About

Rick H. Hoyle is a professor at Duke University, serving in the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience. His office is located at 2200 West Main St., Suite 800, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA. He can be contacted via email at rhoyle@duke.edu or by phone at 919.695.3567. His office hours are by appointment. The information was last updated on August 6, 2025. The provided page does not include specific details about his research focus, background, or key contributions.

Research topics

• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Science
• Social psychology
• Medicine
• Psychotherapist
• Mathematics
• Cognitive psychology
• Psychology
• Developmental psychology
• Statistics
• Econometrics

Selected publications

• Everyday Discrimination and Adolescents’ Mental Health: Evidence From an Ecological Momentary Assessment

  The Journal of Early Adolescence · 2026-01-07

  article

  Adolescents who report discrimination experience worse mental health. However, most research has been cross-sectional and retrospective. This study investigated how prospectively-assessed day-to-day perceptions of everyday discrimination relate to mental health symptoms in 395 adolescents across a 14-day ecological momentary assessment. Black adolescents reported discrimination on more days (15%) than White adolescents (6%), as did economically disadvantaged (11%) versus non-disadvantaged adolescents (6%). On days adolescents reported experiencing versus not experiencing discrimination, they reported elevated depression, anxiety, inattention ( β s = 0.06-0.10), and conduct problem ( OR = 3.03) symptoms. Cross-lagged multi-level models showed few next-day associations, except that discrimination predicted adolescents’ next-day inattention (but not vice-versa; β = .06) and conduct problems predicted next-day discrimination reports ( OR = 1.73; but not vice versa). Findings highlight that, even at this young age, Black and economically disadvantaged adolescents report frequent exposure to everyday discrimination, with robust linkages between perceived discrimination and same-day mental health symptoms.

  PublisherDOI

• The role of self-control in adolescent sleep: Evidence from ecological momentary assessment data

  Sleep Health · 2026-03-01

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Adolescent reports of subjective socioeconomic status: An adequate alternative to parent-reported objective and subjective socioeconomic status?

  PLoS ONE · 2025-01-17 · 13 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior authorCorresponding

  Socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with well-being outcomes across studies; however, there is wide variation in its measurement, particularly in adolescence. One key difference in measures of SES concerns whether participants relay objective information-for example, years of education, household income-or subjective perceptions of socioeconomic status, either with or without reference to others or society. Although parents are often considered the best source of SES information-especially objective SES-within families, interviewing parents within the context of adolescent research is costly, time-consuming, and not always feasible. Given the importance of SES for outcomes in adolescence and cumulative effects over the lifespan, we used data from adolescents (N = 702) and parents (Ns = 664-730) to examine whether adolescent reports of SES serve as reasonable proxies for parent reports of both objective and subjective SES, as well as administrative data assessing family SES and neighborhood SES. Consistent with our hypotheses, adolescents' reports of subjective SES were moderately correlated with parent reports and administrative data tapping family SES. Moreover, adolescents' reports of subjective SES predicted adolescent-reported measures of well-being, including mental health, physical health, school performance, problem behavior, and alcohol use to the same degree as or better than parent reports of both subjective and objective SES and administrative data. These findings suggest that adolescent reports of subjective SES-using two different, easily understood measures-can stand in as reasonable alternatives to parent-reported SES and administrative data.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Aripiprazole or Bupropion Augmentation Versus Switching to Bupropion in Treatment-Resistant Depression

  The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · 2025-09-22

  articleOpen access

  In treatment-resistant depression (TRD), augmentation with aripiprazole (A-ARI) or combination therapy by adding bupropion (C-BUP) has been reported as more effective than switching to bupropion (S-BUP), but C-BUP risks falls in older adults, and A-ARI risks weight gain and tardive dyskinesia (TD). The aim of this study was to clarify whether the enhanced effectiveness outweighs such risks. In this risk-benefit decision analysis, lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) following 1 year of A-ARI or C-BUP vs S-BUP treatment were simulated in a health-state transition model tracking depression remission, falls, weight gain, and TD, in age and baseline body mass index (BMI) subgroups, using data from the VAST-D and OPTIMUM trials and other literature. QALYs were converted to depression-free day-equivalents (DFDs), the QALYs gained from 1 day of remitted versus active depression. Simulated adults aged 18-64 years experienced a net benefit of C-BUP over S-BUP of 20.7 DFDs, equivalent to about 3 weeks of faster remission of depressive symptoms. In older adults, especially those aged 85+ years, this benefit over S-BUP was partially but not fully offset by a risk of falls. In adults aged 18-64 years, A-ARI was estimated to offer only 8.0 DFDs after subtracting the expected harms from TD, and this was further reduced to -22.8 DFDs once metabolic harms were considered, in those overweight at baseline. Overall, C-BUP was preferred over A-ARI in all subgroups except ages 85-89 years with BMI<25, in whom A-ARI was preferred. In our model, C-BUP better balanced efficacy and tolerability in TRD in adults under 85 years than did S-BUP or A-ARI. A-ARI was least-preferred in overweight adults. These results may inform shared decision-making and clinical guidelines.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Development and validation of the Goal Dimensions Questionnaire.

  Motivation Science · 2025-08-07

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Shame, tonic immobility, and reactions to stressful events as phylogenetically conserved submissive defense mechanisms.

  Journal of Experimental Psychology General · 2025-09-29

  article

  Shame, tonic immobility, and passive reactions to stressful events are phylogenetically conserved, obligatory, submissive defense reactions. Behavior, biology, genetics, evolutionary theories, and theories of humans as ultra-social animals are integrated to expand the understanding of these defense reactions in ways that are missing from current theories. In Study 1, 445 undergraduates selected the event that caused them the most shame, the event that produced their greatest inability to move or speak, and the stressful event that bothered them the most. Event-specific measures included the severity, centrality to identity, and effects of the event. In Study 2, 300 of these participants answered individual-differences measures. In Study 3, 350 Prolific workers rated the same events and the events that produced the most verbal disagreement and the most pride, control events that involved fewer phylogenetically conserved, obligatory, submissive defense reactions. The added events generally produced the lower effects as predicted. Preregistered predictions of a high degree of similarity among shame, tonic immobility, and reactions to stressful events were supported, including similar correlations among event-specific measures in each type of event, between the same event-specific measures across event types, and between event-specific and individual-differences measures. For factors involving shame, tonic immobility, and reactions to stressful events, this framework increases scientific understanding and offers support to individuals who are left to interpret their responses as signs of personal weaknesses. Such factors include sexual assault, genocide, war, race, religion, ethnicity, gender, addiction, poverty, and professional duties. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

  PublisherDOI

• Development and Validation of the Goal Dimensions Questionnaire

  2025-06-30

  preprintOpen access

  Goals represent a central concept in the analysis of human motivation. How people evaluate their goals on dimensions like commitment or progress provides insight into motivational processes. Previously, however, goal dimension measures were often developed ad hoc and published without construct validation (Kiendl &amp;amp; Hennecke, 2022). To address this issue, we developed and factor-analyzed (Study 1 and 2) the Goal Dimensions Questionnaire (GDQ) for measuring 9 commonly investigated goal dimensions: commitment, demand, enjoyment, expectancy, external motivation, facilitation, progress, support, and value. In Study 1, goal expectancy, progress, and enjoyment accounted for about half the explained variance in the initial item set. We tested the construct validity of the GDQ in two longitudinal studies focusing on academic goals (Study 3) and New Year’s resolutions (Study 4). For academic goals, between-person analyses suggested that higher enjoyment, expectancy, and progress as well as lower demand predicted satisfaction with performance and better grades. In Study 4, within-person analyses using random-intercept cross-lagged panel models revealed that support predicted life satisfaction one month later, and enjoyment was associated with it cross-sectionally. Cross-sectionally, enjoyment, expectancy, and progress were furthermore positively and demand was negatively associated with affective well-being on the within-person level. Exploratorily, commitment and expectancy consistently predicted goal progress. Recommendations for parsimonious measurement are derived through exploratory commonality analysis Five of the nine scales showed many of the predicted associations supporting their validity. We recommend further validation of the external motivation, support, facilitation, and value dimensions in study contexts better tailored to their influence or expression.

  PublisherDOI

• A scoping review of naturalistic assessments of self-control

  Personality and Individual Differences · 2025-03-29

  reviewSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Measuring Constructs

  2025-05-01 · 1 citations

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  Reliable and accurate measurement of well-delineated constructs is essential for rigorous and replicable research in social psychology, regardless of the research question, research design, method of data collection, or data analytic strategy.

  PublisherDOI

• Bridging Divides: Intellectual Humility's Role in Peaceful Resolution

  Journal of Applied Social Psychology · 2025-12-14 · 1 citations

  articleSenior author

  ABSTRACT Intractable intergroup conflicts are often sustained by ingroup‐biased cognition and outgroup derogation, which perpetuate cycles of retaliation and violence. This study examined how intellectual humility (IH)—the recognition of the limits and potential fallibility of one's knowledge—relates to factors that promote healthier intergroup relations during periods of conflict. Amid an acute escalation in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 158 Jewish Israeli participants completed measures of IH, empathy toward and identification with both Israelis and Palestinians, perceptions of collective victimhood, and support for peaceful conflict resolution. Higher IH was indirectly associated with stronger support for peaceful conflict resolution and lower collective victimhood through greater inclusive empathy that extended beyond group boundaries and broader group identification (mutuality). These findings suggest that IH is linked to lower ingroup favoritism, more balanced and humane appraisals of the conflict, and a greater willingness to pursue nonviolent solutions during acute intergroup conflict.

  PublisherDOI

Recent grants

• Pilot Research Project Core

  NIH · $13.4M · 2008–2026

• NIH Grant P20DA017589

  NIH · $7.3M · 2009

Frequent coauthors

• Eli J. Finkel

  Stanford University

  38 shared

• James N. Druckman

  University of Rochester

  36 shared

• Alexander Landry

  36 shared

• Jay Joseph Van Bavel

  Norwegian School of Economics

  36 shared

• Mark R. Leary

  Duke University

  34 shared

• Erin K. Davisson

  Duke University

  25 shared

• David C. Rubin

  23 shared

• Fernanda C. Andrade

  Duke University

  19 shared

Education

• PhD, Psychology & Neuroscience

  UNC-Chapel Hill

  1988

• BA, Psychology

  Appalachian State University

  1983