Pub Date : 2024-11-18DOI: 10.1038/s44159-024-00382-1
Petra Vetter, Stephanie Badde, Elisa Raffaella Ferrè, Janina Seubert, Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
A central question about the human mind is whether perception is an encapsulated process driven purely by sensory information or whether it is intricately linked with cognitive processes. This debate about the cognitive penetrability of perception is discussed in psychology, cognitive neuroscience and philosophy. Thus far, the debate has centred on vision, without major attempts to examine other senses. In this Review, we provide an overview of the key empirical evidence about cognitive penetrability of perception in vision, audition, somatosensation (including proprioception and pain perception), vestibular perception and chemosensation (gustation, chemesthesis and olfaction). We conclude that many (but not all) of the senses are cognitively penetrable. Specifically, cognitive penetrability seems to vary with the extent to which a sense is intrinsically multimodal, the extent to which it receives indirect cognitive influences, and whether hedonic evaluation is an integral aspect of the perceptual experience. We suggest that the debate about cognitive penetrability needs to be more differentiated with respect to the sensory modality of the perceptual experience and the diversity of cognitive influences on that modality. The debate over cognitive penetrability of perception, which has been largely limited to vision, remains unsolved; in this Review, Vetter and colleagues detail cognitive influences on perception across vision, audition, somatosensation, vestibular perception and chemosensation to advance the debate.
{"title":"Evaluating cognitive penetrability of perception across the senses","authors":"Petra Vetter, Stephanie Badde, Elisa Raffaella Ferrè, Janina Seubert, Barbara Shinn-Cunningham","doi":"10.1038/s44159-024-00382-1","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44159-024-00382-1","url":null,"abstract":"A central question about the human mind is whether perception is an encapsulated process driven purely by sensory information or whether it is intricately linked with cognitive processes. This debate about the cognitive penetrability of perception is discussed in psychology, cognitive neuroscience and philosophy. Thus far, the debate has centred on vision, without major attempts to examine other senses. In this Review, we provide an overview of the key empirical evidence about cognitive penetrability of perception in vision, audition, somatosensation (including proprioception and pain perception), vestibular perception and chemosensation (gustation, chemesthesis and olfaction). We conclude that many (but not all) of the senses are cognitively penetrable. Specifically, cognitive penetrability seems to vary with the extent to which a sense is intrinsically multimodal, the extent to which it receives indirect cognitive influences, and whether hedonic evaluation is an integral aspect of the perceptual experience. We suggest that the debate about cognitive penetrability needs to be more differentiated with respect to the sensory modality of the perceptual experience and the diversity of cognitive influences on that modality. The debate over cognitive penetrability of perception, which has been largely limited to vision, remains unsolved; in this Review, Vetter and colleagues detail cognitive influences on perception across vision, audition, somatosensation, vestibular perception and chemosensation to advance the debate.","PeriodicalId":74249,"journal":{"name":"Nature reviews psychology","volume":"3 12","pages":"804-820"},"PeriodicalIF":16.8,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142778630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-18DOI: 10.1038/s44159-024-00384-z
Julia A. Leonard, Jessica A. Sommerville
Optimism is linked to a range of positive social and cognitive outcomes across development. Yet decades of work in psychological science has revealed that optimism declines throughout early childhood. Despite this well-documented decline, there is no agreed-upon theory that accounts for developmental changes in optimism. In this Perspective, we synthesize cognitive, computational, social and neural evidence and discuss three candidate mechanisms that might underlie declines in optimism with age: learning from experience, changing theories of success and wishful thinking, and shifts in valenced learning biases. We argue that declining optimism across childhood is best characterized by an account that integrates these theories. Specifically, we suggest that environmental factors impact the pace at which children’s theories and valenced learning biases change with age, and consequently the rate at which their optimism declines. This account suggests that optimism should be conceptualized as an adaptive bias that signals the nature of one’s environment and leads to specific recommendations for future lines of enquiry. Optimism declines across early childhood, but there is no theoretical account for why such changes occur. In this Perspective, Leonard and Sommerville discuss and integrate three candidate causes for age-related declines in optimism: learning from experience, theory development and valenced learning biases.
{"title":"A unified account of why optimism declines in childhood","authors":"Julia A. Leonard, Jessica A. Sommerville","doi":"10.1038/s44159-024-00384-z","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44159-024-00384-z","url":null,"abstract":"Optimism is linked to a range of positive social and cognitive outcomes across development. Yet decades of work in psychological science has revealed that optimism declines throughout early childhood. Despite this well-documented decline, there is no agreed-upon theory that accounts for developmental changes in optimism. In this Perspective, we synthesize cognitive, computational, social and neural evidence and discuss three candidate mechanisms that might underlie declines in optimism with age: learning from experience, changing theories of success and wishful thinking, and shifts in valenced learning biases. We argue that declining optimism across childhood is best characterized by an account that integrates these theories. Specifically, we suggest that environmental factors impact the pace at which children’s theories and valenced learning biases change with age, and consequently the rate at which their optimism declines. This account suggests that optimism should be conceptualized as an adaptive bias that signals the nature of one’s environment and leads to specific recommendations for future lines of enquiry. Optimism declines across early childhood, but there is no theoretical account for why such changes occur. In this Perspective, Leonard and Sommerville discuss and integrate three candidate causes for age-related declines in optimism: learning from experience, theory development and valenced learning biases.","PeriodicalId":74249,"journal":{"name":"Nature reviews psychology","volume":"4 1","pages":"35-48"},"PeriodicalIF":16.8,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142963202","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-18DOI: 10.1038/s44159-024-00380-3
Sapna Cheryan, Ella J. Lombard, Fasika Hailu, Linh N. H. Pham, Katherine Weltzien
Women and girls are underrepresented in many, though not all, STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields around the world. In this Review, we describe four key factors that help explain the continued underrepresentation of women in STEM. In many parts of the world, women lack access to education and job opportunities, preventing them from pursuing STEM. In places where women do have educational and professional opportunities, masculine cultures — shaped by both masculine defaults and differential treatment — can hinder entry and retention of women in STEM fields. Addressing masculine cultures is important to increase the representation of women, and research has identified multiple promising avenues for intervention. When masculine cultures remain, gender disparities can be reduced by increasing the positive experiences of women and girls in STEM. Finally, choices made by men to enter some STEM fields also contribute to the underrepresentation of women in these fields. We conclude by reviewing promising future directions for research on gender disparities in STEM, including examining the intersections of these factors, sociopolitical and economic contexts, and the experiences of trans and non-binary individuals and people with multiple marginalized identities in STEM. Women remain underrepresented in some STEM fields throughout much of the world. In this Review, Cheryan and colleagues discuss four factors that might explain this underrepresentation — access to education and employment, masculine cultures, insufficient positive experiences, and men’s choices — and interventions that might help reduce these disparities.
{"title":"Global patterns of gender disparities in STEM and explanations for their persistence","authors":"Sapna Cheryan, Ella J. Lombard, Fasika Hailu, Linh N. H. Pham, Katherine Weltzien","doi":"10.1038/s44159-024-00380-3","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44159-024-00380-3","url":null,"abstract":"Women and girls are underrepresented in many, though not all, STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields around the world. In this Review, we describe four key factors that help explain the continued underrepresentation of women in STEM. In many parts of the world, women lack access to education and job opportunities, preventing them from pursuing STEM. In places where women do have educational and professional opportunities, masculine cultures — shaped by both masculine defaults and differential treatment — can hinder entry and retention of women in STEM fields. Addressing masculine cultures is important to increase the representation of women, and research has identified multiple promising avenues for intervention. When masculine cultures remain, gender disparities can be reduced by increasing the positive experiences of women and girls in STEM. Finally, choices made by men to enter some STEM fields also contribute to the underrepresentation of women in these fields. We conclude by reviewing promising future directions for research on gender disparities in STEM, including examining the intersections of these factors, sociopolitical and economic contexts, and the experiences of trans and non-binary individuals and people with multiple marginalized identities in STEM. Women remain underrepresented in some STEM fields throughout much of the world. In this Review, Cheryan and colleagues discuss four factors that might explain this underrepresentation — access to education and employment, masculine cultures, insufficient positive experiences, and men’s choices — and interventions that might help reduce these disparities.","PeriodicalId":74249,"journal":{"name":"Nature reviews psychology","volume":"4 1","pages":"6-19"},"PeriodicalIF":16.8,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142963198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-18DOI: 10.1038/s44159-024-00387-w
Teresa Schubert
{"title":"Comprehension in native and non-native English speakers","authors":"Teresa Schubert","doi":"10.1038/s44159-024-00387-w","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44159-024-00387-w","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74249,"journal":{"name":"Nature reviews psychology","volume":"3 12","pages":"785-785"},"PeriodicalIF":16.8,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142778631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-04DOI: 10.1038/s44159-024-00381-2
Philipp Schmid, Robert Böhm, Enny Das, Dawn Holford, Lars Korn, Julie Leask, Stephan Lewandowsky, Gilla K. Shapiro, Philipp Sprengholz, Cornelia Betsch
Vaccination mandates are often suggested as a solution to low vaccine uptake. However, mandates are criticized because they aim to bypass rather than overcome the cognitive, emotional and social components of vaccine hesitancy and because they are highly restrictive interventions that can cause unintended psychological effects. In this Review, we contextualize the costs and benefits of implementing vaccination mandates on the basis of the evidence of their effectiveness, ethical considerations and unintended psychological effects. We present a toolbox of alternative interventions that specifically aim to overcome the cognitive, emotional and social barriers identified by psychological science. These interventions vary in degree of restrictiveness but are ultimately designed to preserve freedom of choice. They can be implemented in addition or as an alternative to mandates to tackle the psychological roots of vaccine hesitancy. We recommend that policies are tailored according to each country’s specific situation by selecting the set of interventions from the toolbox that cover the specific needs of the population. Vaccination mandates can increase vaccine uptake, but might cause unintended psychological effects with social and political consequences. In this Review, Schmid et al. present a toolbox of complementary and alternative interventions informed by psychological science to tackle vaccine hesitancy.
{"title":"Vaccination mandates and their alternatives and complements","authors":"Philipp Schmid, Robert Böhm, Enny Das, Dawn Holford, Lars Korn, Julie Leask, Stephan Lewandowsky, Gilla K. Shapiro, Philipp Sprengholz, Cornelia Betsch","doi":"10.1038/s44159-024-00381-2","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44159-024-00381-2","url":null,"abstract":"Vaccination mandates are often suggested as a solution to low vaccine uptake. However, mandates are criticized because they aim to bypass rather than overcome the cognitive, emotional and social components of vaccine hesitancy and because they are highly restrictive interventions that can cause unintended psychological effects. In this Review, we contextualize the costs and benefits of implementing vaccination mandates on the basis of the evidence of their effectiveness, ethical considerations and unintended psychological effects. We present a toolbox of alternative interventions that specifically aim to overcome the cognitive, emotional and social barriers identified by psychological science. These interventions vary in degree of restrictiveness but are ultimately designed to preserve freedom of choice. They can be implemented in addition or as an alternative to mandates to tackle the psychological roots of vaccine hesitancy. We recommend that policies are tailored according to each country’s specific situation by selecting the set of interventions from the toolbox that cover the specific needs of the population. Vaccination mandates can increase vaccine uptake, but might cause unintended psychological effects with social and political consequences. In this Review, Schmid et al. present a toolbox of complementary and alternative interventions informed by psychological science to tackle vaccine hesitancy.","PeriodicalId":74249,"journal":{"name":"Nature reviews psychology","volume":"3 12","pages":"789-803"},"PeriodicalIF":16.8,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142778662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-10-25DOI: 10.1038/s44159-024-00383-0
Teresa Schubert
Nature Reviews Psychology is interviewing individuals with doctoral degrees in psychology who pursued non-academic careers. We spoke with Emily Lattie about her journey from an assistant professor to a director of clinical product.
{"title":"From the lab to a career in mental health services","authors":"Teresa Schubert","doi":"10.1038/s44159-024-00383-0","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44159-024-00383-0","url":null,"abstract":"Nature Reviews Psychology is interviewing individuals with doctoral degrees in psychology who pursued non-academic careers. We spoke with Emily Lattie about her journey from an assistant professor to a director of clinical product.","PeriodicalId":74249,"journal":{"name":"Nature reviews psychology","volume":"3 12","pages":"783-784"},"PeriodicalIF":16.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142778618","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-10-21DOI: 10.1038/s44159-024-00376-z
Olivier Corneille, Bertram Gawronski
Self-report measures directly ask respondents to report their mental content, such as thoughts and feelings. By contrast, implicit measures aim to assess thoughts and feelings using performance indicators (for example, response times, error rates and response frequencies) under conditions that favour automatic processing. Implicit measures are now widely used in psychological science and beyond, because they are assumed to be superior to self-reports in various ways. In this Perspective, we argue that, despite the enthusiasm for implicit measures, self-reports are most often the better measurement option. First, the use of implicit measures is often based on mistaken assumptions about the disadvantages of self-reports. Second, self-reports have advantageous characteristics that are currently unmatched in implicit measures. We call for a more sophisticated use of self-reports and for caution when using implicit measures in basic and applied research. Implicit measures are widely used because they are assumed to be superior to self-reports. In this Perspective, Corneille and Gawronski challenge this view and argue that claims about disadvantages of self-reports are unfounded and that self-reports have unmatched advantages over implicit measures.
{"title":"Self-reports are better measurement instruments than implicit measures","authors":"Olivier Corneille, Bertram Gawronski","doi":"10.1038/s44159-024-00376-z","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44159-024-00376-z","url":null,"abstract":"Self-report measures directly ask respondents to report their mental content, such as thoughts and feelings. By contrast, implicit measures aim to assess thoughts and feelings using performance indicators (for example, response times, error rates and response frequencies) under conditions that favour automatic processing. Implicit measures are now widely used in psychological science and beyond, because they are assumed to be superior to self-reports in various ways. In this Perspective, we argue that, despite the enthusiasm for implicit measures, self-reports are most often the better measurement option. First, the use of implicit measures is often based on mistaken assumptions about the disadvantages of self-reports. Second, self-reports have advantageous characteristics that are currently unmatched in implicit measures. We call for a more sophisticated use of self-reports and for caution when using implicit measures in basic and applied research. Implicit measures are widely used because they are assumed to be superior to self-reports. In this Perspective, Corneille and Gawronski challenge this view and argue that claims about disadvantages of self-reports are unfounded and that self-reports have unmatched advantages over implicit measures.","PeriodicalId":74249,"journal":{"name":"Nature reviews psychology","volume":"3 12","pages":"835-846"},"PeriodicalIF":16.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142778615","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-10-16DOI: 10.1038/s44159-024-00374-1
Luis Cásedas, Jonathan W. Schooler, Miguel A. Vadillo, Juan Lupiáñez
Mindfulness meditation has drawn increasing attention in psychological research over the past two decades, including growing interest in its potential cognitive benefits. Meta-analytic evidence suggests that mindfulness training might improve cognitive performance, but the mechanisms underlying these benefits have not been fully characterized. In this Perspective, we integrate empirical and theoretical advances in mindfulness research with established knowledge about the mechanisms and limitations of cognitive training. We introduce the capacity–efficiency mindfulness (CEM) framework, which posits that mindfulness training modulates cognitive function by minimizing cognitive–affective interference during task performance, rather than by increasing overall cognitive resources. This framework emphasizes the critical role of mind-wandering and negative affect in disrupting efficient cognitive control and outlines key mechanisms by which mindfulness training might mitigate these factors. We review initial evidence in support of the framework, discuss its predictions and suggest research directions to test them. Mindfulness meditation improves performance in some cognitive domains, but the mechanisms that underlie this change are unclear. In this Perspective, Cásedas and colleagues synthesize mindfulness meditation and cognitive training frameworks and suggest that mindfulness training improves cognitive efficiency by reducing mind-wandering and negative affect.
{"title":"An integrative framework for the mechanisms underlying mindfulness-induced cognitive change","authors":"Luis Cásedas, Jonathan W. Schooler, Miguel A. Vadillo, Juan Lupiáñez","doi":"10.1038/s44159-024-00374-1","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44159-024-00374-1","url":null,"abstract":"Mindfulness meditation has drawn increasing attention in psychological research over the past two decades, including growing interest in its potential cognitive benefits. Meta-analytic evidence suggests that mindfulness training might improve cognitive performance, but the mechanisms underlying these benefits have not been fully characterized. In this Perspective, we integrate empirical and theoretical advances in mindfulness research with established knowledge about the mechanisms and limitations of cognitive training. We introduce the capacity–efficiency mindfulness (CEM) framework, which posits that mindfulness training modulates cognitive function by minimizing cognitive–affective interference during task performance, rather than by increasing overall cognitive resources. This framework emphasizes the critical role of mind-wandering and negative affect in disrupting efficient cognitive control and outlines key mechanisms by which mindfulness training might mitigate these factors. We review initial evidence in support of the framework, discuss its predictions and suggest research directions to test them. Mindfulness meditation improves performance in some cognitive domains, but the mechanisms that underlie this change are unclear. In this Perspective, Cásedas and colleagues synthesize mindfulness meditation and cognitive training frameworks and suggest that mindfulness training improves cognitive efficiency by reducing mind-wandering and negative affect.","PeriodicalId":74249,"journal":{"name":"Nature reviews psychology","volume":"3 12","pages":"821-834"},"PeriodicalIF":16.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142778619","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-10-16DOI: 10.1038/s44159-024-00377-y
Teresa Schubert
Nature Reviews Psychology is interviewing individuals with doctoral degrees in psychology who pursued non-academic careers. We spoke with Denitza Dramkin about her journey from PhD student to senior user researcher.
{"title":"From the lab to a career in the video game industry","authors":"Teresa Schubert","doi":"10.1038/s44159-024-00377-y","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44159-024-00377-y","url":null,"abstract":"Nature Reviews Psychology is interviewing individuals with doctoral degrees in psychology who pursued non-academic careers. We spoke with Denitza Dramkin about her journey from PhD student to senior user researcher.","PeriodicalId":74249,"journal":{"name":"Nature reviews psychology","volume":"3 11","pages":"723-724"},"PeriodicalIF":16.8,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142595717","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：