Inzlicht, M., Legault, L., & Teper, R. (2014). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 302-307. doi:10.1177/0963721414534256.
Viewing entries in
2014
Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2014). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 127-133. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.009.
Hobson, N. M., Saunders, B., Al-Khindi, T., & Inzlicht, M. (2014). Emotion, 14, 1014-1026.
Nash, K. N., Prentice, M., Hirsh, J. B., McGregor, I. D., & Inzlicht, M. (2014). Social Cognitive Affective Neuroscience, 9, 1239-1245. doi:10.1093/scan/nst099
Tritt, S M., Page-Gould, E., Peterson, J. B., & Inzlicht, M. (2014). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1004-1010. doi:10.1037/a0035179
Malka, A., Soto, C. J., Inzlicht, M., & Lelkes, Y. (2014). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 1031-1051.
* Download Supplemental Online Materials
Tags: political psychology, emotion
Kang, S. K., & Inzlicht, M. (2014). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7, 452-456.
Tritt, S. M., Inzlicht, M., & Peterson, J. B. (2014). Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 330-331.
Tags: political psychology, emotion
Teper, R., & Inzlicht, M. (2014). Emotion, 14, 105- 114. doi:10.1037/a0034296
Hogeveen, J., Inzlicht, M., & Obhi, S. S. (2014). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 755-762. doi:10.1037/a0033477
Inzlicht, M., & Legault, L. (2014). In J. Forgas & E. Harmon-Jones (Eds.), The Control Within: Motivation and its Regulation (pp. 115-132). New York: Psychology Press.
Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2014). In H. van Trijp. (Ed.). Encouraging Sustainable Behavior: Psychology and the Environment (pp.137-153). London: Psychology Press.
Tags: neuroscience
Filter By Keyword
- neuroscience
- self-control
- emotion
- motivation
- ego depletion
- cognitive control
- ERN
- anterior cingulate cortex
- effort
- prejudice
- stigma
- empathy
- stereotype threat
- meaning
- replication
- self-regulation
- uncertainty
- decision making
- meta science
- religion
- cognitive dissonance
- education
- experience sampling
- morality
- acceptance
- fatigue
- mindfulness
- political psychology
- emotion regulation
- prosociality
Latest Tweets
News
Featured
University of Toronto professor Michael Inzlicht wanted to find out who's better at empathic responses: people, or ChatGPT. He explains to CBC Metro Morning how AI won the empathy contest.
A 28-year-old woman with a busy social life spends hours on end talking to her A.I. boyfriend for advice and consolation. And yes, they do have sex.
Michael Inzlicht, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, said people were more willing to share private information with a bot than with a human being. Generative A.I. chatbots, in turn, respond more empathetically than humans do. In a recent study, he found that ChatGPT’s responses were more compassionate than those from crisis line responders, who are experts in empathy. He said that a relationship with an A.I. companion could be beneficial, but that the long-term effects needed to be studied.
“If we become habituated to endless empathy and we downgrade our real friendships, and that’s contributing to loneliness — the very thing we’re trying to solve — that’s a real potential problem,” he said.
Read More
Collaborators
- Joshua Aronson, New York University
- Avi Ben-Zeev, San Francisco State University
- Elliot Berkman, University of Oregon
- Kirk Brown, Virginia Commonwealth University
- Daryl Cameron, Penn State University
- Belle Derks, Utrecht University
- Jennifer Gutsell, Brandeis University
- Greg Hajcak, Florida State University
- Eddie Harmon-Jones, University of New South Wales
- Jacob Hirsh, University of Toronto
- Cendri Hutcherson, University of Toronto
- Sonia Kang, University of Toronto
- Michael Larson, Brigham Young University
- Lisa Legault, Clarkson University
- Ian McGregor, University of Waterloo
- Marina Milyavskaya, Carleton University
- Sukhvinder Obhi, McMaster University
- Liz Page-Gould, University of Toronto
- Travis Proulx, Cardiff University
- Blair Saunders, University of Dundee
- Brandon Schmeichel, Texas A&M University
- Zindel Segal, University of Toronto
- Alexa Tullett, University of Alabama
University of Toronto
Organizations
- Association for Psychological Science
- Canadian Psychological Association
- Canada Foundation for Innovation
- International Social Cognition Network
- International Society for Research on Emotion
- National Academy of Education
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Social and Affective Neuroscience Society
- Social Psychology Network
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
- Society for Personality and Social Psychology
- Society for Psychophysiological Research
- Spencer Foundation
Why do people enjoy doing difficult things?
“You can imagine that some people are willing to work hard, but go about it from a sense of duty and responsibility,” Inzlicht told me for my New York Times story. “But other people—call them ‘joyful workers’—this is what they live for. This is what gives them purpose. This is what makes them feel important. This is what helps them make the world make sense.” The existence of “joyful workers” suggests that, even if the Effort Paradox applies to everyone, it doesn’t apply equally. Where you sit on the Meaningfulness-of-Effort scale probably reflects a changeable mix of nature and nurture.
Read More Here