American Psychologist最新文献

{"title":"Report of the American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs Task Force on Promotion, Tenure, and Retention of Faculty of Color in Psychology.","authors":"Margarita Azmitia, Michelle Y Martin, Shawn Blue, Jamila Bookwala, Marcus Lee Johnson, Marisol Perez, Andy Pham, Paula Shear","doi":"10.1037/amp0001539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001539","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recruitment, promotion, tenure, and retention of faculty of color remain significant challenges in academia. Despite an increasingly diverse population, the representation of faculty of color in tenure-track and senior faculty positions remains disproportionately low. Structural barriers, including bias in hiring and faculty evaluations, misalignment between academic culture and cultural values, unequal distribution of service labor, and limited access to mentorship and leadership opportunities, continue to hinder the advancement of faculty of color across academic ranks. This report summary from the American Psychological Association's \"Task Force Report on Promotion, Tenure, and Retention of Faculty of Color in Psychology\" examines these systemic issues. It provides actionable recommendations for institutions to foster an equitable academic environment. Key strategies include enhancing recruitment efforts, implementing transparent and equitable tenure and promotion policies, addressing bias in evaluation metrics, and strengthening mentorship and retention initiatives. Additionally, the report emphasizes the importance of recognizing nontraditional scholarship, ensuring fair distribution of service responsibilities, and supporting leadership development for faculty of color. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144200493","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":"Racial, ethnic, and cultural expressions of interpersonal psychological theory of suicide (RECEIPTS): An integrated model of structural racism and suicide risk.","authors":"Leslie B Adams, Jasmin R Brooks Stephens, Janel Cubbage, Donte L Bernard","doi":"10.1037/amp0001545","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001545","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Suicide risk is a significant public health concern for individuals and communities across the United States, and the rates of suicidality are disproportionately rising for Black Americans. Recent frameworks have articulated the significance of structural racism as a mechanism that may explain the increasing rates of suicide among Black Americans, in part, through its exacerbating effects on salient risk conferring pathways. However, existing scholarship in this area has been developmentally limited in scope and does not specify how structural racism operates as a macrolevel determinant of suicide across the lifespan. To address this gap, we present the Racial, Ethnic, and Cultural Expressions of Interpersonal Psychological Theory of Suicide (RECEIPTS), which highlights how structural racism catalyzes suicide risk for Black Americans. The RECEIPTS model supports and extends tenets of the interpersonal theory of suicide and provides a generalizable and comprehensive framework to understand the complex and intersecting factors that contribute to suicidality among Black Americans across the life course. The RECEIPTS framework highlights structural racism's impact on suicide risk, offering implications for culturally informed prevention, research, and clinical practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144182725","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 the evolution versus learning fallacy.","authors":"Laith Al-Shawaf","doi":"10.1037/amp0001537","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001537","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The behavioral sciences have made a great deal of progress over the last century. They remain stymied, however, by the persistence of the fallacious \"evolved vs. learned\" dichotomy, in which researchers and students are encouraged to think of evolution and learning as contrasting, conflicting explanations for behavior. This article shows why the evolved versus learned dichotomy is false, suggests a more accurate replacement in the form of evolved learning mechanisms, and illustrates how a deeper understanding of the relation between evolution and learning improves our understanding of key psychological phenomena and removes barriers to progress in the behavioral sciences. The article does not rely on the generic and often-underspecified claim that many behaviors involve both evolution and learning, but instead offers a fine-grained look at the specific, concrete ways that evolution and learning are best conceptualized as explanatory partners rather than competitors. This analysis suggests that a better understanding of the relation between evolution and learning dissolves the false dichotomy in a concrete and substantive way, clearing a path for greater progress and fewer wasted resources in the behavioral sciences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144128954","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":"Bystanders and the murder of George Floyd: Analyzing bystander intervention in the course of a police killing.","authors":"Mark Levine, Chris Walton, Richard Philpot, Tina Keil","doi":"10.1037/amp0001531","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001531","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Using a detailed transcription, obtained from body-camera, CCTV, and smartphone footage of the murder of George Floyd, we examine the behavior of bystanders as events unfolded. Analysis reveals 205 direct verbal bystander interventions comprised of five forms (declaratives, assessments, interrogatives, imperatives, insults). We also describe the key physical intervention strategies deployed by the bystanders. We show that bystanders prioritize interventions based on what they \"know\" (rather than asking questions or making demands). We suggest that this is because assessment-based strategies are less likely to be seen as a direct challenge to the power of the police and therefore have more chance of inducing constructive engagement. Although bystanders were ultimately unsuccessful in persuading the police to change course, we identify five moments in the action sequences where the assessment concerns of the bystanders were taken up by the officers-albeit fleetingly. We argue that these bystander interventions create the opportunity for officers to break the pattern of behavior that will lead to murder. It is a failure of the officers and not the bystanders that the police are unable to take those opportunities. We argue that assessment-based interventions have the potential to breach structural and situational power dynamics that usually lead to bystander interventions being overridden or ignored. We conclude by drawing some wider implications for the way bystanders and police officers can be trained to improve the safety of individuals caught up in police arrests. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144053242","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":"Bystanders and the murder of George Floyd: Analyzing bystander intervention in the course of a police killing.","authors":"Mark Levine,Chris Walton,Richard Philpot,Tina Keil","doi":"10.1037/amp0001531","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001531","url":null,"abstract":"Using a detailed transcription, obtained from body-camera, CCTV, and smartphone footage of the murder of George Floyd, we examine the behavior of bystanders as events unfolded. Analysis reveals 205 direct verbal bystander interventions comprised of five forms (declaratives, assessments, interrogatives, imperatives, insults). We also describe the key physical intervention strategies deployed by the bystanders. We show that bystanders prioritize interventions based on what they \"know\" (rather than asking questions or making demands). We suggest that this is because assessment-based strategies are less likely to be seen as a direct challenge to the power of the police and therefore have more chance of inducing constructive engagement. Although bystanders were ultimately unsuccessful in persuading the police to change course, we identify five moments in the action sequences where the assessment concerns of the bystanders were taken up by the officers-albeit fleetingly. We argue that these bystander interventions create the opportunity for officers to break the pattern of behavior that will lead to murder. It is a failure of the officers and not the bystanders that the police are unable to take those opportunities. We argue that assessment-based interventions have the potential to breach structural and situational power dynamics that usually lead to bystander interventions being overridden or ignored. We conclude by drawing some wider implications for the way bystanders and police officers can be trained to improve the safety of individuals caught up in police arrests. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":16.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143992083","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":"Publication trends for qualitative inquiry in American Psychological Association and Association for Psychological Science journals.","authors":"Tamara Stecyk,Dennis C Wendt,Sophie Blackmore","doi":"10.1037/amp0001526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001526","url":null,"abstract":"Framed against the long-standing dominance of quantitative methods in psychological science, this study examined contemporary publishing patterns for qualitative inquiry in American Psychological Association (APA) and Association for Psychological Science (APS) journals. We examined 19,012 publications across 95 APA and APS journals across four time points (2005, 2012, 2019, and 2022). The percentage of qualitative articles was determined using the methodology field value within APA PsycInfo, a process that we validated through a batch test. We also conducted a content analysis of journal mission statements and submission guidelines, and we made comparisons in light of journal impact factors. Our findings show a nearly threefold increase in qualitative publications accelerating over time from 2005 to 2022, albeit with wide variations depending on the type of journal. Qualitative-friendly journals were more likely to be published by APA, be specialty journals, be dedicated to diverse populations, and have lower impact factors. Conversely, qualitative research was less likely to be published in APS journals, core psychology journals, journals focused on general populations, and journals with higher impact factors (with some notable exceptions). We discuss these findings in terms of implications for the advancement of psychological science, including the discipline's need for development in qualitative training and expertise, its commitments to antiracism and anticolonialism, its fragmentation, and its equity in publishing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":"114 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":16.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143897403","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":"Philip G. Zimbardo (1933-2024).","authors":"Rose McDermott","doi":"10.1037/amp0001549","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001549","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article memorializes Philip G. Zimbardo (1933-2024). Voted \"most popular\" in his high school graduating class, Zimbardo went on to Brooklyn College, where he triple-majored in sociology, anthropology, and psychology, graduating in 1954. He then attended graduate school at Yale University, studying under Neal Miller and Carl Hovland, and completing his PhD in 1959. He began his career at New York University, where he taught from 1960 to 1967, often teaching 10 courses a year. In 1967, he taught for a year at Columbia, where his future colleague, Lee Ross, was among his students. He moved to Stanford in 1968 and remained on the faculty there for over 50 years. Zimbardo's research covered a myriad of topics, from early work on attitude change, dissonance, and deindividuation, to foundational work on shyness, discontinuity, and time perspective, to his last 2 decades of work on heroism. Google Scholar currently records over 72,000 citations to his work; the highest citations go to his research on time perspective and to his award-winning book, <i>The Lucifer Effect</i> (2007). His longtime interest in good and evil, and what leads people to act in either antisocial or prosocial ways, was first addressed in his research on deindividuation and situational factors like anonymity and social roles of differential power. This led to the Stanford Prison Experiment, a simulation study in which participants were randomly assigned to play the roles of either guards or prisoners over several days. Although perhaps best known for that study, it was not the work Zimbardo was most proud of, arguing in one interview that his more important research was his work on shyness and the establishment of the Stanford Shyness Clinic. Later work on time perspective, in which people experience different temporal orientations to past, present, and future, included the development of an individual difference measure, the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory, which has been translated widely for international use. More recently, Zimbardo shifted his focus from evil to good, both in terms of research on heroic behaviors and on the application of psychological principles to promote widespread actions of everyday kindness and heroism. He established a nonprofit organization, the Heroic Imagination Project, which then established Heroic Imagination Project centers in other countries. Philip Zimbardo was a warm, welcoming, and witty psychologist and a profound student of human nature. He wanted nothing more than to share his understanding and love of psychology with others to help improve individual lives as well as the wider world. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.3,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144042458","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":"Is psychological research producing the kind of knowledge clinicians find useful?","authors":"Christopher J Hopwood,Katie Aafjes-van Doorn,Vera Békés,Xiaochen Luo,Whitney R Ringwald,Aidan G C Wright","doi":"10.1037/amp0001538","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001538","url":null,"abstract":"The science-practice gap is a barrier to evidence-based health care. We sought to examine the match between the kinds of studies done by clinical psychology researchers and the kinds of evidence practicing clinicians find useful. We reviewed the prevalence of research questions on how people differ from one another (between-person) and how people differ from their own averages across time (within-person) in six high-impact clinical psychology journals and compared results with a survey of 164 practicing clinicians who rated the importance of between- and within-person questions for their work. Whereas researchers focus mostly on between-person questions, clinicians are at least-and in some cases more-interested in within-person questions. This could pose a challenge for science-practice integration as the clinical community may feel as though the research evidence being produced is not as relevant as it could be, and the scientific community in turn might feel as though practice in the clinical community is not sufficiently evidence based. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":16.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143897407","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":"Agent-based modeling for psychological research on social phenomena.","authors":"Jiin Jung,John H Miller,Scott E Page","doi":"10.1037/amp0001530","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001530","url":null,"abstract":"This article describes seven potential benefits of incorporating agent-based modeling (ABM) as a core research methodology for psychological research on social phenomena: building formal theories of complex social systems, validating multilevel causation, understanding temporal and nonlinear dynamics, demonstrating the completeness of theories, balancing consideration of people with their environments, bridging psychology and policy, and identifying unknown unknowns and the limits of prediction. Those benefits accrue from a resonance between how they approach questions and the questions they ask. For example, both rely on experiments to explore how individual interactions generate collective phenomena. The article compares micromechanism-driven and macropattern-driven ABM paradigms and introduces a new research approach-the minimal society paradigm-and a modeling strategy, principle-oriented modeling. This framework integrates ABM into psychological research, supporting both theory building through minimal societies and adaptation to specific contexts. Last, recent methodological developments in this field are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":16.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143897406","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":"Dehumanization risks associated with artificial intelligence use.","authors":"Jianning Dang,Li Liu","doi":"10.1037/amp0001542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001542","url":null,"abstract":"People employ artificial intelligence (AI) tools to perform tasks that otherwise would require human intelligence. This review seeks to advance the understanding of adverse psychosocial outcomes of AI while acknowledging its benefits. Specifically, does AI employment pose unfavorable consequences such as the denial of its users' humanity in certain situations? Based on the theoretical distinction between meta-, self-, and other-dehumanization, we synthesize existing research on the dehumanization risks associated with AI use. We first separate AI use-induced dehumanization into three levels: human-AI interaction, intrapersonal dynamics, and interpersonal relationships. We also identify potential consequences of dehumanization by relating it to users' attitudes toward AI, their self-regard, and their social relationships. Moreover, we illustrate AI-, user-, and community-related interventions toward mitigating the dehumanization risks of AI use. Finally, we outline directions for future research in this area. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":"90 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":16.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143897404","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}