Personality and Social Psychology Review最新文献

This article critically examines the pervasive yet often-neglected influence of capitalism on psychological processes and human behavior. While capitalist ideologies like neoliberalism have entered the mainstream in psychology, there remains a lack of deeper engagement with the foundations of capitalism. The article argues that capitalism generates distinct cultural syndromes that emerged from the unique historical experiences of Western societies and are deeply rooted in the core principles of capitalism: profit motive, market competition, and private property ownership. The article then argues that these principles manifest as capitalist cultural syndromes termed the "gain primacy," "zero-sum rivalry," and "ownership" syndromes, which collectively drive a self-enhancement agenda resulting in an overarching "individualist syndrome." It then explores how these syndromes maintain and reproduce social inequalities. By adopting a critical-historical approach, this article situates its analysis within a broader critique of capitalism, aiming to illuminate its impact on human thought, behavior, and well-being.Public AbstractOur thoughts, behaviors, and well-being are deeply influenced by the economic system we live in-capitalism. While psychologists have explored capitalist ideologies like neoliberalism, they often overlook capitalism's core foundations driving inequality. This work argues that capitalism, rooted in Western colonial history, generates powerful cultural narratives prioritizing profit, competition, and private ownership. These capitalist principles manifest as pervasive societal mindsets obsessed with personal gain, viewing life as a zero-sum rivalry, and deriving self-worth from possessions. Collectively, they breed an individualistic syndrome of selfish striving at the expense of community. By understanding how these capitalist cultural forces psychologically shape us, maintaining oppressive societal hierarchies, we can reimagine economic systems that truly uplift the human spirit across all peoples and the planet we share. Unveiling capitalism's influence is crucial to recover from its alienating effects and envision liberating alternatives.

Academic AbstractHumans frequently engage in mental time travel, reflecting on the past and anticipating the future. Although these processes may seem similar, research documents systematic differences between retrospection and prospection. We propose a conceptual framework to organize and explain these differences based on three axiomatic temporal asymmetries: The past occurs before the future; the past is more certain than the future; and the past is less controllable than the future. People's experience with these axiomatic differences is internalized and overgeneralized to shape mental representations of the past and future. Our review shows that people generally prioritize prospection over retrospection, attending more to the future than the past and reacting more intensely to future events than to past events. We consider potential moderators of and constraints on the generality of prioritizing prospection. We explore the implications of these temporal asymmetries, emphasizing their theoretical and practical significance.Public AbstractWhile daily life centers on the present, people often reflect on the past and anticipate the future. But which direction of mental time travel-backward or forward-has more influence? We identify three key differences that shape how people engage with the past and future: time flows from past to future, the future is more uncertain, and people have more control over the future. These differences affect the frequency, intensity, and nature of thoughts and feelings, leading to predictable biases in how we mentally represent and emotionally engage with events over time. Because focusing on the future often provides greater benefits, people tend to prioritize prospection over retrospection in everyday life.

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that, over time, causes a victim to doubt their sense of reality, often leading to a loss of agency and emotional and mental instability. Currently, mechanistic explanations for gaslighting are rooted in unfalsifiable psychodynamic theory. We propose a theoretical framework that draws upon prediction error minimization, symbolic interactionism, attachment theory, self-verification theory, and shared reality theory to illustrate the cognitive mechanisms that allow gaslighting to occur. We hypothesize that gaslighting depends on normative social-cognitive mechanisms operating in atypical social situations. Our model assumes that (close) relationships fulfill important epistemic needs-close others shape and verify our self-views and our experience of the world. This privileged position of close others is what gives gaslighters the epistemic leverage required for gaslighting to be effective. We then apply our theoretical framework to the cycle of gaslighting and conclude by distinguishing gaslighting from other related phenomena.Public AbstractGaslighting is a type of emotional abuse where someone manipulates another person into doubting their own sense of reality. Psychology lacks clear scientific explanations for how this abuse makes people feel like they're losing touch with what's real. In this report, we look at research from brain science and social psychology to explain what might be going on inside the minds of people who experience gaslighting. Our explanation focuses on how people learn from their experiences, and we also include ideas about how relationships and social situations can shape behavior. The goal is to offer a scientific explanation of gaslighting.

Although acculturation psychology is extensively studied in the social sciences, research progress has slowed due to overused methodologies and theories and emerging challenges to core conceptual tenets. Here, we seek to stimulate scientific inquiry into acculturation by integrating underutilized cultural evolutionary perspectives. We propose that cultural evolutionary mechanisms, such as (anti)conformity, prestige bias, payoff bias, and vertical transmission are instrumental in understanding when, why, and how minority- and majority-group members acculturate. The direction and potency of these mechanisms are proposed to be modulated by a combination of contextual and individual factors, resulting in acculturation strategies that at the population level form "cultural evolutionary equilibria." These equilibria in turn have consequences for the long-term, population-level dynamics of cultural evolution. We outline how our integration of perspectives can allow researchers to model the dynamics of large-scale cultural change, increasing our understanding of the complex challenges faced by today's diverse societies.Public AbstractAcculturation describes the cultural and psychological changes resulting from intercultural contact. Here, we use concepts from "cultural evolution" to better understand the processes of acculturation. Cultural evolution researchers view cultural change as an evolutionary process, allowing them to borrow tools and methods from biology. Cultural evolutionary mechanisms such as conformity (copying the numerical majority), anti-conformity (copying the numerical minority), prestige bias (copying famous individuals), payoff bias (copying successful people), and vertical cultural transmission (copying your parents) can cause people to adopt elements from other cultures and/or conserve their cultural heritage. We explore how these transmission mechanisms might create distinct acculturation strategies, shaping cultural change and diversity over the long-term. This theoretical integration can pave the way for a more sophisticated understanding of the pervasive cultural shifts occurring in many ethnically diverse societies, notably by identifying conditions that empower minority-group members, often marginalized, to significantly influence the majority group and society.

Academic AbstractProminent theories of belief and metacognition make different predictions about how people evaluate their biased beliefs. These predictions reflect different assumptions about (a) people's conscious belief regulation goals and (b) the mechanisms and constraints underlying belief change. I argue that people exhibit heterogeneity in how they evaluate their biased beliefs. Sometimes people are blind to their biases, sometimes people acknowledge and condone them, and sometimes people resent them. The observation that people adopt a variety of "metacognitive positions" toward their beliefs provides insight into people's belief regulation goals as well as insight into way that belief formation is free and constrained. The way that people relate to their beliefs illuminates why they hold those beliefs. Identifying how someone thinks about their belief is useful for changing their mind.Public AbstractThe same belief can be alternatively thought of as rational, careful, unfortunate, or an act of faith. These beliefs about one's beliefs are called "metacognitive positions." I review evidence that people hold at least four different metacognitive positions. For each position, I discuss what kinds of cognitive processes generated belief and what role people's values and preferences played in belief formation. We can learn a lot about someone's belief based on how they relate to that belief. Learning how someone relates to their belief is useful for identifying the best ways to try to change their mind.

Academic AbstractPatience has been of great interest to religious scholars, philosophers, and psychological scientists. Their efforts have produced numerous insights but no cohesive theoretical approach to understanding the broad set of experiences people label as patience. I propose a novel view of patience, one that departs from but ties together existing approaches. Grounded in theories of emotion and emotion regulation, I propose impatience as a discrete emotion triggered by an objectionable delay of some sort, and patience (as a state or process rather than a virtue) as a form of emotion regulation that targets the subjective experience and outward expression of impatience. I propose a number of predictors and consequences of patience and impatience and provide initial evidence for many of the theory's tenets. This theoretical approach, the process model of patience, reveals coherence across varied fields and methodologies and generates novel, testable, and timely questions for future patience scholars.Public Abstract"Patience is a virtue" is a familiar exhortation, and patience has been of great interest to religious scholars, philosophers, and psychological scientists. Their efforts have produced numerous insights but no cohesive theoretical approach to understanding the broad set of experiences people label as patience. This paper proposes an entirely novel view of patience, one that departs from but ties together existing approaches. I propose that impatience is an emotion, triggered by a frustrating delay of some sort, and patience captures the various ways people try to deal with their experience of impatience. I also propose that various aspects of the situation and the person combine to determine the intensity of impatience and the effectiveness of patience. Finally, I discuss the implications of a theoretical model, the process model of patience, for both scientific inquiry and issues of social justice, which are often fueled by appropriate experiences of impatience.

Academic AbstractInterpersonal synchrony, the alignment of behavior and/or physiology during interactions, is a pervasive phenomenon observed in diverse social contexts. Here we synthesize across contexts and behaviors to classify the different forms and functions of synchrony. We provide a concise framework for classifying the manifold forms of synchrony along six dimensions: periodicity, discreteness, spatial similarity, directionality, leader-follower dynamics, and observability. We also distill the various proposed functions of interpersonal synchrony into four interconnected functions: reducing complexity and improving understanding, accomplishing joint tasks, strengthening social connection, and influencing partners' behavior. These functions derive from first principles, emerge from each other, and are accomplished by some forms of synchrony more than others. Effective synchrony flexibly adapts to social goals and more synchrony is not always better. Our synthesis offers a shared framework and language for the field, allowing for better cross-context and cross-behavior comparisons, generating new hypotheses, and highlighting future research directions.