Explore the vast range of titles available.

Citizen scientists play an increasingly important role in biodiversity monitoring. Most of the data, however, are unstructured—collected by diverse methods that are not documented with the data. Insufficient understanding of the data collection processes presents a major barrier to the use of citizen science data in biodiversity research. We developed a questionnaire to ask citizen scientists about their decision-making before, during and after collecting and reporting species observations, using Germany as a case study. We quantified the greatest sources of variability among respondents and assessed whether motivations and experience related to any aspect of data collection. Our questionnaire was answered by almost 900 people, with varying taxonomic foci and expertise. Respondents were most often motivated by improving species knowledge and supporting conservation, but there were no linkages between motivations and data collection methods. By contrast, variables related to experience and knowledge, such as membership of a natural history society, were linked with a greater propensity to conduct planned searches, during which typically all species were reported. Our findings have implications for how citizen science data are analysed in statistical models; highlight the importance of natural history societies and provide pointers to where citizen science projects might be further developed.

Past studies have shown that being exposed to ethnocultural diversity can positively impact individual creativity. Yet, little is known about the interplay between situational (i.e., diversity) and dispositional (e.g., personality) factors in predicting creativity. Taking a person-situation approach, we use social network data to test the moderating role of personality in the relationship between having an ethnoculturally diverse network and creativity. Moreover, we investigate these questions in a diverse community sample of immigrants residing in the city of Barcelona (N = 122). Moderation analyses revealed that network diversity predicted higher levels of creativity in migrant individuals with medium to high levels of extraversion, and in those with low to medium levels of emotional stability. These results highlight the need to acknowledge the important role played by interacting individual-level dispositions and more objective meso-level contextual conditions in explaining one’s ability to think creatively, especially in samples that have traditionally been underrepresented in previous literature.

Ikizer and Ramirez-Esparza (2017) reported a study suggesting that bilingualism may have a positive impact on people's social skills. They found that a) bilinguals scored higher on a scale that is supposed to reveal social flexibility, and that b) they also report having social interactions more frequently than monolinguals. The authors relate this advantage in social flexibility to the need of exercising language switching in bilingual speakers. In this commentary, we argue that their arguments are not theoretically sound and that their observations are not compelling enough to reach this conclusion.