“I Made It Work”: How Using a Self-Assembled Product Increases Task Performance

“I Made It Work”: How Using a Self-Assembled Product Increases Task Performance. Sören Köcher, Keith Wilcox. Journal of Consumer Psychology, June 14 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1262

Abstract: Although it is well established that consumers have an increased valuation for self-assembled products, less is known about how using such products influences objective consumption outcomes. Across three experiments, the current research demonstrates that consumers perform better on tasks when they use a product they have self-assembled—as opposed to an identical but ready-to-use product. We show that this effect results from an increase in self-efficacy and rule out possible alternative accounts (i.e., product efficacy beliefs, performance motivation, feelings of psychological ownership, and product liking). In addition, we demonstrate that the self-assembly effect emerges only when consumers actually use the self-assembled product, is robust when product assembly requires different amounts of time and effort, and is not merely the result of a question-behavior effect. Theoretical contributions and opportunities for future research are discussed.

General Discussion

Across three experiments, we demonstrate that using a self-assembled product to execute a task improves performance on the task; an effect that results from an increase in self-efficacy. These findings contribute to prior literature on the consequences of consumers’ involvement in product creation processes (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2015; Norton et al., 2012; Walasek et al., 2017) by broadening our understanding of how product assembly influences consumption outcomes. Although our findings are consistent with research on self-customization, we find that the product assembly effect is the result of an increase in self-efficacy, rather than the desire to affirm identity as suggested by prior research on self-customization (Kaiser et al., 2017). To provide further support that the effect of product assembly operates through a different process, we conducted a follow-up experiment where we examined how using a self-assembled (vs. self-customized) product influences task performance when people can and cannot affirm identity. Consistent with the findings of Kaiser et al. (2017), the results show that consumers perform best when they use a self-customized product and can affirm (vs. not affirm) their identity. In contrast, when consumers use a self-assembled product, their performance is not affected by whether they can affirm identity (see Web Appendix F for study details). Moreover, the results show that assembling a product has a negligible effect on how self-expressive the product is (M = 1.32 on a seven-point scale). These findings suggest that self-expression and the desire to affirm identity, which are important drivers of the self-customization effect, do not appear to play a role in the self-assembly effect.

Our findings offer several directions for future research. The current work demonstrates that making a product functional by assembling it enhances consumers’ sense of self-efficacy and performance. Yet, future research is necessary to fully understand why this effect is conditioned on the actual use of the product. Although we suggest that this is because the self-assembled product is a symbol of competence, it is also possible that this finding is the result of magical thinking on the part of the consumer that only allows self-efficacy to spillover when the assembled product is used. Moreover, it remains unclear whether other actions taken to make a product usable beyond assembly could evoke a similar effect. For instance, would simply mixing the ingredients of a protein shake lead people to have a better workout? In a similar vein, prior research on ritualistic behavior (Brooks et al., 2016; Wang, Sun, & Kramer, 2021) shows that engaging in rituals prior to a task can improve task performance, which research has suggested (Hobson, Schroeder, Risen, Xygalatas, & Inzlicht, 2018), but not empirically demonstrated, could be due to an increase in self-efficacy. Through this lens, product assembly could be viewed as a form of ritualistic behavior that increases self-efficacy. Nevertheless, future research is necessary to fully examine the relationship between rituals and product assembly.

Moreover, our findings suggest that self-efficacy may not be the only mediator of the observed effect. Thus, further research could explore additional factors that may play a role in the process. For instance, it is possible that consumers feel more responsible for performance outcomes when they use a self-assembled product, which could improve their task performance.

In addition, it is worth investigating whether the strength of the effect is dependent on consumers’ a priori self-efficacy in the domain. For instance, the effect of using a self-assembled pen on consumers’ anagram task performance may be less pronounced among consumers who are generally confident in their ability to solve anagrams. In a similar vein, since some consumers may not be confident in their ability to assemble products, using a successfully assembled product could evoke stronger feelings of self-efficacy in such consumers. In addition, the time and effort required to assemble the products used in our experiments was relatively low. Thus, future research could explore conditions wherein product assembly becomes too effortful and demanding such that the favorable consequences may vanish.

Finally, throughout the studies reported in this article, we only examined first use situations, an approach that is widely used in the related literature. However, because self-assembled products are often used more than once in real life, future studies may want to examine whether the detected effects persist when products are used over an extended period. This could be particularly interesting for products that need to be assembled each time before they are used (e.g., professional pool cues). If product assembly becomes a ritual established through repetition each time the product is used, the effect on self-efficacy could be reinforced and intensified over time (Hobson et al., 2018). However, it could also be argued that consumers may habituate to the assembly process, which may limit its impact over the long term.

Nonreligiosity and Life Satisfaction: Reexamining a Supposedly Negative Relationship

Pöhls, Katharina  (2021). Nonreligiosity and Life Satisfaction: Reexamining a Supposedly Negative Relationship. PhD thesis, Universität zu Köln. Jun 2021. https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/50458/

Abstract: Most previous research seems to indicate that nonreligiosity is related to disadvantages, e.g., a lower level of life satisfaction. This dissertation, consisting of a literature review and two empirical studies, calls a general negative link into question. In the literature review, several conceptual and methodological issues of most previous research on this topic were identified. In contrast, no or only small differences in the level of life satisfaction between religious and nonreligious individuals can be found, if empirical studies utilize multidimensional conceptualizations of (non)religiosity, representative samples with a substantial number of nonreligious individuals, a differentiation between (non)religious subgroups, include relevant context factors, and/or test for both linear and nonlinear relationships between the variables. The first empirical study examined the relationship between (non)religious self-identification and life satisfaction in a quantitative intercultural comparison across 24 countries worldwide (N=33,879). The results indicate that only in religious societies, identifying as not religious or atheist is related to lower life satisfaction than high religiosity. When the fit between individual and country characteristics was controlled for, a curvilinear relationship between (non)religiosity and life satisfaction emerged, as only weakly religious individuals were less satisfied with life than highly religious individuals. In the second empirical study, the relationship between an individual’s kind of (non)belief, nihilism, and life satisfaction was researched in a representative German sample (N=3,212) with a quantitative comparative design between four (non)religious groups. Only uncertainty what to believe in was related to nihilism, while atheists were not more likely to indicate nihilistic tendencies than theists, suggesting a curvilinear relationship between (non)religiosity and nihilism. Atheists were slightly less satisfied with life than theists, but an individual’s (non)belief was only weakly related to his or her life satisfaction. Thus, the findings of this dissertation further challenge the idea of a universal benefit of religiosity for an individual’s life satisfaction and provide implications for future research on this topic.

What do couples’ activities and behaviors on Instagram reveal about the quality of their relationships?

Picture perfect? Examining associations between relationship quality, attention to alternatives, and couples’ activities on Instagram. Liesel L. Sharabi, Annamariah Hopkins. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, February 3, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521991662

Abstract: What do couples’ activities and behaviors on Instagram reveal about the quality of their relationships? To answer this question, we surveyed couples (N = 178) about their perceptions of their relationships and analyzed 3,270 of their recent Instagram posts. Actor and partner effects were found between relational quality and engagement with the relationship on Instagram (i.e., the number of couple pictures and partner-initiated likes and comments). There were also actor effects of attention to Instagram alternatives on the perceived quality and actual pursuit of alternative partners, as well as a partner effect on alternative quality. The findings contribute to extending the investment model to the digital age and have methodological implications for understanding relationship dynamics on visual social network sites.

Keywords: Alternatives, Instagram, investment model, relationship quality, social network sites

Greater conformity to traditional gender roles predicted more frequent consumption of beef and chicken and lower openness to vegetarianism among men but offered no predictive value among women

Gender differences in meat consumption and openness to vegetarianism. Daniel L. Rosenfeld, A. Janet Tomiyama. Appetite, Volume 166, November 1 2021, 105475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105475

Abstract: Understanding gender differences in meat consumption can help strengthen efforts to improve the sustainability of eating patterns. Compared to women, men eat more meat and are less open to becoming vegetarian. Simply considering between-gender differences, however, may overlook meaningful within-gender heterogeneity in how masculine and feminine identities associate with eating behavior. Distinguishing between specific types of meat is also important, given that some meats (e.g., beef) pose greater challenges to sustainability than do other meats. Through a highly powered, preregistered study (N = 1706), we investigated the predictive value of traditional gender role conformity and gender identity centrality for meat consumption frequency and openness to becoming vegetarian. Greater conformity to traditional gender roles predicted more frequent consumption of beef and chicken and lower openness to vegetarianism among men but offered no predictive value among women. No effects were observed for pork or fish consumption. Among women, greater traditional gender role conformity and gender identity centrality were associated with openness to becoming vegetarian for health reasons. Among men, lower traditional gender role conformity was associated with openness to becoming vegetarian for environmental reasons. These findings suggest that understanding meat consumption calls for greater distinctions between specific types of meat as well as deeper consideration of within-gender heterogeneity.

Keywords: MeatVegetarianismEating behaviorGenderSustainability

Check also People tend to belittle the extent of their meat consumption to mitigate the cognitive dissonance triggered by the meat paradox:

Meat‐related cognitive dissonance: The social psychology of eating animals. Hank Rothgerber,  Daniel L. Rosenfeld. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, April 7 2021. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2021/04/people-tend-to-belittle-extent-of-their.html

Regularly drinking alcohol & drinking with meal is significantly associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality, cancer mortality, or other-cause mortality

Alcohol Consumption Levels as Compared With Drinking Habits in Predicting All-Cause Mortality and Cause-Specific Mortality in Current Drinkers. Hao Ma et al. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Volume 96, Issue 7, July 2021, Pages 1758-1769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.02.011

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the joint associations of amounts of alcohol consumed and drinking habits with the risks of all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality.

Patients and Methods: A total of 316,627 healthy current drinkers, with baseline measurements between March 13, 2006, and October 1, 2010, were included in this study. We newly created a drinking habit score (DHS) according to regular drinking (frequency of alcohol intake ≥3 times/wk) and whether consuming alcohol with meals (yes).

Results: During a median follow-up of 8.9 years, we documented 8652 incident cases of all-cause death, including 1702 cases of cardiovascular disease death, 4960 cases of cancer death, and 1990 cases of other-cause death. After adjustment confounders and amount of alcohol consumed, higher DHS was significantly associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality, cancer mortality, or other-cause mortality (Ptrend<.001, Ptrend=.03, Ptrend<.001, and Ptrend<.001, respectively). We observed that the amount of alcohol consumed have different relationships with the risks of all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality among participants with distinct drinking habits, grouped by DHS. For example, in the joint analyses, a J-shaped association between the amount of alcohol consumed and all-cause mortality was observed in participants with unfavorable DHS (Pquadratic trend=.02) while the association appeared to be U-shaped in participants with favorable DHS (Pquadratic trend=.003), with lower risks in those consuming greater than or equal to 50 g/wk and less than 300 g/wk.

Conclusion: Our results indicate that alcohol consumption levels have different relationships with the risk of mortality among current drinkers, depending on their drinking habits.

Sex differences in risk taking: Our findings suggest that sensitivity to rewards, associated with resting-state theta oscillations in the anterior cingulate cortex, is a trait that potentially contributes to those sex differences

Resting-State Theta Oscillations and Reward Sensitivity in Risk Taking. Maria Azanova, Maria Herrojo Ruiz, Alexis V. Belianin, Vasily Klucharev and Vadim V. Nikulin. Front. Neurosci., April 28 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.608699

Abstract: Females demonstrate greater risk aversion than males on a variety of tasks, but the underlying neurobiological basis is still unclear. We studied how theta (4–7 Hz) oscillations at rest related to three different measures of risk taking. Thirty-five participants (15 females) completed the Bomb Risk Elicitation Task (BRET), which allowed us to measure risk taking during an economic game. The Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale (DOSPERT) was used to measure self-assessed risk attitudes as well as reward and punishment sensitivities. In addition, the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS11) was included to quantify impulsiveness. To obtain measures of frontal theta asymmetry and frontal theta power, we used magnetoencephalography (MEG) acquired prior to task completion, while participants were at rest. Frontal theta asymmetry correlated with average risk taking during the game but only in the female sample. By contrast, frontal theta power correlated with risk taking as well as with measures of reward and punishment sensitivity in the joint sample. Importantly, we showed that reward sensitivity mediated a correlation between risk taking and the power of theta oscillations localized to the anterior cingulate cortex. In addition, we observed significant sex differences in source- and sensor-space theta power, risk taking during the game, and reward sensitivity. Our findings suggest that sensitivity to rewards, associated with resting-state theta oscillations in the anterior cingulate cortex, is a trait that potentially contributes to sex differences in risk taking.

Discussion

Using resting-state MEG recordings and three distinct measures of risk attitudes, we show that sex differences in risk taking are associated with reward sensitivity, which, in turn, are linked to resting-state ACC theta oscillations (Figure 8). On the behavioral level, males were more sensitive to rewards than females. Game-based measures of risk taking showed significant sex differences and also correlated with self-reported expected benefits of risky actions (DOSPERT benefits scores). On the neural level, rsFTA explained average risk taking during the repeated game exclusively in the female subsample. By contrast, in the whole sample, rsFT correlated with first-trial risk taking and also with DOSPERT benefit and risk scores, indicating an association with reward and punishment sensitivity. Finally, due to a refined spatial specificity, theta power localized to the ACC correlated with outcome sensitivities and game-based measures of risk taking even more strongly than the rsFT did. The findings suggest that resting-state ACC activity is a possible source of sex differences in reward sensitivity, and, consequently, in risk taking.

[Figure 8. Visualization of the main findings. MEG, magnetoencephalography; ACC, anterior cingulate cortex; DOSPERT, Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale; BIS11, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Significant correlations are reported after FDR adjustment.]

Behavioral Measures

The DOSPERT benefits subscale significantly correlated with both average and first-trial risk taking, converging with previous studies (Weber et al., 2002; Hanoch et al., 2006; Fukunaga et al., 2018). Further, self-assessed reward sensitivity demonstrated a greater correlation with first-trial than with average risk taking, indicating that sensitivity to outcomes could affect the former more (Erev et al., 2008; Lejarraga and Gonzalez, 2011). Absence of correlations between BIS11 scores and performance on decision-making tasks is in line with the literature (Gomide Vasconcelos et al., 2014; Lauriola et al., 2014; Reddy et al., 2014; Hüpen et al., 2019).

We observed significant sex differences in first-trial and average risk taking during the game, which was expected based on the extensive literature on sex differences in decision-making under uncertainty (e.g., Jianakoplos and Bernasek, 1998; Weber et al., 2002; Charness and Gneezy, 2012; Zhou et al., 2014). Notably, however, Crosetto and Filippin (2013) did not report significant sex differences in their versions of BRET. This discrepancy could be explained by the use of repeated trials or more salient financial incentives in our task. Furthermore, it has been observed earlier that some measures reveal that females are more risk-averse than males, while others are not (e.g., Charness et al., 2013; Filippin and Crosetto, 2016). Our finding that there was no significant sex difference in DOSPERT likelihood scores supports this observation.

As for the reward and punishment sensitivities, we observed that on average males scored higher than females on the DOSPERT benefits subscale. Previous studies also reported sex differences in outcome sensitivities based on DOSPERT (Weber et al., 2002; Hanoch et al., 2006; Lee and Jeong, 2013) and other measures (Li et al., 2007; Cross et al., 2011). In line with previous studies, we found no significant sex differences in impulsivity (Kamarajan et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2012; Lee and Jeong, 2013). Summarizing the facts presented above, behavioral evidence from the current work suggests that sensitivity to outcomes, rather than impulsivity, is a candidate trait that could explain sex differences in risk attitudes.

Frontal Theta Asymmetry (rsFTA)

Analysis of the MEG oscillatory activity showed no significant sex differences in rsFTA, converging with previous EEG work (Ocklenburg et al., 2019). Therefore, as predicted, we simultaneously observed (1) sex differences in risk taking based on game performance and (2) no sex differences in the neural trait previously associated with this decision-making characteristic.

We found a significant positive correlation of rsFTA with average risk taking exclusively in the female subsample, confirming earlier findings in female populations by Gianotti et al. (2009). Average and first-trial risk taking in the game did not correlate with rsFTA in the joint sample, which is in contrast with the result of Studer et al. (2013). However, Studer et al. (2013) did not report sex-specific results, and this study contained 70% of females, which, according to our findings, could bias the result obtained for the joint sample. Because regression analyses demonstrated significant effects of rsFTA on average risk taking in the game and because we observed correlation coefficients of rsFTA with measures of risk taking (although insignificant) comparable in magnitude to previous work with larger samples (Studer et al., 2013), a possible interpretation is that we were not able to reliably detect significant non-parametric associations between rsFTA and risk taking for the whole sample due to the limited sample size.

Higher rsFTA may be associated with the lower relative right frontal activity, and thus the prevalence of left frontal activity (Gianotti et al., 2009; Studer et al., 2013), which is partially supported by previously observed negative associations between theta power and cortical activity (Oakes et al., 2004; Scheeringa et al., 2008). Additional evidence that frontal lateralization is related to risk taking comes from stimulation studies, focused on the role of right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in decision-making (Knoch et al., 2006; Fecteau et al., 2007a, b; Cho et al., 2010; Sela et al., 2012). Furthermore, several studies reported sex differences in the involvement of the right and left frontal cortices in decision-making (Bolla et al., 2004; Tranel et al., 2005; Neo and McNaughton, 2011). Our findings contribute to the evidence that sex may interact with frontal asymmetry in relation to risk taking, but this requires further testing.

Theta Power

We found a strong association between rsFT and theta power in the ACC. This outcome is consistent with previous dipole-fitting studies that revealed possible sources of rsFT in the ACC (Asada et al., 1999; Scheeringa et al., 2008; Clemens et al., 2010). The association between the power of neuronal oscillations and the degree of cortical activation is a subject of ongoing research, but an emerging pattern is that stronger alpha oscillations are typically associated with weaker cortical activity (e.g., Oakes et al., 2004). Previous work indicated a similar relationship for theta oscillations, but the evidence is not particularly strong. Oakes et al. (2004) showed some negative associations between EEG theta oscillations and fMRI BOLD signals. However, these associations were positive in some clusters of voxels, such as in one in the insular region. While Scheeringa et al. (2008) did find a negative association between rsFT and metabolic activity in the ACC, a more detailed interpretation of our results regarding cortical sources and their function would require follow-up studies using combined EEG-fMRI.

Risk Taking

We report on the existence of the significant positive correlation between rsFT and first-trial risk taking. Two previous studies did not find correlations of rsFT with risk taking (Massar et al., 2012; Studer et al., 2013). There are three notable similarities between their experimental designs that differentiate them from our paradigm. First, both studies introduced losses in the task either explicitly or via a safe gamble (Ert and Erev, 2013). Second, they forced participants to choose between two gambles with the same expected value (Massar et al., 2012) or with very similar expected values (Studer et al., 2013). Third, the computation of expected values of gambles in tasks used by Massar et al. (2012) and Studer et al. (2013) was straightforward. Therefore, differences in experimental designs associated with values and presentation of options might have affected the observed correlations between rsFT and risk taking.

All observed correlations for rsFT were even stronger for the ACC theta power, and it also significantly correlated with average risk taking in the game. It is an expected result. If rsFT originates at the level of the ACC (Asada et al., 1999; Scheeringa et al., 2008; Clemens et al., 2010), then the results would be more pronounced at the source level compared to the sensor level due to the contamination of sensor-level activity from other less relevant sources. Thus, our findings are aligned with the extensive neuroimaging research demonstrating the involvement of the ACC in decisions under risk (Paulus and Frank, 2006; Christopoulos et al., 2009; Hewig et al., 2009; Mohr et al., 2010; Schonberg et al., 2012; Fukunaga et al., 2018).

Reward and Punishment Sensitivity

Additionally, we found strong correlations of self-assessed punishment (DOSPERT risks) and reward (DOSPERT benefits) sensitivities with rsFT and the ACC theta power. Few previous studies examined associations between rsFT or ACC activity at rest and outcome sensitivity. Our findings contribute to the evidence that rsFT is related to outcome sensitivity (Massar et al., 2012, 2014). Regarding theta oscillations and ACC activity during tasks, both measures have previously been associated with reactions to rewards and punishments (Debener et al., 2005; Cohen et al., 2007; Kamarajan et al., 2008; Santesso et al., 2011; Crowley et al., 2014; Van Duijvenvoorde et al., 2014). Research in humans (Gehring and Willoughby, 2002; Wang et al., 2005; Iannaccone et al., 2015) and primates (Tsujimoto et al., 2010; Womelsdorf et al., 2010; Babapoor-Farrokhran et al., 2017; Taub et al., 2018) singled out theta ACC activity as a source of signals associated with feedback and behavioral adjustment. Our results further extend this literature.

Sex Differences

We found significant sex differences in rsFT. However, evidence from previous studies is mixed. Zappasodi et al. (2006) also used MEG and reported the presence of sex differences in resting-state theta power. Other studies used EEG and reported no significant sex differences (Jaušovec and Jaušovec, 2010; Gmehlin et al., 2011; Kober and Neuper, 2011; Banis et al., 2014), or higher theta power in females compared to males (Clarke et al., 2001; Kamarajan et al., 2008; Osinsky et al., 2017). We examined the demographic characteristics of participants in these studies and did not find a pattern that could account for such inconsistent results. One possibility is that sex difference in skull conductivities affects EEG recordings but not MEG (Huttunen et al., 1999).

Sex differences in the resting-state ACC theta power were even more pronounced. It is in line with the diverse evidence from previous studies that demonstrated sex differences associated with this region (Goldstein et al., 2001; Markham and Juraska, 2002; Zhou et al., 2014). These sex differences may be linked to levels of testosterone and its effects on midbrain dopaminergic pathways (Johnson et al., 2010). On the one hand, activity of the ACC is associated with dopaminergic projections from the midbrain (Holroyd and Coles, 2002), and dopaminergic genetic polymorphisms correlate with risk taking and also with amplitudes of FRN (Heitland et al., 2012). On the other hand, higher levels of testosterone are associated with risk taking (Apicella et al., 2008; Stanton et al., 2011) and also with outcome sensitivity (Van Honk et al., 2004). Therefore, baseline ACC activity may be linked to sex differences in outcome sensitivity and, consequently, risk taking. It should be noted, however, that the previous literature on sex differences in either rsFT or resting ACC theta activity is rather scarce. Accordingly, validation of the current results in future MEG and combined MRI-EEG studies will be necessary.

Noticeably, a mediation analysis allowed us to formally test the hypothesis that sex differences in risk taking may be mediated by reward sensitivity via resting-state theta oscillations in the ACC. The results revealed that reward sensitivity assessed via DOSPERT benefits scores mediated the effects of resting-state ACC theta oscillations on average and first-trial risk taking in the game. Furthermore, structural equation modeling demonstrated that the indirect pathway of the effect of sex on first-trial risk taking via the ACC theta power and DOSPERT benefits scores was significant; it fully accounted for the overall impact of sex on first-trial risk taking. Therefore, even though there may be other confounding variables, reward sensitivity is a candidate trait for explaining sex differences in risk taking where resting-state ACC activity is a potential contributing mechanism.

Finally, regression analysis demonstrated that rsFTA and sex captured significantly different portions of variance in task performance, while ACC theta power explained variance due to sex. Therefore, if we only had information about rsFTA we would not be able to explain variability in risk taking of participants associated with their sex, while this can be done based on resting ACC theta power. Interestingly, Weis et al. (2020) have recently shown that sex classification based on resting-state connectivity of ACC can be done with 74.4% accuracy. In addition, results of regression analysis showed that average performance in the game was explained best when including both rsFTA and ACC theta power before the game (as opposed to including only one of these characteristics), which further highlights a possibility for functionally distinct involvement of these neural traits in risk-taking. Future research is required to clarify this question.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. An important drawback of our experiment is not controlling for the menstrual cycle phase of female participants. This could have confounded our results because cortical activity is affected by menstrual cycle phase and blood estrogen level (Dietrich et al., 2001; Hausmann, 2005). Furthermore, we had a relatively small sample size (35), a higher number of males compared to females (20/15), and a rather young group of participants. Due to this limitation, we could not reliably detect correlations of risk-taking measures with neural traits in male and female subsamples separately (although technically it is possible). Thus, we were mostly interpreting results relating to the joint sample as a whole. Our findings necessitate further research with larger samples, separately for males and females. Nevertheless, power analysis suggests that our joint sample was sufficient to detect correlation coefficients of 0.45 or higher. Reliability of our results was further confirmed by replicating significant results based on resting-state recordings after the game. Another limitation is that we did not have individual MRI of participants which could have improved our source-modeling results even further. Finally, it must be noted that the study was correlational, and thus we could not establish direct causal links—this critique, however, applies to almost all EEG/MEG studies.

Coding ethnographic texts on reputations from 153 cultures, found that reputational domains vary cross-culturally, yet reputations for cultural conformity, prosociality, social status, and neural capital are widespread

Garfield, Zachary H., Ryan Schacht, Emily R. Post, Dominique Ingram, Andrea Uehling, and Shane Macfarlan. 2021. “The Content and Structure of Reputation Domains Across Human Societies: A View from the Evolutionary Social Sciences.” OSF Preprints. July 2. doi:10.31219/osf.io/mk4wq

Abstract: Reputations are an essential feature of human sociality, critical for the evolution of cooperation and group living. Much scholarship has focused on reputations, yet typically on a narrow range of domains (e.g., prosociality, aggressiveness), usually in isolation. Humans can develop reputations, however, from any collective information. We conducted exploratory analyses on the content, distribution, and structure of reputation domain diversity across cultures, using the Human Relations Area Files ethnographic database. After coding ethnographic texts on reputations from 153 cultures, we used hierarchical modelling, cluster analysis, and text analysis to provide an empirical view of reputation domains across societies. Findings suggest: 1) reputational domains vary cross-culturally, yet reputations for cultural conformity, prosociality, social status, and neural capital are widespread; 2) reputation domains are more variable for males than females; and 3) particular reputation domains are strongly interrelated, demonstrating a structure consistent with dimensions of human uniqueness. We label these reputational features: Cultural group unity, Dominance, Sexuality, Social and material success, and Supernatural healing. Ultimately, through this work, we highlight the need for future research on the evolution of cooperation and human sociality to consider a wider range of reputation domains, as well as their patterning by social, ecological, and gender-specific pressures.

Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisis

Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health crisis. Jim A. C. Everett et al. Nature Human Behaviour, Jul 1 2021. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01156-y

Abstract: Trust in leaders is central to citizen compliance with public policies. One potential determinant of trust is how leaders resolve conflicts between utilitarian and non-utilitarian ethical principles in moral dilemmas. Past research suggests that utilitarian responses to dilemmas can both erode and enhance trust in leaders: sacrificing some people to save many others (‘instrumental harm’) reduces trust, while maximizing the welfare of everyone equally (‘impartial beneficence’) may increase trust. In a multi-site experiment spanning 22 countries on six continents, participants (N = 23,929) completed self-report (N = 17,591) and behavioural (N = 12,638) measures of trust in leaders who endorsed utilitarian or non-utilitarian principles in dilemmas concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. Across both the self-report and behavioural measures, endorsement of instrumental harm decreased trust, while endorsement of impartial beneficence increased trust. These results show how support for different ethical principles can impact trust in leaders, and inform effective public communication during times of global crisis.

Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised a number of moral dilemmas that engender conflicts between utilitarian and non-utilitarian ethical principles. Building on past work on utilitarianism and trust, we tested the hypothesis that endorsement of utilitarian solutions to pandemic dilemmas would impact trust in leaders. Specifically, in line with suggestions from previous work and case studies of public communications during the early stages of the pandemic, we predicted that endorsing instrumental harm would decrease trust in leaders, while endorsing impartial beneficence would increase trust. Experiments conducted during November–December 2020 in 22 countries across six continents (total N = 23,929; valid sample for self-report task 17,591; valid sample for behavioural task 12,638) provided robust support for our hypothesis. In the context of five realistic pandemic dilemmas, participants reported lower trust in leaders who endorsed instrumental sacrifices for the greater good and higher trust in leaders who advocated for impartially maximizing the welfare of everyone equally. In a behavioural measure of trust, only 28% of participants preferred to vote for a utilitarian leader who endorsed instrumental harm, while 60% voted for an impartially beneficent utilitarian leader. These findings were robust to controlling for a variety of demographic characteristics as well as participants’ own policy preferences regarding the dilemmas. Although we observed some variation in effect sizes across the countries we sampled, the overall pattern of results was highly robust across countries. Our results suggest that endorsing utilitarian approaches to moral dilemmas can both erode and enhance trust in leaders across the globe, depending on the type of utilitarian morality.

We designed our set of dilemmas to rule out several alternative explanations for our findings, such as a general preference for less restrictive leaders (Supplementary Note 7), leaders who treat everyone equally (Supplementary Note 8) and leaders who seek to minimize COVID-19-related deaths (Supplementary Note 9). In addition, all of our results survived planned robustness checks to account for the possibility that local policies related to lockdowns or contact tracing could bias participants’ responses. Post hoc analyses demonstrated that our findings were highly consistent across the different dilemmas for instrumental harm (Lockdown, Tracing and Ventilators) and impartial beneficence (Medicine and PPE).

While the robustness of our findings across countries speaks to their broad cultural generalizability, further work is needed to understand the observed variations in effect sizes across countries. It seems plausible that both economic (for example, gross domestic product or socio-economic inequality) and cultural (for example, social network structure) differences across countries could explain some of the observed variations. One possibility, for example, is that country-level variations in tightness–looseness72, which have been associated with countries’ success in limiting cases in the COVID-19 pandemic73, might moderate the effects of moral arguments on trust in leaders. Another direction for future research could be to explore how country-level social network structure might influence our results. Individuals in countries with a higher kinship index74 and a more family-oriented social network structure, for example, might be less likely to trust utilitarian leaders, especially when the utilitarian solution conflicts with more local moral obligations.

There are several important limitations to the generalizability of our findings. First, although our samples were broadly nationally representative for age and gender (with some exceptions; see Results), we did not assess representativeness of our samples on a number of other factors including education, income and geographic location. Second, while our results do concord with the limited existing research examining the effects of endorsing instrumental harm and impartial beneficence on perceived suitability as a leader37, and held across different examples of our pandemic-specific dilemmas, it of course remains possible that different results would be seen when judging leaders’ responses in other types of crises (for example, violent conflicts, natural disasters or economic crises) or at different stages of a crisis (for example, at the beginning versus later stages). Third, the reported experiments tested how responses to moral dilemmas influenced trust in anonymous, hypothetical political leaders. In the real world, however, people form and update impressions of known leaders with a history of political opinions and behaviours, and it is plausible that inferences of trustworthiness depend not just on a leader’s recent decisions but also on their history of behaviour, just as classic work on impression formation shows that the same information can lead to different impressions depending on prior knowledge about the target person75. Furthermore, we did not specify the gender of the leaders in our experiments (except in the voting task for China and for the Hebrew and Arabic translations, where it is not possible to indicate ‘leader’ without including a gendered pronoun; here it was translated in the masculine form). Past work conducted in the United States suggests that participants may default to an assumption that the leader is a man76, but it will be important for future work to assess whether men and women leaders are judged differentially for their moral decisions. Because women are typically stereotyped as being warmer and more communal than men77, it is plausible that women leaders would face more backlash for making ‘cold’ utilitarian decisions, especially in the domain of instrumental harm. Fourth, because the current work focused on trust in political leaders, it remains unclear how utilitarianism would impact trust in people who occupy other social roles, such as medical workers or ordinary citizens. Fifth, and finally, it could be interesting to explore further the connection between impartial beneficence and intergroup psychology, especially with regards to teasing apart ‘impartiality’ and ‘beneficence’. For example, even holding beneficence constant, a leader who advocates for impartially sharing resources with a rival country may be perceived differently from one who impartially shares with an allied country (and, while speculative, this distinction might explain why Israel was an outlier in impartial beneficence, being a country in a region with ongoing local conflicts).

Our results have clear implications for how leaders’ responses to moral dilemmas can impact how they are trusted. In times of global crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders will necessarily face real, urgent and serious dilemmas. Faced with such dilemmas, decisions have to be made, and our findings suggest that how leaders make these judgements can have important consequences, not just for whether they are trusted on the issue in question but also more generally. Importantly, this will be the case even when the leader has little direct control over the resolution. While a national leader (for example, a president or prime minister) has the power and responsibility to resolve some moral dilemmas with policy decisions, not all political leaders (for example, as in our study, local mayors) have that power. A leader with little ability to directly impact the resolution of a moral dilemma might consider that voicing an opinion on that dilemma could reduce their credibility on other issues that they have more power to control.

To conclude, we investigated how trust in leaders is sensitive to how they resolve conflicts between utilitarian and non-utilitarian ethical principles in moral dilemmas during a global pandemic. Our results provide robust evidence that utilitarian responses to dilemmas can both erode and enhance trust in leaders: advocating for sacrificing some people to save many others (that is, instrumental harm) reduces trust, while arguing that we ought to impartially maximize the welfare of everyone equally (that is, impartial beneficence) increases trust. Our work advances understanding of trust in political leaders and shows that, across a variety of cultures, it depends not just on whether they make moral decisions but also which specific moral principles they endorse.

From an Evolutionary Perspective... Sex Differences in Voyeuristic and Exhibitionistic Interests: Exploring the Mediating Roles of Sociosexuality and Sexual Compulsivity

Sex Differences in Voyeuristic and Exhibitionistic Interests: Exploring the Mediating Roles of Sociosexuality and Sexual Compulsivity from an Evolutionary Perspective. Andrew George Thomas, Bridie Stone, Paul Bennett, Steve Stewart-Williams & Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Jul 6 2021. https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-01991-0

Abstract: Sociosexuality and sexual compulsivity predict sex differences in voyeuristic interest in the population. In this study, we used a sample of 1113 participants from the UK (46% men) to consider whether sociosexuality and sexual compulsivity interacted to explain these sex differences and whether this relationship extended to the related domain of exhibitionism. In doing so, we tested novel predictions derived from an evolutionary perspective which views voyeuristic and exhibitionistic interest as manifestations of a short-term mating strategy. Participants reported their levels of repulsion toward voyeurism and exhibitionism and their interest in performing such acts under different levels of risk. There were clear sex differences in voyeuristic and exhibitionistic repulsion that were partially mediated by the serial combination of sociosexuality and sexual compulsivity. Examining the sexes separately revealed qualitatively different relationships between sociosexuality and sexual compulsivity when predicting exhibitionistic, but not voyeuristic, repulsion. Combined, sociosexuality and sexual compulsivity also mediated the sex difference in willingness to commit acts of voyeurism, but not exhibitionism, which was equally low for both sexes. The results highlight the role sociosexuality plays in voyeuristic and exhibitionistic interest, which coupled with an evolutionary perspective, may have implications for how we view courtship disorders.

Discussion

Our investigation into the role of sociosexuality in voyeuristic and exhibitionistic interest yielded four key findings. (1) There were clear sex differences in voyeuristic and exhibitionistic repulsion within the normal population. (2) These differences were partially mediated by the serial combination of sociosexuality and sexual compulsivity. (3) There were sex-specific relationships between sociosexuality and sexual compulsivity when predicting exhibitionistic repulsion. Finally, (4) the sex differences and mediational role of sociosexuality and sexual compulsivity found for repulsion also applied to willingness to commit acts of voyeurism, but not exhibitionism. We now explore these findings in turn.

Sex Differences in Repulsion within the Normal Population

Most participants reported feelings of repulsion, rather than arousal, when thinking about voyeurism and exhibitionism. Yet, there was still variance among the sample, with some considering these acts either neutral or arousing. These individuals constituted approximately 29.7% and 8.9% of the sample for voyeurism and exhibitionism, respectively. These figures are fairly consistent with literature from other Western cultures (Ahlers et al., 2011; Joyal & Carpentier, 2017) though the proportion was a touch smaller for the latter and larger for the former. Importantly, we also found a sex difference: Men were less repulsed by the idea of voyeurism and exhibitionism, on average, than women were. These differences were large in the case of voyeurism and medium in the case of exhibitionism, which is in line with previous research in other countries (Dawson et al., 2016; Iwawaki & Wilson, 1983; Makanjuola et al., 2008; Oliveira Júnior & Abdo, 2010). When sex differences in mating interests and motivations transcend cultural boundaries and persist across a variety of contexts, this suggests that their development is fairly canalized (Thomas et al., 2020). Thus, it is important to consider what insights evolutionary theory may provide when investigating such differences.

Sociosexuality and Sexual Compulsivity as Partial Mediators

Using mediation analyses, we found that a combination of sociosexuality and sexual compulsivity accounted for a large portion of the sex difference in voyeuristic (31%) and exhibitionistic (56%) repulsion. These findings complement previous research which has demonstrated that paraphilic interests are linked to sociosexuality and are partially mediated by sexual compulsivity (Dawson et al., 2016).

Uniquely, we used a model that specified a serial relationship between sociosexuality and sexual compulsivity, with the former driving the latter. This prediction was grounded in evolutionary thinking (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000) that views sociosexuality as a proxy for mating strategy. From this perspective, the long evolutionary history of sexual asymmetry in the reproductive costs and benefits associated with short-term mating has led men to develop a greater interest in it on average. Indeed, the sex difference in sociosexual desire is among one of the largest found in psychology (d = 0.88 in the present study). Thus, one’s sex impacts one’s mating strategy, which in turn leads to the activation of psychological adaptations designed to facilitate that strategy, including increased sexual compulsion and greater arousal at the thought of engaging in spontaneous sexual acts with strangers. Together, these findings have implications for the way we view some courtship disorders. If sex differences in voyeuristic and exhibitionistic interests are a consequence of sex differences in sociosexuality, then men may be better represented among those with extreme versions of such interests (i.e., those with paraphilic disorders) because moderate sex differences in means translate into large sex differences at the extremes (Stewart-Williams & Thomas, 2013a).

An evolutionary approach to this issue also allows us to make predictions about what should influence voyeuristic and exhibitionistic repulsion. For example, if these interests reflect mating strategy, then we would expect them to covary with other factors associated with short-term mating. Thus, an evolutionary account of these phenomena would predict attitudes toward voyeurism to be more relaxed when resources are abundant or in stressful environments where the benefits of paternal investment are lower (Quinlan, 2007; Thomas & Stewart-Williams, 2018). There is also scope to explore the role mating strategy plays in other sex differences, such as responses to visual sexual stimuli. As in the present study, we might expect sociosexuality to mediate this difference and that responses to visual sexual stimuli may moderate interest in voyeuristic or exhibitionistic activity (Rupp & Wallen, 2008).

Of course, a major premise of this study is that sociosexuality is a reliable proxy of short-term mating strategy. This assumption is not unique to our study, and others have used sociosexuality as a proxy for mating effort (e.g., Dawson et al., 2016). We chose the SOI-R as our key measure because it is one of the most widely used and validated measures of the preference for uncommitted sex. Yet, the use of this measure comes with limitations, it forces us to assume that short- and long-term strategies lie on a spectrum rather than being activated separately (Thomas & Stewart-Williams, 2018) and it neglects to measure the time and resources dedicated to mating effort (Albert et al., 2021). Future research could use a wider array of measures to assess whether similar patterns are observed when using different proxies of mating strategy and reproductive success. Other measures of sex drive should also be considered to overcome some of the limitations of the SCS. At its core, the scale captures the extent to which sexual thoughts and behaviors interfere with one’s daily life. While research using the scale demonstrates its usefulness as a measure of individual difference in the general population (e.g., Carvalho et al., 2015; Muise et al., 2013), it is possible that other measures of sex drive would capture more variance. Finally, while we recorded repulsion toward a large array of paraphilia through use of the Paraphilia Scale (Seto et al., 2012), we only sought to explain sex differences in the two for which we had a priori hypotheses. It may be worth considering what evolutionary insights might bring to other paraphilia, unrelated to the early stage of courtship process in the future. Those involving elements of control (e.g., sadism and masochism), for example, may reflect other evolved aspects of our mating psychology such as paternity certainty and mate guarding (Goetz et al., 2008).

Sex-Specific Patterns of Predictors

We expected both voyeuristic and exhibitionistic repulsion to have similar relationships with sociosexuality and sexual compulsion as they share a common root in their spontaneous and opportunistic approach to courtship. Our sex-specific models revealed that sociosexuality was a positive predictor of repulsion for both acts in men and women alike. However, we did find some variation in the role of sexual compulsivity in predicting exhibitionistic repulsion. For men, sociosexuality predicted unique variance in exhibitionistic repulsion even when controlling for sexual compulsivity, while for women sexual compulsivity fully mediated the effect of sociosexuality. Given our theoretical stance that sexual compulsivity is primarily a product of mating strategy rather than the cause, the results can be interpreted as follows: Men with unrestricted sociosexuality find exhibitionism more appealing for reasons that include but are not limited to their increased drive toward sex. Unrestricted women, in contrast, find exhibitionism more appealing because of their increased sexual compulsivity. Together, this suggests that the way in which mating strategy gives rise to exhibitionistic interest may be more nuanced for men than women, possibly reflecting different selection pressures.

From Feelings to Action

When participants actually considered committing acts of voyeurism, they were heavily influenced by the risk of getting caught. However, a sex difference also emerged that reached its peak (d = 0.27) when risk was negligible. This sex by risk interaction was not found in previous studies, likely due to low power (Rye & Meaney, 2007). This effect size indicates that sex differences in voyeuristic interest decrease when moving from repulsion toward anticipated action. When we controlled for sociosexuality and sexual compulsivity, this sex difference disappeared. Thus, while these two variables only partially mediate repulsion, they fully mediate anticipated action. Put another way, the combination of sociosexuality and sexual compulsivity is only one of several explanatory factors of the sex difference in voyeuristic repulsion, but is the key factor when explaining willingness to engage in a voyeuristic act.

The findings for exhibitionism were markedly different. Sex differences at the level of repulsion were not replicated when examining anticipated action. Essentially, there was a large floor effect with both sexes showing considerably less interest in performing an act of exhibitionism. While a small effect of risk was found, there were no sex differences to explain. Previous research has shown sex differences in general paraphilic behavior to be moderated by sexual compulsivity (Bouchard et al., 2017). Our findings highlight the importance of considering paraphilia separately as this relationship may not generalize across all behaviors, even when they fall within similar domains (i.e., courtship).

Interest in exhibitionistic behavior increases (as do sex differences) when the definition is expanded to include more passive behavior, such as performing sexual acts with a partner in locations where a stranger is likely to see (Joyal & Carpentier, 2017) rather than actively exposing oneself to a stranger. Thus, repeating the task using this context might reveal sex differences. If so, this would suggest that willingness to commit these acts depends on the level of involvement as well as risk. Future research may also want to consider more contemporary exhibitionistic behavior—such as sending a digital photograph of one’s genitalia to an opposite sex stranger (an increasingly common practice; Mandau, 2020).

The present study aimed to determine whether there is a relationship between superstition and the placebo effect, and whether this relationship affects human cognition and behaviour

The role of superstition in the placebo effect on memory performance. Sieun An, Viraj Dhiren Malani & Aanchal Setia. Cognitive Processing, Jul 6 2021. https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10339-021-01025-6

Abstract: Superstitions and the placebo effect have each been found to influence human behaviour. The present study aimed to determine whether there is a relationship between superstition and the placebo effect, and whether this relationship affects human cognition and behaviour. We hypothesized that more superstitious people would be more prone to the placebo effect and that it would improve their performance on cognitive tasks. Results showed that in the placebo condition, more superstitious people memorized more words than less superstitious people. However, in the control condition, less superstitious people memorized more words than more superstitious people. Overall, the findings supported our hypothesis. The findings of the study are important, as they draw a link between the placebo effect and superstition, and further show that these two elements impact human performance in cognitive ability tasks.

The Reasons People Think About Staying and Leaving Their Romantic Relationships: A Mixed-Method Analysis

The Reasons People Think About Staying and Leaving Their Romantic Relationships: A Mixed-Method Analysis. Laura V. Machia, Brian G. Ogolsky. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, November 5, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220966903

Abstract: Across three studies (total N = 993) with diverse methodologies (i.e., experimental studies, longitudinal in vivo sampling), we found that there are distinct reasons why individuals believe their romantic relationship will become, or did become, less committed, and reasons why individuals believe their relationships will become, or became, more committed. Whereas the strongest endorsed reasons to stay (e.g., satisfaction) are the same as the strongest endorsed reasons to leave (e.g., dissatisfaction), there are many constructs that are more strongly endorsed as either leave reasons (e.g., quality of alternatives) or stay reasons (e.g., love). These reasons are important glimpses into the process that occurs when someone is deciding whether to stay or leave a relationship, and results empirically confirm a core tenet of Interdependence Theory that until now has been only theoretical (i.e., some outcomes contribute more motivation to staying in the current relationship, whereas others contribute more motivation to leaving).

Keywords: romantic relationships, relationship breakup, decision-making, commitment, Interdependence Theory

Are High-Interest Loans Predatory? It is often argued that people might take on too much high-cost debt because they are present focused and/or overoptimistic about how soon they will repay

Are High-Interest Loans Predatory? Theory and Evidence from Payday Lending. Hunt Allcott, Joshua J. Kim, Dmitry Taubinsky & Jonathan Zinman. NBER Working Paper 28799. May 2021. DOI 10.3386/w28799

Abstract: It is often argued that people might take on too much high-cost debt because they are present focused and/or overoptimistic about how soon they will repay. We measure borrowers' present focus and overoptimism using an experiment with a large payday lender. Although the most inexperienced quartile of borrowers underestimate their likelihood of future borrowing, the more experienced three quartiles predict correctly on average. This finding contrasts sharply with priors we elicited from 103 payday lending and behavioral economics experts, who believed that the average borrower would be highly overoptimistic about getting out of debt. Borrowers are willing to pay a significant premium for an experimental incentive to avoid future borrowing, which we show implies that they perceive themselves to be time inconsistent. We use borrowers' predicted behavior and valuation of the experimental incentive to estimate a model of present focus and naivete. We then use the model to study common payday lending regulations. In our model, banning payday loans reduces welfare relative to existing regulation, while limits on repeat borrowing might increase welfare by inducing faster repayment that is more consistent with long-run preferences.

---

Critics argue that payday loans are predatory, trapping consumers in cycles of repeated high interest borrowing. A typical payday loan incurs $15 interest per $100 borrowed over two weeks, implying an annual percentage rate (APR) of 391 percent, and more than 80 percent of payday loans nationwide in 2011-2012 were reborrowed within 30 days (CFPB 2016). As a result of these concerns, 18 states now effectively ban payday lending (CFA 2019), and in 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) finalized a set of nationwide regulations. The CFPB’s then director argued that \the CFPB’s new rule puts a stop to the payday debt traps that have plagued communities across the country. Too often, borrowers who need quick cash end up trapped in loans they can’t afford" (CFPB 2017).

Proponents argue that payday loans serve a critical need: people are willing to pay high interest rates because they very much need credit. For example, Knight (2017) wrote that the CFPB regulation \will significantly reduce consumers’ access to credit at the exact moments they need it most." Under new leadership, the CFPB rescinded part of its 2017 regulation on the grounds that it would reduce credit access.

At the core of this debate is the question of whether borrowers act in their own best interest. If borrowers successfully maximize their utility, then restricting choice reduces welfare. However, if borrowers have self-control problems ("present focus," in the language of Ericson and Laibson 2019), then they may borrow more to finance present consumption than they would like to in the long run. Furthermore, if borrowers are "naive" about their present focus, overoptimistic about their future financial situation, or for some other reason do not anticipate their high likelihood of repeat borrowing, they could underestimate the costs of repaying a loan. In this case, restricting credit access might make borrowers better off.

---

We find that on average, people almost fully anticipate their high likelihood of repeat borrowing. The average borrower perceives a 70 percent probability of borrowing in the next eight weeks without the incentive, slightly lower than the Control group’s actual borrowing probability of 74 percent. Experience seems to matter. People who had taken out three or fewer loans from the Lender in the six months before the survey—approximately the bottom experience quartile in our sample—underestimate their future borrowing probability by 20 percentage points. By contrast, more experienced borrowers predict correctly on average

Police department in Washington State where neck restraints were 230 times over the previous eight years: Restraints yielded a lower rate of injury to subjects but a higher rate of injury to officers, & resulted in no subject fatalities

Use of vascular neck restraints in law enforcement: A case-study of Spokane, WA. Matthew J. Hickman, Robert M. Scales, Jared N. Strote &John L. Worrall. Police Practice and Research, Jul 5 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2021.1948849

Abstract: The high-profile deaths of Eric Garner and George Floyd have led to legislative actions banning the use of neck restraints by law enforcement officers. The debates behind these policy changes are important, but they are also entirely lacking in any data on the actual use of neck restraints. We write neither to defend nor condemn the use of neck restraints by law enforcement; rather, we seek to provide information to assist with data-driven decision-making about the technique. We present data from a police department in Washington State where, prior to the May 2021 statewide ban on use of neck restraints, officers had used them quite regularly: 230 times over the previous eight years. Results indicate that neck restraints were typically used when dealing with subjects who were physically non-compliant or actively resisting police were associated with use of other physical tactics (rather than weapons), yielded a lower rate of injury to subjects but a higher rate of injury to officers, and resulted in no subject fatalities.

Keywords: Police use of forcevascular neck restraintvnrlnrchokehold

Attractive individuals had a greater sense of power than their less attractive counterparts and thus exhibited a more effective nonverbal presence, which led to higher managerial ratings of their hirability

Is beauty more than skin deep? Attractiveness, power, and nonverbal presence in evaluations of hirability. Min-Hsuan Tu, Elisabeth K. Gilbert, Joyce E. Bono. Personnel Psychology, June 30 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12469

Abstract: It turns out that being good-looking really does pay off: decades of research have shown that attractive individuals are more likely to get ahead in their careers. Although prior research has suggested that bias on the part of evaluators is the source of attractive individuals’ favorable career outcomes, there is also evidence that these individuals may be socialized to behave and perceive themselves differently from others in ways that contribute to their success. Building on socialization research and studies on nonverbal power cues, we examined nonverbal communication in individuals with varying degrees of physical attractiveness. In two experimental studies with data from 300 video interview pitches, we found that attractive individuals had a greater sense of power than their less attractive counterparts and thus exhibited a more effective nonverbal presence, which led to higher managerial ratings of their hirability. However, we also identified a potential means for leveling this gap. Adopting a powerful posture was found to be especially beneficial for individuals rated low in attractiveness, enabling them to achieve the same level of effective nonverbal presence as their highly attractive counterparts naturally displayed. Our research sheds new light on the source of attractive individuals’ success and suggests a possible remedy for individuals who lack an appearance advantage.

Bankers already told us this repeatedly, & we scorned them: Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher capital requirements can create adverse incentives; sometimes it may be optimal to impose lower capital requirements

Limits of stress-test based bank regulation. Tirupam Goel and Isha Agarwal. BIS Working Papers No 953, July 6 2021. https://www.bis.org/publ/work953.htm

Abstract: Supervisory risk assessment tools, such as stress-tests, provide complementary information about bank-specific risk exposures. Recent empirical evidence, however, underscores the potential inaccuracies inherent in such assessments. We develop a model to investigate the regulatory implications of these inaccuracies. In the absence of such tools, the regulator sets the same requirement across banks. Risk assessment tools provide a noisy signal about banks' types, and enable bank specific capital surcharges, which can improve welfare. Yet, a noisy assessment can distort banks' ex ante incentives and lead to riskier banks. The optimal surcharge is zero when assessment accuracy is below a certain threshold, and increases with accuracy otherwise.

Summary

Focus: How should supervisory risk assessments, such as stress tests, inform bank regulation when such assessments provide imprecise signals? What trade-offs do regulators face when redesigning assessments to improve accuracy? Does the disclosure of assessment results improve the effectiveness of capital requirements? We develop a theoretical framework to investigate these questions. A key element of our framework is the impact of assessment accuracy on the future behaviour of banks. This, in turn, is crucial for the design of risk assessments and for subsequent decision-making about capital requirements.

Contribution: This paper strives to fill an apparent gap in the literature. Despite empirical evidence of noisy risk assessments, there is a lack of studies on what this noise implies for the effectiveness of capital requirements. We examine how capital regulation based on potentially inaccurate assessments affects banks' incentives to improve their risk profile, and derive the attendant optimal regulation. Our framework is robust and tractable. This also allows us to study trade-offs faced by regulators when making assessments more accurate and in disclosing results to investors. Moreover, we examine trade-offs involved in choosing optimal capital requirements when bank failure is socially costly.

Findings: Contrary to conventional wisdom, we show that higher capital requirements can create adverse incentives. This can lead to more risky banks when information frictions are present. As such, capital requirements must be less sensitive to assessment results when accuracy is lower. Where the regulator can enhance some aspects of accuracy only by worsening others, it may be optimal to impose lower capital requirements. We find that while disclosure of assessment outcomes can improve market discipline in general, when assessments are less accurate they can amplify risk-taking by banks. This further limits the effectiveness of capital requirements based on assessments. Regulatory trade-offs are aggravated when bank failures are more costly.

Keywords: capital regulation; stress-tests; information asymmetry; adverse incentives; disclosure policy; Covid-19.

JEL classification: G21, G28, C61