What Can Cognitive Science Do for People?

The critical question for cognitive scientists is what does cognitive science do, if anything, for people? Cognitive science is primarily concerned with human cognition but has fallen short in continuously and critically assessing the who in human cognition. This complacency in a world where white supremacist and patriarchal structures leave cognitive science in the unfortunate position of potentially supporting those structures. We take it that many cognitive scientists operate on the assumption that the study of human cognition is both interesting and important. We want to invoke that importance to note that cognitive scientists must continue to work to show how the field is useful to all of humanity and reflects a humanity that is not white by default. We wonder how much the field has done, and can do, to show that it is useful not only in the sense that we might make connections with researchers in other fields, win grants and write papers, even of the highest quality, but useful in some material way to the billions of non-cognitive scientists across the globe.

The Pandemic as a Portal: Reimagining Psychological Science as Truly Open and Inclusive.

Psychological science is at an inflection point: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities that stem from our historically closed and exclusive culture. Meanwhile, reform efforts to change the future of our science are too narrow in focus to fully succeed. In this article, we call on psychological scientists-focusing specifically on those who use quantitative methods in the United States as one context for such conversations-to begin reimagining our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive. First, we discuss whom our discipline was designed to serve and how this history produced the inequitable reward and support systems we see today. Second, we highlight how current institutional responses to address worsening inequalities are inadequate, as well as how our disciplinary perspective may both help and hinder our ability to craft effective solutions. Third, we take a hard look in the mirror at the disconnect between what we ostensibly value as a field and what we actually practice. Fourth and finally, we lead readers through a roadmap for reimagining psychological science in whatever roles and spaces they occupy, from an informal discussion group in a department to a formal strategic planning retreat at a scientific society.

Examining relations between performance on non-verbal executive function and verbal self-regulation tasks in demographically-diverse populations.

Self-regulation is a widely studied construct, generally assumed to be cognitively supported by executive functions (EFs). There is a lack of clarity and consensus over the roles of specific components of EFs in self-regulation. The current study examines the relations between performance on (a) a self-regulation task (Heads, Toes, Knees Shoulders Task) and (b) two EF tasks (Knox Cube and Beads Tasks) that measure different components of updating: working memory and short-term memory, respectively. We compared 107 8- to 13-year-old children (64 females) across demographically-diverse populations in four low and middle-income countries, including: Tanna, Vanuatu; Keningau, Malaysia; Saltpond, Ghana; and Natal, Brazil. The communities we studied vary in market integration/urbanicity as well as level of access, structure, and quality of schooling. We found that performance on the visuospatial working memory task (Knox Cube) and the visuospatial short-term memory task (Beads) are each independently associated with performance on the self-regulation task, even when controlling for schooling and location effects. These effects were robust across demographically-diverse populations of children in low-and middle-income countries. We conclude that this study found evidence supporting visuospatial working memory and visuospatial short-term memory as distinct cognitive processes which each support the development of self-regulation.

Cultural interconnectedness and in-group cooperation as sources of innovation.

I argue that the increased rate of innovation in eighteenth-century England cannot be understood without accounting for the unprecedented level of contact between England and other societies as a consequence of sixteenth-century colonialism. I propose cultural interconnectedness and in-group cooperation as two potential alternative explanations for the psychological changes and innovative behavior described by Baumard.

Adult criticism and vigilance diminish free riding by children in a social dilemma.

In cooperative situations, individual interests can be in conflict with those of the group, creating a social dilemma in which one must choose whether to cooperate or not. Sensitivity to social stimuli is an important factor influencing cooperative behavior in such dilemmas. The current study investigated the influence of verbal feedback and vigilance by adults on children's donating behavior in a public goods game. The participants were 739 public school children, between 5 and 12 years of age, who were divided into 34 groups. Each group was assigned to one of four experimental conditions: control, positive feedback (praise), negative feedback (criticism), or vigilance. Participants then played eight rounds of the game. The children's donations were greater in the feedback and vigilance conditions, but the effects were mediated by age and rounds. The results are most likely related to concerns about reputation, which tend to become stronger with age. Older children are better at self-presentation and understanding social norms. Thus, compared with younger children, they seemed more concerned with appearing to be generous, but only when they could get credit for it. Nevertheless, children's donations still decreased across the rounds. Although adult vigilance and feedback influence children's cooperation among peers, other mechanisms are necessary to stabilize their behavior over time.