This article highlights the value in taking a multi‐temporal perspective to the literature on underdogs and favorites in competitive contexts. We contend that an inherent feature of the psychological experience of being an underdog or favorite is the coexistence of thoughts related to the past and future. Building upon this key insight, we adopt a multi‐temporal lens to compare current research on underdogs and favorites to the broader literature studying competition and motivation in intergroup contexts, with the goal of identifying possible areas of coherence and contradiction in relation to other relevant theoretical frameworks. Through this analysis, we put forth a set of what we hope are thought‐provoking research questions that are intended to guide and inspire future work in this domain.
{"title":"Underdogs and favorites: Past, present, and future","authors":"Nathan C. Pettit, Sarah P. Doyle, Robert B. Lount","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12973","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12973","url":null,"abstract":"This article highlights the value in taking a multi‐temporal perspective to the literature on underdogs and favorites in competitive contexts. We contend that an inherent feature of the psychological experience of being an underdog or favorite is the coexistence of thoughts related to the past and future. Building upon this key insight, we adopt a multi‐temporal lens to compare current research on underdogs and favorites to the broader literature studying competition and motivation in intergroup contexts, with the goal of identifying possible areas of coherence and contradiction in relation to other relevant theoretical frameworks. Through this analysis, we put forth a set of what we hope are thought‐provoking research questions that are intended to guide and inspire future work in this domain.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141189494","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}
Benjamin Gardner, Amanda L. Rebar, Sanne de Wit, Phillippa Lally
Habit change is often seen as key to successful long‐term behaviour change. Making ‘good’ behaviours habitual—that is, ensuring a behaviour is prompted automatically on exposure to situational cues, based on cue‐response associations learnt through context‐consistent repetition—is portrayed as a mechanism for sustaining such behaviours over time. Conversely, disrupting ‘bad’ habits is expected to terminate longstanding unwanted actions. Yet, some commentators have suggested that the role of habit in real‐world behaviour and behaviour change has been overstated. Such critiques highlight a gap between habit theory and the reality of human behaviour ‘in the wild’. This state‐of‐the‐field review aims to narrow this gap. Building on a core distinction between habit and habitual behaviour, our review seeks to offer interpretations of habit theory and evidence that will better manage intervention designers' expectations regarding how modifying habit can realistically be expected to promote behaviour change. We emphasise that habit is just one potential influence on behaviour at any given moment, and highlight instances in which habit may dominate over intention, and in which intention may dominate over habit, in determining behaviour frequency. We suggest that, while it may assist behaviour maintenance, habit formation may be neither necessary nor sufficient to sustain real‐world behaviour change. We draw attention to the various ways in which habit may be ‘broken’ (i.e., disrupted), and discern the implications of each habit disruption mechanism for long‐term cessation of unwanted behaviours.
{"title":"What is habit and how can it be used to change real‐world behaviour? Narrowing the theory‐reality gap","authors":"Benjamin Gardner, Amanda L. Rebar, Sanne de Wit, Phillippa Lally","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12975","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12975","url":null,"abstract":"Habit change is often seen as key to successful long‐term behaviour change. Making ‘good’ behaviours habitual—that is, ensuring a behaviour is prompted automatically on exposure to situational cues, based on cue‐response associations learnt through context‐consistent repetition—is portrayed as a mechanism for sustaining such behaviours over time. Conversely, disrupting ‘bad’ habits is expected to terminate longstanding unwanted actions. Yet, some commentators have suggested that the role of habit in real‐world behaviour and behaviour change has been overstated. Such critiques highlight a gap between habit theory and the reality of human behaviour ‘in the wild’. This state‐of‐the‐field review aims to narrow this gap. Building on a core distinction between <jats:italic>habit</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>habitual behaviour</jats:italic>, our review seeks to offer interpretations of habit theory and evidence that will better manage intervention designers' expectations regarding how modifying habit can realistically be expected to promote behaviour change. We emphasise that habit is just one potential influence on behaviour at any given moment, and highlight instances in which habit may dominate over intention, and in which intention may dominate over habit, in determining behaviour frequency. We suggest that, while it may assist behaviour maintenance, habit formation may be neither necessary nor sufficient to sustain real‐world behaviour change. We draw attention to the various ways in which habit may be ‘broken’ (i.e., disrupted), and discern the implications of each habit disruption mechanism for long‐term cessation of unwanted behaviours.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141189553","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}
From becoming a teenager to starting university, life transitions are an inevitable part of human existence. While exciting, life transitions can be stressful because they involve changes in identity, routine, and expectations. What can support people during this period of change? Informed by past research demonstrating the emotional benefits of prosocial behavior, we examined whether everyday acts of prosociality might predict well‐being during a life transition using a pre‐registered 6‐week diary study conducted with students starting university (N = 193; 1544 observations). Consistent with pre‐registered hypotheses, participants experienced higher well‐being on scales capturing happiness, flourishing, thriving, optimism, resilience, anxiety and loneliness during weeks in which they completed more prosocial acts than their personal average. This research extends our understanding of the relationship between prosociality and well‐being to new theoretically relevant contexts, including extended, multi‐faceted personal stressors, and suggests that one potentially useful route to well‐being during life transitions could be helping others.
{"title":"Everyday acts of kindness predict greater well‐being during the transition to university","authors":"Tiara A. Cash, Lara B. Aknin, Yuthika U. Girme","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12972","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12972","url":null,"abstract":"From becoming a teenager to starting university, life transitions are an inevitable part of human existence. While exciting, life transitions can be stressful because they involve changes in identity, routine, and expectations. What can support people during this period of change? Informed by past research demonstrating the emotional benefits of prosocial behavior, we examined whether everyday acts of prosociality might predict well‐being during a life transition using a pre‐registered 6‐week diary study conducted with students starting university (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 193; 1544 observations). Consistent with pre‐registered hypotheses, participants experienced higher well‐being on scales capturing happiness, flourishing, thriving, optimism, resilience, anxiety and loneliness during weeks in which they completed more prosocial acts than their personal average. This research extends our understanding of the relationship between prosociality and well‐being to new theoretically relevant contexts, including extended, multi‐faceted personal stressors, and suggests that one potentially useful route to well‐being during life transitions could be helping others.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141189492","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}
This article investigates the links between the Big Five personality traits and self‐efficacy, perceived stress, and life satisfaction during the COVID‐19 pandemic on a large sample of Czech university students and lecturers (N = 11,824). The study's findings indicate that during the pandemic, negative emotionality was strongly associated with both perceived stress and life satisfaction. The study also reveals a positive link between extraversion and perceived stress across the entire sample, and in the student group specifically, extraversion was negatively associated with life satisfaction. This suggests that a high level of extraversion may not act as a protective factor in situations of limited social contact, for example, under the social restriction mandates during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Additionally, self‐efficacy was associated with higher satisfaction with life but also higher perceived stress. This finding contradicts previous research conducted before and during the pandemic and warrants further investigation. Interestingly, the links between personality traits, self‐efficacy, perceived stress, and life satisfaction were not significantly moderated by professional position. Both lecturers and students experienced similar disruptions to their daily routines, social isolation, and financial concerns during the pandemic.
{"title":"University students' and lecturers' perceived stress and satisfaction with life during the COVID‐19 pandemic: The role of personality traits and self‐efficacy","authors":"David Lacko, Jiří Čeněk, Martina Hřebíčková","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12957","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12957","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates the links between the Big Five personality traits and self‐efficacy, perceived stress, and life satisfaction during the COVID‐19 pandemic on a large sample of Czech university students and lecturers (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 11,824). The study's findings indicate that during the pandemic, negative emotionality was strongly associated with both perceived stress and life satisfaction. The study also reveals a positive link between extraversion and perceived stress across the entire sample, and in the student group specifically, extraversion was negatively associated with life satisfaction. This suggests that a high level of extraversion may not act as a protective factor in situations of limited social contact, for example, under the social restriction mandates during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Additionally, self‐efficacy was associated with higher satisfaction with life but also higher perceived stress. This finding contradicts previous research conducted before and during the pandemic and warrants further investigation. Interestingly, the links between personality traits, self‐efficacy, perceived stress, and life satisfaction were not significantly moderated by professional position. Both lecturers and students experienced similar disruptions to their daily routines, social isolation, and financial concerns during the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140933254","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}
Consideration of how interrelated social structures relate with personality has been limited. In this paper, we discuss how researchers might apply an intersectional framework–which uses a social justice lens to examine how social structures are interconnected and impact individuals—at three distinct levels of personality including traits, characteristic adaptations, and integrative life narratives. We begin by providing conceptualizations of personality and intersectionality and describe considerations for their integration, including the need to widen the methodological and epistemological scope of personality science. Key areas of research that demonstrate the promise of an intersectional framework for unpacking structures of power and oppression in relation to the person are then described for each level of personality. Specifically, recommendations for how an intersectional framework may be used to examine structural identity domains in relation to trait levels, values and goals, as well as the content and process of narrated lives are offered. We conclude with discussion of how application of an intersectional framework is crucial for promoting inclusion and generalizability in personality science.
{"title":"Integrating personality psychology and intersectionality to advance diversity in the study of persons","authors":"Dulce Wilkinson Westberg, Moin Syed","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12956","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12956","url":null,"abstract":"Consideration of how interrelated social structures relate with personality has been limited. In this paper, we discuss how researchers might apply an <jats:italic>intersectional framework</jats:italic>–which uses a social justice lens to examine how social structures are interconnected and impact individuals—at three distinct levels of personality including <jats:italic>traits</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>characteristic adaptations</jats:italic>, and <jats:italic>integrative life narratives</jats:italic>. We begin by providing conceptualizations of personality and intersectionality and describe considerations for their integration, including the need to widen the methodological and epistemological scope of personality science. Key areas of research that demonstrate the promise of an intersectional framework for unpacking structures of power and oppression in relation to the person are then described for each level of personality. Specifically, recommendations for how an intersectional framework may be used to examine structural identity domains in relation to trait levels, values and goals, as well as the content and process of narrated lives are offered. We conclude with discussion of how application of an intersectional framework is crucial for promoting inclusion and generalizability in personality science.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140933427","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}
Ana M. DiGiovanni, Abriana M. Gresham, Marika Yip‐Bannicq, Niall Bolger
A wealth of research suggests that as stress increases, so does conflict in close relationships. But is this always the case? Specifically, how does the trajectory of conflict unfold in the period before and after an acute and anticipated major life stressor? We capitalize on a 44‐day dyadic diary where one partner was preparing for the New York State Bar Exam (N = 312 couples) to explore the trajectory of conflict leading up to the exam, as well as how these patterns differed once exams finished. Results revealed that examinees and partners reported statistically meaningful decreases in conflict as exams approached, which contrasts prior research. This was followed by a spike in the likelihood of conflict immediately after exams were finished, and a quick return to low likelihoods of conflict one week after exams. This work highlights how couples, even in the face of stress, regulate their emotions and engage in relationship maintenance processes. However, relationship frustrations tend to be expressed—resulting in conflict—once the stressor is over. Not only does this work inform theories about relational conflict during times of stress, but it also highlights the need to study the dynamics of stress before, during, and after meaningful life events.
{"title":"Examining the trajectory of relational conflict leading up to and after an anticipated stressor","authors":"Ana M. DiGiovanni, Abriana M. Gresham, Marika Yip‐Bannicq, Niall Bolger","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12954","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12954","url":null,"abstract":"A wealth of research suggests that as stress increases, so does conflict in close relationships. But is this always the case? Specifically, how does the trajectory of conflict unfold in the period before and after an <jats:italic>acute</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>anticipated</jats:italic> major life stressor? We capitalize on a 44‐day dyadic diary where one partner was preparing for the New York State Bar Exam (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 312 couples) to explore the trajectory of conflict leading up to the exam, as well as how these patterns differed once exams finished. Results revealed that examinees and partners reported statistically meaningful decreases in conflict as exams approached, which contrasts prior research. This was followed by a spike in the likelihood of conflict immediately after exams were finished, and a quick return to low likelihoods of conflict one week after exams. This work highlights how couples, even in the face of stress, regulate their emotions and engage in relationship maintenance processes. However, relationship frustrations tend to be expressed—resulting in conflict—once the stressor is over. Not only does this work inform theories about relational conflict during times of stress, but it also highlights the need to study the dynamics of stress before, during, and after meaningful life events.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140840371","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}
Given the long history of contention over the meaning of race and the continued discomfort about what role it plays in the structure of inequality, I endeavor to clarify the origins of the association of race with skin color and other physical features by briefly discussing the historical record by which race became codified in law. My focus is the U.S. and specifically Colonial Virginia, where the codification of racial categories in law was especially consequential. I also discuss the existence of a racial hierarchy in which Whites are dominant and Nonwhites of various types are subordinate. I argue that the continued existence of this racial hierarchy not only has a legacy from the past, but it is reproduced in the present and continues to have major effects on the life chances of those thought of as belonging to different racial groups. I also discuss the elasticity, ambiguity, and contested nature of racial classifications, as well as the internal differentiation among those thought to belong to the same racial groups and the changes and variations over time that are continually remaking the meaning of race. Because of the political significance of race, I also clarify the meaning of key concepts that have been receiving recent attention: White privilege, White supremacy, and White colorblindness. Finally, I discuss race as a process rather than as a classification and briefly discuss how Whites and men can become allies, advocates, and activists in support of social justice.
{"title":"The invention of race and the persistence of racial hierarchy: White privilege, White supremacy, and White colorblindness","authors":"Nancy DiTomaso","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12953","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12953","url":null,"abstract":"Given the long history of contention over the meaning of race and the continued discomfort about what role it plays in the structure of inequality, I endeavor to clarify the origins of the association of race with skin color and other physical features by briefly discussing the historical record by which race became codified in law. My focus is the U.S. and specifically Colonial Virginia, where the codification of racial categories in law was especially consequential. I also discuss the existence of a racial hierarchy in which Whites are dominant and Nonwhites of various types are subordinate. I argue that the continued existence of this racial hierarchy not only has a legacy from the past, but it is reproduced in the present and continues to have major effects on the life chances of those thought of as belonging to different racial groups. I also discuss the elasticity, ambiguity, and contested nature of racial classifications, as well as the internal differentiation among those thought to belong to the same racial groups and the changes and variations over time that are continually remaking the meaning of race. Because of the political significance of race, I also clarify the meaning of key concepts that have been receiving recent attention: White privilege, White supremacy, and White colorblindness. Finally, I discuss race as a process rather than as a classification and briefly discuss how Whites and men can become allies, advocates, and activists in support of social justice.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140596624","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}
In recent years, self‐control research has shifted from a focus on effortful inhibition towards an understanding of self‐control as strategically navigating one's environment by ignoring or avoiding situations that may challenge self‐control. Yet despite increased attention to strategic self‐control, an explicit consideration of perceived control over the environment as a potentially critical driver of self‐control strategies is lacking. Recognizing the crucial role of perceived control, this article reviews research highlighting the interplay between self‐control and control over one's surroundings. We first examine research on new conceptualizations of self‐control that go beyond effortful inhibition of impulses. We then turn to research that addresses the role of perceived control over the environment, arguing that an emphasis on strategic self‐control requires a profound understanding of how perceptions of control determine options for employing self‐control strategies. We conclude with a discussion of promising new directions for behavioral public policies. These policies should better acknowledge the importance of perceived control by creating arrangements that help people in getting more control over their surroundings. This new perspective will take away concerns about an excessive individual frame that holds individuals responsible for self‐control failures in unsupportive environments.
{"title":"Getting a grip on yourself or your environment: Creating opportunities for strategic self‐control in behavioral public policy","authors":"Denise de Ridder","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12952","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12952","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, self‐control research has shifted from a focus on effortful inhibition towards an understanding of self‐control as strategically navigating one's environment by ignoring or avoiding situations that may challenge self‐control. Yet despite increased attention to strategic self‐control, an explicit consideration of perceived control over the environment as a potentially critical driver of self‐control strategies is lacking. Recognizing the crucial role of perceived control, this article reviews research highlighting the interplay between self‐control and control over one's surroundings. We first examine research on new conceptualizations of self‐control that go beyond effortful inhibition of impulses. We then turn to research that addresses the role of perceived control over the environment, arguing that an emphasis on strategic self‐control requires a profound understanding of how perceptions of control determine options for employing self‐control strategies. We conclude with a discussion of promising new directions for behavioral public policies. These policies should better acknowledge the importance of perceived control by creating arrangements that help people in getting more control over their surroundings. This new perspective will take away concerns about an excessive individual frame that holds individuals responsible for self‐control failures in unsupportive environments.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"440 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140603277","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}
Race is a significant means through which individuals and groups relate to each other. A problematic instance of its significance is colonialism and all the destruction it brought with it. In this paper, I explore how knowledge about race and racism from settings that were erstwhile colonized can enrich current understandings and approaches to studying race and racism in social psychology. I advance the possibility of mutual learning and sharing of theoretical and methodological practices for researchers who examine race and racism in colonizing or settler‐colonial settings and those in erstwhile colonized settings. I do so by first, locating the centrality of Whiteness for the very development of race categories and the shaping of psychology as a discipline. Second, I discuss how race and racism are examined in (primarily) Euro‐American contexts, with a focus on engagement with Whiteness by Critical Race Psychologists and social constructionist researchers. Third, I outline alternative ways of engaging with race and race categories identified in erstwhile colonized places. I end with how this latter informs our understandings of race and racism, and possibilities for mutual learning.
{"title":"Racism in the “colony”: Towards appreciating race fluidity and racialization in social psychology of racism","authors":"Rahul Sambaraju","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12949","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12949","url":null,"abstract":"Race is a significant means through which individuals and groups relate to each other. A problematic instance of its significance is colonialism and all the destruction it brought with it. In this paper, I explore how knowledge about race and racism from settings that were erstwhile colonized can enrich current understandings and approaches to studying race and racism in social psychology. I advance the possibility of mutual learning and sharing of theoretical and methodological practices for researchers who examine race and racism in colonizing or settler‐colonial settings and those in erstwhile colonized settings. I do so by first, locating the centrality of Whiteness for the very development of race categories and the shaping of psychology as a discipline. Second, I discuss how race and racism are examined in (primarily) Euro‐American contexts, with a focus on engagement with Whiteness by Critical Race Psychologists and social constructionist researchers. Third, I outline alternative ways of engaging with race and race categories identified in erstwhile colonized places. I end with how this latter informs our understandings of race and racism, and possibilities for mutual learning.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"226 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140147834","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}
Correlation does not imply causation and psychologists' causal inference training often focuses on the conclusion that therefore experiments are needed—without much consideration for the causal inference frameworks used elsewhere. This leaves researchers ill‐equipped to solve inferential problems that they encounter in their work, leading to mistaken conclusions and incoherent statistical analyses. For a more systematic approach to causal inference, this article provides brief introductions to the potential outcomes framework—the “lingua franca” of causal inference—and to directed acyclic graphs, a graphical notation that makes it easier to systematically reason about complex causal situations. I then discuss two issues that may be of interest to researchers in social and personality psychology who think that formalized causal inference is of little relevance to their work. First, posttreatment bias: In various common scenarios (noncompliance, mediation analysis, missing data), researchers may analyze data from experimental studies in a manner that results in internally invalid conclusions, despite randomization. Second, tests of incremental validity: Routine practices in personality psychology suggest that they may be conducted for at least two different reasons (to demonstrate the non‐redundancy of new scales, to support causal conclusions) without being particularly suited for either purpose. Taking causal inference seriously is challenging; it reveals assumptions that may make many uncomfortable. However, ultimately it is a necessary step to ensure the validity of psychological research.
{"title":"Causal inference for psychologists who think that causal inference is not for them","authors":"Julia M. Rohrer","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12948","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12948","url":null,"abstract":"Correlation does not imply causation and psychologists' causal inference training often focuses on the conclusion that therefore experiments are needed—without much consideration for the causal inference frameworks used elsewhere. This leaves researchers ill‐equipped to solve inferential problems that they encounter in their work, leading to mistaken conclusions and incoherent statistical analyses. For a more systematic approach to causal inference, this article provides brief introductions to the potential outcomes framework—the “lingua franca” of causal inference—and to directed acyclic graphs, a graphical notation that makes it easier to systematically reason about complex causal situations. I then discuss two issues that may be of interest to researchers in social and personality psychology who think that formalized causal inference is of little relevance to their work. First, posttreatment bias: In various common scenarios (noncompliance, mediation analysis, missing data), researchers may analyze data from experimental studies in a manner that results in internally invalid conclusions, despite randomization. Second, tests of incremental validity: Routine practices in personality psychology suggest that they may be conducted for at least two different reasons (to demonstrate the non‐redundancy of new scales, to support causal conclusions) without being particularly suited for either purpose. Taking causal inference seriously is challenging; it reveals assumptions that may make many uncomfortable. However, ultimately it is a necessary step to ensure the validity of psychological research.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"233 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140035012","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：