Psychological Inquiry最新文献

{"title":"The Homeostatic Ego: Self-Enhancement as a Biological Adaptation","authors":"S. Koole","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007701","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007701","url":null,"abstract":"A Dutch teenager begins hormone treatment to more fully transition to the woman she feels she is. An American real estate mogul slaps his name on his casinos, hotels, and skyscrapers. A Tibetan monk retreats in the mountains to meditate in poverty and isolation. These three individuals could hardly be more different from another. Nevertheless, their behavior can be readily understood in terms of a selfenhancement motive, or the desire to forge a self-image that satisfies one’s personal, social and cultural values (Sedikides & Strube, 1997). Self-enhancement is implicated in a vast array of human activities, from reckless driving (Ben-Ari, Florian, & Mikulincer, 1999) to ideological extremism (McGregor & Marigold, 2003) and nostalgic reveries (Luo, Liu, Cai, Wildschut, & Sedikides, 2016). Self-enhancement further has close ties to psychological health and emotional wellbeing (Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004). Consequently, is important to achieve a deeper scientific understanding of self-enhancement. Sedikides (this issue) furthers this aim by proposing a new theoretical model of self-enhancement. Central to the model is the notion that self-enhancement promotes psychological homeostasis, in the form of emotional wellbeing. More specifically, the homeostatic model draws an analogy between self-enhancement and the immune system. Just as the physical immune system protects the body from physical threats like germs or viruses, self-enhancement may form a psychological immune system that protects the person against psychological threats like loss or criticism. The homeostatic model thus connects self-enhancement to the dynamics of emotions and emotion regulation. Drawing from (social-) cognitive science, the adaptive functions of self-enhancement are assumed to be served through associative networks that contain identity themes, self-views, and autobiographical memories. The homeostatic model of self-enhancement (Sedikides, this issue) is a landmark achievement in the scientific study of the self. The model has both notable strengths and aspects that are in need of further development. In the remainder of this article, I take a closer look at the homeostatic model. First, I note some of the theoretical benefits of conceiving of self-enhancement as a biological adaptation. Second, I turn to the relation between physiological and psychological homeostasis. Third, I consider the analogy between self-enhancement and the immune system, and suggest that the digestive system may provide a useful alternative analogy. I end with some general conclusions and outlook on the self as a biological adaptation.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41597110","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}

{"title":"Homeostasis, Interrupted: Living with and Recovering from a Stigmatized Identity","authors":"D. A. Stinson, Elysia Desgrosseilliers, Jessica J. Cameron","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004822","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004822","url":null,"abstract":"There is much to admire about Sedikides’ (this issue) homeostatic model of identity maintenance. In brief, Sedikides argues that people possess a psychological immune system that helps them to maintain psychological homeostasis; “a routine, adaptive, process by which people monitor their internal and external environments for threats to their selfviews or, more generally, to their theories about their characteristics, relationships, and circumstances” (p. 215). The scope and complexity of the model effectively incorporate theories and empirical findings from the sprawling literature about the self, and thus provides an overarching structure apt to organize the field. The model’s focus on mind-body connections is also a welcome return to a holistic self-psychology that seemed lost for a while, but whose resurgence in recent years raises new questions and offers new opportunities for interdisciplinary cross-pollination. Framing the mechanisms that uphold a coherent sense of self as an immune system further emphasizes the inherently intertwined biological and psychological components of human life. Yet despite all of these strengths and the importance of the model as a whole, if we are being totally honest—and that seems to be the goal here—we suspect that some people could feel alienated when reading this paper. We agree that most people must contend with daily feedback that refutes their generally-positive self-views, including negative feedback from an employer, poor performance on a task for which they believe they are highly skilled, and criticism by a friend—all examples that Sedikides uses to illustrate his model—and we agree that those kinds of experiences can be highly distressing. Yet, when some people read those examples, a tiny voice in their heads may whisper, “That must be nice!” It must be nice to live in a social world where identity-threats can be easily countered if one “construe[s] their experiences optimistically” or “recall[s] selectively favorable information” (Sedikides, this issue, p. 211). It must be nice to enjoy positive self-views that meet “... survival and reproductive needs, including physical and social attractiveness, intellectual prowess, self-regulatory proficiency, and social status” (Sedikides, this issue, p. 197). It must be nice to have a psychological system whose primary goal is to simply feel good. Unfortunately, for people who possess one or more intersecting identities that are subject to social devaluation, or stigma, this is not always their lived reality, and we think that this perspective is missing from Sedikides’ model. This oversight is epistemologically costly, because from a population demographic perspective, most people possess characteristics or belong to groups that are subjected to stigma, and most of them belong to multiple stigmatized groups (Pachankis et al., 2018; Reinka, Pan-Weisz, Lawner, & Quinn, 2020). The proportion of the population that is disabled, fat, queer, or who are Black, In","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49542942","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}

{"title":"Homeostasis as Affective-Motivational State: A Threat and Defense Perspective","authors":"E. Jonas, Janine Stollberg","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004818","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004818","url":null,"abstract":"There is much to like about the target article by Sedikides as, among other things the author illuminates the important psychological construct of personal identity. He suggests that the construction and protection of a desired identity is an essential component of the human body’s harm protection system which serves to promote psychological homeostasis and supports the immune system of the body. Importantly, Sedikides sees psychological and biological immunity as two components in a coordinated and adaptive system that helps humans to adapt best to their environment. In doing so, he does not just use the immune system as a metaphor but emphasizes the actual influence of psychological states on biological processes. In addition, his article presents meaningful content with regard to the processes of identity construction, maintenance and protection. Although the field of social psychology is rich in research on defensive processes, Sedikides illustrates the creation and adaptation of narratives and thereby advances our understanding of how such narratives may increase homeostasis and thus support immunity. The idea that a psychological immune system is coordinated with the biological immune system to protect humans from harm is compelling. However, questions remain pertaining to how this coordination process works? For the author the idea of psychological homeostasis is fundamental and can be described as a regulatory process by which individuals strive to feel good and therefore try to modulate their affect within an acceptable range. Similar to the regulation of body temperature or blood sugar, the human body’s self-regulation can experience ups and downs and varies on a continuum from accurate to biased self-views. However, without these temporal biases or deviations, which manifest in self-protection and self-enhancement processes, the body would not be able to regain psychological homeostasis which is important for each individual to function well. Indeed, without homeostasis biological adaptation would be impeded and biological fitness would be reduced. Therefore, the body not only needs various well-functioning biological systems but also a psychological maintenance system. Identity processes which are connected with the human ability for conscious reflection, abstract representation and linguistic communication are an essential part of this psychological maintenance system. Humans build on their capacity for differentiation, continuity, and agency (which they share to a certain extent with animals) as well as on specific human capabilities for meta-beliefs (i.e., self-views as well as global and specific narratives about individual characteristic, attitudes, abilities, and beliefs). Especially conscious reflection, abstraction, and projection help people to protect themselves from harm, to adapt to their environment and to effectively control the environment. However, personal identity not only comes with benefits but also with costs in t","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59940193","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}

{"title":"Psychological Homeostasis and Environmental Control via Preemptive and Reparative Narrative-Specificity","authors":"Erin M. O’Mara Kunz, L. Gaertner","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004813","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004813","url":null,"abstract":"Sedikides (this issue) provides a comprehensive and compelling model detailing the adaptive nature of self-protection and self-enhancement as the drivers of psychological homeostasis. We consider through two examples that psychological homeostasis is adaptive, in part, because it promotes environmental control. The examples entail the role of specificity, which Sedikides incorporates in his Proposition 4 suggesting that broader (i.e., global) threats are harder to defend than specific (i.e., narrower) threats. We expand this proposition by considering specificity in regard to narratives, with the first exampling concerning what Sedikides refers to as a preemptive narrative and the second a reparative narrative.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48011591","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}

{"title":"A Homeostatic Perspective on Narcissistic Personality Dynamics","authors":"Virgil Zeigler‐Hill","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007700","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007700","url":null,"abstract":"Sedikides (this issue) draws attention to the roles that processes such as self-construction, self-protection, and selfenhancement may play in the homeostatic regulation of identity. The ideas offered by Sedikides are certainly intriguing because our understanding of identity remains far from complete. For example, there would appear to be substantial advantages for us having accurate perceptions of ourselves (e.g., this would allow us to make better decisions regarding the pursuit of certain goals) but there is abundant evidence that we often view ourselves in an overly positive manner (e.g., Brown & others, 1986; Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003). Many scholars have attempted to provide explanations for our tendencies to adopt inaccurate self-views but Sedikides argues that one of the reasons for these patterns may be the homeostatic processes that protect our sense of identity. The purpose of this commentary is to offer my reflections on some of the arguments offered by Sedikides by primarily focusing on their implications for our understanding of narcissism.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43919069","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}

{"title":"Analogies Offer Value Through the Struggle to Make Them Work: Making Sense of the Psychological Immune System","authors":"André Vaz, André Mata, Clayton R. Critcher","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004815","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004815","url":null,"abstract":"ions of the mind. We begin by highlighting questions that arose from our efforts to fully embrace and play out the analogy. In so doing, we seek to clarify (and at times speculate on) the nature of the psychological immune system and thus the maladaptive traps into which it may fall. At that point, we turn to a consideration of the role of the interconnectedness of the self’s structures, a topic of particular interest both in understanding current social trends and in explaining previous research that was not considered through the lens of ego defense. Finally, we close by considering how social perceptions fit within the project of self-enhancement. In the process, we identify a basic question that, to our surprise, decades of research on self-enhancement seem not to have addressed. Understanding the Connection Between the Biological and Psychological Immune Systems What does the psychological immune system monitor versus aim to gauge? Several of the recent COVID-19 vaccines train the body to monitor for the spike protein on the virus’s surface in an effort to gauge the presence of the virus. Diabetics who use a glucometer monitor the numbers on their readers’ display in an effort to gauge their blood glucose levels. In each case, the symptom is ultimately dissociable from the underlying state. The mRNA vaccines encourage production of the spike protein but not the virus itself; glucose readers can malfunction. What one thus hopes to monitor (to decide if supplemental action is necessary) is an imperfect guide to what one is ultimately trying to gauge. If the psychological immune system aims to achieve psychological homeostasis, what does this mean in terms of what it monitors, and what it is ultimately trying to gauge? What is the symptom, and what is the real threat? Sedikides describes psychological homeostasis as modulating or CONTACT Andr!e Vaz arvaz@campus.ul.pt, aomata@psicologia.ulisboa.pt Faculdade de Psicologia, Alameda da Universidade, 1649-013, Lisboa, Portugal. ! 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY 2021, VOL. 32, NO. 4, 230–239 https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004815 reducing negative affect, achieving emotional equilibrium, and helping with the desire to achieve the most favorable emotional life that people can attain. This is a provocative claim: Is the psychological immune system merely a mood maintenance system, not one that is on the lookout for selfevaluative threat in particular? At its core, we consider this a question of whether the psychological immune system looks to James’s (1950 [1890]) “I” or “me.” The “I” is not merely a volitional executive, but is accompanied by affectively rich phenomenological experience (Gregg et al., 2011). When people feel paralyzed by crippling anxiety or inspired by the promise of future possibility, the “I” experiences a weight or boost as it navigates its environment. In contrast, the “me” is an object of evaluation, a catalog of resources that can serve the self an","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43496058","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}

{"title":"Moral Memories and Identity Protection","authors":"Felipe De Brigard, Matthew L. Stanley","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004817","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004817","url":null,"abstract":"In 1998, Gilbert and Wilson et al. coined the term “psychological immune system” to refer to the set of cognitive mechanisms that help individuals fend off psychological discomfort and undesirable negative affect (Gilbert et al. 1998). Although, as they themselves acknowledged, this idea had been suggested previously in the literature (Freud, 1936; Vaillant, 1993), they utilized the term to explain and understand a number of different phenomena—including, of course, biases in affective forecasting (Gilbert, 2006). Gilbert, though, did not mean for the notion of a psychological immune system to be taken literally. A few years after the publication of that seminal paper, in an interview published by The New York Times, Gilbert explicitly stated that he and Wilson meant for the term to be interpreted metaphorically: “We’ve used the metaphor of the ‘psychological immune system’ –it’s just a metaphor, but not a bad one for that system of defenses that helps you feel better when bad things happen.” (Gertner, 2003). The claim that our mind is furnished with a psychological immune system was, therefore, offered as an attractive and useful strategy for explaining and understanding diverse psychological phenomena, and the interpretation of which was meant to be merely figurative. Gilbert’s ontological hesitation does not appeal to Sedikides, who has written an intriguing piece inviting us to think of the psychological immune system in a literal sense: as an actual, evolved set of cognitive mechanisms and operations whose adaptive purpose is to protect our sense of personal identity (Sedikides, this issue). The proposal builds heavily upon a series of connections drawn from features of our biological immune system and features of our putative psychological immune system. As a result, it comprises a large number of moving parts, some of which stand on shakier ground than others, and some of which leave us with more questions than they seem to answer. For instance, some of the evidence Sedikides adduces in support of his view comes from the fact that certain psychological tendencies and biases are conducive to beneficial behaviors for the organism. Since such individual benefits are taken to be adaptive, then the conclusion that the system that brought them about must have evolved for said purpose—i.e., psychological homeostasis—seems ineluctable. Unfortunately, the jump from “beneficial to me” to “selected for” or “having the function of” is often an unwarranted line of reasoning (Garson, 2016). One can easily engage in behaviors that are beneficial for oneself, but those behaviors can simultaneously be not-adaptive for organisms like us, in the sense of conferring evolutionary advantages. When psychologists use the term ‘adaptive’ they normally mean something like ‘non-detrimental for the organism’, which is not identical to the biologists’ sense of ‘adaptive’—meaning the organism’s propensity toward increased fitness in a local environment—which is the sen","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49103570","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}

{"title":"The Psychological Immune System: What Needs Defending?","authors":"D. Tice, R. Baumeister","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004824","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004824","url":null,"abstract":"The theory of the self has been built up by work of countless scholars across multiple disciplines. It has taken input from very different fields of study. Psychologists’ views have been edified and informed by many other fields. Sedikides (this issue) extends this rich, integrative tradition by borrowing insights and models from immunology. Many of his thought-provoking analyses offer potential insights into psychological phenomena, indeed some of whose implications extend beyond the task of building psychological theory to understanding society-wide problems. As a particular example that struck us, his parallel between biological inoculation and the development of psychological defenses offers a fresh and powerful insight into a much-discussed problem facing modern universities as a whole. Many scholars have noted that in the past five years college students have become increasingly fragile. Whereas earlier generations of students demanded to be allowed to hear radical, challenging ideas, modern students demand to be shielded from them. (Lukianoff and Haidt [2018] have offered a trenchant analysis of this sweeping change.) Modern students often claim that some ideas threaten their right to exist—even, famously, a newspaper op-ed that did no more than document that university administrators are more politically left-leaning than the faculty (Abrams 2018; see Morabito 2019; Paresky 2019). Some students demand trigger warnings to alert them in advance that a lecture or reading might mention topics or theories that would disturb them (even though accumulating evidence indicates that trigger warnings do not reduce anxiety and indeed may increase it; see Bellet et al. 2020). This widespread student malaise and fragility (derided as “snowflake” mentality by critics) can be usefully understood in Sedikides’s terms as a failure of inoculation. By all accounts, American parents shifted in the 1990s to become hyper-protective of their children, as documented by Lukianoff and Haidt (2018). Psychologists bear some responsibility for this shift, as that era was obsessed with the ostensible importance and fragility of self-esteem (e.g., California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility 1990). As is typical with scientific work, the complexities, debates, and limitations of the actual scientific research got lost as the message was transmitted via the mass media to the general public. The result was that parents became reluctant to criticize their children and sought to protect them from failure, challenge, or even unsettling ideas. This contrasted sharply with the style of child-rearing emphasized in earlier generations, which wanted above all to avoid a spoiled or prideful child. Insofar as 21-century parents succeeded at sheltering their children from anything negative, they produced young adults who lack the psychological immune system with the power to cope with having their self-views or worldviews threatened. Indeed, it","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43841112","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}

{"title":"The Homeostatic Model of Identity Protection: Lingering Issues","authors":"C. Sedikides","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007703","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2007703","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract I clarify issues surrounding the homeostatic model of identity protection. These issues include the dynamic interplay between psychological homeostasis and environmental control; the relevance of interoception and nature of self-threat; the value of a single psychological immune system (rather than multiple ones); and the model’s applicability and implications. Various other observations the commentators made enrich aspects of the model.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42560696","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}

{"title":"Self-Enhancement is Unlikely to Require Somatic Cues nor is it Likely to be a Successful Long-Term Approach to Promoting Environmental Mastery","authors":"Jennifer S. Beer","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004814","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.2004814","url":null,"abstract":"Does the concept of psychological immunity as described within the Homeostatic Model of Identity Protection provide the long-awaited answer to the question of why so much of human social cognition tends to be skewed in a self-serving manner? The Homeostatic Model of Identity Protection draws from previous answers yet adds in new elements. For example, researchers have previously posited that self-enhancement (i.e., referred to as self-enhancement and self-protection in the Homeostatic Model of Identity Protection) is normative and can have positive consequences for environmental control (e.g., Beer & Harris, 2019; Taylor & Brown, 1988). Theorists have also suggested that evolution selects for self-enhancement and, more specifically, selfdeception processes so that individuals can improve their fitness by deceiving others (von Hippel & Trivers, 2011). The Homeostatic Model of Identity Protection builds on these ideas by suggesting that emotional signals arising from selfidentity threats trigger self-enhancement and other self-protective processes designed to provide immunity and subsequently restore the psychological homeostasis needed for optimal environmental control. The theory is intriguing and raises a number of questions when considered in light of the full scope of available research. For example, more information is needed to understand whether the proposed role of somatic signals is overstated, whether self-enhancement is a feasible strategy to bolster evolutionary fitness, and the extent to which focusing on the identity protection function of self-enhancement captures the bulk of its operation in human social cognition.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42714003","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}