Explore the vast range of titles available.

Given the ubiquity of exploration in everyday life, researchers from many disciplines have developed methods to measure exploratory behaviour. There are therefore many ways to quantify and measure exploration. However, it remains unclear whether the different measures (i) have convergent validity relative to one another, (ii) capture a domain general tendency, and (iii) capture a tendency that is stable across time. In a sample of 678 participants, we found very little evidence of convergent validity for the behavioural measures (Hypothesis 1); most of the behavioural measures lacked sufficient convergent validity with one another or with the self-reports. In psychometric modelling analyses, we could not identify a good fitting model with an assumed general tendency to explore (Hypothesis 2); the best fitting model suggested that the different behavioural measures capture behaviours that are specific to the tasks. In a subsample of 254 participants who completed the study a second time, we found that the measures had stability across an 1 month timespan (Hypothesis 3). Therefore, although there were stable individual differences in how people approached each task across time, there was no generalizability across tasks, and drawing broad conclusions about exploratory behaviour from studies using these tasks may be problematic. The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 2nd December 2022 https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21717407.v1 . The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/64QJU . Exploratory behaviours involve a trade-off between exploration and exploitation. Here the authors investigate exploration behaviour across different domains and whether tendency to explore is stable over time.

Research in intertemporal decisions shows that people value future gains less than equivalent but immediate gains by a factor known as the discount rate (i.e., people want a premium for waiting to receive a reward). A robust phenomenon in intertemporal decisions is the finding that the discount rate is larger for small gains than for large gains, termed the magnitude effect. However, the psychological underpinnings of this effect are not yet fully understood. One explanation proposes that intertemporal choices are driven by comparisons of features of the present and future choice options (e.g., information on rewards). According to this explanation, the hypothesis is that the magnitude effect is stronger when the absolute difference between present and future rewards is emphasized, compared to when their relative difference is emphasized. However, this hypothesis has only been tested using one task (the two-choice paradigm) and only for gains (i.e., not losses). It’s therefore unclear whether the findings that support the hypothesis can be generalized to different methodological paradigms (e.g., preference matching) and to the domain of losses. To address this question, we conducted experiments using the preference-matching method whereby the premium amounts that people could ask for were framed in terms of either currencies (emphasizing absolute differences) or percentages (emphasizing relative differences). We thus tested the robustness of the evidence in support of the hypothesis that percent framing, relative to currency framing, attenuates the magnitude effect in the domain of gains (Studies 1, 2, and 3) and in the domain of losses (Study 1, 3, and 4). The data were heavily skewed and the assumption of equal variances was violated. Therefore, in place of parametric statistical tests, we calculated and interpreted parametric and nonparametric standardized and unstandardized effect size estimates and their confidence intervals. Overall, the results support the hypothesis.

Social and behavioural scientists have attempted to speak to the COVID-19 crisis. But is behavioural research on COVID-19 suitable for making policy decisions? We offer a taxonomy that lets our science advance in ‘evidence readiness levels’ to be suitable for policy. We caution practitioners to take extreme care translating our findings to applications.

The Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW) is a stimulus set that provides researchers with English language words that have been pre-rated on bipolar scales for valence, dominance, and arousal. Researchers rely on these pre-ratings to ensure that the words they select accurately reflect the affective responses these words elicit. Each word has a valence rating reflecting the degree to which people experience the word as positive or negative, with midpoint ratings on this scale presumably reflecting neutrality. However, neutral words tend to vary substantially in arousal, suggesting that not all neutral words are the same. Some researchers account for this by using the bipolar valence ratings in conjunction with the arousal ratings, selecting low-arousal neutral words when neutrality is what they seek. We argue that the varying levels of arousal in neutral words is due to varying levels of ambivalence. However, the idea that midpoint valence ratings for ANEW stimuli may hide varying levels of ambivalence has not yet been examined. This article provides evidence that words in the ANEW that appear neutral actually vary markedly in the levels of ambivalence they elicit and that this is related to their levels of arousal. These findings are relevant for research, past and present, that use the ANEW because ambivalence has different psychological consequences than neutrality, and therefore complicates the ability to draw clear inferences and maintain experimental control.

Research shows that people’s self-reports may be biased by an initial elevation phenomenon in which ratings are higher the first time that people take a survey as compared to the second and subsequent times. Apart from the fact that this phenomenon exists, and that it might bias ratings for negative subjective experiences more strongly than positive ones, little else is known. In the present study, we examined whether the initial elevation phenomenon occurs for commonly used trait measures, such as ratings on personality inventories and life satisfaction. We hypothesized that the initial elevation phenomenon may be associated with the (un)desirability of the content of the self-report items such that scores for undesirable facets would show initial elevation and scores for desirable facets would show the reverse. We tested this in an online convenience sample (N = 3,329) using 5 facets of a personality inventory and a single item measure of life satisfaction. Our hypotheses were not supported. Our findings suggest that at least for online convenience samples, ratings on personality inventories and life satisfaction are not strongly impacted by initial elevation.

In some fields of research, psychologists are interested in effect sizes that are large enough to make a difference to people’s subjective experience. Recently, an anchor-based method using a global rating of change was proposed as a way to quantify the smallest subjectively experienced difference—the smallest numerical difference in the outcome measure that, on average, corresponds to reported changes in people’s subjective experience. According to the method, the construct of interest is measured on two occasions (Time 1 and Time 2). At Time 2, people also use an anchor-item to report how much they experienced a change in the construct. Participants are then categorized as those who stayed the same, those who changed a lot, and those who changed a little. The average change score for those who changed a little is the estimate of the smallest subjectively experienced difference. In the present study, I examined two aspects of the method’s validity. First, I tested whether presenting the anchor-item before or after the Time 2 outcome measure influences the results. The results suggest that any potential influence of the anchor-position, assuming there is an influence, is likely to be small. Second, I examined the anchor-item’s validity correlations when the delay between Time 1 and 2 is one day to also see if the pattern is similar to past research where the delay was two and five days. The observed pattern of validity correlations was very similar. I note directions for future research.

Research in intertemporal decisions shows that people value future gains less than equivalent but immediate gains by a factor known as the discount rate (i.e., people want a premium for waiting to receive a reward). A robust phenomenon in intertemporal decisions is the finding that the discount rate is larger for small gains than for large gains, termed the magnitude effect. However, the psychological underpinnings of this effect are not yet fully understood. One explanation proposes that intertemporal choices are driven by comparisons of features of the present and future choice options (e.g., information on rewards). According to this explanation, the hypothesis is that the magnitude effect is stronger when the absolute difference between present and future rewards is emphasized, compared to when their relative difference is emphasized. However, this hypothesis has only been tested using one task (the two-choice paradigm) and only for gains (i.e., not losses). It's therefore unclear whether the findings that support the hypothesis can be generalized to different methodological paradigms (e.g., preference matching) and to the domain of losses. To address this question, we conducted experiments using the preference-matching method whereby the premium amounts that people could ask for were framed in terms of either currencies (emphasizing absolute differences) or percentages (emphasizing relative differences). We thus tested the robustness of the evidence in support of the hypothesis that percent framing, relative to currency framing, attenuates the magnitude effect in the domain of gains (Studies 1, 2, and 3) and in the domain of losses (Study 1, 3, and 4). The data were heavily skewed and the assumption of equal variances was violated. Therefore, in place of parametric statistical tests, we calculated and interpreted parametric and nonparametric standardized and unstandardized effect size estimates and their confidence intervals. Overall, the results support the hypothesis.

In response to recommendations to redefine statistical significance to P ≤ 0.005, we propose that researchers should transparently report and justify all choices they make when designing a study, including the alpha level.

This research investigated how the Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII) related to musculoskeletal issues in adults. It used a cross-sectional design with a sample of 3477 female and 3572 male participants aged 35 to 65 from the Ravansar Non-Communicable Diseases cohort study in western Iran. The DII is calculated from a Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) to measure dietary intake. Musculoskeletal disorders including back pain, back pain/stiffness, joint pain, and joint pain/stiffness were evaluated by the RaNCD cohort study physician using a standard questionnaire. Logistic regression analysis examined the association between DII and musculoskeletal disorders. The findings demonstrated a positive association between higher DII scores and back pain/stiffness (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04–1.73, P = 0.047). Furthermore, DII displayed a significant association with a heightened odd to joint pain (OR 1.26, CI 1.10–1.46) when compared to those with lower DII scores (Q3 vs. Q1). After adjusting for cofounding factors, the Q3 DII quintile participants showed a 44% higher odd of experiencing joint pain/stiffness (OR 1.44, CI 1.01–2.05, P = 0.047). However, the study found no significant association between back pain and DII (P > 0.05). In conclusion, the research suggests that consuming a pro-inflammatory diet might be linked to developing musculoskeletal issues in adults.

Background Hyperglycemia and hypertriglyceridemia, two key elements of insulin resistance, are linked with developing kidney dysfunction. The Triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index, composed of blood lipids and glucose, may help assess the risk of kidney dysfunction. This study aimed to clarify the effect of TyG on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reduction in adults in western Iran. Methods This cross-sectional study involved a total of 9,661 participants, aged 35 to 65 years, drawn from the Ravansar Non-Communicable Diseases (RaNCD) cohort. Among these, 1,044 individuals were identified with chronic kidney disease (CKD), while 8,617 were classified as healthy. The triglyceride-glucose index (TyG) was calculated using the formula ln [triglyceride (mg/dL) × fasting plasma glucose (mg/dL)/2]. Additionally, an eGFR less than of 60 ml/min per 1.73 m² was employed to indicate kidney dysfunction. Results 48% of participants were male, and 40.14% were from rural areas. The prevalence of reduced eGFR was 10.81%. Compared to the first quartile, the fourth had significantly higher rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and dyslipidemia ( P  < 0.001). The odds of kidney dysfunction (eGFR reduction) were 47% in the third quartile (OR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.20, 1.81) and 75% in the fourth quartile (OR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.42, 2.17), significantly higher than those in the first quartile of the TyG index (P trend < 0.001), after adjustment for confounding factors. Conclusion Lipid and glucose imbalances may be markers for decreased kidney function, and it is recommended that patients with such imbalances be screened for kidney disease.