplemental action is necessary) is an imperfect guide to what one is ultimately trying to gauge. If the psychological immune system aims to achieve psychological homeostasis, what does this mean in terms of what it monitors, and what it is ultimately trying to gauge? What is the symptom, and what is the real threat? Sedikides describes psychological homeostasis as modulating or CONTACT Andr!e Vaz arvaz@campus.ul.pt, aomata@psicologia.ulisboa.pt Faculdade de Psicologia, Alameda da Universidade, 1649-013, Lisboa, Portugal. ! 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY 2021, VOL. 32, NO. 4, 230–239 https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004815 reducing negative affect, achieving emotional equilibrium, and helping with the desire to achieve the most favorable emotional life that people can attain. This is a provocative claim: Is the psychological immune system merely a mood maintenance system, not one that is on the lookout for selfevaluative threat in particular? At its core, we consider this a question of whether the psychological immune system looks to James’s (1950 [1890]) “I” or “me.” The “I” is not merely a volitional executive, but is accompanied by affectively rich phenomenological experience (Gregg et al., 2011). When people feel paralyzed by crippling anxiety or inspired by the promise of future possibility, the “I” experiences a weight or boost as it navigates its environment. In contrast, the “me” is an object of evaluation, a catalog of resources that can serve the self an
接受心理免疫系统与一个人的感受相适应，而不是与一个人对自我方面X的感受相协调，有助于解释为什么不同的自我修复手段之间存在如此多的可替代性（Gregg et al.，2011；Sherman&Cohen，2006；Tesser，2000）。此外，这将解释为什么自尊修复的明显需求可以通过其他情感安慰途径来解决（例如，依恋和世界观防御；Hart，Shaver，&Goldenberg，2005），这些途径与可能有助于追求目标的人际和社会资源有关。也就是说，解决自我对追求自身需求的能力的沮丧、失望和焦虑并不需要自我具备解决这些问题的个人能力。当虚惊一场时，人们可能会因为不知道如何关闭它而感到恐慌。但我们怀疑，无论一个人是否拥有资源和知识来关闭它，或者是否有知识渊博的其他人来处理这个问题，这种焦虑都会消退。情绪状态对当前焦点很敏感。需要明确的是，这是自我及其资源占据中心舞台的地方。在“我”能够行动之前，它经常需要咨询“我”；它必然就在附近。因为自我通常是第一个解决自己问题的人，所以可以理解为什么自我评价与心理警钟之间似乎存在如此密切的联系，这些警钟表明自我未来的舒适感、成功感和成就感处于危险之中。并非总是有一个能干的助手在等待。但消极情绪的注意力吸引力，再加上大脑能够轻松地从此时此地转移到思考过去和未来（Liberman&Trope，2008；Trope&Liberman，2010），加剧了心理免疫系统的缺陷。它没有对自我状态及其生活追求采取冷静、平衡的视角，而是可以进入沉思的螺旋（Martin&Tesser，1996；Mikulincer，1989），当意识重温过去的失望和尴尬的能力导致它陷入困境时，这种螺旋尤其会适得其反。在演讲中失声不仅在当下敲响了警钟，而且在接下来的几天里，人们会在脑海中一遍又一遍地回放这一事件。考虑到人们往往高估了一次性失败对声誉的影响（Moon，Gan，&Critcher，2020；Savitsky，Epley，&Gilovich，2001），心理免疫系统可能会在一场轻微的尘埃落定后被激发宣战。Sedikides似乎认为，心理免疫系统的许多明显缺陷只是不可避免的缺陷。但对制度缺陷的容忍不应与被动接受相混淆。家庭的烟雾探测器偶尔会被安全、可控的烹饪活动激活，这并不是把它从天花板上扯下来的原因，但这可能是开始使用通风罩的原因。正是在这里——在考虑自我对心理警钟的反应时——我们敦促进一步分析什么会构成对威胁的或多或少的适应性反应，而不是简单地接受系统的功能通常是适应性的。如果心理免疫系统最终的目标是衡量一个人是否能够有效地驾驭自己的世界，那么人们应该优先考虑有助于实现这一目标的情绪修复方法。如果房主的反应是寻找降噪耳机，烟雾探测器就会失去自适应功能。因此，我们不太相信心理免疫系统——通过监测情绪状态而不是潜在的评论231
{"title":"Analogies Offer Value Through the Struggle to Make Them Work: Making Sense of the Psychological Immune System","authors":"André Vaz, André Mata, Clayton R. Critcher","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004815","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004815","url":null,"abstract":"ions of the mind. We begin by highlighting questions that arose from our efforts to fully embrace and play out the analogy. In so doing, we seek to clarify (and at times speculate on) the nature of the psychological immune system and thus the maladaptive traps into which it may fall. At that point, we turn to a consideration of the role of the interconnectedness of the self’s structures, a topic of particular interest both in understanding current social trends and in explaining previous research that was not considered through the lens of ego defense. Finally, we close by considering how social perceptions fit within the project of self-enhancement. In the process, we identify a basic question that, to our surprise, decades of research on self-enhancement seem not to have addressed. Understanding the Connection Between the Biological and Psychological Immune Systems What does the psychological immune system monitor versus aim to gauge? Several of the recent COVID-19 vaccines train the body to monitor for the spike protein on the virus’s surface in an effort to gauge the presence of the virus. Diabetics who use a glucometer monitor the numbers on their readers’ display in an effort to gauge their blood glucose levels. In each case, the symptom is ultimately dissociable from the underlying state. The mRNA vaccines encourage production of the spike protein but not the virus itself; glucose readers can malfunction. What one thus hopes to monitor (to decide if supplemental action is necessary) is an imperfect guide to what one is ultimately trying to gauge. If the psychological immune system aims to achieve psychological homeostasis, what does this mean in terms of what it monitors, and what it is ultimately trying to gauge? What is the symptom, and what is the real threat? Sedikides describes psychological homeostasis as modulating or CONTACT Andr!e Vaz arvaz@campus.ul.pt, aomata@psicologia.ulisboa.pt Faculdade de Psicologia, Alameda da Universidade, 1649-013, Lisboa, Portugal. ! 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY 2021, VOL. 32, NO. 4, 230–239 https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004815 reducing negative affect, achieving emotional equilibrium, and helping with the desire to achieve the most favorable emotional life that people can attain. This is a provocative claim: Is the psychological immune system merely a mood maintenance system, not one that is on the lookout for selfevaluative threat in particular? At its core, we consider this a question of whether the psychological immune system looks to James’s (1950 [1890]) “I” or “me.” The “I” is not merely a volitional executive, but is accompanied by affectively rich phenomenological experience (Gregg et al., 2011). When people feel paralyzed by crippling anxiety or inspired by the promise of future possibility, the “I” experiences a weight or boost as it navigates its environment. In contrast, the “me” is an object of evaluation, a catalog of resources that can serve the self an","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"230 - 239"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43496058","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 : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007700
Virgil Zeigler‐Hill
Sedikides (this issue) draws attention to the roles that processes such as self-construction, self-protection, and selfenhancement may play in the homeostatic regulation of identity. The ideas offered by Sedikides are certainly intriguing because our understanding of identity remains far from complete. For example, there would appear to be substantial advantages for us having accurate perceptions of ourselves (e.g., this would allow us to make better decisions regarding the pursuit of certain goals) but there is abundant evidence that we often view ourselves in an overly positive manner (e.g., Brown & others, 1986; Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003). Many scholars have attempted to provide explanations for our tendencies to adopt inaccurate self-views but Sedikides argues that one of the reasons for these patterns may be the homeostatic processes that protect our sense of identity. The purpose of this commentary is to offer my reflections on some of the arguments offered by Sedikides by primarily focusing on their implications for our understanding of narcissism.
{"title":"A Homeostatic Perspective on Narcissistic Personality Dynamics","authors":"Virgil Zeigler‐Hill","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007700","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007700","url":null,"abstract":"Sedikides (this issue) draws attention to the roles that processes such as self-construction, self-protection, and selfenhancement may play in the homeostatic regulation of identity. The ideas offered by Sedikides are certainly intriguing because our understanding of identity remains far from complete. For example, there would appear to be substantial advantages for us having accurate perceptions of ourselves (e.g., this would allow us to make better decisions regarding the pursuit of certain goals) but there is abundant evidence that we often view ourselves in an overly positive manner (e.g., Brown & others, 1986; Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003). Many scholars have attempted to provide explanations for our tendencies to adopt inaccurate self-views but Sedikides argues that one of the reasons for these patterns may be the homeostatic processes that protect our sense of identity. The purpose of this commentary is to offer my reflections on some of the arguments offered by Sedikides by primarily focusing on their implications for our understanding of narcissism.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"263 - 266"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43919069","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 : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004824
D. Tice, R. Baumeister
The theory of the self has been built up by work of countless scholars across multiple disciplines. It has taken input from very different fields of study. Psychologists’ views have been edified and informed by many other fields. Sedikides (this issue) extends this rich, integrative tradition by borrowing insights and models from immunology. Many of his thought-provoking analyses offer potential insights into psychological phenomena, indeed some of whose implications extend beyond the task of building psychological theory to understanding society-wide problems. As a particular example that struck us, his parallel between biological inoculation and the development of psychological defenses offers a fresh and powerful insight into a much-discussed problem facing modern universities as a whole. Many scholars have noted that in the past five years college students have become increasingly fragile. Whereas earlier generations of students demanded to be allowed to hear radical, challenging ideas, modern students demand to be shielded from them. (Lukianoff and Haidt [2018] have offered a trenchant analysis of this sweeping change.) Modern students often claim that some ideas threaten their right to exist—even, famously, a newspaper op-ed that did no more than document that university administrators are more politically left-leaning than the faculty (Abrams 2018; see Morabito 2019; Paresky 2019). Some students demand trigger warnings to alert them in advance that a lecture or reading might mention topics or theories that would disturb them (even though accumulating evidence indicates that trigger warnings do not reduce anxiety and indeed may increase it; see Bellet et al. 2020). This widespread student malaise and fragility (derided as “snowflake” mentality by critics) can be usefully understood in Sedikides’s terms as a failure of inoculation. By all accounts, American parents shifted in the 1990s to become hyper-protective of their children, as documented by Lukianoff and Haidt (2018). Psychologists bear some responsibility for this shift, as that era was obsessed with the ostensible importance and fragility of self-esteem (e.g., California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility 1990). As is typical with scientific work, the complexities, debates, and limitations of the actual scientific research got lost as the message was transmitted via the mass media to the general public. The result was that parents became reluctant to criticize their children and sought to protect them from failure, challenge, or even unsettling ideas. This contrasted sharply with the style of child-rearing emphasized in earlier generations, which wanted above all to avoid a spoiled or prideful child. Insofar as 21-century parents succeeded at sheltering their children from anything negative, they produced young adults who lack the psychological immune system with the power to cope with having their self-views or worldviews threatened. Indeed, it
{"title":"The Psychological Immune System: What Needs Defending?","authors":"D. Tice, R. Baumeister","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004824","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004824","url":null,"abstract":"The theory of the self has been built up by work of countless scholars across multiple disciplines. It has taken input from very different fields of study. Psychologists’ views have been edified and informed by many other fields. Sedikides (this issue) extends this rich, integrative tradition by borrowing insights and models from immunology. Many of his thought-provoking analyses offer potential insights into psychological phenomena, indeed some of whose implications extend beyond the task of building psychological theory to understanding society-wide problems. As a particular example that struck us, his parallel between biological inoculation and the development of psychological defenses offers a fresh and powerful insight into a much-discussed problem facing modern universities as a whole. Many scholars have noted that in the past five years college students have become increasingly fragile. Whereas earlier generations of students demanded to be allowed to hear radical, challenging ideas, modern students demand to be shielded from them. (Lukianoff and Haidt [2018] have offered a trenchant analysis of this sweeping change.) Modern students often claim that some ideas threaten their right to exist—even, famously, a newspaper op-ed that did no more than document that university administrators are more politically left-leaning than the faculty (Abrams 2018; see Morabito 2019; Paresky 2019). Some students demand trigger warnings to alert them in advance that a lecture or reading might mention topics or theories that would disturb them (even though accumulating evidence indicates that trigger warnings do not reduce anxiety and indeed may increase it; see Bellet et al. 2020). This widespread student malaise and fragility (derided as “snowflake” mentality by critics) can be usefully understood in Sedikides’s terms as a failure of inoculation. By all accounts, American parents shifted in the 1990s to become hyper-protective of their children, as documented by Lukianoff and Haidt (2018). Psychologists bear some responsibility for this shift, as that era was obsessed with the ostensible importance and fragility of self-esteem (e.g., California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility 1990). As is typical with scientific work, the complexities, debates, and limitations of the actual scientific research got lost as the message was transmitted via the mass media to the general public. The result was that parents became reluctant to criticize their children and sought to protect them from failure, challenge, or even unsettling ideas. This contrasted sharply with the style of child-rearing emphasized in earlier generations, which wanted above all to avoid a spoiled or prideful child. Insofar as 21-century parents succeeded at sheltering their children from anything negative, they produced young adults who lack the psychological immune system with the power to cope with having their self-views or worldviews threatened. Indeed, it","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"260 - 262"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43841112","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 : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007703
C. Sedikides
Abstract I clarify issues surrounding the homeostatic model of identity protection. These issues include the dynamic interplay between psychological homeostasis and environmental control; the relevance of interoception and nature of self-threat; the value of a single psychological immune system (rather than multiple ones); and the model’s applicability and implications. Various other observations the commentators made enrich aspects of the model.
{"title":"The Homeostatic Model of Identity Protection: Lingering Issues","authors":"C. Sedikides","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007703","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007703","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract I clarify issues surrounding the homeostatic model of identity protection. These issues include the dynamic interplay between psychological homeostasis and environmental control; the relevance of interoception and nature of self-threat; the value of a single psychological immune system (rather than multiple ones); and the model’s applicability and implications. Various other observations the commentators made enrich aspects of the model.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"32 1","pages":"284 - 288"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42560696","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：