Communications Psychology最新文献

{"title":"Sequence-to-sequence models with attention mechanistically map to the architecture of human memory search.","authors":"Nikolaus Salvatore, Qiong Zhang","doi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00322-6","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-025-00322-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Past work has long recognized the important role of context in guiding how humans search their memory. While context-based memory models can explain many memory phenomena, it remains unclear why humans develop such architectures over possible alternatives in the first place. In this work, we demonstrate that foundational architectures in neural machine translation - specifically, recurrent neural network (RNN)-based sequence-to-sequence models with attention - exhibit mechanisms that directly correspond to those specified in the Context Maintenance and Retrieval (CMR) model of human memory. Since neural machine translation models have evolved to optimize task performance, their convergence with human memory models provides a deeper understanding of the functional role of context in human memory, as well as presenting alternative ways to model human memory. Leveraging this convergence, we implement a neural machine translation model as a cognitive model of human memory search that is both interpretable and capable of capturing complex dynamics of learning. We show that our model accounts for both averaged and optimal human behavioral patterns as effectively as context-based memory models using a publicly available free recall experiment dataset involving 171 participants. Further, we demonstrate additional strengths of the proposed model by evaluating how memory search performance emerges from the interaction of different model components.</p>","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":"3 1","pages":"146"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12521410/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145295008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Everyday norms have become more permissive over time and vary across cultures.","authors":"Kimmo Eriksson, Pontus Strimling, Irina Vartanova, Brent Simpson, Minna Persson, Khalid Ahmed Abdi, Neta Ad, Alisher Aldashev, Habib Mohammad Ali, Maurizio Alì, Khatai Aliyev, Yasser M H A Alrefaee, Alberth Estuardo Alvarado Ortiz, Per A Andersson, Giulia Andrighetto, Gizem Arikan, John Jamir Benzon R Aruta, Christian Lutete Ayikwa, Jonatan Baños-Chaparro, Davide Barrera, Justina Barsyte, Birzhan Batkeyev, Azma Batool, Elizaveta Berezina, Stéphanie Ngandu Bimina, Marie Björnstjerna, Sheyla Blumen, Paweł Boski, Eva Boštjančič, Yap Boum, Marie Briguglio, Kagonbe Bruno, Huyen Thi Thu Bui, Tomás Caycho-Rodríguez, Yanyan Chen, Manase Kudzai Chiweshe, Hoon-Seok Choi, Carlos C Contreras-Ibáñez, Dinka Čorkalo, Christian E Cruz-Torres, Andrea Czakó, Piyanjali de Zoysa, Zsolt Demetrovics, Bojana M Dinić, Saša Drače, Rita W El-Haddad, Jan B Engelmann, Ignacio Escudero Pérez, Hyun Euh, Xia Fang, Celine Frank, Esteban Freidin, Marta Fulop, Vladimer Gamsakhurdia, Mauro Alberto García Jiménez, Ragna B Gardarsdottir, Alin Gavreliuc, Colin Mathew Hugues D Gill, Biljana Gjoneska, Andreas Glöckner, Sylvie Graf, Ani Grigoryan, Katarzyna Growiec, Brian W Haas, Geoffrey Haddock, Stavros P Hadjisolomou, Nina Hadžiahmetović, Mohammad Hosein Haji Mohammad Ali, Eemeli Hakoköngäs, Peter Halama, Given Hapunda, Andree Hartanto, Mahsa Hazrati, Boris Christian Herbas-Torrico, Szilárd Holka, Martina Hřebíčková, John A Hunter, Moudachirou Ibikounle, Dzintra Ilisko, Harpa Lind Hjördísar Jónsdóttir, Zivile Kaminskiene, Hansika Kapoor, Iva Kapović, Gassemi Karim, Kerry Kawakami, Narine Khachatryan, Julian B Kirschner, Jonah Kiruja, Toko Kiyonari, Michal Kohút, Shazia Kousar, Besnik Krasniqi, Ludovic Lado, Miguel Landa-Blanco, Barbara Landon, Žan Lep, Lisa M Leslie, Yang Li, Kadi Liik, Ming-Jen Lin, Marlon Elías Lobos Rivera, Wilson López-López, Edona Maloku, Mohona Mandal, Bernardo Ananias Manhique, Nathan Mpeti Mbende, Imed Medhioub, Maria Luisa Mendes Teixeira, J Paola Merchán Tamayo, Linda Lila Mohammed, Schontal N Moore, Bahar Moraligil, Nijat Muradzada, Herwin Nanda, Ekaterina Nastina, Pegah Nejat, Daniel Nettle, Orlando Julio Andre Nipassa, Martin Noe-Grijalva, Pie Ntampaka, Rodrigue Ntone, Ravit Nussinson, Milan Oljača, Nneoma G Onyedire, Ike E Onyishi, Penny Panagiotopoulou, Daybel Pañellas Alvarez, Md Shahin Parvez, Gian Luca Pasin, Ivana Pedović, Pablo Pérez de León, Lorena R Perez Floriano, Nada Pop-Jordanova, Jose Roberto Portillo, Angela Potang, Adolfo Quesada-Román, Jana L Raver, Ricardo B Rodrigues, Juan Diego Rodríguez-Romero, Sara Romanò, Robert M Ross, Nachita Rosun, Selka Sadiković, Alvaro San Martin, Snežana Smederevac, Sarah Jane Smith, Natalia Soboleva, Daniel Erena Sonessa, Samantha K Stanley, Kristina Stoyanova, Drozdstoy Stoyanov, Kosuke Takemura, John Thøgersen, Habib Tiliouine, Hans Tung, Tungalag Ulambayar, Elze Marija Uzdavinyte, Randall Waechter, Yi-Ting Wang, Junhui Wu, Brice Martial Yambio, Eric Yankson, Kuang-Hui Yeh, Paul A M Van Lange","doi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00324-4","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-025-00324-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Every social situation that people encounter in their daily lives comes with a set of unwritten rules about what behavior is considered appropriate or inappropriate. These everyday norms can vary across societies: some societies may have more permissive norms in general or for certain behaviors, or for certain behaviors in specific situations. In a preregistered survey of 25,422 participants across 90 societies, we map societal differences in 150 everyday norms and show that they can be explained by how societies prioritize individualizing moral foundations such as care and liberty versus binding moral foundations such as purity. Specifically, societies with more individualistic morality tend to have more permissive norms in general (greater liberty) and especially for behaviors deemed vulgar (less purity), but they exhibit less permissive norms for behaviors perceived to have negative consequences in specific situations (greater care). By comparing our data with available data collected twenty years ago, we find a global pattern of change toward more permissive norms overall but less permissive norms for the most vulgar and inconsiderate behaviors. This study explains how social norms vary across behaviors, situations, societies, and time.</p>","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":"3 1","pages":"145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12504534/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145246208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How citizens' experience of democracy can actually pave the way to democratic backsliding.","authors":"Ralph Hertwig, Stephan Lewandowsky","doi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00327-1","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-025-00327-1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":"3 1","pages":"144"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12491496/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145215232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rewards bias self-evaluations of ability.","authors":"Jean Luo, Peter Mende-Siedlecki, Leor M Hackel","doi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00286-7","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-025-00286-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How do people learn about their own abilities? Often, people receive rewards that offer information about their performance level. Yet, even when two people perform equivalently on a task, they may receive disparate rewards. In these cases, could rewards still influence self-evaluations of ability? In two behavioral experiments, we asked whether people feel more capable and confident when they receive more rewards, even when their performance is held constant, and they know how they objectively performed. Participants played a perceptual game in which they received trial-by-trial accuracy feedback; a staircase procedure held their objective performance constant. However, participants were assigned to either a high or low-reward condition, which varied the probability of receiving a reward for a correct answer. In Experiment 1 (N = 340), we found evidence that rewards bias overall self-evaluations of ability after the task-particularly estimations of objective accuracy. Next, in Experiment 2 (N = 342), we examined whether reward feedback would inflate participants' trial-by-trial expectations of their own accuracy before each round of the game. Results indicated that participants updated their expectations to a greater extent when a correct response was accompanied with a reward. These findings suggest that rewards enhance how much people integrate accuracy feedback into their dynamic self-beliefs.</p>","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":"3 1","pages":"143"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12489122/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145208739","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Humans and LLMs rate deliberation as superior to intuition on complex reasoning tasks.","authors":"Wim De Neys, Matthieu Raoelison","doi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00320-8","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-025-00320-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Influential models conceive human thinking as an interplay between intuition and deliberation. Yet, it's unclear how people actually perceive these types of reasoning. Across 13 studies (n = 239, 241, 240, 240, 241, 240, 184, 482, 479, 240 and 240 for Studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13, respectively), we examined whether humans favor intuition or deliberation and if this replicates in LLMs. Participants rated individuals' reasoning quality in short vignettes that varied by reasoning type (fast-intuitive vs. slow-deliberative) and past accuracy (high, low, unspecified). Consistently, participants rated deliberative reasoning as superior to intuition, even when accounting for accuracy. Deliberative thinkers were seen as smarter and more trustworthy-a preference that held under time pressure and cognitive load, suggesting it arises intuitively. Studies with LLMs (ChatGPT 3.5 and 4) replicated the human preference pattern, indicating that AI language models capture human folk beliefs about reasoning. These findings suggest humans intuitively link deliberation with reliability and have implications for public trust in human and AI recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":"3 1","pages":"141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12480527/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145194330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Escalating risk-taking is linked to emotional habituation.","authors":"Hadeel Haj-Ali, Moshe Glickman, Tali Sharot","doi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00319-1","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-025-00319-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Anecdotally, excessive risk-taking can be traced back to minor acts that escalated gradually. What leads to risk-taking escalation and why is escalation fast in some individuals, but not in others? Here, over three experiments (N_{Main Experiment} = 160, N_{Validation Experiment} = 35, N_{Control Experiment} = 30), we used Virtual Reality to simulate physical risk by having participants walk on a virtual plank suspended in midair. We demonstrate that with repeated opportunities to engage in such risk, emotional responses habituate and risk-taking escalates. The rate of escalation differed dramatically across individuals. We found no credible evidence that individuals' baseline emotions or trait anxiety predicted risk escalation. Instead, the key was how fast anxiety and excitement declined. Individuals who reported faster reduction of anxiety or excitement tended to take more risk over time. The findings may help to identify individuals prone to risk-taking escalation and to develop tools that restore emotions to reduce fatal risk-taking.</p>","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":"3 1","pages":"139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12479343/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145194356","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Intentional binding effect depends on conscious access to the sensory consequences of action.","authors":"John P Veillette, Yimeng Cheng, Aditi Joshi, Howard C Nusbaum","doi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00323-5","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-025-00323-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The nature of self-awareness has been a topic of inquiry for thousands of years, with profound implications for law and ethics, as well as for understanding a host of neurological and psychiatric pathologies. An influential view in philosophy of mind is that the \"self\" is a construct of consciousness, its basic functions - such as the sense of agency, the capacity by which we attribute sensory events to our own control - cease when they fall out of awareness. An alternative view is that some core processes that constitute the self can operate outside of awareness, and self-awareness arises when these extant processes become contents of consciousness. We aimed to test between these views empirically by investigating whether intentional binding - an implicit marker of sense of agency in which the perceived time of an action is shifted toward its sensory outcome - occurs even when the outcome is masked from conscious awareness. To our surprise, the intentional binding effect was not just abolished when participants were unaware of their actions' sensory outcomes but appeared to be reversed; the perceived time of the action was repelled from the time of its unconsciously perceived consequence. Results demonstrate that the intentional binding effect, and by extension ordinary processing of sensorimotor contingencies, is functionally dependent upon conscious awareness.</p>","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":"3 1","pages":"142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12480506/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145194337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Using machine learning to predict persecutory beliefs based on aetiological models of delusions identified in a systematic literature search.","authors":"Saskia Denecke, Felix Strakeljahn, Antonia Bott, Tania M Lincoln","doi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00311-9","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-025-00311-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Aetiological models of delusions propose a broad range of predictors. The extent to which these predictors explain variance in persecutory beliefs across the continuum requires systematic investigation. As part of a previous review, 51 aetiological models of delusions were identified in a systematic literature search using PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct databases. Omitting repetitions, 66 unique postulated predictors of delusions and persecutory delusions were extracted from these models, of which 55 met our inclusion criteria and were assessed in a cross-sectional online sample stratified by delusion severity (N = 336) using self-report and behavioural measures. Utilising machine learning (i.e., random forests with nested cross-validation), we investigated the extent to which the model-based predictors explain self-reported persecutory beliefs, identified the most relevant predictors, and investigated their specificity in explaining persecutory beliefs as opposed to delusional beliefs or psychopathological symptoms in general. The machine learning model explained 31% of the variance in persecutory beliefs, 47% of delusions in general, and 77% of general psychopathology. The ten predictors with the most influence on predicting persecutory beliefs included negative beliefs about mistrust, cognitive fusion, ostracism, threat anticipation, generalised negative other beliefs, trust, aberrant salience, hallucinations, stress, and emotion regulation difficulties. The limited explanatory power of the proposed predictors raises questions about the validity of existing models and suggests that crucial predictors specific to persecutory delusions may be missing. Our findings highlight the importance of investigating, refining, and cross-validating theoretical aetiological models to improve our understanding of the aetiology of delusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":"3 1","pages":"138"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12479767/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145194443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The order of task decisions and confidence ratings has little effect on metacognition.","authors":"Julian R Matthews, Narumi Sugihara, Sofia Nagisa, Hiroki Ohashi, Kazuhisa Shibata","doi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00321-7","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-025-00321-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Task decisions and confidence ratings are fundamental measures in metacognition research, but using these reports requires collecting them in some order. Only three orders exist and are used in an ad hoc manner across studies. Evidence suggests that when task decisions precede confidence, this report order can enhance metacognition. If verified, this effect pervades studies of metacognition and will lead the synthesis of this literature to invalid conclusions. In this Registered Report, we tested the effect of report order across popular domains of metacognition and probed two factors that may underlie why order effects have been observed in past studies: report time and motor preparation. We examined these effects in a perception experiment (n = 75) and memory experiment (n = 50), controlling task accuracy and learning. Our registered analyses found little effect of report order on metacognitive efficiency, even when timing and motor preparation were experimentally controlled. Our findings suggest the order of task decisions and confidence ratings has little effect on metacognition, and need not constrain secondary analysis or experimental design.</p>","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":"3 1","pages":"140"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12480699/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145194406","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Internal uncertainty impacts social information use in risky choice across adolescence.","authors":"Simon Ciranka, Wouter van den Bos","doi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00314-6","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-025-00314-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Adolescents are often thought to be more susceptible to social influence than people in other age groups. This is often explained by altered reward processing or heightened social motivations, such as a need to belong to a group during adolescence. However, uncertainty also makes people more susceptible to social information. While researchers agree that adolescence is a time of great uncertainty, the role of uncertainty in explaining susceptibility to social influence across development remains unclear. Here, we asked 166 participants aged 10-26 to make 144 risky decisions in a lottery experiment, either with or without observing social information and nested within conditions of low and high uncertainty. Modelling susceptibility to social influence as Bayesian updating suggests that despite the same levels of uncertainty between participants, their own internal uncertainty about the utility of choices underwent a negative linear age trend, contributing to age-related differences in susceptibility to social influence across adolescence. Our results suggest that the adolescent development of peer influence is at least in part driven by age differences in the internal uncertainty about how to decide.</p>","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":"3 1","pages":"137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12441144/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145076993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}