ISSN / EISSN : 0033-2909 / 1939-1455
Published by: American Psychological Association (APA) (10.1037)
Total articles ≅ 10,938
Latest articles in this journal
Psychological Bulletin, Volume 147, pp 477-503; https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000323
This meta-analytic review examines the link between narcissism and aggression, and whether the link is stronger under provocation conditions. A total of 437 independent studies were located, which included 123,043 participants. Narcissism was related to both aggression (r = .26, [.24, .28]) and violence (r = .23, [.18, .27]). As expected, the narcissism-aggression link was stronger under provocation conditions (r = .29, [.23, .36]) than under no provocation conditions (r = .12, [.05, .18]), but was even significant in the absence of provocation. Both "normal" and "pathological" narcissism were related to aggression. All three dimensions of narcissism (i.e., entitlement, grandiose narcissism, vulnerable narcissism) were related to aggression. Narcissism was related to all forms of aggression (i.e., indirect, direct, displaced, physical, verbal, bullying), and to both functions of aggression (i.e., reactive, proactive). The relation between narcissism and aggression was significant for males and females, for people of all ages, for students and nonstudents, and for people from individualistic and collectivistic countries. Significant results were obtained in experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies, in published and unpublished studies, and in studies that assessed aggression using different types of measures (i.e., self-report, other-report, observation). Overall results were robust to publication bias and the presence of outliers. Theoretically, these results indicate that provocation is a key moderator of the link between narcissism and aggression. Individuals high in narcissism have "thin skins" and are prone to aggression when they are provoked. Practically, these results suggest that narcissism is an important risk factor for aggression and violence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Psychological Bulletin, Volume 147, pp 455-476; https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000325
Cognitive stimulation (CS) is a nonpharmacological intervention often involving group activities and social interaction used to treat cognitive declines in people with dementia. This preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of CS in producing benefits on cognition (primary outcome) and quality of life, activities of daily living, and psychological symptoms (secondary outcomes) across 44 randomized-controlled trials comprising 45 comparisons including 2,444 participants. A medium-sized effect (g = .49) on global cognition was found immediately after the intervention and was supported by decisive Bayesian evidence. Clinical relevance is defined as a reduction of 3 to 4 points on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive subscale; the average attenuation of cognitive decline observed was 2.41 points (after removing 1 outlier). Therefore, the observed decline was of borderline clinical relevance. CS was also found to significantly improve memory, activities of daily living, depressive symptoms, and dementia ratings; most of these effects were supported by substantial and strong Bayesian evidence. No significant effects were found for global cognition at 1 to 10 months follow-up assessment for language, quality of life, anxiety, and behavior symptoms. However, evidence for the absence of these effects was ambiguous. A review of study bias highlighted that most studies lacked active, double-blinded controls, potentially leading to an overestimation of the effect, and making it difficult to conclusively attribute the observed improvements to the CS intervention. Hence, although effects are promising, the methodological issues highlight there is still a need for better controlled studies that provide more compelling evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Psychological Bulletin; https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000323.supp
Psychological Bulletin, Volume 147, pp 504-534; https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000251
This preregistered meta-analysis theoretically and empirically integrates the two research strands on effort gains and effort losses in teams. Theoretically, we built on Shepperd's (1993) framework of productivity loss in groups and Karau and Williams' (1993) Collective Effort model (CEM) and developed the Team member Effort Expenditure model (TEEM), an extended Expectancy × Value framework with the explicit addition of an individual work baseline. Empirically, we included studies that allowed calculating a relevant effect size, which represents the difference between an individual's effort under individual work and under teamwork conditions. Overall, we included 622 effect sizes (N = 320,632). We did not find a main effect of teamwork on effort. As predicted, however, multilevel modeling revealed that the (in-)dispensability of the own contribution to the team performance, social comparison potential, and evaluation potential moderated the effect of teamwork versus individual work on expended effort. Depending specifically on the level of (in-)dispensability and the potential to engage in social comparisons, people showed either effort gains or losses in teams. As predicted, we also found that people's self-reports indicated effort gains when they had objectively shown such gains, whereas their self-reports did not indicate effort losses when they had shown such losses. Contrary to our hypotheses, team formation (i.e., ad hoc vs. not ad hoc teams) and task meaningfulness did not emerge as moderators. Altogether, people showed either effort gains or losses in teams depending on the specific design of teamwork. We discuss implications for future research, theory development, and teamwork design in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Psychological Bulletin, Volume 147, pp 437-454; https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000326
Communication is a core challenge for individuals on the autism spectrum, and many autistic individuals experience challenges with language. Prospective studies of younger siblings of children with autism show that siblings not only have an increased likelihood of developing autism themselves, but that even siblings without an autism spectrum diagnosis are more likely to have a language delay as toddlers than their peers without familial history of autism (Marrus et al., 2018). While there is substantial variability in the communicative abilities of siblings of children with autism in toddlerhood, it is not clear how these differences translate beyond the first 3 years of life. The present study used meta-analysis to evaluate a wide range of literature and determine whether siblings of children with autism (Sibs-A) over 48 months of age differ from comparison groups in their language and communication abilities. A total of 26 studies describing 22 cohorts were included. Over 2,000 Sibs-A were compared with neurotypical individuals without familial history of autism or siblings of individuals with another neurodevelopmental disability. Meta-analysis revealed a small but significant effect such that Sibs-A performed lower than comparison peers in overall language and communication. Effects were strongest for expressive language and linguistic processing speed, and there were substantially larger differences for experimenter-administered measures than for parent-report, though findings must be considered in the context of other study characteristics. Suggestions based on this meta-analytic review are provided to guide future research in understanding individual differences in the communicative development and outcomes of Sibs-A. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Psychological Bulletin, Volume 147, pp 329-351; https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000322
The primary goal of this study was to examine developmental patterns among the relations between components of executive function (EF; working memory [WM], inhibitory control, shifting), and academic outcomes (reading, mathematics, language) in elementary school-age children. These relations were examined within the context of the development of EF and of academic skills utilizing an extension of the unity and diversity, intrinsic cognitive load, and dual process theories. Using meta-analytic methods, we summarized results from 299 studies from 293 articles/dissertations, representing 65,605 elementary school-age children (42-191 months old [M = 101 months, SD = 24.49 months]). Results indicated that accounting for general EF (by including the correlations among EF tasks in meta-analytic path models and accounting for effects between all three EF components and academic outcomes simultaneously) produced weaker relations between EF and academic skills than the bivariate relations which have been reported in prior meta-analytic reviews. However, although reduced, all relations between EF and academic outcomes remained significant throughout elementary school. Whereas WM was consistently moderately associated with reading, math, and oral language across development, the developmental trends for the relations between inhibitory control and shifting with academic outcomes varied based upon the academic skill examined. On the academic side, whereas the relations between reading and language skills with EF components varied throughout elementary school, few developmental changes were found in the relations between EF components and math skills across elementary school. Future directions and implications of findings for the conceptualization of the impact of EF on academics are discussed within the context of relevant theoretical models. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Psychological Bulletin, Volume 147, pp 352-398; https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000320
The present meta-analysis aimed to quantify sex differences in verbal working memory and to examine potential moderators of these differences. We examined 802 effect sizes from 478 samples in 284 studies in a multilevel meta-analysis. Results revealed a small overall female advantage (g = .028, 95% CI [.006, .050]). In the overall sample, results showed that sex differences differed across tasks. Specifically, the female advantage was significant for cued tasks (g = .079, 95% CI [.030, .128]) and Free Recall tasks (g = .145, 95% CI [.102, .188]) whereas there was a male advantage on Complex Span (g = -.042, 95% CI [-.083, -.002]), and no sex differences on Serial Recall (g = .003, 95% CI [-.055, .050]), and Simple Span tasks (g < .001, 95% CI [-.034, .033]). Within each task, we found that recall direction, stimulus type, presentation format, response format, and age accounted for significant variance in at least 1 of the tasks. Analyses provided no evidence of a publication bias, although the female advantage varied as a function of sample source, whether the title made reference to sex, and whether authors had to be contacted to obtain relevant data. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for sex differences in episodic memory and in the context of clinical applications and theory building. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Psychological Bulletin; https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000321
Psychological Bulletin; https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000321.supp
Psychological Bulletin; https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000309
Over the last century hundreds of studies have demonstrated that testing is an effective intervention to enhance long-term retention of studied knowledge and facilitate mastery of new information, compared with restudying and many other learning strategies (e.g., concept mapping), a phenomenon termed the testing effect. How robust is this effect in applied settings beyond the laboratory? The current review integrated 48,478 students' data, extracted from 222 independent studies, to investigate the magnitude, boundary conditions, and psychological underpinnings of test-enhanced learning in the classroom. The results show that overall testing (quizzing) raises student academic achievement to a medium extent (g = 0.499). The magnitude of the effect is modulated by a variety of factors, including learning strategy in the control condition, test format consistency, material matching, provision of corrective feedback, number of test repetitions, test administration location and timepoint, treatment duration, and experimental design. The documented findings support 3 theories to account for the classroom testing effect: additional exposure, transfer-appropriate processing, and motivation. In addition to their implications for theory development, these results have practical significance for enhancing teaching practice and guiding education policy and highlight important directions for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).