Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society最新文献

{"title":"Psychological Assessments in Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping \"Junk Science\" Out of the Courtroom?","authors":"Tess M S Neal,&nbsp;Christopher Slobogin,&nbsp;Michael J Saks,&nbsp;David L Faigman,&nbsp;Kurt F Geisinger","doi":"10.1177/1529100619888860","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619888860","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, we report the results of a two-part investigation of psychological assessments by psychologists in legal contexts. The first part involves a systematic review of the 364 psychological assessment tools psychologists report having used in legal cases across 22 surveys of experienced forensic mental health practitioners, focusing on legal standards and scientific and psychometric theory. The second part is a legal analysis of admissibility challenges with regard to psychological assessments. Results from the first part reveal that, consistent with their roots in psychological science, nearly all of the assessment tools used by psychologists and offered as expert evidence in legal settings have been subjected to empirical testing (90%). However, we were able to clearly identify only about 67% as generally accepted in the field and only about 40% have generally favorable reviews of their psychometric and technical properties in authorities such as the Mental Measurements Yearbook. Furthermore, there is a weak relationship between general acceptance and favorability of tools' psychometric properties. Results from the second part show that legal challenges to the admission of this evidence are infrequent: Legal challenges to the assessment evidence for any reason occurred in only 5.1% of cases in the sample (a little more than half of these involved challenges to validity). When challenges were raised, they succeeded only about a third of the time. Challenges to the most scientifically suspect tools are almost nonexistent. Attorneys rarely challenge psychological expert assessment evidence, and when they do, judges often fail to exercise the scrutiny required by law.</p>","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100619888860","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37649326","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":"Expert Evidence: The (Unfulfilled) Promise of <i>Daubert</i>.","authors":"David DeMatteo,&nbsp;Sarah Fishel,&nbsp;Aislinn Tansey","doi":"10.1177/1529100619894336","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619894336","url":null,"abstract":"Expert witnesses and the evidence they provide occupy a unique and privileged position in the U.S. justice system. Put simply, expert witnesses can do things that other witnesses cannot do. Whereas lay or fact witnesses are typically limited to testifying about what they saw or heard, expert witnesses in most jurisdictions and in most legal contexts can offer opinions, including opinions on the ultimate legal issue, and they can rely on inadmissible evidence in reaching their opinions. Given the credentials required to be an expert witness and the unique nature of their testimony, expert witnesses have the potential to wield tremendous power in influencing judges and juries. The extraordinary role of expert witnesses and expert evidence had led courts and legislatures to formulate various frameworks for determining who should be recognized as an expert and what type of expert evidence should be admitted. Several influential court decisions have established admissibility criteria for expert evidence in U.S. courts. In Frye v. United States (1923), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that proffered expert evidence must be based on generally accepted scientific methods. Specifically, the federal appellate court held that “the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs” (p. 1014). This “general acceptance” test was the predominant admissibility standard for expert evidence in U.S. courts, and it remained largely unchallenged for more than half a century. Seventy years after Frye, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), the Supreme Court of the United States held that Frye had been superseded by the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE); the FRE was adopted in 1975 and therefore did not exist when Frye was decided in 1923. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that FRE 702, not Frye, governed the admissibility of expert testimony. In their gatekeeping function after Daubert, trial court judges were tasked with determining whether proffered expert evidence is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact. To assist trial court judges in this new role, the Supreme Court in Daubert articulated four criteria that courts can consider when determining admissibility under FRE 702, including whether the proffered evidence (a) was derived from methodology that has or can be tested empirically, (b) has been subjected to peer review and publication, (c) has a known or documented potential rate of error, and (d) has achieved general acceptance in its relevant scientific community. The Supreme Court believed that its interpretation of FRE 702 was consistent with the liberal thrust of the FRE. A later decision from the Supreme Court held that Daubert applies to all forms of expert evidence, not just the scientific expert evidence that was at issue in Daubert (see Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 1999). D","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100619894336","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37649325","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":"Emotional Expressions Reconsidered: Challenges to Inferring Emotion From Human Facial Movements.","authors":"Lisa Feldman Barrett, Ralph Adolphs, Stacy Marsella, Aleix M Martinez, Seth D Pollak","doi":"10.1177/1529100619832930","DOIUrl":"10.1177/1529100619832930","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is commonly assumed that a person's emotional state can be readily inferred from his or her facial movements, typically called <i>emotional expressions</i> or <i>facial expressions</i>. This assumption influences legal judgments, policy decisions, national security protocols, and educational practices; guides the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric illness, as well as the development of commercial applications; and pervades everyday social interactions as well as research in other scientific fields such as artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and computer vision. In this article, we survey examples of this widespread assumption, which we refer to as the <i>common view</i>, and we then examine the scientific evidence that tests this view, focusing on the six most popular emotion categories used by consumers of emotion research: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. The available scientific evidence suggests that people do sometimes smile when happy, frown when sad, scowl when angry, and so on, as proposed by the common view, more than what would be expected by chance. Yet how people communicate anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise varies substantially across cultures, situations, and even across people within a single situation. Furthermore, similar configurations of facial movements variably express instances of more than one emotion category. In fact, a given configuration of facial movements, such as a scowl, often communicates something other than an emotional state. Scientists agree that facial movements convey a range of information and are important for social communication, emotional or otherwise. But our review suggests an urgent need for research that examines how people <i>actually</i> move their faces to express emotions and other social information in the variety of contexts that make up everyday life, as well as careful study of the mechanisms by which people perceive instances of emotion in one another. We make specific research recommendations that will yield a more valid picture of how people move their faces to express emotions and how they infer emotional meaning from facial movements in situations of everyday life. This research is crucial to provide consumers of emotion research with the translational information they require.</p>","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6640856/pdf/nihms-1021596.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41215211","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":"Mapping the Passions: Toward a High-Dimensional Taxonomy of Emotional Experience and Expression.","authors":"Alan Cowen,&nbsp;Disa Sauter,&nbsp;Jessica L Tracy,&nbsp;Dacher Keltner","doi":"10.1177/1529100619850176","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619850176","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>What would a comprehensive atlas of human emotions include? For 50 years, scientists have sought to map emotion-related experience, expression, physiology, and recognition in terms of the \"basic six\"-anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. Claims about the relationships between these six emotions and prototypical facial configurations have provided the basis for a long-standing debate over the diagnostic value of expression (for review and latest installment in this debate, see Barrett et al., p. 1). Building on recent empirical findings and methodologies, we offer an alternative conceptual and methodological approach that reveals a richer taxonomy of emotion. Dozens of distinct varieties of emotion are reliably distinguished by language, evoked in distinct circumstances, and perceived in distinct expressions of the face, body, and voice. Traditional models-both the basic six and affective-circumplex model (valence and arousal)-capture a fraction of the systematic variability in emotional response. In contrast, emotion-related responses (e.g., the smile of embarrassment, triumphant postures, sympathetic vocalizations, blends of distinct expressions) can be explained by richer models of emotion. Given these developments, we discuss why tests of a basic-six model of emotion are not tests of the diagnostic value of facial expression more generally. Determining the full extent of what facial expressions can tell us, marginally and in conjunction with other behavioral and contextual cues, will require mapping the high-dimensional, continuous space of facial, bodily, and vocal signals onto richly multifaceted experiences using large-scale statistical modeling and machine-learning methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100619850176","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41215212","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":"About the Authors.","authors":"E. Editor","doi":"10.1515/9783110634082-020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110634082-020","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84406487","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":"Self-Control and Its Discontents: A Commentary on Duckworth, Milkman, and Laibson.","authors":"George Loewenstein","doi":"10.1177/1529100619828401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619828401","url":null,"abstract":"I am pleased and honored to comment on this superb review written by three researchers who have all made pioneering contributions to the literature on self-control. With different disciplinary backgrounds and separate extensive lines of research dealing with self-control, Duckworth, Laibson, and Milkman (2018) bring a diverse but overlapping range of perspectives to bear on self-control, which is, as the authors express it, an “object of fascination for philosophers, social scientists, policymakers and pundits” (p. 102). One the most important messages of the article, beginning with the first two words of the title—“beyond willpower”—is one I entirely agree with: Willpower has severe limitations as a self-control strategy. Fittingly, I’m writing this on the first day of a new year. One of the major causes of failures to carry through with the myriad resolutions that were made last night will be naivety about the limitations of the brute-force approach and ignorance of the far more effective strategies enumerated in the review. The most significant contribution of the review, in my view—by itself worth the “price of admission”—is the classification of self-control strategies that move beyond willpower. I anticipate that the distinctions highlighted in Figure 2 and Table 1, between situational and cognitive strategies on the one hand and between those that are selfand other-deployed on the other, will become a mainstay of future thinking about self-control. The distinctions are, to be sure, not always perfectly crisp, but I will not dwell on this issue because the review deals with it in detail and with candor. I found the tripartite classification of models giving rise to self-control conflicts proposed in the article less helpful, perhaps because it does not fit well into my own mental map of such models. My own perspective (cited in the article), which is closely related to the want should conflicts that Milkman and her colleagues have studied, views self-control as a conflict between affect (encompassing emotions, drives, and motivational feeling states such as pain) on the one hand and deliberation on the other. Unlike the classification of self-control strategies, however, the classification of self-control models does not end up playing a major role in the article, so it, too, will not be my focus. The focus of my commentary is not, in fact, on the substance of what the authors write, most of which I agree with, but on two assumptions that could be seen as implicit in their review and that I do disagree with. First, although I know from past discussions with the authors that this does not represent their personal perspectives, the article could leave the impression that inadequate self-control is the source of problems such as obesity and inadequate saving that, in fact, have other major causes. This perspective, in turn, naturally leads to the view, misplaced in my opinion, that such problems can best be combatted by promoting the types of ","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100619828401","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36555096","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":"Beyond Willpower: Strategies for Reducing Failures of Self-Control.","authors":"Angela L Duckworth, Katherine L Milkman, David Laibson","doi":"10.1177/1529100618821893","DOIUrl":"10.1177/1529100618821893","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Almost everyone struggles to act in their individual and collective best interests, particularly when doing so requires forgoing a more immediately enjoyable alternative. Other than exhorting decision makers to \"do the right thing,\" what can policymakers do to reduce overeating, undersaving, procrastination, and other self-defeating behaviors that feel good now but generate larger delayed costs? In this review, we synthesize contemporary research on approaches to reducing failures of self-control. We distinguish between self-deployed and other-deployed strategies and, in addition, between situational and cognitive intervention targets. Collectively, the evidence from both psychological science and economics recommends psychologically informed policies for reducing failures of self-control.</p>","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10508852","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":"Advancing the Science of Collaborative Problem Solving.","authors":"Arthur C Graesser,&nbsp;Stephen M Fiore,&nbsp;Samuel Greiff,&nbsp;Jessica Andrews-Todd,&nbsp;Peter W Foltz,&nbsp;Friedrich W Hesse","doi":"10.1177/1529100618808244","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Collaborative problem solving (CPS) has been receiving increasing international attention because much of the complex work in the modern world is performed by teams. However, systematic education and training on CPS is lacking for those entering and participating in the workforce. In 2015, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a global test of educational progress, documented the low levels of proficiency in CPS. This result not only underscores a significant societal need but also presents an important opportunity for psychological scientists to develop, adopt, and implement theory and empirical research on CPS and to work with educators and policy experts to improve training in CPS. This article offers some directions for psychological science to participate in the growing attention to CPS throughout the world. First, it identifies the existing theoretical frameworks and empirical research that focus on CPS. Second, it provides examples of how recent technologies can automate analyses of CPS processes and assessments so that substantially larger data sets can be analyzed and so students can receive immediate feedback on their CPS performance. Third, it identifies some challenges, debates, and uncertainties in creating an infrastructure for research, education, and training in CPS. CPS education and assessment are expected to improve when supported by larger data sets and theoretical frameworks that are informed by psychological science. This will require interdisciplinary efforts that include expertise in psychological science, education, assessment, intelligent digital technologies, and policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100618808244","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36720877","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":"Collaborative Problem Solving: Social and Developmental Considerations.","authors":"Mary Gauvain","doi":"10.1177/1529100618813370","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618813370","url":null,"abstract":"Skill at solving complex problems in teams of people with varying backgrounds and expertise is needed to address many of the pressing social, environmental, health, resource, and economic problems in the world today. There are several indicators of this new reality. Social collaborative skills are increasingly valued in the workplace, and people with these skills make up a substantial part of the changing labor market in the United States (Deming, 2015). Team science is seen as instrumental for tackling real world “grand challenge” problems (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 2005; National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, 2011; Social and Behavioral Science Team Annual Report, 2016). And collaborative learning in the classroom is being used effectively for student learning across the curriculum, including the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 2018; Sawyer, 2014). In this light, Graesser and his colleagues (2018) concentrate on the need to train young people in collaborative problem solving (CPS) in order to prepare them for the 21st century workforce. They describe two ways that psychological science can contribute to this endeavor: by conducting basic research on CPS, including the design and implementation of CPS training for youth and by working in interdisciplinary teams that use CPS to reach productive ends. So what might be effective ways of imparting CPS skills to young people? I say “ways” because it is unlikely that any single method will suffice in engendering such a large set of skills across a sizable and diverse range of problems. Moreover, support for developing and using these skills will need to be sustained over time and to accommodate changes in knowledge, technology, and personnel; new methods will supplant ones that no longer work. Research conducted in laboratory and classroom settings, which forms the basis of my remarks and was cited by Graesser et al. (2018), offers some useful ideas and some cautionary tales for designing this training. However, it is important to state at the outset that this research concentrates mainly on face-to-face interaction and the learning of classroombased subject matter—both of which differ from the type of training envisioned by Graesser and his colleagues. Nonetheless, I believe this research offers useful insights, particularly regarding the social and developmental aspects of CPS training, that warrant attention as this work proceeds. But first, it is important to mention some distinctions between collaboration in the classroom and the workplace.","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100618813370","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36720876","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":"Corrigendum: Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert.","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/1529100618786959","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618786959","url":null,"abstract":"Original article: Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5-51. doi: 10.1177/1529100618772271 On page 23, in the left column, at the beginning of the first full paragraph, four sentences were inadvertently omitted during the editing process. Those sentences are as follows: This characterization changes substantially in cases of words with more than one morpheme. Morphemes are the minimum meaning-bearing units in English (e.g., darkness consists of the morphemes {dark}+{-ness}). For these words, there are underlying regularities between spelling and meaning. These regular patterns emerge because stems occur and reoccur in words with similar meanings (e.g., clean, unclean, cleaner, cleanliness), and affixes alter the meanings of stems in highly predictable ways (e.g., unhook, unlock, unscrew; Rastle, Davis, Marslen-Wilson, & Tyler, 2000). This error has been corrected.","PeriodicalId":37882,"journal":{"name":"Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100618786959","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36327908","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}