Concerns about the veracity of psychological research have been growing. Many findings in psychological science are based on studies with insufficient statistical power and nonrepresentative samples, or may otherwise be limited to specific, ungeneralizable settings or populations. Crowdsourced research, a type of large-scale collaboration in which one or more research projects are conducted across multiple lab sites, offers a pragmatic solution to these and other current methodological challenges. The Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA) is a distributed network of laboratories designed to enable and support crowdsourced research projects. These projects can focus on novel research questions or replicate prior research in large, diverse samples. The PSA’s mission is to accelerate the accumulation of reliable and generalizable evidence in psychological science. Here, we describe the background, structure, principles, procedures, benefits, and challenges of the PSA. In contrast to other crowdsourced research networks, the PSA is ongoing (as opposed to time limited), efficient (in that structures and principles are reused for different projects), decentralized, diverse (in both subjects and researchers), and inclusive (of proposals, contributions, and other relevant input from anyone inside or outside the network). The PSA and other approaches to crowdsourced psychological science will advance understanding of mental processes and behaviors by enabling rigorous research and systematic examination of its generalizability.

Introduction: Debriefings give healthcare workers voice through the opportunity to discuss unanticipated or difficult events and recommend changes. The typical goal of routine debriefings has been to improve clinical outcomes by learning through discussion and reflection of events and then transferring that learning into clinical practice. However, little research has investigated the effects of debriefings on the emotional experiences and well-being of healthcare workers. There is some evidence that debriefings are a multi-faceted and cost-effective intervention for minimising negative health outcomes, but their use is inconsistent and they are infrequently adopted with the specific intention of giving healthcare workers a voice. The purpose of this systematic scoping review is therefore to assess the scope of existing evidence on debriefing practices for the well-being and emotional outcomes of healthcare workers.Methods: Following screening, 184 papers were synthesised through keyword mapping and exploratory trend identification.Results: The body of evidence reviewed were clustered geographically, but diverse on many other criteria of interest including the types of evidence produced, debriefing models and practices, and outcomes captured.Discussion: The current review provides a clear map of our existing understanding and highlights the need for more systematic, collaborative and rigorous bodies of evidence to determine the potential of debriefing to support the emotional outcomes of those working within healthcare.Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/za6rj.

Numerous individual differences, models, and measures have been associated with the ‘emotional intelligence’ (EI) label. This paper discusses one of the most pervasive problems regarding EI-related individual differences, namely, the lack of a meaningful theoretical framework. First, drawing upon existing theoretical frameworks, we argue that EI-related characteristics can be considered constituents of existing models of cognitive ability (ability EI), personality (trait EI), and emotion regulation (EI competencies). Second, having differentiated between these perspectives (ability, personality, and emotion regulation), we draw upon existing theory and research to build the Integrated Model of Affect-related Individual Differences (IMAID), which provides an initial mechanistic representation that explains how the different EI-related constructs are likely to interrelate and coalesce to influence affective outcomes. In essence, the IMAID is an integrated mediation model in which emotion regulation mediates the effects of ability EI and affect-related personality traits upon outcomes. Viewing EI-related constructs as interrelated extensions of well-established individual difference frameworks clarifies some pervasive misconceptions regarding EI-related characteristics and provides scholars and practitioners with a clear and useful theoretical framework ripe for exploration. We conclude by using the IMAID to suggest a theoretically driven agenda for future research.