Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： The body ownership illusion (BOI) is associated with multisensory integration, including visuo-tactile, visuo- proprioceptive, tactile-proprioceptive, visual-interoceptive integration and so forth. A series of studies have demonstrated that BOI may be able to reduce acute and chronic pain. There are several key factors that influence the induction of subjective feeling of ownership over the fake body parts, such as synchronicity of multisensory integration, space between the real and fake body parts, the physical appearance of the fake body parts, a first-person perspective. These factors have also been proved to be critical in the effect of analgesia of BOI. In addition, BOI can be modulated by the perceived body/limb size, transparency of the body/limb and so on. The influence of these factors on pain is complex, which differs between healthy subjects and patients with chronic pain, various chronic pain states and the relevant body perception disturbances. Altered body representation represents one of the mechanisms associated with the analgesic impact of BOI. The neural mechanism of BOI on pain, however, still remains unknown, we propose that it is associated with cross-modal mirror therapy and visual analgesia. Thus based on the neural mechanisms of these two phenomenon, we suggest that the “body matrix” and the “pain matrix” might be involved. The concept of “body matrix” was proposed to interpret the induction of the sense of ownership and the complex relationship between representation of the body in the brain and the integrity of the body itself, which includes the insula and posterior parietal cortex. It processes and further integrates the sensory stimuli like visual, tactile, proprioceptive, interoceptive signals from the environment. To be specific, the induction of the sense of ownership could first activate the body matrix and then suppress the pain matrix in acute pain. In chronic pain, the analgesic effect may be related with the reversal of the cortical representation and functional disturbances. Moreover, the posterior parietal cortex may play a key role in these integrations, which needs to be further validated in fine-designed protocols. In summary, most of the researches support a link between embodied illusion and pain disorders, yet several studies didn’t find the analgesic effect of BOI. It might result from the experimental procedure that the artificial/fake hand was covered to avoid visual feedback, or may due to differences in the experimental settings of the control group. Future research topics may include the following aspects. Firstly, future research might want to consider more about the role of interoception in multisensory integration paradigms as exteroceptive signals may not suitable in patients with allodynia who are extremely sensitive to tactile stimuli. The usage of interoception enables the induction of sense of ownership without any tactile stimuli. Thus taking into account of interoception allows a better understanding of the contribution of interoception in bodily illusion and in pain modulation. Secondly, future studies need to identify the cognitive mechanism and neural substrates underlying the effect of BOI on pain. For instance, whether BOI analgesic effect has shared neural mechanisms with mirror therapy and visual analgesia needs further interrogation. Thirdly, how BOI affects pain varies differently in acute pain and chronic pain, and in different chronic pain conditions. Future research needs to shed further light on the identification of this complex phenomenon. Finally, robust and new paradigms of body ownership illusion are needed to further explore the full potential of BOI to modulate pain and to be applied in pain management in clinical populations.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Under the influence of Darwin’s theory of biological evolution, instinct gradually became a core issue in the fields of human and animal psychology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, soon to be relegated to the realm of “magic.” At the height of its popularity, theorists interpreted almost all human behavior in relation to instinct. A young Chinese developmental psychobiologist, Zing-yang Kuo, adopted John B. Watson’s approach to behaviorism, strongly advocating for the complete removal of instinct from the interpretation of human and animal behaviors - an approach that started a massive anti-instinct movement in the field of psychology in the United States. After returning to China, Kuo continued to spread his knowledge of radical behaviorism among the intellectual elite, promoting the debate on instinct, “one of the three biggest debates in the history of modern Chinese psychology.”Kuo’s suggestion that the origin of behavioral development could be traced in a laboratory setting was scorned by conservative US researchers. Convinced that he could resolve the controversy surrounding instinct in the laboratory, and following critical reflection on the matter, Kuo performed a range of experiments in China to verify his anti-instinct claims. Ultimately viewed as the most important development in the Chinese anti-instinct movement, Kuo’s work bridged the gaps in global debates on instinct. Psychologists such as Wei Joseph Ai, Shuh Pan, and Juefu Gao all joined the movement, and it also attracted the interests of other public intellectuals, including Jianren Zhou and Shicen Li.Centered on topics such as the existence of instinct, its definition, whether instincts are inherited, and the relationship between instincts, heredity, and environment, the heated discussion in China’s intellectual community surfaced positive, negative, and mixed reactions. While the Chinese anti-instinct movement did not develop extensive theories, there is no doubt that, as a natural extension of the international anti-instinct movement, it responded to the main contentions of the debate. While the Chinese movement expedited the methodological transmission of the psychological study of instinct from armchair to laboratory, it also confused the interpretation of development with that of evolution.While Kuo and the anti-instinct movement failed to “complete” their study of the psychology of instinct, their work revealed the epistemological value of semantics and the scientific method. Moreover, as a bridge between the global and Chinese anti-instinct movements, Kuo’s academic thought and scientific work reflect his uncompromising spirit of individualism and skepticism, which finally secured him a unique position in the history of behavioral science, exposed him to the wider fields of ethology, embryology, and development science, and provided the impetus for the positioning of “instinct” as an “unfinished” and open scientific issue.
Subjects: Psychology >> Personality Psychology Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2022-02-15
Abstract：
Collective narcissism is the group-level equivalent of individual narcissism and is currently defined as the belief that one’s own group is exceptional and entitled to privileged treatment but it is not sufficiently recognized by others. Current research findings show that it has relatively strong explanatory power for intergroup hostility, because collective narcissists are hypersensitive to threats to their in-group image, status, or identity, and are prone to overestimate threats and suspect out-groups; and that lacking sense of self-worth and personal control is one important source of collective narcissism. Although collective narcissism is preconceived in current research as fragile and negative, its attributes are not necessarily so. Thus, future studies on it should first clarify its concept and structure; then, continue to explore its negative and positive consequences, its multiple causes and interventions; and in the meantime, advance cross-cultural research.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment