Psychological bulletin最新文献

{"title":"The conspiratorial mind: A meta-analytic review of motivational and personological correlates.","authors":"Shauna M Bowes,&nbsp;Thomas H Costello,&nbsp;Arber Tasimi","doi":"10.1037/bul0000392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000392","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A tidal wave of research has tried to uncover the motivational and personological correlates of conspiratorial ideation, often studying these two classes of correlates in parallel. Here, we synthesize this vast and piecemeal literature through a multilevel meta-analytic review that spanned 170 studies, 257 samples, 52 variables, 1,429 effect sizes, and 158,473 participants. Overall, we found that the strongest correlates of conspiratorial ideation pertained to (a) perceiving danger and threat, (b) relying on intuition and having odd beliefs and experiences, and (c) being antagonistic and acting superior. Considerable heterogeneity was found within these relations--especially when individual variables were lumped together under a single domain--and we identified potential boundary conditions in these relations (e.g., type of conspiracy). Given that the psychological correlates of conspiratorial ideation have often been classified as belonging to one of two broad domains-motivation or personality-we aim to understand the implications of such heterogeneity for frameworks of conspiratorial ideation. We conclude with directions for future research that can lead to a unified account of conspiratorial ideation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9776164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Child maltreatment and alexithymia: A meta-analytic review.","authors":"Julia Ditzer,&nbsp;Eileen Y Wong,&nbsp;Rhea N Modi,&nbsp;Maciej Behnke,&nbsp;James J Gross,&nbsp;Anat Talmon","doi":"10.1037/bul0000391","DOIUrl":"10.1037/bul0000391","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Alexithymia refers to difficulties identifying and describing one's emotions. Growing evidence suggests that alexithymia is a key transdiagnostic risk factor. Despite its clinical importance, the etiology of alexithymia is largely unknown. The present study employs meta-analytic methods to summarize findings on the role of one hypothesized antecedent of adult alexithymia, namely child maltreatment. We obtained effect size estimates from 99 independent samples reported in 78 unique sources that reported both child maltreatment history and adult levels of alexithymia. These studies involved a total of 36,141 participants. Using correlation coefficients as our effect size index, we found that child maltreatment was positively related to overall adult alexithymia (<i>r</i> = .23 [.19, .27]). Notably, emotional abuse (<i>r</i> = .18 [.13, .23]), emotional neglect (<i>r</i> = .21 [.16, .26]), and physical neglect (<i>r</i> = .18 [.15, .22]) were the strongest predictors. Effects were moderated by gender, affiliation with clinical versus nonclinical samples, and publication status. Overall results were robust to publication bias and the presence of outliers. These findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the complex connection between different types of child maltreatment and alexithymia, providing greater insight into the early environmental influences on alexithymia. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 5-6","pages":"311-329"},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9878027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Knowing before doing: Review and mega-analysis of action understanding in prereaching infants.","authors":"Shari Liu, Melyssa Almeida","doi":"10.1037/bul0000393","DOIUrl":"10.1037/bul0000393","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The relationship between experience and knowledge is one of the oldest and deepest questions in psychology. In developmental science, research on this question has focused on prereaching infants who cannot yet retrieve objects by reaching for and grasping them. Over the past 2 decades, behavioral research in this population has produced two seemingly contradictory findings: After first-person experience with reaching via \"sticky mittens\" training, (a) infants come to expect that people reach efficiently, toward goal objects, but (b) under some conditions, they can express these expectations without training. We hypothesize that prereaching infants' understanding of other people's actions is driven by the representational demands of the tasks used to test their abilities, rather than by first-person motor experience per se. We conducted a qualitative review and a quantitative, preregistered \"mega-analysis\" of the original data from this past work (i.e., an analysis of looking responses from <i>N</i> = 650 infants, 30 conditions, and 8 articles). We found that the manipulations with the strongest effects (measured via effect sizes and Bayes factors) on infants' understanding of other people's goals and physical constraints, controlling for infant age, were abstract features of action: Whether the action produced an observable effect in the world on contact and provided unambiguous evidence for the actor's goal. We end by presenting a broad hypothesis about how young infants learn about other people's minds and actions, centered on an early intuitive theory of action planning, to be tested with future work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 5-6","pages":"294-310"},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9881449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The vicious cycle of psychopathology and stressful life events: A meta-analytic review testing the stress generation model.","authors":"Katerina Rnic,&nbsp;Angela C Santee,&nbsp;Jennifer-Ashley Hoffmeister,&nbsp;Hallie Liu,&nbsp;Katharine K Chang,&nbsp;Rachel X Chen,&nbsp;Richard W J Neufeld,&nbsp;Daniel A Machado,&nbsp;Lisa R Starr,&nbsp;David J A Dozois,&nbsp;Joelle LeMoult","doi":"10.1037/bul0000390","DOIUrl":"10.1037/bul0000390","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stress generation theory initially posited that depression elevates risk for some stressful events (i.e., dependent events) but not others (i.e., independent events). This preregistered meta-analytic review examined whether stress generation occurs transdiagnostically by examining 95 longitudinal studies with 38,228 participants (537 total effect sizes) from over 30 years of research. Our multilevel meta-analyses found evidence of stress generation across a broad range of psychopathology, as evidenced by significantly larger prospective effects for dependent (overall psychopathology: <i>r</i> = .23) than independent (overall psychopathology: <i>r</i> = .10) stress. We also identified unique patterns of effects across specific types of psychopathology. For example, effects were larger for depression than anxiety. Furthermore, effects were sometimes larger in studies with younger participants, shorter time lags between assessments, checklist measures of stress, and for interpersonal stressors. Finally, a multilevel meta-analytic structural equation model suggested that dependent stress exacerbates psychopathology symptoms over time (β = .04), possibly contributing to chronicity. Interventions targeting the prevention of stress generation may mitigate chronic psychopathology. Conclusions of this study are limited by the predominance of depression effect sizes in the literature and our review of only English language articles. On the other hand, the findings are strengthened by rigorous inclusion criteria, lack of publication bias, and absence of moderating effects by publication year. The latter underscores the replicability of the stress generation effect over the last 30 years. Taken together, the review provides robust evidence that stress generation is a cross-diagnostic phenomenon that contributes to a vicious cycle of increasing stress and psychopathology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 5-6","pages":"330-369"},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9883490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Why Meta-Analyses of Growth Mindset and Other Interventions Should Follow Best Practices for Examining Heterogeneity: Commentary on Macnamara and Burgoyne (2023) and Burnette et al. (2023).","authors":"Elizabeth Tipton, Christopher Bryan, Jared Murray, Mark McDaniel, Barbara Schneider, David S Yeager","doi":"10.1037/bul0000384","DOIUrl":"10.1037/bul0000384","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Meta-analysts often ask a yes-or-no question: Is there an intervention effect or not? This traditional, all-or-nothing thinking stands in contrast with current best practice in meta-analysis, which calls for a heterogeneity-attuned approach (i.e., focused on the extent to which effects vary across procedures, participant groups, or contexts). This heterogeneity-attuned approach allows researchers to understand where effects are weaker or stronger and reveals mechanisms. The current article builds on a rare opportunity to compare two recent meta-analyses that examined the same literature (growth mindset interventions) but used different methods and reached different conclusions. One meta-analysis used a traditional approach (Macnamara and Burgoyne, in press), which aggregated effect sizes for each study before combining them and examined moderators one-by-one by splitting the data into small subgroups. The second meta-analysis (Burnette et al., in press) modeled the variation of effects within studies-across subgroups and outcomes-and applied modern, multi-level meta-regression methods. The former concluded that growth mindset effects are biased, but the latter yielded nuanced conclusions consistent with theoretical predictions. We explain why the practices followed by the latter meta-analysis were more in line with best practices for analyzing large and heterogeneous literatures. Further, an exploratory re-analysis of the data showed that applying the modern, heterogeneity-attuned methods from Burnette et al. (in press) to the dataset employed by Macnamara and Burgoyne (in press) confirmed Burnette et al.'s conclusions; namely, that there was a meaningful, significant effect of growth mindset in focal (at-risk) groups. This article concludes that heterogeneity-attuned meta-analysis is important both for advancing theory and for avoiding the boom-or-bust cycle that plagues too much of psychological science.</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 3-4","pages":"229-241"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10495100/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10261929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A systematic review and meta-analysis of growth mindset interventions: For whom, how, and why might such interventions work?","authors":"Jeni L Burnette,&nbsp;Joseph Billingsley,&nbsp;George C Banks,&nbsp;Laura E Knouse,&nbsp;Crystal L Hoyt,&nbsp;Jeffrey M Pollack,&nbsp;Stefanie Simon","doi":"10.1037/bul0000368","DOIUrl":"10.1037/bul0000368","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As growth mindset interventions increase in scope and popularity, scientists and policymakers are asking: Are these interventions effective? To answer this question properly, the field needs to understand the meaningful heterogeneity in effects. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we focused on two key moderators with adequate data to test: Subsamples expected to benefit most and implementation fidelity. We also specified a process model that can be generative for theory. We included articles published between 2002 (first mindset intervention) through the end of 2020 that reported an effect for a growth mindset intervention, used a randomized design, and featured at least one of the qualifying outcomes. Our search yielded 53 independent samples testing distinct interventions. We reported cumulative effect sizes for multiple outcomes (i.e., mindsets, motivation, behavior, end results), with a focus on three primary end results (i.e., improved academic achievement, mental health, or social functioning). Multilevel metaregression analyses with targeted subsamples and high fidelity for academic achievement yielded, <i>d</i> = 0.14, 95% CI [.06, .22]; for mental health, <i>d</i> = 0.32, 95% CI [.10, .54]. Results highlighted the extensive variation in effects to be expected from future interventions. Namely, 95% prediction intervals for focal effects ranged from -0.08 to 0.35 for academic achievement and from 0.07 to 0.57 for mental health. The literature is too nascent for moderators for social functioning, but average effects are <i>d</i> = 0.36, 95% CI [.03, .68], 95% PI [-.50, 1.22]. We conclude with a discussion of heterogeneity and the limitations of meta-analyses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 3-4","pages":"174-205"},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9832981","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The daily association between affect and alcohol use: A meta-analysis of individual participant data.","authors":"Jonas Dora, Marilyn Piccirillo, Katherine T Foster, Kelly Arbeau, Stephen Armeli, Marc Auriacombe, Bruce Bartholow, Adriene M Beltz, Shari M Blumenstock, Krysten Bold, Erin E Bonar, Abby Braitman, Ryan W Carpenter, Kasey G Creswell, Tracy De Hart, Robert D Dvorak, Noah Emery, Matthew Enkema, Catharine Fairbairn, Anne M Fairlie, Stuart G Ferguson, Teresa Freire, Fallon Goodman, Nisha Gottfredson, Max Halvorson, Maleeha Haroon, Andrea L Howard, Andrea Hussong, Kristina M Jackson, Tiffany Jenzer, Dominic P Kelly, Adam M Kuczynski, Alexis Kuerbis, Christine M Lee, Melissa Lewis, Ashley N Linden-Carmichael, Andrew Littlefield, David M Lydon-Staley, Jennifer E Merrill, Robert Miranda, Cynthia Mohr, Jennifer P Read, Clarissa Richardson, Roisin O'Connor, Stephanie S O'Malley, Lauren Papp, Thomas M Piasecki, Paul Sacco, Nichole Scaglione, Fuschia Serre, Julia Shadur, Kenneth J Sher, Yuichi Shoda, Tracy L Simpson, Michele R Smith, Angela Stevens, Brittany Stevenson, Howard Tennen, Michael Todd, Hayley Treloar Padovano, Timothy Trull, Jack Waddell, Katherine Walukevich-Dienst, Katie Witkiewitz, Tyler Wray, Aidan G C Wright, Andrea M Wycoff, Kevin M King","doi":"10.1037/bul0000387","DOIUrl":"10.1037/bul0000387","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Influential psychological theories hypothesize that people consume alcohol in response to the experience of both negative and positive emotions. Despite two decades of daily diary and ecological momentary assessment research, it remains unclear whether people consume more alcohol on days they experience higher negative and positive affect in everyday life. In this preregistered meta-analysis, we synthesized the evidence for these daily associations between affect and alcohol use. We included individual participant data from 69 studies (<i>N</i> = 12,394), which used daily and momentary surveys to assess affect and the number of alcoholic drinks consumed. Results indicate that people are not more likely to drink on days they experience high negative affect, but are more likely to drink and drink heavily on days high in positive affect. People self-reporting a motivational tendency to drink-to-cope and drink-to-enhance consumed more alcohol, but not on days they experienced higher negative and positive affect. Results were robust across different operationalizations of affect, study designs, study populations, and individual characteristics. These findings challenge the long-held belief that people drink more alcohol following increases in negative affect. Integrating these findings under different theoretical models and limitations of this field of research, we collectively propose an agenda for future research to explore open questions surrounding affect and alcohol use.</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 1-2","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10409490/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10369474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Priming behavior: A meta-analysis of the effects of behavioral and nonbehavioral primes on overt behavioral outcomes.","authors":"Wenhao Dai,&nbsp;Tianshu Yang,&nbsp;Benjamin X White,&nbsp;Ryan Palmer,&nbsp;Emily K Sanders,&nbsp;Jack A McDonald,&nbsp;Melody Leung,&nbsp;Dolores Albarracín","doi":"10.1037/bul0000374","DOIUrl":"10.1037/bul0000374","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Past meta-analyses of the effects of priming on overt behavior have not examined whether the effects and processes of priming behavioral or nonbehavioral concepts (e.g., priming action through the word <i>go</i> and priming religion through the word <i>church</i>) differ, even though these possibilities are important to our understanding of concept accessibility and behavior. Hence, we meta-analyzed 351 studies (224 reports and 862 effect sizes) involving incidental presentation of behavioral or nonbehavioral primes, a neutral control group, and at least one behavioral outcome. Our random-effects analyses, which used the correlated and hierarchical effects model with robust variance estimation (Pustejovsky & Tipton, 2021; Tanner-Smith et al., 2016), revealed a moderate priming effect (<i>d</i> = 0.37) that remained stable across behavioral and nonbehavioral primes and across different methodological procedures and adjustments for possible inclusion/publication biases (e.g., sensitivity analyses from Mathur & VanderWeele, 2020; sensitivity analyses from Vevea & Woods, 2005). Although the findings suggest that associative processes explain both the effects of behavioral and nonbehavioral primes, lowering the value of a behavior weakened the effect only when the primes were behavioral. These findings support the possibility that even though both types of primes activate associations that promote behavior, behavioral (vs. nonbehavioral) primes may provide a greater opportunity for goals to control the effect of the primes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 1-2","pages":"67-98"},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9657931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.","authors":"Wiebke Bleidorn,&nbsp;Ted Schwaba,&nbsp;Anqing Zheng,&nbsp;Christopher J Hopwood,&nbsp;Susana S Sosa,&nbsp;Brent W Roberts,&nbsp;D A Briley","doi":"10.1037/bul0000365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000365","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Past research syntheses provided evidence that personality traits are both stable and changeable throughout the life span. However, early meta-analytic estimates were constrained by a relatively small universe of longitudinal studies, many of which tracked personality traits in small samples over moderate time periods using measures that were only loosely related to contemporary trait models such as the Big Five. Since then, hundreds of new studies have emerged allowing for more precise estimates of personality trait stability and change across the life span. Here, we updated and extended previous research syntheses on personality trait development by synthesizing novel longitudinal data on rank-order stability (total <i>k</i> = 189, total <i>N</i> = 178,503) and mean-level change (total <i>k</i> = 276, <i>N</i> = 242,542) from studies published after January 1, 2005. Consistent with earlier meta-analytic findings, the rank-order stability of personality traits increased significantly throughout early life before reaching a plateau in young adulthood. These increases in stability coincide with mean-level changes in the direction of greater maturity. In contrast to previous findings, we found little evidence for increasing rank-order stabilities after Age 25. Moreover, cumulative mean-level trait changes across the life span were slightly smaller than previously estimated. Emotional stability, however, increased consistently and more substantially across the life span than previously found. Moderator analyses indicated that narrow facet-level and maladaptive trait measures were less stable than broader domain and adaptive trait measures. Overall, the present findings draw a more precise picture of the life span development of personality traits and highlight important gaps in the personality development literature. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"148 7-8","pages":"588-619"},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9242509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The enactment effect: A systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioral, neuroimaging, and patient studies.","authors":"Brady R T Roberts,&nbsp;Colin M MacLeod,&nbsp;Myra A Fernandes","doi":"10.1037/bul0000360","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000360","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The enactment effect is the phenomenon that physically performing an action represented by a word or phrase (e.g., clap, clap your hands) results in better memory than does simply reading it. We examined data from three different methodological approaches to provide a comprehensive review of the enactment effect across 145 behavioral, 7 neuroimaging, and 31 neurological patient studies. Boosts in memory performance following execution of a physical action were compared to those produced by reading words or phrases, by watching an experimenter perform actions, or by engaging in self-generated imagery. Across the behavioral studies, we employed random-effects meta-regression with robust variance estimation (RVE) to reveal an average enactment effect size of <i>g</i> = 1.23. Further meta-analyses revealed that variations in study design and comparison task reliably influence the size of the enactment effect, whereas four other experiment factors-test format, learning instruction type, retention interval, and the presence of objects during encoding-likely do not influence the effect. Neuroimaging studies demonstrated enactment-related activation to be prevalent in the motor cortex and inferior parietal lobule. Patient studies indicated that, regardless of whether impairments of memory (e.g., Alzheimer's) or of motor capability (e.g., Parkinson's) were present, patients were able to benefit from enactment. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis highlight two components accounting for the memory benefit from enactment: a primary mental contribution relating to planning the action and a secondary physical contribution of the action itself. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"148 5-6","pages":"397-434"},"PeriodicalIF":22.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10415768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}