The Social Identity Model of Traumatic Identity Change proposes the group membership gain hypothesis, which refers to developing positive new group memberships after trauma that may contribute to posttraumatic adjustment. However, only a few empirical studies conducted in Western societies have provided correlational evidence for the hypothesis. The current research conducted three studies to test the hypothesis in China. Study 1 (N = 315) through survey confirmed the positive association between new group memberships and posttraumatic growth among Chinese adults with traumatic experiences. Study 2 (N = 300) replicated the findings through the hypothetical scenario, discovering that participants expected a hypothetical person who experienced trauma and gained new group membership after this trauma would develop posttraumatic growth. Study 3 (N = 300), in a further refined hypothetical scenario (i.e., replacing the hypothetical vignette and protagonist in Study 2), yielded consistent results, demonstrating the impact of new group memberships on anticipated posttraumatic growth behavioral intention. The current research, for the first time in China, examined the group membership gain hypothesis and emphasized the importance of social group membership management in facilitating posttraumatic growth.
{"title":"Creating new resources: The impact of new group memberships on posttraumatic growth in China","authors":"Wenya Peng, Kairong Yang, Jiang Jiang","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12955","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12955","url":null,"abstract":"The Social Identity Model of Traumatic Identity Change proposes the group membership gain hypothesis, which refers to developing positive new group memberships after trauma that may contribute to posttraumatic adjustment. However, only a few empirical studies conducted in Western societies have provided correlational evidence for the hypothesis. The current research conducted three studies to test the hypothesis in China. Study 1 (N = 315) through survey confirmed the positive association between new group memberships and posttraumatic growth among Chinese adults with traumatic experiences. Study 2 (N = 300) replicated the findings through the hypothetical scenario, discovering that participants expected a hypothetical person who experienced trauma and gained new group membership after this trauma would develop posttraumatic growth. Study 3 (N = 300), in a further refined hypothetical scenario (i.e., replacing the hypothetical vignette and protagonist in Study 2), yielded consistent results, demonstrating the impact of new group memberships on anticipated posttraumatic growth behavioral intention. The current research, for the first time in China, examined the group membership gain hypothesis and emphasized the importance of social group membership management in facilitating posttraumatic growth.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141023334","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}
The model minority myth (MMM) falsely portrays Asian Americans as the “model minority” racial group in the United States due to their perceived educational and professional success. The MMM also paints an overly positive picture of the Asian American experience by ascribing primarily positive racial stereotypes to this group and blatantly disregarding the social adversity they continue to face as a racially marginalized population in the U.S. Research has demonstrated that even positive racial stereotypes can cause psychological harm due to heightened pressure to achieve unrealistic expectations. However, less is known about the psychological process of how Asian Americans internalize the stereotypes associated with the MMM. This article seeks to fill this gap by providing a review of the existing research regarding the internalization of the MMM among Asian Americans. Further, this article contributes to the literature by specifying how MMM internalization (a) impacts the way that Asian Americans view themselves, (b) influences mental health outcomes among Asian Americans, and (c) impacts the attitudes that Asian Americans form about other racial minority groups in the U.S. This article highlights several key gaps in the existing literature that should be addressed in future research and provides strategic policy recommendations for practitioners who seek to reduce psychological consequences resulting from internalizing stereotypes that portray Asian Americans as a “model minority”.
{"title":"Internalizing the model minority myth: Dangers for Asian American mental health and attitudes towards other minorities","authors":"Shreya K. Rajagopal, Myles I. Durkee","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12959","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12959","url":null,"abstract":"The model minority myth (MMM) falsely portrays Asian Americans as the “model minority” racial group in the United States due to their perceived educational and professional success. The MMM also paints an overly positive picture of the Asian American experience by ascribing primarily positive racial stereotypes to this group and blatantly disregarding the social adversity they continue to face as a racially marginalized population in the U.S. Research has demonstrated that even positive racial stereotypes can cause psychological harm due to heightened pressure to achieve unrealistic expectations. However, less is known about the psychological process of how Asian Americans internalize the stereotypes associated with the MMM. This article seeks to fill this gap by providing a review of the existing research regarding the internalization of the MMM among Asian Americans. Further, this article contributes to the literature by specifying how MMM internalization (a) impacts the way that Asian Americans view themselves, (b) influences mental health outcomes among Asian Americans, and (c) impacts the attitudes that Asian Americans form about other racial minority groups in the U.S. This article highlights several key gaps in the existing literature that should be addressed in future research and provides strategic policy recommendations for practitioners who seek to reduce psychological consequences resulting from internalizing stereotypes that portray Asian Americans as a “model minority”.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141143875","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}
Michael J. Perez, Grace N. Rivera, Jaren D. Crist, Alejandro A. Garcia
In this paper, we argue that a cultural context of racism in the United States influences the representation and outcomes of Black forgiveness. Previous research in psychology has focused on the positive social and emotional benefits of forgiveness; however, the consequences of Black forgiveness are not always straightforward. We review prior research and highlight real‐world examples that suggest Black people are often pressured and expected to forgive racism. This pressure to forgive overshadows calls for justice and encourages forgiveness as a more palatable, less antagonistic response to racism. Furthermore, we argue that this expectation suppresses Black emotions by stigmatizing negative emotional reactions to racism in favor of forgiveness. We conclude by proposing future lines of research in social psychology that do not reinforce a pressure for Black forgiveness, that foster a study of forgiveness that incorporates social justice, and that considers new lines of forgiveness research that are culturally sensitive to Black experiences.
{"title":"Considering sociocultural contexts of racism in psychological research on black forgiveness","authors":"Michael J. Perez, Grace N. Rivera, Jaren D. Crist, Alejandro A. Garcia","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12958","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12958","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we argue that a cultural context of racism in the United States influences the representation and outcomes of Black forgiveness. Previous research in psychology has focused on the positive social and emotional benefits of forgiveness; however, the consequences of Black forgiveness are not always straightforward. We review prior research and highlight real‐world examples that suggest Black people are often pressured and expected to forgive racism. This pressure to forgive overshadows calls for justice and encourages forgiveness as a more palatable, less antagonistic response to racism. Furthermore, we argue that this expectation suppresses Black emotions by stigmatizing negative emotional reactions to racism in favor of forgiveness. We conclude by proposing future lines of research in social psychology that do not reinforce a pressure for Black forgiveness, that foster a study of forgiveness that incorporates social justice, and that considers new lines of forgiveness research that are culturally sensitive to Black experiences.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141136354","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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Karen Niven, David J. Hughes, J. K. Tan, Robin Wickett
People vary in the effectiveness with which they can change the way that others feel, yet we know surprisingly little about what drives these individual differences in interpersonal emotion regulation success. This paper provides a framework for describing ‘success’ in interpersonal emotion regulation and synthesizes extant theory and research regarding how personality and cognitive ability relate to interpersonal emotion regulation success. In doing so, our review brings together work from several related fields to offer an integrative framework to generate and guide future research that aims to understand why some people are proficient at influencing the emotions of others and why some are not, often suffering additional unintended consequences, such as diminished work or relationship success.
{"title":"Individual differences in interpersonal emotion regulation: What makes some people more (or less) successful than others?","authors":"Karen Niven, David J. Hughes, J. K. Tan, Robin Wickett","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12951","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12951","url":null,"abstract":"People vary in the effectiveness with which they can change the way that others feel, yet we know surprisingly little about what drives these individual differences in interpersonal emotion regulation success. This paper provides a framework for describing ‘success’ in interpersonal emotion regulation and synthesizes extant theory and research regarding how personality and cognitive ability relate to interpersonal emotion regulation success. In doing so, our review brings together work from several related fields to offer an integrative framework to generate and guide future research that aims to understand why some people are proficient at influencing the emotions of others and why some are not, often suffering additional unintended consequences, such as diminished work or relationship success.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140370806","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}
Lora E. Park, L. Aknin, Sarah E. Gaither, E. Impett, Ashley V. Whillans
Much of psychological science relies on collaboration—from generating new theories and study ideas, to collecting and analyzing data, to writing and sharing results with the broader community. Learning how to collaborate with others is an important skill, yet this process is not often explicitly discussed in academia. Here, five researchers from diverse backgrounds share their experiences and advice on starting and sustaining collaborations. In doing so, they reflect on aspects of both successful (and failed) collaborations with students, colleagues within and outside of psychology, and members of industry and organizational partners beyond academia. Recommendations and challenges of productive collaborations are discussed, along with examples of how collaborative teams can contribute to psychological science, address real‐world issues, and make the process of conducting research more enjoyable and rewarding.
{"title":"Starting and sustaining fruitful collaborations in psychology","authors":"Lora E. Park, L. Aknin, Sarah E. Gaither, E. Impett, Ashley V. Whillans","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12950","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12950","url":null,"abstract":"Much of psychological science relies on collaboration—from generating new theories and study ideas, to collecting and analyzing data, to writing and sharing results with the broader community. Learning how to collaborate with others is an important skill, yet this process is not often explicitly discussed in academia. Here, five researchers from diverse backgrounds share their experiences and advice on starting and sustaining collaborations. In doing so, they reflect on aspects of both successful (and failed) collaborations with students, colleagues within and outside of psychology, and members of industry and organizational partners beyond academia. Recommendations and challenges of productive collaborations are discussed, along with examples of how collaborative teams can contribute to psychological science, address real‐world issues, and make the process of conducting research more enjoyable and rewarding.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140373353","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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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：