Implicit Social Cognition
Psychologists distinguish between explicit attitudes and implicit attitudes. Explicit attitudes are typically thought of as the kind of attitudes that you can consciously bring to mind and report on, whereas implicit attitudes are attitudes that are less accessible to conscious awareness and/or control. Although work on implicit social cognition has generated important insights, many questions remain. Our lab is currently conducting projects aimed at (1) providing more precise measurement of people's implicit attitudes (see, e.g., Andreychik & Gill, 2012), (2) better understanding just what it is about their implicit attitudes that people are unaware of (see, e.g., Gawronski, 2019), (3) better specifying the conditions under which implicit attitudes will (strongly) relate to behavior (see, e.g., Forscher et al., 2019), and (4) better understanding the contribution of environmental factors and social cues on what implicit contents are active in an individual's mind at a specific time (see, e.g., Payne, Vuletich, & Lundberg, 2017).
Psychologists distinguish between explicit attitudes and implicit attitudes. Explicit attitudes are typically thought of as the kind of attitudes that you can consciously bring to mind and report on, whereas implicit attitudes are attitudes that are less accessible to conscious awareness and/or control. Although work on implicit social cognition has generated important insights, many questions remain. Our lab is currently conducting projects aimed at (1) providing more precise measurement of people's implicit attitudes (see, e.g., Andreychik & Gill, 2012), (2) better understanding just what it is about their implicit attitudes that people are unaware of (see, e.g., Gawronski, 2019), (3) better specifying the conditions under which implicit attitudes will (strongly) relate to behavior (see, e.g., Forscher et al., 2019), and (4) better understanding the contribution of environmental factors and social cues on what implicit contents are active in an individual's mind at a specific time (see, e.g., Payne, Vuletich, & Lundberg, 2017).
Empathy
Empathy has long received attention as a potential motivator of helping and other forms of prosocial behavior. But what precisely does it mean to empathize with another person? And, alongside the positive consequences of empathy, when might empathy bring (perhaps unintended) negative consequences? Our lab is currently conducting projects aimed at (1) addressing some of the conceptual confusion around the concept of empathy by more precisely defining the different components and types of empathy, and better understanding how each of these is related to emotion and behavior (e.g., Hall & Schwartz, 2022), and (2) understanding how different "types" of empathy may be related to negative outcomes like burnout among individuals in high-stress professions (e.g., Andreychik, 2019).
Empathy has long received attention as a potential motivator of helping and other forms of prosocial behavior. But what precisely does it mean to empathize with another person? And, alongside the positive consequences of empathy, when might empathy bring (perhaps unintended) negative consequences? Our lab is currently conducting projects aimed at (1) addressing some of the conceptual confusion around the concept of empathy by more precisely defining the different components and types of empathy, and better understanding how each of these is related to emotion and behavior (e.g., Hall & Schwartz, 2022), and (2) understanding how different "types" of empathy may be related to negative outcomes like burnout among individuals in high-stress professions (e.g., Andreychik, 2019).
Collaborative and Open Science
I am a firm believer in the power of more transparent and reproducible research practices to create a better psychological science. To this end my students and I have been involved in a number of large-scale collaborative research projects, most of which seek to replicate well-known findings in psychological science. I also serve as an executive reviewer for the Collaborative Replication and Education Project (CREP), the mission of which is to provide training, support, and professional growth opportunities for students and instructors completing replication projects, while also addressing the need for direct and direct+ replications of highly-cited studies in the field.
I am a firm believer in the power of more transparent and reproducible research practices to create a better psychological science. To this end my students and I have been involved in a number of large-scale collaborative research projects, most of which seek to replicate well-known findings in psychological science. I also serve as an executive reviewer for the Collaborative Replication and Education Project (CREP), the mission of which is to provide training, support, and professional growth opportunities for students and instructors completing replication projects, while also addressing the need for direct and direct+ replications of highly-cited studies in the field.
Scholarly Publications
For a copy of any publications that are not publicly accessible, please email me.
Gill, M.J,. Andreychik, M.R., & Getty, P.D. (2021). Those who ignore the past are doomed…to be heartless: Lay historicist theory is associated with humane responses to the struggles and transgressions of others. PLoS ONE 16(2): e0246882. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246882. [link]
Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Flake, J. K., Aczel, B., Adamkovic, M., …Andreychik, M. R., …Chartier, C. R. (2021). To which world regions does the valence-dominance model of social perception apply? Nature Human Behavior, 5, 159–169.
Tierney, W., Hardy, J. H., III., Ebersole, C., Viganola, D., Clemente, E., Gordon, M., Hoogeveen, S., Haaf, J., Dreber, A.A., Johannesson, M., Pfeiffer, T., Chapman, H., Gantman, A., Vanaman, M., DeMarree, K., Igou, E., Wylie, J., Storbeck J., Andreychik, M.R., McPhetres, J., Vaughn, L.A., Culture and Work Forecasting Collaboration, & Uhlmann, E. L. (2021). A creative destruction approach to replication: Implicit work and sex morality across cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 93, 1-18.
Landy, J. F., Jia, M., Ding I. L., Viganola, D. Tierney, W., ..., Andreychik, M. R., … Uhlmann, E. L. (2020). Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results. Psychological Bulletin, 146(5), 451-479.
Andreychik, M. R. (2019a). I like that you feel my pain, but I love that you feel my joy: Empathy for a partner’s negative vs. positive emotions independently affect relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 834-854. [link]
Andreychik, M. R. (2019b). Feeling your joy helps me to bear feeling your pain: Examining associations between empathy for others’ positive versus negative emotions and burnout. Personality and Individual Differences, 137, 147-156.
Mezzapelle, J., & Andreychik, M. R. (2018). Doing a 180: Examining the stability and reversal of behavioral confirmation effects. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 23, 227-236. [link]
Andreychik, M. R., & Lewis, E. (2017). Will you help me to suffer less? How about to feel more joy?: Positive and negative empathy are associated with different other-oriented motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 139-149.
Andreychik, M. R., & Migliaccio, N. (2015). Empathizing with others’ pain versus empathizing with others’ joy: Examining the separability of positive and negative empathy and their relation to different types of social behaviors and social emotions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 274-291.
Andreychik, M. R., & Gill, M. J. (2015). Do natural kind beliefs about social groups contribute to prejudice?: Distinguishing bio-somatic from bio-behavioral beliefs, and both of these from entitativity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 454-474.
Gill, M. J. & Andreychik, M. R. (2014). The Social Explanatory Style Questionnaire: Assessing moderators of basic social-cognitive phenomena including spontaneous trait inference, the fundamental attribution error, and moral blame. PLoS ONE, 9(7). [link]
Gill, M. J., Andreychik, M. R., & Getty, P. D. (2013). More than a lack of control: External explanations can evoke compassion for outgroups by increasing perceptions of suffering (independent of perceived control). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 99-107.
Andreychik, M. R., & Gill, M. J. (2012). Do negative implicit associations indicate negative attitudes? Social explanations moderate whether implicit “negative” associations are prejudice-based or empathy-based. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1082-1093.
Andreychik, M. R. & Gill, M. J. (2009). Ingroup identity moderates the impact of social explanations on intergroup attitudes: External explanations are not inherently prosocial. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1632-1645.
Gill, M. J. & Andreychik, M. R. (2009). Getting emotional about explanations: Social explanations and social explanatory styles as bases of prosocial emotions and intergroup attitudes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 1038-1054.
Gill, M. J., & Andreychik, M. R. (2007). Explanation and intergroup emotion: Social explanations as a foundation of prejudice-related compunction. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations [Special Issue on Intergroup Emotion], 10, 87-106.
