Gains vs Losses: Anticipation is associated with time preference, such that the more people enjoy anticipating an event, the more they prefer to delay it, & the more they dread it, the more they prefer to accelerate it

Kisses vs. shocks: Anticipation asymmetries explain time preferences for gains vs. losses. David J. Hardisty, Shane Frederick, Elke U. Weber. Under review. http://davidhardisty.info/downloads/Dread.Manuscript.31.docx

Abstract: The dread of future losses weighs more heavily than the pleasure of anticipating future gains, even after controlling for loss aversion. This happens because waiting for a gain is a mixed emotional experience that is both pleasurable (due to savoring) and painful (due to impatience), whereas waiting for a loss is a more unidimensionally painful experience (dread). Anticipation is associated with time preference, such that the more people enjoy anticipating an event, the more they prefer to delay it, and the more they dread it, the more they prefer to accelerate it. In combination, these findings explain and mediate the "sign" effect in discounting, i.e., the fact that losses are discounted less than gains.

Keywords: intertemporal choice, delay discounting, framing, affect

Maternal pregnancy exposures are assumed to affect offspring health; other factors like paternal & postnatal exposures are also likely to be important, but maternal ones are assumed to be most important; we need to retain a critical perspective regarding this assumption

It's the mother!: How assumptions about the causal primacy of maternal effects influence research on the developmental origins of health and disease. Gemma C.Sharp, Deborah A.Lawlor, Sarah S.Richardson .Social Science & Medicine, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.035

Highlights
•    Many maternal pregnancy exposures are assumed to affect offspring health.
•    Other factors like paternal and postnatal exposures are also likely to be important.
•    Nevertheless, maternal pregnancy exposures are assumed to be most important.
•    We need to retain a critical perspective regarding this assumption.
•    Improving the causal evidence base and contextualising findings will help.

Abstract: Research on the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) has traditionally focussed on how maternal exposures around the time of pregnancy might influence offspring health and risk of disease. We acknowledge that for some exposures this is likely to be correct, but argue that the focus on maternal pregnancy effects also reflects implicit and deeply-held assumptions that 1) causal early life exposures are primarily transmitted via maternal traits or exposures, 2) maternal exposures around the time of pregnancy and early infancy are particularly important, and 3) other factors, such as paternal factors and postnatal exposures in later life, have relatively little impact in comparison. These implicit assumptions about the “causal primacy” of maternal pregnancy effects set the agenda for DOHaD research and, through a looping effect, are reinforced rather than tested. We propose practical strategies to redress this imbalance through maintaining a critical perspective about these assumptions.

Rabbits may be able to detect conspecifics in their predators’ scats, thus leading them to, in the short term, avoid areas in which their terrestrial predators’ diet is based on conspecifics, probably as the result of them perceiving a higher risk of predation

European rabbits recognise conspecifics in their predators’ diets. Laura M. Prada, José Guerrero-Casado, Francisco S. Tortosa. acta ethologica, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10211-018-0295-6

Abstract: Rabbits can successfully avoid their enemies by evaluating the risk of predation. They have various defensive strategies, such as morphological adaptations and behaviours patterns, which enable them to perceive their predators and thus reduce the risk of predation. It is well documented that rabbits recognise the scats of terrestrial predators and avoid those areas in which they are present. However, few studies show whether the prey species can recognise the presence of congeners in carnivores’ scats, which would allow them to identify their predators in a more efficient manner. We have carried out a comparative analysis of the use of space made by rabbits on plots on which a neutral odour (water) or the odours of the ferrets’ scats that had consumed either rabbit or another mammal (beef) were applied. Our results showed a lower number of rabbit pellets on those plots containing predator odours than on the control plots. During the first 6 days after applying the first odour, the number of rabbit pellets was lower on plots on which rabbit had been included in the diet when compared with scats obtained from a beef diet. However, no differences between the two experimental plots were recorded during the third visit (9 days after applying the first odour). Our results suggest that rabbits may be able to detect congeners in their predators’ scats, thus leading them to, in the short term, avoid areas in which their terrestrial predators’ diet is based on conspecifics, probably as the result of them perceiving a higher risk of predation.

Males reversed their initial preference for larger females in the presence of a conspecific audience male because they recognized the audience male as a competitor and tried to deceive that male about their real mating preference

Test of the Deception Hypothesis in Atlantic Mollies Poecilia mexicana—Does the Audience Copy a Pretended Mate Choice of Others? Klaudia Witte et al. MDPI.com, http://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/7/3/40

Abstract: Animals often use public information for mate-choice decisions by observing conspecifics as they choose their mates and then copying this witnessed decision.  When the copier, however, is detected by the choosing individual, the latter often alters its behavior and spends more time with the previously non-preferred mate. This behavioral change is called the audience effect. The deception hypothesis states that the choosing individual changes its behavior to distract the audience from the preferred mate. The deception hypothesis, however, only applies if the audience indeed copies the pretended mate choice of the observed individual. So far, this necessary prerequisite has never been tested. We investigated in Atlantic molly males and females whether, first, focal fish show an audience effect, i.e., alter their mate choices in the presence of an audience fish, and second, whether audience fish copy the mate choice of the focal fish they had just witnessed. We found evidence that male and female Atlantic mollies copy the pretended mate choice of same-sex focal fish. Therefore, a necessary requirement of the deception hypothesis is fulfilled. Our results show that public information use in the context of mate choice can be costly.

Keywords: sexual selection; public information; male mate choice; female mate choice; audience effect; mate-choice copying; social learning; eavesdropping; Atlantic molly; Poecilia mexicana

Secularity, religiosity, and health: Physical and mental health differences between atheists, agnostics, and nonaffiliated theists compared to religiously affiliated individuals

Secularity, religiosity, and health: Physical and mental health differences between atheists, agnostics, and nonaffiliated theists compared to religiously affiliated individuals. Joseph O.Baker, Samuel Stroope, Mark H.Walker. Social Science Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.07.003

Abstract: Extensive literature in the social and medical sciences link religiosity to positive health outcomes. Conversely it is often assumed that secularity carries negative consequences for health; however, recent research outlining different types of secular individuals complicates this assumption. Using a national sample of American adults, we compare physical and mental health outcomes for atheists, agnostics, religiously nonaffiliated theists, and theistic members of organized religious traditions. Results indicate better physical health outcomes for atheists compared to other secular individuals and members of some religious traditions. Atheists also reported significantly lower levels of psychiatric symptoms (anxiety, paranoia, obsession, and compulsion) compared to both other seculars and members of most religious traditions. In contrast, physical and mental health were significantly worse for nonaffiliated theists compared to other seculars and religious affiliates on most outcomes. These findings highlight the necessity of distinguishing among different types of secular individuals in future research on health.