Notes

Peripartum Genital Symphysis Diastasis-Practical Guidelines.
This shows that, at least in a simple laboratory task, speakers rely more on cues in the partner's speech than corepresentation of their utterance content. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).False beliefs can spread within societies even when they are costly and when individuals share access to the same objective reality. Research on the cultural evolution of misbeliefs has demonstrated that a social context can explain what people think but not whether it also explains how people think. We shift the focus from the diffusion of false beliefs to the diffusion of suboptimal belief-formation strategies and identify a novel mechanism whereby misbeliefs arise and spread. We show that, when individual decision makers have access to the data-gathering behavior of others, the tendency to make decisions on the basis of insufficient evidence is amplified, increasing the rate of incorrect, costly decisions. We argue that this mechanism fills a gap in current explanations of problematic, widespread misbeliefs such as climate change denial. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).When people choose products based on online reviews, they show a "popularity bias," overweighting review sample size relative to rated quality. We propose a novel account of this effect based on a causal attribution process, whereby people often interpret larger samples as a proxy for product quality. To test the account, participants in two experiments were asked to rate their product preference based on online reviews showing mean quality scores and review sample sizes for pairs of products. When no explanation for different sample sizes was supplied, we replicated the popularity bias; the product with the larger sample was chosen, even when quality scores modestly favored the alternative. However, as predicted, when sample size differences were explained by a factor unrelated to quality (e.g., time on the market), the popularity bias was substantially reduced. We discuss the implications for models of choice based on social information. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).Loss aversion is a fundamental tenet of behavioral economics and has led to many real-world applications. These applications, and some laboratory studies, show that people perform better under loss-avoidance than under gain incentives. This increased performance under loss-avoidance incentives has ubiquitously been explained by the notion that loss aversion causes people to exert more effort to avoid losses than to obtain gains. Only limited work, however, has directly examined whether people indeed choose to exert more effort to avoid losses than to obtain gains. Our primary aim was therefore to test this proposition. In an experiment with adults (N = 32) and in a subsequent experiment with children and adolescents (N = 29), we found that participants indeed exerted more effort to avoid losses than to obtain numerically equivalent gains. The effect sizes were large, with the effect being evident for most individual participants. As a secondary aim, in the study with adults, we also investigated whether the greater effort to avoid losses related to loss aversion measured using a task involving choices between prospects. Unexpectedly, the greater effort to avoid losses persisted robustly even after controlling for the effects of loss aversion measured using the task involving choices between prospects. We discuss two possible interpretations for this finding our effort task may have been a more sensitive assessment of loss aversion than the task involving choices between prospects; alternatively, the processes underlying how much effort people choose to exert may partially differ from those engaged by choices between prospects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).Human faces and voices are rich sources of information that can vary in many different ways. Rituximab Most of the literature on face/voice perception has focused on understanding how people look and sound different to each other (between-person variability). However, recent studies highlight the ways in which the same person can look and sound different on different occasions (within-person variability). Across three experiments, we examined how within- and between-person variability relate to one another for social trait impressions by collecting trait ratings attributed to multiple face images and voice recordings of the same people. We find that within-person variability in social trait evaluations is at least as great as between-person variability. Using different stimulus sets across experiments, trait impressions of voices are consistently more variable within people than between people-a pattern that is only evident occasionally when judging faces. Our findings highlight the importance of understanding within-person variability, showing how judgments of the same person can vary widely on different encounters and quantify how this pattern differs for voice and face perception. The work consequently has implications for theoretical models proposing that voices can be considered "auditory faces" and imposes limitations to the "kernel of truth" hypothesis of trait evaluations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).From early in development, humans show a strong preference for members of their own groups, even in so-called minimal (i.e., arbitrary and unfamiliar) groups, leading to tremendous negative consequences such as outgroup discrimination and derogation. A better understanding of the underlying processes driving humans' group mindedness is an important first step toward fighting discrimination and inequality on a bigger level. Based on the assumption that minimal group allocation elicits the anticipation of future within-group cooperation, which in turn elicits ingroup preference, we investigate whether changing participants' anticipation from within-group cooperation to between-group cooperation reduces their ingroup bias. In the present set of five studies (overall N = 465) we test this claim in two different populations (children and adults), in two different countries (United States and Germany), and in two kinds of groups (minimal and social group based on gender). Results confirm that changing participants' anticipation of who they will cooperate with from ingroup to outgroup members significantly reduces their ingroup bias in minimal groups, though not for gender, a noncoalitional group.
Website: https://www.selleckchem.com/products/rituximab.html