Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Journal Information
ISSN / EISSN : 10699384 / 15315320
Current Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC (10.3758)
Total articles ≅ 3,371
Current Coverage
SCOPUS
PUBMED
MEDLINE
MEDICUS
SSCI
LOCKSS
Archived in
SHERPA/ROMEO
EBSCO
Filter:

Latest articles in this journal

Jordan Skrynka, Benjamin T. Vincent
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review pp 1-9; doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01655-0

Abstract:How do our valuation systems change to homeostatically correct undesirable psychological or physiological states, such as those caused by hunger? There is evidence that hunger increases discounting for food rewards, biasing choices towards smaller but sooner food reward over larger but later reward. However, it is not understood how hunger modulates delay discounting for non-food items. We outline and quantitatively evaluate six possible models of how our valuation systems modulate discounting of various commodities in the face of the undesirable state of being hungry. With a repeated-measures design, an experimental hunger manipulation, and quantitative modeling, we find strong evidence that hunger causes large increases in delay discounting for food, with an approximately 25% spillover effect to non-food commodities. The results provide evidence that in the face of hunger, our valuation systems increase discounting for commodities, which cannot achieve a desired state change as well as for those commodities that can. Given that strong delay discounting can cause negative outcomes in many non-food (consumer, investment, medical, or inter-personal) domains, the present findings suggest caution may be necessary when making decisions involving non-food outcomes while hungry.
Geoff G. Cole, Abbie C. Millett
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review pp 1-16; doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01657-y

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Helge Schlüter, Ryan P. Hackländer, Christina Bermeitinger
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review pp 1-31; doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01658-x

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Ascher K. Munion, Jeanine K. Stefanucci, Ericka Rovira, Peter Squire, Michael Hendricks
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review pp 1-8; doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01659-w

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Steven Samuel, Geoff Cole, Madeline J. Eacott
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review pp 1-20; doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01652-3

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Adam W. Qureshi, Rebecca L. Monk, Dana Samson, Ian A. Apperly
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review pp 1-13; doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01656-z

Abstract:Theory of mind (ToM), the ability to understand that other agents have different beliefs, desires, and knowledge than oneself, has been extensively researched. Theory of mind tasks involve participants dealing with interference between their self-perspective and another agent’s perspective, and this interference has been related to executive function, particularly to inhibitory control. This study assessed whether there are individual differences in self–other interference, and whether these effects are due to individual differences in executive function. A total of 142 participants completed two ToM (the director task and a Level 1 visual perspective-taking task), which both involve self–other interference, and a battery of inhibitory control tasks. The relationships between the tasks were examined using path analysis. Results showed that the self–other interference effects of the two ToM tasks were dissociable, with individual differences in performance on the ToM tasks being unrelated and performance in each predicted by different inhibitory control tasks. We suggest that self–other differences are part of the nature of ToM tasks, but self–other interference is not a unitary construct. Instead, self–other differences result in interference effects in various ways and at different stages of processing, and these effects may not be a major limiting step for adults’ performance on typical ToM tasks. Further work is needed to assess other factors that may limit adults’ ToM performance and hence explain individual differences in social ability.
Sarah Dubrow, Elizabeth A. Eberts, Vishnu P. Murty
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review pp 1-9; doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01650-5

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Adrian R. Walker, David Luque, Mike E. Le Pelley, Tom Beesley
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review pp 1-6; doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01653-2

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Britt Hadar, Roy Luria, Nira Liberman
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review pp 1-8; doi:10.3758/s13423-019-01625-6

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.