01 May 2020
My latest paper with Ondrej Bezdicek and colleagues “Serial order recall in working memory across the cognitive spectrum of Parkinson’s disease and neuroimaging correlates” has just been accepted for publication in the journal Journal of Neuropsychology. The abstract for the paper is below:
We sought to determine if Parkinson’s disease (PD) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is associated with a greater SERIAL‐ORDER (mental manipulation) than ANY‐ORDER (auditory span, storage) deficit in working memory (WM). We investigated WM combining neuropsychological measures with the study of brain functional connectivity. A cohort of 160 patients with idiopathic PD, classified as PD‐MCI (n = 87) or PD with normal cognition (PD‐NC; n = 73), and 70 matched healthy controls were studied. Verbal WM was assessed with the Backward Digit Span Task (BDT; Lamar et al., 2007, Neuropsychologia, 45, 245), measuring SERIAL‐ORDER and ANY‐ORDER recall. Resting‐state MRI data were collected for 15 PD‐MCI, 15 PD‐NC and 30 controls. Hypothesis‐driven seed‐based functional connectivity of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) was compared between the three groups and correlated with BDT performance. We found the main effect of the test (impairment in SERIAL ORDER > ANY ORDER) and group ((NC = PD‐NC) > PD‐MCI) in BDT performance that was even more pronounced in SERIAL ORDER when controlling for ANY ORDER variability but not vice versa. Furthermore, PD‐MCI compared to other groups were characterized by the functional disconnection between the bilateral DLPFC and the cerebellum. In functional correlations, DLPFC connectivity was positively related to both SERIAL‐ and ANY‐ORDER performance. In conclusion, PD‐MCI patients evidenced greater SERIAL‐ORDER (manipulation and cognitive control) than ANY‐ORDER (storage) working memory impairment than PD‐NC and controls with a disrupted DLPFC resting‐state connectivity that was also related to the verbal WM performance.
13 Dec 2019
My latest paper with Douglas MacFarlane and Ullrich Ecker “Protecting Consumers from Fraudulent Health Claims: A Taxonomy of Psychological Drivers, Interventions, Barriers, and Treatments” has just been accepted for publication in the journal Social Science & Medicine. The abstract for the paper is below:
Objective: Fraudulent health claims—false or misleading claims used to promote health remedies that are untested, ineffective, and often harmful—cause extensive and persistent harm to consumers. To address this problem, novel interventions are needed that address the underlying cognitive mechanisms that render consumers susceptible to fraudulent health claims. However, there is currently no single framework of relevant psychological insights to design interventions for this purpose. The current review aims to address this gap. Method: An integrative theoretical review was conducted across several major areas of relevant research including criminology, experimental psychology, and behavioural economics. Results: The current review presents a novel taxonomy that aims to serve as an agenda for future research to systematically design and compare interventions based on empirical evidence. Specifically, this taxonomy identifies (i) the psychological drivers that make consumers susceptible to fraudulent health claims, (ii) the psychological barriers that may prevent successful application of interventions, and (iii) proposes evidence-informed treatments to overcome those barriers. Conclusion: The resulting framework integrates behavioural insights from several hitherto distinct disciplines and structures promising interventions according to five underlying psychological drivers: Visceral influence, Affect, Nescience, Misinformation, and Norms (VANMaN). The taxonomy presents an integrative and accessible theoretical framework for designing evidence-informed interventions to protect consumers from fraudulent health claims. This review has broad implications for numerous topical issues including the design and evaluation of anti-fraud campaigns, efforts to address the growing problem of health-related misinformation, and for countering the polarization of politically sensitive health issues.
06 Nov 2019
My latest paper with Annabel Price, Susie Wang, Zoe Leviston, and Iain Walker “Activating the legacy motive mitigates intergenerational discounting in the climate game” has just been accepted for publication in the journal Global Environmental Change. The abstract for the paper is below:
Climate change will have dangerous impacts on future generations. Accordingly, people in the present have an obligation to make sacrifices for the benefit of future others. However, research on temporal and social discounting shows that people are short-sighted and selfish—they prefer immediate over delayed benefits, and they prefer benefits for themselves over others. Discounting over long-term time horizons is known as intergenerational discounting, and is a major obstacle to climate action. Here, we examine whether persuasive messages that activate the legacy motive—the desire to build a positive legacy—can increase the willingness of current actors to make sacrifices for future generations. Using a climate change public goods game, we find that when the benefits of cooperation accrue to decision makers in the present, high levels of cooperation are sustained, whereas when the benefits accrue to future generations, intergenerational discounting makes cooperation elusive. Crucially, when the legacy motive is activated—by promoting death awareness, feelings of power asymmetry, and intergenerational reciprocity—intergenerational discounting is attenuated, and cooperation is restored. Our results suggest climate action can be fostered by framing climate change as an intergenerational dilemma, and by crafting persuasive messages that activate people’s drive to leave a positive legacy.
22 May 2019
Congratulations to my PhD student Susie Wang (cosupervised by Carmen Lawrence, Zoe Leviston, and Iain Walker) whose Doctor of Philosophy thesis entitled “Climate change from a distance: Psychological distance and personal engagement with climate change” was accepted by the Board of the Graduate Research School as satisfying the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. An abridged version of the abstract to Susie’s thesis is below:
Inaction on climate change is often linked to the idea that climate change is perceived as a distant problem. In this thesis I have developed a model describing why some people feel distant from climate change, why some people feel close, and how perceptions of distance might be shifted. I have presented an analysis of how psychological distance from climate change might be overcome, through building connections between climate change and objects of care, with the use of increasingly informal, intimate methods of communication, and an expansion of social involvement from the general public.
24 Jan 2019
My latest paper with Susie Wang, Zoe Leviston, Carmen Lawrence, and Iain Walker “Climate change from a distance: Psychological distance and construal level as predictors of pro-environmental engagement” has just been accepted for publication for a special issue of the journal Frontiers in Psychology on the “Cognitive Psychology of Climate Change”. The abstract for the paper is below:
The public perception of climate change as abstract and distant may undermine climate action. According to construal level theory, whether a phenomenon is perceived as psychologically distant or close is associated with whether it is construed as abstract or concrete, respectively. Previous work has established a link between psychological distance and climate action, but the associated role of construal level has yet to be explored in depth. In two representative surveys of Australians (N = 217 and N = 216), and one experiment (N = 319), we tested whether construal level and psychological distance from climate change predicted pro-environmental intentions and policy support, and whether manipulating distance and construal increased proenvironmental behaviours such as donations. Results showed that psychological closeness to climate change predicted more engagement in pro-environmental behaviours, while construal level produced inconsistent results, and manipulations of both variables failed to produce increases in pro-environmental behaviours. In contrast with the central tenet of construal level theory, construal level was unrelated to psychological distance in all three studies. Our findings suggest that the hypothesised relationship between construal level and psychological distance may not hold in the context of climate change, and that it may be difficult to change proenvironmental behaviour by manipulating these variables.