Current Opinion in Psychology最新文献

A signal detection theory meta-analysis of psychological inoculation against misinformation 误传心理接种的信号检测理论元分析

IF 5.9 2区心理学

Current Opinion in Psychology Pub Date : 2025-10-14 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102194

Almog Simchon, Tomer Zipori, Louis Teitelbaum, Stephan Lewandowsky, Sander van der Linden

引用次数: 0

Differentiating behavioral trust and trustworthiness beliefs to improve science communication practice and research 区分行为信任与可信赖信念，促进科学传播实践与研究

IF 6.9 2区心理学

Current Opinion in Psychology Pub Date : 2025-10-09 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102192

John C. Besley, Alexandra Benitez Gonzalez, Leigh Anne Tiffany

{"title":"Differentiating behavioral trust and trustworthiness beliefs to improve science communication practice and research","authors":"John C. Besley, Alexandra Benitez Gonzalez, Leigh Anne Tiffany","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102192","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102192","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This review summarizes research on the importance of distinguishing between behavioral trust and trustworthiness beliefs in the context of science communication research and practice. It argues that the scientific community would benefit from discussing and measuring trust-related beliefs and behaviors separately to help foster a more nuanced understanding of how specific groups think about scientists and to help focus communication efforts on areas of weakness. Although the labels used vary, key trustworthiness beliefs addressed by past research often include beliefs about scientists’ abilities (i.e., expertise, competence), benevolence (i.e., goodwill, caring), and integrity (i.e., honesty). Science communication researchers are also often interested in openness beliefs. While there is general agreement on key concepts, much of the available work is correlational. The review found only a limited number of experiments focused on providing the scientific community with data on how to demonstrate specific dimensions of trustworthiness and thus argues for additional research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102192"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145261777","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}

引用次数: 0

When ‘blind’ selection works—and when it doesn't 什么时候“盲目”选择起作用，什么时候不起作用

IF 6.9 2区心理学

Current Opinion in Psychology Pub Date : 2025-10-09 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102195

Hagai Rabinovitch

引用次数: 0

“A community of unknowledge”: A social-psychological model of the self-reinforcing cycle of social identity-driven willful ignorance and conspiracy beliefs “一个无知的社区”：社会身份驱动的故意无知和阴谋信仰的自我强化循环的社会心理学模型

IF 6.9 2区心理学

Current Opinion in Psychology Pub Date : 2025-10-08 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102193

Theofilos Gkinopoulos , Malgorzata Kossowska , Eva Walther

{"title":"“A community of unknowledge”: A social-psychological model of the self-reinforcing cycle of social identity-driven willful ignorance and conspiracy beliefs","authors":"Theofilos Gkinopoulos , Malgorzata Kossowska , Eva Walther","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102193","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102193","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper explores willful ignorance as a socially motivated, group-based phenomenon closely tied to conspiracy beliefs. While prior research has emphasized individual motives, we highlight how groups actively ignore dissonant information to protect identity, cohesion, and status. Drawing on organizational, socio-political, and historical contexts, we show how both powerful and marginalized groups use willful ignorance to sustain conspiratorial narratives that affirm their worldview and deflect moral accountability. We propose the Social Identity-Driven Willful Ignorance and Conspiracy Beliefs (SIDWI-CB) model, a dual group-based motivational pathways framework that explains how intergroup symbolic and realistic motivations drive selective ignorance fueled by conspiracy beliefs. This framework offers a new lens for understanding how identity and power dynamics shape belief persistence, with broad implications for addressing polarization, misinformation and conspiracy beliefs, and collective decision making.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102193"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145261688","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}

引用次数: 0

Are there ideological differences in science denial? 否认科学存在意识形态上的差异吗？

IF 6.9 2区心理学

Current Opinion in Psychology Pub Date : 2025-10-03 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102190

Linda J. Skitka

引用次数: 0

Antecedents and consequences of science-related conspiracy beliefs 与科学有关的阴谋论的前因后果

IF 6.9 2区心理学

Current Opinion in Psychology Pub Date : 2025-10-03 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102191

Karen M. Douglas

引用次数: 0

Shared remembering as support against cognitive decline in aging and dementia 共同记忆有助于对抗衰老和痴呆的认知能力下降

IF 6.9 2区心理学

Current Opinion in Psychology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102189

Celia B. Harris, Ruth Brookman

引用次数: 0

History education: Past, present, and challenges for the future 历史教育：过去、现在和未来的挑战

IF 6.9 2区心理学

Current Opinion in Psychology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102188

María Rodríguez-Moneo , Mario Carretero , María Gutiérrez-Cano

引用次数: 0

The naturalness bias 自然偏差。

IF 6.9 2区心理学

Current Opinion in Psychology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102143

Brian P. Meier , Amanda J. Dillard , Courtney M. Lappas

{"title":"The naturalness bias","authors":"Brian P. Meier , Amanda J. Dillard , Courtney M. Lappas","doi":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102143","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102143","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Research shows that people have a natural-is-better belief whereby things described as “natural” are perceived as better than artificial, synthetic, or human-made items. For example, people report they would prefer a host of items when they are described as natural versus synthetic including drugs, vaccines, food, cigarettes, human talent, and lighting. Some people report preferring a natural item like a drug even when it is objectively less safe or effective than a synthetic counterpart. This naturalness bias is may become more widespread given the political climate in the U.S. and elsewhere in 2025 and beyond. However, there are many instances in which believing naturalness is better may be problematic, especially when it comes to health or medical behaviors. For example, people may forgo a synthetic or human-made medical treatment that has been rigorously tested in the laboratory and shown to influence a health condition in favor of a natural approach (e.g., herbal medicine). Research suggests that beliefs regarding the safety of natural items is one causal factor, but science skepticism is another factor that may be important. People who have a stronger naturalness bias may also be higher in science skepticism. Understanding how these two factors are connected could bring additional insight into how to reduce this bias. Implications of this connection and other ideas for future research related to the naturalness bias are discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48279,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Psychology","volume":"67 ","pages":"Article 102143"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145214198","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}

引用次数: 0

Monitoring adverse effects in TMS: From controlled trials to clinical reality 监测经颅磁刺激的不良反应：从对照试验到临床现实

IF 6.9 2区心理学

Current Opinion in Psychology Pub Date : 2025-09-29 DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102187

Thomas van der Velde , Johanna Swartswe , Koen Schruers , Teresa Schuhmann

引用次数: 0