Kyushu University · 心理学
Yuki Yamada教授の研究室は、人間の認知的・感情的反応に焦点を当てた心理的メカニズムの解明を主眼としています。特に、人間らしい外見を持つ対象が引き起こす「アンビバレンスな感情反応」（例：アンビバレンスの谷）や、特定の視覚的刺激に対する不快感（例：トライフォビア）の認知的・感情的基盤を、行動実験と大規模なアンケート調査を組み合わせて分析しています。また、パンデミック下における心理的ストレスや社会的信頼の変動を国際比較で捉える大規模データの収集・分析にも取り組んでいます。
Figures are computed from collected data and may differ slightly.
Abstract Human observers often experience strongly negative impressions of human‐like objects falling within a particular range of visual similarity to real humans (the “uncanny valley” phenomenon). We hypothesized that negative impressions in the uncanny valley phenomenon are related to a difficulty in object categorization. We produced stimulus images by morphing two of each of real, stuffed, and cartoon human face images (Experiment 1). Observers were asked to categorize each of these images
This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey - an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The data
OPINION article Front. Psychol., 26 September 2018Sec. Quantitative Psychology and Measurement Volume 9 - 2018 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01831
We asked 856 participants to evaluate the discomfort evoked by trypophobic images and to report their past and current skin-related medical problems. Results showed that participants with a history of skin problems rated the pictures as evoking high discomfort as compared to those without skin problems. We conducted another survey to replicate the original survey using additional 690 participants, which confirmed the reliability of the current findings. The current study presents preliminary obs
Abstract A continued lack of clarity persists because academics, policymakers, and other interested parties are unable to clearly define what is a “predatory” journal or publisher, and a potentially wide gray zone exists there. In this perspective, we argue that journals should be evaluated on a continuum, and not just in two shades, black and white. Since evaluations about what might constitute “predatory” are made by humans, the psychological decision-making system that determines them may ind
Open papers in the app to read, cite, and organize with AI.
