This article pulls together diverse published findings on computer-mediated communication (CMC) to test the hypothesis that it reduces psychological engagement and impact compared with face-to-face (FTF) interactions. Although gaps and questions remain, the evidence mostly confirms reduced engagement and impact. Compared with FTF interactions, CMC elicits less positive emotion, with mixed results for negative emotions. Physiological arousal is often lower. Relationships, trust, and group cohesion develop more slowly (although perhaps eventually reaching the same levels). Information processing is reduced. Inhibitions are also reduced, leading to greater willingness to criticize, to bring up alternate perspectives and suggestions, and to neglect to respond. The disinhibition may improve participation by shy persons. Group performance and group decision-making are often impaired, although some studies found no difference. Teaching and learning go less well. Impact and engagement lose more with asynchronous than synchronous CMC. FTF interactions boost well-being compared with not interacting, but CMC is in between. When CMC augments FTF relationships, there may be benefits, but when it replaces them, there are psychological costs. Technology has enabled marvelous advances in long-distance communication, but there is still no fully satisfactory substitute for actually being together in person.

We identify points of conflict and consensus regarding (a) controversial empirical claims and (b) normative preferences for how controversial scholarship—and scholars—should be treated. In 2021, we conducted qualitative interviews ( n = 41) to generate a quantitative survey ( N = 470) of U.S. psychology professors’ beliefs and values. Professors strongly disagreed on the truth status of 10 candidate taboo conclusions: For each conclusion, some professors reported 100% certainty in its veracity and others 100% certainty in its falsehood. Professors more confident in the truth of the taboo conclusions reported more self-censorship, a pattern that could bias perceived scientific consensus regarding the inaccuracy of controversial conclusions. Almost all professors worried about social sanctions if they were to express their own empirical beliefs. Tenured professors reported as much self-censorship and as much fear of consequences as untenured professors, including fear of getting fired. Most professors opposed suppressing scholarship and punishing peers on the basis of moral concerns about research conclusions and reported contempt for peers who petition to retract papers on moral grounds. Younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty were generally more opposed to controversial scholarship. These results do not resolve empirical or normative disagreements among psychology professors, but they may provide an empirical context for their discussion.

Ego depletion theory proposes that self-regulation depends on a limited energy resource (willpower). The simple initial theory has been refined to emphasize conservation rather than resource exhaustion, extended to encompass decision making, planning, and initiative, and linked to physical bodily energy (glucose). Recent challenges offered alternative explanations (which have largely failed) and questioned replicability (which has now been well established). Methods have improved, particularly with emphasis on longer, stronger manipulations to ensure fatigue. New work extends ego depletion into workplace settings and sports. Interpersonal conflict may be both a major cause and consequence. New questions include the possibility of chronic ego depletion (e.g., in burnout), protective factors and coping strategies, individual differences, and recovery processes.

Gratitude and indebtedness facilitate cooperative relationships and prosocial behavior. Yet, studies are needed to assess whether indebtedness and gratitude have differential prosocial effects. Study 1 (N = 659; highly religious emerging adult sample) employed a 3 x 2 experimental design with six conditions; 1) gratitude-only to humans, 2) indebtedness-only to humans, 3) gratitude and indebtedness to humans, 4) gratitude-only to God, 5) indebtedness-only to God, and 6) gratitude and indebtedness to God. Study 2 (N = 1,081; nationally representative sample) was a replication of Study 1. People prompted to experience both gratitude and indebtedness had higher prosocial relational engagement (i.e. consistent effects for relationship proximity and direct reciprocity) than those who primarily experienced gratitude or indebtedness. Transcendent indebtedness (want to repay) was related to better prosocial outcomes than transactional indebtedness (have to repay). Secure attachment to God moderated the association between receiving a favor from God (versus human) and increased prosocial behavior.

Student sense of belonging is a current challenge to higher education providers, with consistently declining ratings in national surveys. For universities globally, this is a concern linked to student attrition, student satisfaction, and student success. Importantly, low sense of belonging is typically associated with non-traditional learners, and building strategies to solve this challenge is essential for institutions to build equitable learning environments. This study seeks to understand the causal factors that predict when a student will belong using longitudinal data. Using the Australian national student experience survey data (n = 1,159,768 undergraduate and postgraduate students between 2013 and 2019), this study examines the predictors of a sense of belonging testing the accuracy of four machine learning models. The findings indicate overall educational experience, connection to students outside of class, and support to settle were key predictors, with skill development and curriculum supports a lesser predictor of a sense of belonging. Interestingly, identity and individual differences ratings seemed to have less importance than student experience factors. Implications for higher education policy developers and curriculum writers are considered.

If children are socialized less by their parents than their peer group, psychology may fruitfully adapt social psychology’s exploration of group processes for understanding how children develop. Concerns with self-presentation, reputation, and learning subtle norms may emerge earlier and more strongly than would be the case if children were primarily interacting with their parents. The peer group culture of childhood may be a self-perpetuating culture that is somewhat independent of and possibly in opposition to the adult culture and parents’ attempts to prepare children for adulthood. Modern trends such as increasing age segregation and play-dates with adult supervision may hamper the transmission of children’s and adolescents’ peer culture.

Social psychology findings have fared poorly in multi-site replication attempts. This article considers and evaluates multiple factors that may contribute to such failures, other than the "crisis" assumption that most of the field's published research is so badly flawed that it should be dismissed wholesale. Low engagement by participants may reduce replicability of some findings (while not affecting certain others). Incentives differ between original researchers and replicators. If multi-site replications are indeed biased toward failure, this may have a damaging effect on the field's ability to build correct theories.

Multisite (multilab/many-lab) replications have emerged as a popular way of verifying prior research findings, but their record in social psychology has prompted distrust of the field and a sense of crisis. We review all 36 multisite social-psychology replications (plus three articles reporting multiple ministudies). We start by assuming that both the original and the multisite replications were conducted in honest and diligent fashion, despite often yielding different conclusions. Four of the 36 (11%) were clearly successful in terms of providing significant support for the original hypothesis, and five others (14%) had mixed results. The remaining 27 (75%) were failures. Multiple explanations for the generally poor record of replications are considered, including the possibility that the original hypothesis was wrong; operational failure; low engagement of participants; and bias toward failure. The relevant evidence is assessed as well. There was evidence for each of the possibilities listed above, with low engagement emerging as a widespread problem (reflected in high rates of discarded data and weak manipulation checks). The few procedures with actual interpersonal interaction fared much better than others. We discuss implications in relation to manipulation checks, effect sizes, and impact on the field and offer recommendations for improving future multisite projects.

Self-protection can have psychological and behavioral implications. We contrast them with the implications of a self-enhancement strategy. Both self-enhancement and self-protection have costs and benefits as survival strategies, and we identify some of the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral tradeoffs associated with the differential preferences for each strategy. New analyses on a large existing data set confirm the target article's hypothesis that women are more attuned than men to potential negative consequences of innovations.

The theory of the self has been built up by work of countless scholars across multiple disciplines. It has taken input from very different fields of study. Psychologists’ views have been edified and informed by many other fields. Sedikides (this issue) extends this rich, integrative tradition by borrowing insights and models from immunology. Many of his thought-provoking analyses offer potential insights into psychological phenomena, indeed some of whose implications extend beyond the task of building psychological theory to understanding society-wide problems. As a particular example that struck us, his parallel between biological inoculation and the development of psychological defenses offers a fresh and powerful insight into a much-discussed problem facing modern universities as a whole. Many scholars have noted that in the past five years college students have become increasingly fragile. Whereas earlier generations of students demanded to be allowed to hear radical, challenging ideas, modern students demand to be shielded from them. (Lukianoff and Haidt [2018] have offered a trenchant analysis of this sweeping change.) Modern students often claim that some ideas threaten their right to exist—even, famously, a newspaper op-ed that did no more than document that university administrators are more politically left-leaning than the faculty (Abrams 2018; see Morabito 2019; Paresky 2019). Some students demand trigger warnings to alert them in advance that a lecture or reading might mention topics or theories that would disturb them (even though accumulating evidence indicates that trigger warnings do not reduce anxiety and indeed may increase it; see Bellet et al. 2020). This widespread student malaise and fragility (derided as “snowflake” mentality by critics) can be usefully understood in Sedikides’s terms as a failure of inoculation. By all accounts, American parents shifted in the 1990s to become hyper-protective of their children, as documented by Lukianoff and Haidt (2018). Psychologists bear some responsibility for this shift, as that era was obsessed with the ostensible importance and fragility of self-esteem (e.g., California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility 1990). As is typical with scientific work, the complexities, debates, and limitations of the actual scientific research got lost as the message was transmitted via the mass media to the general public. The result was that parents became reluctant to criticize their children and sought to protect them from failure, challenge, or even unsettling ideas. This contrasted sharply with the style of child-rearing emphasized in earlier generations, which wanted above all to avoid a spoiled or prideful child. Insofar as 21-century parents succeeded at sheltering their children from anything negative, they produced young adults who lack the psychological immune system with the power to cope with having their self-views or worldviews threatened. Indeed, it is possible that Sedikides’s analysis of deficient inoculation could be used to persuade new parents to abandon the overprotective style and resume a more balanced approach to child-raising. The message that children need to encounter some problems and failures, and to learn to cope with them themselves, might potentially benefit future generations.

‘To learn about X, observe what happens to the system when X is removed.’ What happens to the higher education student experience when, during a pandemic, so many of the avenues for building a sense of belonging are radically and fundamentally disrupted? How should we respond as individuals, a collective and a sector, to redress this? The national student survey data in Australia has highlighted a significant drop in learner engagement and their sense of belonging as a result of the pandemic. Indeed, the pandemic has been a significant point of anxiety for students, educators, and universities globally. We see the pandemic as a unique opportunity to critically examine belongingness among university students in a climate where their normal avenues to feel they belong need to establish a new kind of normal. In this article, we seek to articulate what can be learned from the pandemic experience about student belongingness and what instructors can do to improve it, even under difficult circumstances. We found opportunities to strengthen a students’ sense of belonging in online environments, when necessary, and how responses within the constraints of lockdown and emergency remote teaching can still support student success.

Three studies demonstrated that situational uncertainty impairs executive function on subsequent unrelated tasks. Participants were randomly assigned to either uncertain situations (not knowing whether they would have to give a speech later, Studies 1-2; uncertain about how to complete a task, Study 3) or control conditions. Uncertainty caused poor performance on tasks requiring executive function that were unrelated to the uncertainty manipulation. Uncertainty impaired performance even more than certainty of negative outcomes (might vs. definitely will have to make a speech). A meta-analysis of the experimental studies in this package found that the effect is small and reliable. One potential explanation for this effect of uncertainty on executive function is that uncertainty is a cue for conserving effort.

Sometimes even dieters with the best self-control overindulge. Uncertain situations may undermine the self-control of even well-controlled eaters. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that uncertainty increases unhealthy snacking. Participants were either told that they would be giving a speech, that they would be listening to a speech, or that they would find out later whether they were to give a speech or not. Among participants who typically reported good control over their eating or scored low on emotional eating, participants who were uncertain about whether they would be giving a speech ate more candy than participants who expected to not have to give a speech and even those who expected to have to give a speech. Participants who reported poor control over their eating or scored high on emotional eating did not eat significantly more when uncertain. These findings suggest that, for people who are typically able to control their eating, uncertainty increases snacking more than certainty of a negative outcome.

Procrastination is variously described as harmful, innocuous, or even beneficial. Two longitudinal studies examined procrastination among students. Procrastinators reported lower stress and less illness than nonprocrastinators early in the semester, but they reported higher stress and more illness late in the term, and overall they were sicker. Procrastinators also received lower grades on all assignments. Procrastination thus appears to be a self-defeating behavior pattern marked by short-term benefits and long-term costs.

People have the ability to make important choices in their lives, but deliberating about these choices can have costs. The present study was designed to test the hypothesis that writing about conflicted personal goals and values (conflict condition) would impair self-control on an unrelated subsequent task as compared to writing about clear personal goals and values (clarity condition). Personal conflict activates the behavioral inhibition system (BIS; Hirsh, Mar, & Peterson, 2012), which may make it harder for participants to successfully execute self-control. In this large (N=337), pre-registered study participants in the conflict condition performed worse on anagrams than participants in the clarity condition, and the effect of condition on anagram performance was mediated by a subjective uncertainty measure of BIS activation. This suggests that BIS activation leads to poor self-control. Moreover, given that conflict is inherent in the exercise of self-control, results point to BIS activation as a mechanism for why initial acts of self-control impair self-control on subsequent, unrelated tasks.

The strength model of self-regulation uses a muscle analogy to explain patterns of ego depletion, conservation of willpower, and improved performance after frequent exercise. Our 2007 overview of the literature has been well cited, presumably because of the phenomenon's importance to theories of selfhood and a wide assortment of applied contexts, including problem behaviors. Some researchers have put forward rival theoretical accounts, and others have questioned the existence of the phenomenon. The weight of evidence continues to support the usefulness of the strength model, albeit amid continuing updates and revisions.