Grosse Rueschkamp, J. M., Kuppens, P., Riediger, M., Blanke, E. S., & Brose, A. (2018). Higher well-being is related to reduced affective reactivity to positive events in daily life. Emotion, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000557
Abstract: Within the study of emotions, researchers have increasingly stressed the importance of studying individual differences in emotion dynamics and emotional responding and the way these relate to more stable differences in well-being. However, there is no clear picture regarding affective reactivity to positive events and how different emotional reactions relate to differences in well-being, particularly higher levels of well-being. Theoretical work and empirical findings from different lines of research (e.g., clinical studies, aging literature, positive and personality psychology) support either of 2 predictions: Higher well-being is related to an enhanced or reduced affective reactivity to positive events in daily life. Testing these opposing predictions, we examined global well-being and affective reactivity to daily positive events in 6 studies using the experience-sampling or daily diary method (Ns = 70, 66, 95, 200, 76, and 101). Global well-being was measured with various indicators and a well-being composite score. Across the majority of studies, we found that higher global well-being was associated with reduced affective reactivity to positive events in daily life, as shown by smaller decreases in momentary negative affect. In 3 of the 6 studies, higher well-being composite scores were also associated with smaller increases in momentary positive affect. These findings seem to suggest that people with higher global well-being profit less from the joy of a positive event they experience in daily life. Instead, for people with lower well-being, positive events might be a meaningful way to brighten one’s momentary mood.
Saturday, December 15, 2018
Are the faithful becoming less fruitful? The decline of conservative protestant fertility and the growing importance of religious practice and belief in childbearing in the US
Are the faithful becoming less fruitful? The decline of conservative protestant fertility and the growing importance of religious practice and belief in childbearing in the US. Samuel L.Perry, Cyrus Schleifer. Social Science Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.12.013
Abstract: Studies of religion and fertility argue that American childbearing has become less predicated on religious tradition and more on religious commitment and belief. Yet studies have not documented this transition over time or considered whether the growing importance of religious commitment and belief in childbearing applies across Christian traditions equally. Using data from the 1972–2016 General Social Surveys, we analyze childbearing trends across time and birth cohort focusing on the independent and interrelated effects of religious tradition, religious practice, and theological fundamentalism. We also utilize zero-inflated negative binomial regression models to better account for the increasing number of Americans who forego childbearing. Conservative Protestant affiliation is associated with faster than average declines in fertility, while monthly church attendance and biblical literalism are associated with slower than average declines in fertility, ceteris paribus. Examining moderating relationships, monthly worship attendance slightly increases the childbearing of mainline Protestants and Catholics over time, while conservative Protestant childbearing declines regardless of attendance. Unless offset by switching, our findings portend future population declines for conservative Protestants, notably, ones that are not attenuated by greater religious commitment.
Abstract: Studies of religion and fertility argue that American childbearing has become less predicated on religious tradition and more on religious commitment and belief. Yet studies have not documented this transition over time or considered whether the growing importance of religious commitment and belief in childbearing applies across Christian traditions equally. Using data from the 1972–2016 General Social Surveys, we analyze childbearing trends across time and birth cohort focusing on the independent and interrelated effects of religious tradition, religious practice, and theological fundamentalism. We also utilize zero-inflated negative binomial regression models to better account for the increasing number of Americans who forego childbearing. Conservative Protestant affiliation is associated with faster than average declines in fertility, while monthly church attendance and biblical literalism are associated with slower than average declines in fertility, ceteris paribus. Examining moderating relationships, monthly worship attendance slightly increases the childbearing of mainline Protestants and Catholics over time, while conservative Protestant childbearing declines regardless of attendance. Unless offset by switching, our findings portend future population declines for conservative Protestants, notably, ones that are not attenuated by greater religious commitment.
Intellectual, narcissistic, or Machiavellian? How Twitter users differ from Facebook-only users, why they use Twitter, & what they tweet about
Marshall, T. C., Ferenczi, N., Lefringhausen, K., Hill, S., & Deng, J. (2018). Intellectual, narcissistic, or Machiavellian? How Twitter users differ from Facebook-only users, why they use Twitter, and what they tweet about. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000209
Abstract: Twitter is one of the world’s most popular social networking sites, yet gaps remain in our knowledge about the psychology of its users. The current studies sought to fill these gaps by examining whether the Big Five and Dark Triad personality traits predicted differences between Twitter users and Facebook-only users, motives for using Twitter, the frequency of tweeting about 4 topics—intellectual pursuits, personal achievements, diet/exercise, and social activities—and how much they liked to read tweets about these topics. Study 1 found that Twitter users (N = 346) were higher in openness (i.e., intellect and creativity) than Facebook-only users (N = 268). In Study 2, a preregistered replication, Twitter users (N = 255) were not only higher in openness than Facebook-only users (N = 248), but they were also more Machiavellian. In both studies, Twitter users who were higher in openness were more strongly motivated to use Twitter for career promotion, and in turn, they tweeted more frequently and most liked to read tweets about intellectual pursuits. Narcissists were more strongly motivated to use Twitter for career promotion, social connection, and attention-seeking, and in turn, they tweeted more frequently and most liked to read tweets about personal achievements and diet/exercise. On average, participants most liked to read tweets about intellectual pursuits and least liked tweets about diet/exercise. We discuss the implications of these findings for tailoring one’s tweets to retain followers and for drawing the boundary conditions when extrapolating from Twitter-based “big data” to larger populations.
Abstract: Twitter is one of the world’s most popular social networking sites, yet gaps remain in our knowledge about the psychology of its users. The current studies sought to fill these gaps by examining whether the Big Five and Dark Triad personality traits predicted differences between Twitter users and Facebook-only users, motives for using Twitter, the frequency of tweeting about 4 topics—intellectual pursuits, personal achievements, diet/exercise, and social activities—and how much they liked to read tweets about these topics. Study 1 found that Twitter users (N = 346) were higher in openness (i.e., intellect and creativity) than Facebook-only users (N = 268). In Study 2, a preregistered replication, Twitter users (N = 255) were not only higher in openness than Facebook-only users (N = 248), but they were also more Machiavellian. In both studies, Twitter users who were higher in openness were more strongly motivated to use Twitter for career promotion, and in turn, they tweeted more frequently and most liked to read tweets about intellectual pursuits. Narcissists were more strongly motivated to use Twitter for career promotion, social connection, and attention-seeking, and in turn, they tweeted more frequently and most liked to read tweets about personal achievements and diet/exercise. On average, participants most liked to read tweets about intellectual pursuits and least liked tweets about diet/exercise. We discuss the implications of these findings for tailoring one’s tweets to retain followers and for drawing the boundary conditions when extrapolating from Twitter-based “big data” to larger populations.
The Egocentric Impact Bias: The Self’s Actions Are Believed to Produce Especially Strong Affective Responses
Gonzalez, Fausto and Jung, Minah and Critcher, Clayton, The Egocentric Impact Bias: The Self’s Actions Are Believed to Produce Especially Strong Affective Responses (September 25, 2018). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3255254
Abstract: We document and investigate the egocentric impact bias — the perception that the social effects of the self’s actions will be affectively stronger than if those same effects were brought about by others. In Study 1, participants thought pleasant or aversive videos would elicit stronger reactions when participants themselves (instead of the random determination of a computer) selected the video for others. In Study 2, participants who considered how to divide (vs. how a computer would randomly split) $10 with another thought the other would react particularly positively or negatively to the self’s particularly generous or stingy allocations, respectively. The two studies found support for one of two possible mechanistic accounts. When the self was responsible for the selection, it experienced the stimuli as more affectively intense, thus explaining the bias. It was not the case that all intentional agents (e.g., another participant) were assumed to have more affective impact.
Keywords: social cognition, affective forecasting, egocentrism, emotional distancing, projection
Abstract: We document and investigate the egocentric impact bias — the perception that the social effects of the self’s actions will be affectively stronger than if those same effects were brought about by others. In Study 1, participants thought pleasant or aversive videos would elicit stronger reactions when participants themselves (instead of the random determination of a computer) selected the video for others. In Study 2, participants who considered how to divide (vs. how a computer would randomly split) $10 with another thought the other would react particularly positively or negatively to the self’s particularly generous or stingy allocations, respectively. The two studies found support for one of two possible mechanistic accounts. When the self was responsible for the selection, it experienced the stimuli as more affectively intense, thus explaining the bias. It was not the case that all intentional agents (e.g., another participant) were assumed to have more affective impact.
Keywords: social cognition, affective forecasting, egocentrism, emotional distancing, projection
Scientific misconduct in China: Offending researchers could face restrictions on jobs, loans and business opportunities under a system tied to the controversial social credit policy
China introduces ‘social’ punishments for scientific misconduct. David Cyranoski. Nature, Dec 14 2018. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07740-z
Offending researchers could face restrictions on jobs, loans and business opportunities under a system tied to the controversial social credit policy.
Researchers in China who commit scientific misconduct could soon be prevented from getting a bank loan, running a company or applying for a public-service job. The government has announced an extensive punishment system that could have significant consequences for offenders — far beyond their academic careers.
Under the new policy, dozens of government agencies will have the power to hand out penalties to those caught committing major scientific misconduct, a role previously performed by the science ministry or universities. Errant researchers could also face punishments that have nothing to do with research, such as restrictions on jobs outside academia, as well as existing misconduct penalties, such as losing grants and awards.
[...]
The policy, announced last month, is an extension of the country’s controversial ‘social credit system’, where failure to comply with the rules of one government agency can mean facing restrictions or penalties from other agencies.
The punishment overhaul is the government’s latest measure to crack down on misconduct. But the nature and extent of the policy has surprised many researchers. “I have never seen such a comprehensive list of penalties for research misconduct elsewhere in the world,” says Chien Chou, a scientific integrity education researcher at Chiao Tung University in Taiwan.
Although some penalties for misconduct existed before the new policy — research programmes can be suspended; offenders can be barred from promotions — drawing them together under one framework makes them much more powerful, says Yang Wei, the former head of the National Science Foundation of China who is now a researcher at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou.
“This sends a clear signal that curbing misconduct should go beyond the academic community or individual morality. Legal punishment can be also applied,” says Li Tang, who studies science policy at Fudan University in Shanghai.
Whether the system will reduce misconduct will depend on how it is enforced, say some researchers. Others, including Chen, are certain it will work. “Without doubt, it will be effective,” he says.
Big brother
The social credit system, which was introduced in 2014, has had a large effect on life in the country. Failure to pay debts or fines can be recorded on the system’s website and lead to restrictions when applying for a credit card, insurance, or even train tickets.
As of April, the number of times people were denied airline tickets as a result of the system reached 11 million, and train tickets were denied on 4.2 million occasions. More than two million people have paid debts or fines after facing these restrictions.
President Xi Jinping described the rational for the system at a meeting of the Chinese Communist Party in 2016 as: “Lose trust in one area, face restrictions everywhere.”
The new misconduct policy also refers to “loss of trust”. And those who commit scientific misconduct will now be named and shamed on the social credit system’s website.
Misconduct focus
Chinese leaders have been increasingly focused on scientific misconduct, following ongoing reports of researchers there using fraudulent data, falsifying CVs and faking peer reviews. In May, the government announced sweeping reforms to improve research integrity. One of those was the creation of a national database of misconduct cases. Inclusion on the list could disqualify researchers from future funding or research positions, and might affect their ability to get jobs outside academia.
The punishment system appears to chime with that goal. “It shows that China takes research integrity very seriously,” says Max Lu, a chemical engineer and president of the University of Surrey in Guildford, UK, , who has previously advised the Chinese government on science policy.
Lu thinks the system’s success will depend on how it is enforced. “There is always the risk of lacking the necessary resources and qualified managers for enforcing the very draconian and large number of rules,” he says.
[...]
Offending researchers could face restrictions on jobs, loans and business opportunities under a system tied to the controversial social credit policy.
Researchers in China who commit scientific misconduct could soon be prevented from getting a bank loan, running a company or applying for a public-service job. The government has announced an extensive punishment system that could have significant consequences for offenders — far beyond their academic careers.
Under the new policy, dozens of government agencies will have the power to hand out penalties to those caught committing major scientific misconduct, a role previously performed by the science ministry or universities. Errant researchers could also face punishments that have nothing to do with research, such as restrictions on jobs outside academia, as well as existing misconduct penalties, such as losing grants and awards.
[...]
The policy, announced last month, is an extension of the country’s controversial ‘social credit system’, where failure to comply with the rules of one government agency can mean facing restrictions or penalties from other agencies.
The punishment overhaul is the government’s latest measure to crack down on misconduct. But the nature and extent of the policy has surprised many researchers. “I have never seen such a comprehensive list of penalties for research misconduct elsewhere in the world,” says Chien Chou, a scientific integrity education researcher at Chiao Tung University in Taiwan.
Although some penalties for misconduct existed before the new policy — research programmes can be suspended; offenders can be barred from promotions — drawing them together under one framework makes them much more powerful, says Yang Wei, the former head of the National Science Foundation of China who is now a researcher at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou.
“This sends a clear signal that curbing misconduct should go beyond the academic community or individual morality. Legal punishment can be also applied,” says Li Tang, who studies science policy at Fudan University in Shanghai.
Whether the system will reduce misconduct will depend on how it is enforced, say some researchers. Others, including Chen, are certain it will work. “Without doubt, it will be effective,” he says.
Big brother
The social credit system, which was introduced in 2014, has had a large effect on life in the country. Failure to pay debts or fines can be recorded on the system’s website and lead to restrictions when applying for a credit card, insurance, or even train tickets.
As of April, the number of times people were denied airline tickets as a result of the system reached 11 million, and train tickets were denied on 4.2 million occasions. More than two million people have paid debts or fines after facing these restrictions.
President Xi Jinping described the rational for the system at a meeting of the Chinese Communist Party in 2016 as: “Lose trust in one area, face restrictions everywhere.”
The new misconduct policy also refers to “loss of trust”. And those who commit scientific misconduct will now be named and shamed on the social credit system’s website.
Misconduct focus
Chinese leaders have been increasingly focused on scientific misconduct, following ongoing reports of researchers there using fraudulent data, falsifying CVs and faking peer reviews. In May, the government announced sweeping reforms to improve research integrity. One of those was the creation of a national database of misconduct cases. Inclusion on the list could disqualify researchers from future funding or research positions, and might affect their ability to get jobs outside academia.
The punishment system appears to chime with that goal. “It shows that China takes research integrity very seriously,” says Max Lu, a chemical engineer and president of the University of Surrey in Guildford, UK, , who has previously advised the Chinese government on science policy.
Lu thinks the system’s success will depend on how it is enforced. “There is always the risk of lacking the necessary resources and qualified managers for enforcing the very draconian and large number of rules,” he says.
[...]
People significantly mispredict the consequences of honesty: focusing on it (but not kindness or communication-consciousness) is more pleasurable, meaningful, socially connecting, & does less relational harm than expected
Levine, Emma, and Taya R. Cohen. 2018. “You Can Handle the Truth: Mispredicting the Consequences of Honest Communication.” PsyArXiv. December 14. doi:10.1037/xge0000488
Abstract: People highly value the moral principle of honesty, and yet, they frequently avoid being honest with others. In the present research, we explore the actual and predicted consequences of honesty in everyday life. We utilize field and laboratory experiments that feature two types of honesty interventions: 1) instructing individuals to focus on complete honesty across their interactions for a period of time, and 2) instructing individuals to engage in specific honest conversations that they frequently avoid in everyday life. In Studies 1a and 1b, we randomly assigned individuals to either be (or imagine being) honest, kind, or conscious of their communication in every conversation with every person in their life for three days. We find that people significantly mispredict the consequences of honesty: focusing on honesty (but not kindness or communication-consciousness) is more pleasurable, meaningful, socially connecting, and does less relational harm than individuals expect. We extend our investigation by examining the consequences of specific well-controlled honest conversations for both communicators and their relational partners in two preregistered laboratory experiments. In Study 2 we examine the predicted and actual consequences of honestly disclosing personal information, and in Study 3 we examine the predicted and actual consequences of honestly sharing negative feedback. Our results suggest that individuals broadly misunderstand the consequences of increased honesty because they overestimate how negatively others will react to their honesty. Overall, this research contributes to our understanding of affective forecasting processes and uncovers fundamental insights on how communication and moral values shape well-being.
Abstract: People highly value the moral principle of honesty, and yet, they frequently avoid being honest with others. In the present research, we explore the actual and predicted consequences of honesty in everyday life. We utilize field and laboratory experiments that feature two types of honesty interventions: 1) instructing individuals to focus on complete honesty across their interactions for a period of time, and 2) instructing individuals to engage in specific honest conversations that they frequently avoid in everyday life. In Studies 1a and 1b, we randomly assigned individuals to either be (or imagine being) honest, kind, or conscious of their communication in every conversation with every person in their life for three days. We find that people significantly mispredict the consequences of honesty: focusing on honesty (but not kindness or communication-consciousness) is more pleasurable, meaningful, socially connecting, and does less relational harm than individuals expect. We extend our investigation by examining the consequences of specific well-controlled honest conversations for both communicators and their relational partners in two preregistered laboratory experiments. In Study 2 we examine the predicted and actual consequences of honestly disclosing personal information, and in Study 3 we examine the predicted and actual consequences of honestly sharing negative feedback. Our results suggest that individuals broadly misunderstand the consequences of increased honesty because they overestimate how negatively others will react to their honesty. Overall, this research contributes to our understanding of affective forecasting processes and uncovers fundamental insights on how communication and moral values shape well-being.
Effects of the mere presence of conspecifics on the motor performance of rats: Higher speed and lower accuracy, as it happens in humans
Effects of the mere presence of conspecifics on the motor performance of rats: Higher speed and lower accuracy. Yayoi Sekiguchi, Toshimichi Hata. Behavioural Processes, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2018.12.012
Highlights
• The mere presence of a conspecific lowered the performance accuracy of rats.
• The mere presence of a conspecific accelerated the speed of motor performance.
• Such changes in motor performance in rats were similar to those seen in humans.
Abstract: Many studies on humans and animals have shown that the mere presence of another individual or individuals accelerates the motor performance speed of the subject individual. However, it has not been well investigated whether the mere presence of another individual affects the accuracy of motor performance in animals. In this study, we developed a novel task (run-and-pull task) to simultaneously investigate both the speed and accuracy of motor performance in rats and examined the effect of the mere presence of another rat on the task performance of the subject rat. Rats were first trained in isolation to run a runway and then pull a lever on the terminal end of the runway. After training, the subject rats were required to perform the task in isolation (Single) or in front of a non-competitive confederate rat without direct interaction (Pair). The results showed that the latency to start running and to pull the lever were shorter and the accuracy of the lever-pull movement was lower in the Pair condition than in the Single condition. These findings suggest that the mere presence of another individual increased the speed and decreased the accuracy of the motor performance of rats.
Highlights
• The mere presence of a conspecific lowered the performance accuracy of rats.
• The mere presence of a conspecific accelerated the speed of motor performance.
• Such changes in motor performance in rats were similar to those seen in humans.
Abstract: Many studies on humans and animals have shown that the mere presence of another individual or individuals accelerates the motor performance speed of the subject individual. However, it has not been well investigated whether the mere presence of another individual affects the accuracy of motor performance in animals. In this study, we developed a novel task (run-and-pull task) to simultaneously investigate both the speed and accuracy of motor performance in rats and examined the effect of the mere presence of another rat on the task performance of the subject rat. Rats were first trained in isolation to run a runway and then pull a lever on the terminal end of the runway. After training, the subject rats were required to perform the task in isolation (Single) or in front of a non-competitive confederate rat without direct interaction (Pair). The results showed that the latency to start running and to pull the lever were shorter and the accuracy of the lever-pull movement was lower in the Pair condition than in the Single condition. These findings suggest that the mere presence of another individual increased the speed and decreased the accuracy of the motor performance of rats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
