The Work and Play Lab uses methods from social psychology and cognitive science to understand the mental effort we use to reach our goals and how we spend our leisure time. Our recent research explores the effort paradox, empathy avoidance, and AI's surprising compassion (work) as well as how social media increases boredom and polarization, and the real effects of chronic cannabis use (play). We're committed to open and transparent science, publicly posting data and materials, preregistering studies, and running replications.
Michael Inzlicht is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, where he is also cross-appointed as a Professor in the Rotman School of Management and a Research Lead at the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology & Society. Recognized as among the top 1% of most-cited psychologists in the world for four consecutive years (2022-2025), Michael is passionate about open science and making psychology accessible through podcasts and public engagement.
Carmona-Díaz, G., Jiménez-Leal, W., Alejandra Grisale, M., Sripada, C., Amaya, S., Inzlicht, M., Bermúdez, J.P. (in press). Behavior Research Methods.
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.
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.
Michael Inzlicht
Department of Psychology
University of Toronto Scarborough
1265 Military Trail
Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4
Canada
Email: michael.inzlicht@utoronto.ca
Ong, D.C., Goldenberg, A., Inzlicht, M., & Perry, A. (in press). Current Directions in Psychological Science.