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., Legault, L., & Teper, R. (2014). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 302-307. doi:10.1177/0963721414534256.
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
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.
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.
Michael Inzlicht, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto who studies self-control, has found that when people report deliberately using willpower, they succeed about half the time. When they do not report making that deliberate effort, they still succeed about one-third of the time.
When researchers asked people whether they’d rather get an empathetic response from a human or from AI, human responses won by a wide margin. When the same researchers actually showed them the responses, AI won by a wider one. People who said they preferred human responses rated the AI replies as more empathetic, more validating, and even better at making them feel heard.
The most recent evidence comes from a Penn State and University of Toronto team led by Joshua Wenger, published in January in Communications Psychology. Across four studies, participants were given the choice between receiving an empathetic response from a human or from ChatGPT. They picked humans 57% to 62% of the time.
My work was uplifting people, or so I told myself. Looking back, I suspect that feeling like I was on the right side of history was a kind of moral cover. Maybe I felt less wrong about the p-hacking because I was promoting social justice. The conclusions I drew were what the good guys already believed, after all. However, a scientist who wants to change the world in a particular direction is no longer beholden to the truth. They are beholden to a cause. I certainly was.
Read More