The physiological study of emotional piloerection: A systematic review and guide for future research

This paper provides an accessible review of the biological and psychological evidence to guide new and experienced researchers in the study of emotional piloerection in humans. A limited number of studies have attempted to examine the physiological and emotional correlates of piloerection in humans. However, no review has attempted to collate this evidence to guide the field as it moves forward. We first discuss the mechanisms and function of non-emotional and emotional piloerection in humans and animals. We discuss the biological foundations of piloerection as a means to understand the similarities and differences between emotional and non-emotional piloerection. We then present a systematic qualitative review (k = 24) in which we examine the physiological correlates of emotional piloerection. The analysis revealed that indices of sympathetic activation are abundant, suggesting emotional piloerection occurs with increased (phasic) skin conductance and heart rate. Measures of parasympathetic activation are lacking and no definite conclusions can be drawn. Additionally, several studies examined self-reported emotional correlates, and these correlates are discussed in light of several possible theoretical explanations for emotional piloerection. Finally, we provide an overview of the methodological possibilities available for the study of piloerection and we highlight some pressing questions researchers may wish to answer in future studies

Science beliefs, political ideology, and cognitive sophistication

Some theoretical models assume that a primary source of contention surrounding science belief is political and that partisan disagreement drives beliefs; other models focus on basic science knowledge and cognitive sophistication, arguing that they facilitate proscientific beliefs. To test these competing models, we identified a range of controversial issues subject to potential ideological disagreement and examined the roles of political ideology, science knowledge, and cognitive sophistication on science beliefs. Our results indicate that there was surprisingly little partisan disagreement on a wide range of contentious scientific issues. We also found weak evidence for identity-protective cognition (where cognitive sophistication exacerbates partisan disagreement); instead, cognitive sophistication (i.e., reasoning ability) was generally associated with proscience beliefs. In two studies focusing on anthropogenic climate change, we found that increased political motivations did not increase polarization among individuals who are higher in cognitive sophistication, which indicates that increased political motivations might not have as straightforward an impact on science beliefs as has been assumed in the literature. Finally, our findings indicate that basic science knowledge is the most consistent predictor of people’s beliefs about science across a wide range of issues. These results suggest that educators and policymakers should focus on increasing basic science literacy and critical thinking rather than on the ideologies that purportedly divide people

Beliefs About COVID-19 in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: A Novel Test of Political Polarization and Motivated Reasoning

What are the psychological consequences of the increasingly politicized nature of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States relative to similar Western countries? In a two-wave study completed early (March) and later (December) in the pandemic, we found that polarization was greater in the United States (N = 1,339) than in Canada (N = 644) and the United Kingdom. (N = 1,283). Political conservatism in the United States was strongly associated with engaging in weaker mitigation behaviors, lower COVID-19 risk perceptions, greater misperceptions, and stronger vaccination hesitancy. Although there was some evidence that cognitive sophistication was associated with increased polarization in the United States in December (but not March), cognitive sophistication was nonetheless consistently negatively correlated with misperceptions and vaccination hesitancy across time, countries, and party lines. Furthermore, COVID-19 skepticism in the United States was strongly correlated with distrust in liberal-leaning mainstream news outlets and trust in conservative-leaning news outlets, suggesting that polarization may be driven by differences in information environments

A matter of time… consideration of future consequences and temporal distance contribute to the ideology gap in climate change scepticism

Factors that contribute to the well-established ideology gap in climate change beliefs (i.e., conservatives’ scepticism about climate change and its severity) remain underexplored. In the present research, we propose that there are differences in the consideration of future consequences, as well as the perception of climate change in time, between conservatives and liberals which, in part, contribute to this gap. Across three studies (total N = 654) in the Netherlands and the UK, we demonstrate that, compared to liberals, conservatives tend to consider future consequences of their behaviour less and perceive the effects of climate change as further away in the future. Furthermore, we find that temporal distance to climate change, and, to a lesser extent, consideration of future consequences, can partially account for higher levels of scepticism about climate change on the conservative side of the ideological spectrum. Besides contributing to a better understanding of this ideology bias, these results have implications for climate change communication

Individuals lack the ability to accurately detect emotional piloerection

Piloerection (e.g., goosebumps) is an essential thermoregulatory and social signaling mechanism in non‐human animals. Although humans also experience piloerection—often being perceived as an indicator of profound emotional experiences—its comparatively less effective role in thermoregulation and communication might influence our capacity to monitor its occurrence. We present three studies (total N = 617) demonstrating participants' general inability to detect their own piloerection events and their lack of awareness that piloerection occurs with a similar frequency on multiple anatomical locations. Self‐reported goosebumps were more frequent than observed piloerection. However, only 31.8% of self‐reports coincided with observable piloerection, a bias unrelated to piloerection intensity, anatomical location, heart‐rate variability, or interoceptive awareness. We also discovered a self‐report bias for the forearm, contradicting the observation that piloerection occurs with equal frequency on multiple anatomical locations. Finally, there was low correspondence between self‐reports of being “emotionally moved” and observed piloerection. These counterintuitive findings not only highlight a disconnect between an obvious physiological response and our capacity for self‐monitoring, but they underscore a fascinating divergence between human and non‐human species. Although piloerection is vital in non‐human organisms, the connection between piloerection and psychological experience in humans may be less significant than previously assumed, possibly due to its diminished evolutionary relevance

A decade of theory as reflected in Psychological Science (2009–2019)

The dominant belief is that science progresses by testing theories and moving towards theoretical consensus. While it’s implicitly assumed that psychology operates in this manner, critical discussions claim that the field suffers from a lack of cumulative theory. To examine this paradox, we analysed research published in Psychological Science from 2009–2019 (N = 2,225). We found mention of 359 theories in-text, most were referred to only once. Only 53.66% of all manuscripts included the word theory, and only 15.33% explicitly claimed to test predictions derived from theories. We interpret this to suggest that the majority of research published in this flagship journal is not driven by theory, nor can it be contributing to cumulative theory building. These data provide insight into the kinds of research psychologists are conducting and raises questions about the role of theory in the psychological sciences

Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results

To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer fiveoriginal research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from two separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete one version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: materials from different teams renderedstatistically significant effects in opposite directions for four out of five hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to +0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for two hypotheses, and a lack of support for three hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, while considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim.</div

Preregistration is for Planning

Here, I offer a comprehensive preregistration form which serves to guide researchers through planning and preregistration. The goal of this form is to help researchers in: -increasing transparency -planning a study design -restricting as many degrees of freedom as possible -determining analyses -considering possible outcomes, and -restricting the possible interpretations of that study The form is currently in "unprotected" Word format so that it can be modified and adjusted. Please send along any suggested edits so that they can be incorporated into a final version eventually

Sentencing recommendations are insensitive to juvenile offender’s age and maturation

Research on perceptions of juvenile criminals has long sought to understand what drives punishment of juvenile. While some researchers argue that age influences the punishment of juvenile offenders, others argue that more severe crimes receive harsher punishments. However, in much past research, information about the juvenile and the details surrounding the crime have been manipulated, yielding inconsistent results. In this study, we manipulated age, maturity, crime severity, and offender characteristics and measured blame, sentencing recommendations, and likelihood of a guilty verdict. We expected more severe crimes would garner harsher judgments. We also expected information about the juvenile’s reasons for acting would influence judgments. Results indicate that crime severity explained the largest amount of variance in sentencing. However, age and maturity influenced judgments about blame and guilt. This study helps clarify the effects of age and maturity on punishment-related judgments by demonstrating that crime severity, rather than age, influences punishment of juvenile offenders