Journal Alert: Current Directions 24:6 now available online

1 view
Skip to first unread message

APS Journals

unread,
Dec 11, 2015, 3:42:35 PM12/11/15
to felix.lu...@gmail.com
View in browser - click here


 
Current Directions in Psychological Science 

 

 

Current Directions in Psychological Science is a publication of the Association for Psychological Science.

 

 



Editor
Randall W. Engle
Georgia Institute of Technology

Advisory Board
Marie T. Banich
University of Colorado Boulder  
 
Martha Ann Bell
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
 
Valérie Camos
Université de Fribourg


Sheldon Cohen
Carnegie Mellon University
 
Frank Durso 
Georgia Institute of Technology
 
Joseph P. Forgas
University of New South Wales, Australia
 
Chris Fraley 
University of Illinois
 
Isabel Gauthier
Vanderbilt University
 
David Myers
Hope College
 
James Nairne
Purdue University
 
Thomas Oltmanns
Washington University in St. Louis  
 
Howard Weiss
Georgia Institute of Technology
 
Steve West
Arizona State University  
 

 
   



 
        
 
 
 
 
 
Volume 24, Number 6         

facebook
Current Directions in Psychological Science
The links below take you to the journal via the APS website. If not already logged in, you will be redirected to log-in using your last name (Garcia) and Member ID (81665).
Nancy J. Cooke
Conceptualizations of team cognition have traditionally focused on the collection of individual knowledge within a team and how that knowledge is distributed among team members. Cooke presents a view of team cognition that conceptualizes it as activity or actions -- such as explicit communication -- that occur between members of a team. She reviews research supporting this interactive view of team cognition and describes future directions for this area of research.


Anita Williams Woolley, Ishani Aggarwal, and Thomas W. Malone
What leads particular groups to work well together? Woolley, Aggarwal, and Malone discuss collective intelligence -- or c -- which is predictive of performance on a wide range of group tasks. They describe how factors such as group composition and the way a group interacts influence collective intelligence, and they suggest avenues for future investigation.


Gordon Pennycook, Jonathan A. Fugelsang, and Derek J. Koehler
When people think analytically, they use reason to override thoughts based on intuition or instinct. Pennycook, Fugelsang, and Koehler describe the consequences of this thinking style, showing that it influences religious and conspiratorial beliefs, moral beliefs, and prosocial behavior. These findings suggest that the ability to overcome intuition has profound effects on how we think about our world.


Melissa M. Kibbe
Research on the development of working memory in infancy has generally progressed along two separate lines. One line, based on research on adult visual working memory, has examined how perceptual information is grouped and stored, whereas the other line, based on research on object constancy in infancy, has examined infants' expectations about the physical properties of objects and their storage in memory. Kibbe outlines the similarities and differences between these two lines of research, showing how they suggest feature-based and object-based representational formats in infant visual working memory.


Valérie Camos
How is verbal information maintained within working memory? One method is through articulatory rehearsal (i.e., repeating to-be-remembered information over and over again to keep it current). Another newly identified method is through a mechanism called attentional refreshing, which keeps information current in working memory through attentional focusing. Camos presents research indicating that these two mechanisms work independently of one another and gives ideas for research into how these mechanisms evolve and influence the development of working memory.


Robert W. Proctor and Aiping Xiong
Researchers have found that the compatibility of stimulus and response dimensions influences how rapidly stimulus-response decisions are made. Emphasis has been placed on perceptual or conceptual compatibility, but in 2006, Proctor and Cho proposed a structural form of this effect, which they termed polarity correspondence. Proctor and Xiong review literature published in the past 10 years showing how polarity correspondence can account for findings such as those seen in numerical judgments and the Implicit Association Test -- results that support polarity correspondence as being a part of binary decision making.


Devin Blair Terhune and Etzel Cardeña
To account for the variability in symptoms that exists within the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis, researchers have suggested different subtypes of PTSD, one being a dissociative subtype that is characterized by blunted affect and symptoms of depersonalization/derealization in response to trauma cues. Terhune and Cardeña describe a similar dissociative subtype among people who display high hypnotic suggestibility and discuss similarities between the two subtypes and implications for treatment.


Roger Ratcliff, Philip L. Smith, and Gail McKoon
Many of our daily decisions involve choices between two alternatives, such as whether to stop or proceed through a changing traffic light. In the lab, two-choice decisions are often examined by studying response times or the probabilities with which people choose each alternative. Ratcliff, Smith, and McKoon describe how one model of speeded decision making -- the diffusion model -- accounts for regularities seen in the data from decision-making tasks.


Jamil Zaki and Mina Cikara
Empathy -- the sharing and understanding of others' emotions -- is critical for social functioning; however, there are many circumstances in which empathy fails, such as when antipathy exists between groups or when people experience compassion fatigue. Zaki and Cikara discuss how emotions prior to encounters, group norms, and people's beliefs about the controllability of empathy might exacerbate empathetic failures and when interventions may or may not be effective in promoting empathy between groups.


Nurit Shnabel and Arie Nadler
The needs-based model of reconciliation was developed to explain the dynamics that exist between victims and perpetrations and what each needs in order to move past transgressions. According to this model, victims need to feel a restored sense of power and agency to move past transgressions, whereas perpetrators feel a need to regain their moral identity and be accepted by the community. Shnabel and Nadler describe how this model can be extended to dual contexts in which people are both perpetrators and victims and to situations of structural inequality.


Mark Van Vugt and Allen E. Grabo
People often rely on facial appearance when making inferences about someone's attributes or leadership qualities. According to the evolutionary-contingency approach, leadership-suitability judgments vary as a function of the match between the current environment and the needs of the followers. Van Vugt and Grabo review research describing the conditions under which people prefer certain types of faces, such as those displaying dominant or trustworthy characteristics.


Lee Jussim, Jarret T. Crawford, and Rachel S. Rubinstein
Researchers often characterize stereotypes as being inherently inaccurate, but research examining the accuracy or inaccuracy of stereotypes is lacking. Jussim, Crawford, and Rubinstein review research showing when stereotypes are generally more accurate (e.g., stereotypes about occupations and college majors) and less accurate (e.g., national-character and American political stereotypes). They conclude with advice for bridging the gap between an emphasis on stereotype inaccuracy and current evidence for stereotype accuracy.


APS Logo 

Current Directions in Psychological Science is a publication of the Association for Psychological Science. Please contact APS by email or by telephone at +1 202.293.9300 with questions or comments.

 

Visit APS on the Web 
Forward email





Association for Psychological Science | 1133 15th Street, NW Suite 1000 | Washington | DC | 20005
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages