Putting numbers to our happiness

Bryson, A. and MacKerron, G. (2017), Are You Happy While You Work?. Econ J, 127: 106–125. doi:10.1111/ecoj.12269

Abstract: Using a new data source permitting individuals to record their well-being via a smartphone, we explore within-person variance in individuals’ well-being measured momentarily at random points in time. We find paid work is ranked lower than any of the other 39 activities individuals can report engaging in, with the exception of being sick in bed. Precisely how unhappy one is while working varies significantly with where you work; whether you are combining work with other activities; whether you are alone or with others; and the time of day or night you are working.

Inequity aversion is observed in common marmosets

Inequity aversion is observed in common marmosets but not in marmoset models of autism induced by prenatal exposure to valproic acid. Miyuki Yasue et al. Behavioural Brain Research, Volume 343, 2 May 2018, Pages 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2018.01.013

Highlights
•    Male and female marmosets show inequity aversion.
•    Valproic acid-induced ASD animals did not respond negatively to inequity.
•    Marmoset models of ASD cared less about others’ reward conditions than controls.

Abstract: Humans and various nonhuman primates respond negatively to inequity not in their favor (i.e., inequity aversion), when inequity between two individuals is introduced. Common marmosets, a highly prosocial species, further discriminated between human actors who reciprocated in social exchanges, and those who did not. Conversely, marmoset models of autism, induced via prenatal exposure to valproic acid (VPA marmosets), did not discriminate. Interestingly, previous studies of inequity aversion in marmosets have produced negative results, or were limited to males. Recent studies suggest that inequity aversion is highly influenced by the tasks employed. Here we show inequity aversion in both male and female marmosets using a novel task which required a relatively long duration of response. Marmosets were required to hold a spoon for 2 s to receive a reward. Marmosets successfully performed the task when they observed an unfamiliar conspecific partner obtaining the same reward (equity test). However, when they witnessed the partner receiving a more attractive reward for equal effort (inequity test), unexposed marmosets, which were not exposed to either valproic acid or saline during the fetal period refused to respond. This inequity aversion was not observed in unexposed marmosets when the partner was absent. In contrast, marmosets with fetal exposure to valproic acid (VPA marmosets) successfully executed the task irrespective of their partners’ reward conditions. As prenatal exposure to valproic acid is a well-known procedure to induce autism spectrum disorder (ASD)-like behaviors in rodents, we propose that VPA marmosets failed to show inequity aversion due to weak social motivation or interest towards others.

Keywords: Animal model; Autistic spectrum disorder (ASD); Monkey; Inequity aversion; Prosocial behaviors; Valtroic acid (VPA); Marmosets

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Self-Control: Assessing Self-Control with the ASEBA Self-Control Scale

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Self-Control: Assessing Self-Control with the ASEBA Self-Control Scale. Yayouk E. Willems et al. Behavior Genetics, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-018-9887-1

Abstract: This study used a theoretically-derived set of items of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment to develop the Achenbach Self-Control Scale (ASCS) for 7–16 year olds. Using a large dataset of over 20,000 children, who are enrolled in the Netherlands Twin Register, we demonstrated the psychometric properties of the ASCS for parent-, self- and teacher-report by examining internal and criterion validity, and inter-rater and test–retest reliability. We found associations between the ASCS and measures of well-being, educational achievement, and substance use. Next, we applied the classical twin design to estimate the genetic and environmental contributions to self-control. Genetic influences accounted for 64–75% of the variance in self-control based on parent- and teacher-report (age 7–12), and for 47–49% of the variance in self-control based on self-report (age 12–16), with the remaining variance accounted by non-shared environmental influences. In conclusion, we developed a validated and accessible self-control scale, and show that genetic influences explain a majority of the individual differences in self-control across youth aged 7–16 years.