Many studies of animal culture overlook the possibility of individuals being able to develop behavioral forms without requiring social learning (naïve chimpanzees were provided the materials for wild pestle pounding behavior)

Individual acquisition of “stick pounding” behavior by naïve chimpanzees. Elisa Bandini, Claudio Tennie. American Journal of Primatology, May 13 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22987

Abstract: Many studies investigating culture in nonhuman animals tend to focus on the inferred need of social learning mechanisms that transmit the form of a behavior to explain the population differences observed in wild animal behavioral repertoires. This research focus often results in studies overlooking the possibility of individuals being able to develop behavioral forms without requiring social learning. The disregard of individual learning abilities is most clearly observed in the nonhuman great ape literature, where there is a persistent claim that chimpanzee behaviors, in particular, require various forms of social learning mechanisms. These special social learning abilities have been argued to explain the acquisition of the relatively large behavioral repertoires observed across chimpanzee populations. However, current evidence suggests that although low‐fidelity social learning plays a role in harmonizing and stabilizing the frequency of behaviors within chimpanzee populations, some (if not all) of the forms that chimpanzee behaviors take may develop independently of social learning. If so, they would be latent solutions—behavioral forms that can (re‐)emerge even in the absence of observational opportunities, via individual (re)innovations. Through a combination of individual and low‐fidelity social learning, the population‐wide patterns of behaviors observed in great ape species are then established and stably maintained. This is the Zone of Latent Solutions (ZLS) hypothesis. The current study experimentally tested the ZLS hypothesis for pestle pounding, a wild chimpanzee behavior. We tested the reinnovation of this behavior in semi‐wild chimpanzees at Chimfunshi Wildlife Orphanage in Zambia, Africa, (N = 90, tested in four social groups). Crucially, all subjects were naïve to stick pounding before testing. Three out of the four tested groups reinnovated stick pounding—clearly demonstrating that this behavioral form does not require social learning. These findings provide support for the ZLS hypothesis alongside further evidence for the individual learning abilities of chimpanzees.

HIGHLIGHTS
*  Naïve chimpanzees were provided the materials for wild pestle pounding behavior.
*  Chimpanzees spontaneously demonstrated the same behavioral form as wild counterparts.
*  Individual learning, contra to previous claims, is sufficient to drive this behavioral form in chimpanzees.

Consumers believe similar others would use the same products more often and would find them more useful than they themselves would; this is due to an overestimation of other people’s materialism

Ziano, Ignazio, and Daniel Villanova. 2019. “You’d Use It More Than Me: Overestimating Products’ Usefulness to Others Because of Self-serving Materialism Attributions.” PsyArXiv. May 14. doi:10.31234/osf.io/938m7

Abstract: Six experiments (total n = 3,552, four preregistered, three incentivized) show that consumers believe similar others would use the same products more often and would find them more useful than they themselves would. Overestimation of usefulness of the same product to others is caused by the overestimation of other people’s materialism: we find that this bias reverses when consumers estimate products’ usefulness for someone very low on materialism, and is muted for less materialistic purchases. Overestimation of usefulness is muted for well-known others, as estimation accuracy increases with personal knowledge. Our findings help explain the “X effect,” which is the belief that others are willing to pay more for products (Frederick 2012). These findings connect previously parallel literature streams about self-serving bias in social comparison and biases in self-other monetary evaluations. We discuss theoretical implications for consumers’ above and below average biases, materialism, and the X effect.  We discuss practical implications for pricing, negotiation, proxy decision-making, and gift-giving.

From 2017: The magnitude of pain sensitivity correlated with the extent to which participants experienced unfairness, due to the shared human alarm system of unfairness and pain sensitivity

From 2017: Individual differences in pain sensitivity predict the experience of unfairness. Haixia Wang, Kefeng Li, Xiaofei Xie. Journal of Health Psychology, January 5, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105316685902

Abstract: Pain has shaped our evolutionary history, and pain-free experiences are critical for our health. There are, however, enormous individual differences in pain sensitivity, and the psychological consequences of this heterogeneity are only poorly understood. Here, we investigated whether individual differences in pain sensitivity predicted the experience of unfairness. We found that the magnitude of pain sensitivity correlated with the extent to which participants experienced unfairness. This association was due to the shared human alarm system of unfairness and pain sensitivity. This finding may elucidate mechanisms for producing a new and positive cycle of a healthy experience between fairness and feeling pain-free.

Keywords: experience of unfairness, individual differences, pain sensitivity, pain threshold, pain tolerance

Perception of love regulation: Participants thought that they could exaggerate & suppress expressions of infatuation, attachment, & sexual desire, but that they could not start and stop infatuation and attachment, or start sexual desire

Perceived ability to regulate love. Kruti Surti, Sandra J. E. Langeslag. PLOS, May 13, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216523

Abstract: Research has shown that romantic love can be regulated. We investigated perceptions about love regulation, because these perceptions may impact mental health and influence love regulation application. Two-hundred eighty-six participants completed a series of items online via Qualtrics that assessed perceived ability to up- and down-regulate, exaggerate and suppress the expression of, and start and stop different love types. We also tested individual differences in perceived love regulation ability. Participants thought that they could up- but not down-regulate love in general and that they could up-regulate love in general more than down-regulate it. Participants thought that they could up-regulate infatuation less than attachment and sexual desire. Participants also thought that they could exaggerate and suppress expressions of infatuation, attachment, and sexual desire, but that they could not start and stop infatuation and attachment, or start sexual desire. The more participants habitually used cognitive reappraisal, the more they thought that they could up- and down-regulate infatuation and attachment and up-regulate sexual desire. The more participants were infatuated with their beloved, the more they thought that they could up- but not down-regulate infatuation, attachment, and sexual desire. Finally, participants thought that they could up- and down-regulate happiness more than infatuation These findings are a first step toward the development of psychoeducation techniques to correct inaccurate love regulation perceptions, which may improve mental health and love regulation in daily life.