What we regret most . . . and why

Which domains in life produce the greatest potential for regret, and what features of those life domains explain why? Using archival and laboratory evidence, the authors show that greater perceived opportunity within life domains evokes more intense regret. This pattern is consistent with previous publications demonstrating greater regret stemming from high rather than low opportunity or choice. A meta-analysis of 11 regret ranking studies revealed that the top six biggest regrets in life center on (in descending order) education, career, romance, parenting, the self, and leisure. Study Set 2 provided new laboratory evidence that directly linked the regret ranking to perceived opportunity. Study Set 3 ruled out an alternative interpretation involving framing effects. Overall, these findings show that people’s biggest regrets are a reflection of where in life they see their largest opportunities; that is, where they see tangible prospects for change, growth, and renewal

Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: a cautionary note

Regulatory focus theory distinguishes between two independent structures of strategic inclination, promotion versus prevention. However, the theory implies two potentially independent definitions of these inclinations, the self-guide versus the reference-point definitions. Two scales (the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire [Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3–23] and the General Regulatory Focus Measure [Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive and negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854–864]) have been widely used to measure dispositional regulatory focus. We suggest that these two scales align respectively with the two definitions, and find that the two scales are largely uncorrelated. Both conceptual and methodological implications are discussed

Dare to compare: fact-based versus simulation-based comparison in daily life

We examined the relative frequency of social, counter factual, past-temporal, and future-temporal comparison in daily life using an experience-sampling method, in which participants were randomly prompted to record thought samples using palmtop computers carried for two weeks. Comparative thought accounted for 12% of all thoughts, and all four comparison types occurred with equivalent frequency. Comparisons may be either fact-based (i.e., based on actuality, as in social and past-temporal comparison) or simulation-based (i.e., based on imagination, as in counterfactual and future-temporal comparison). Because the latter are more “unbounded,” and because greater perceived opportunity invites greater self-improvement, we predicted and found that counterfactual and future-temporal comparison were more likely to be upward (vs. downward) than social and past-temporal comparison. All comparison types focused on approach more than avoidance motives, except for counterfactuals, which showed equivalent focus on both. These findings reveal the prominence of comparative thought in daily life, and underscore the value an integrative theory that describes social, counter factual, or temporal comparison using a common theoretical platform

Praise for regret: people value regret above other negative emotions

What do people think about the emotion of regret? Recent demonstrations of the psychological benefits of regret have been framed against an assumption that most people find regret to be aversive, both when experienced but also when recalled later. Two studies explored lay evaluations of regret experiences, revealing them to be largely favorable rather than unfavorable. Study 1 demonstrated that regret, but not other negative emotions, was dominated by positive more than negative evaluations. In both Studies 1 and 2, although participants saw a great deal of benefit from their negative emotions, regret stood out as particularly beneficial. Indeed, in Study 2, regret was seen to be the most beneficial of 12 negative emotions on all five functions of: making sense of past experiences, facilitating approach behaviors, facilitating avoidance behaviors, gaining insights into the self, and in preserving social harmony. Moreover, in Study 2, individuals made self-serving ascriptions of regret, reporting greater regret experiences for themselves than for others. In short, people value their regrets substantially more than they do other negative emotions

Regret and behavior: comment on Zeelenberg and Pieters

Zeelenberg and Pieter's (2007) regret regulation theory 1.0 offers a synthesis that brings together concepts spanning numerous literatures. We have no substantive disagreement with their theory, but instead offer 3 observations to further aid regret researchers studying con- sumer decision making. First, the overall arch of any regret theory must be situated within an understanding of behavior regulation. Second, the distinction between regrets of action versus inaction is best understood in terms of motivational implications, particularly with regard to Higgin's (1998) distinction between promotion and prevention focus. Third, the opportunity principle offers a particularly clear means of summarizing the regulatory consequences of the regret experience. Regret is an emotion pivotal for decision making, and its cognitive under- pinning has and continues to be elucidated in research focusing on counter factual thinking

"Species traits as predictors of lepidopteran composition in restored and remnant tallgrass prairies"

Keith S. Summerville is a professor of Environmental Science in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at Drake University. He can be contacted at [email protected] ecologists are increasingly turning to the development of trait-filter models, which predict how evolved traits limit species membership within assemblages depending on existing abiotic or biotic constraints, as a tool to explain how species move from a regional species pool into a restored community. Two often untested assumptions of these models, however, are that species traits can reliably predict species' broadscale distribution and that the effects of traits on community membership do not vary between restored and remnant habitats. The goals of this study were to determine whether combinations of ecological traits predispose moth species toward recolonization of restored prairies and to assess the degree to which restored prairies contain moth assemblages comparable with prairie remnants. In 2004, we collected 259 moth species from 13 tallgrass prairie remnants and restorations in central Iowa. Principal components analysis (PCA) was used to identify significant combinations of ecological traits that were shared by groups of moth species. Logistic regression was then employed to test for significant effects of the trait combinations on the frequency of prairie sites occupied by moth species. PCA partitioned moth traits into four axes that explained a total of 81.6% of the variance. Logistic regression detected significant effects for all four PCA axes on the fraction of sites occupied by moths. Species frequently filtered from the regional species pool into prairies were those that had long flight periods and were multivoltine, displayed a feeding preference for legumes but not other forb families, and were regionally abundant but relatively small in body size. Ordination revealed significant differences in moth communities among prairies, suggesting that species traits and habitat characteristics likely interact to create observed patterns of species recolonization of restorations. Thus, the optimal approach to restoring the lepidopteran fauna of tallgrass prairies may involve locating prairie plantings adjacent to habitat remnants.© 2006 by the Ecological Society of America.The project was supported by the National Research Initiative of the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, grant number 2005-35101-15337 as well as from grants from the National Geographic Society, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, the Iowa Science Foundation, and Drake University

A Preliminary Checklist of the Moths of Butler County, Ohio

Author Institution: Department of Zoology, Miami UniversityUsing a combination of blacklight, mercury vapor light, and sugar bait sampling techniques, we collected moths over a 2-yr period in Butler County, OH, and compiled a list of 392 species. Seventy-eight percent (305) of these species were found to be new county records. A checklist is provided as a baseline catalogue of the moths of Butler County, OH. An analysis of historical county records revealed a bias towards large or colorful species. Although many species we collected are considered common, several infrequently encountered species were discovered. Our effort suggests that biological surveys in fragmented landscapes may reveal unexpected biological diversity

Tabletop Roleplaying Games as Procedural Content Generators

Tabletop roleplaying games (TTRPGs) and procedural content generators can both be understood as systems of rules for producing content. In this paper, we argue that TTRPG design can usefully be viewed as procedural content generator design. We present several case studies linking key concepts from PCG research -- including possibility spaces, expressive range analysis, and generative pipelines -- to key concepts in TTRPG design. We then discuss the implications of these relationships and suggest directions for future work uniting research in TTRPGs and PCG.Comment: 9 pages, 2 figures, FDG Workshop on Procedural Content Generation 202

Learning the Designer's Preferences to Drive Evolution

This paper presents the Designer Preference Model, a data-driven solution that pursues to learn from user generated data in a Quality-Diversity Mixed-Initiative Co-Creativity (QD MI-CC) tool, with the aims of modelling the user's design style to better assess the tool's procedurally generated content with respect to that user's preferences. Through this approach, we aim for increasing the user's agency over the generated content in a way that neither stalls the user-tool reciprocal stimuli loop nor fatigues the user with periodical suggestion handpicking. We describe the details of this novel solution, as well as its implementation in the MI-CC tool the Evolutionary Dungeon Designer. We present and discuss our findings out of the initial tests carried out, spotting the open challenges for this combined line of research that integrates MI-CC with Procedural Content Generation through Machine Learning.Comment: 16 pages, Accepted and to appear in proceedings of the 23rd European Conference on the Applications of Evolutionary and bio-inspired Computation, EvoApplications 202

Interactive Evolution and Exploration within Latent Level-Design Space of Generative Adversarial Networks

Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) are an emerging form of indirect encoding. The GAN is trained to induce a latent space on training data, and a real-valued evolutionary algorithm can search that latent space. Such Latent Variable Evolution (LVE) has recently been applied to game levels. However, it is hard for objective scores to capture level features that are appealing to players. Therefore, this paper introduces a tool for interactive LVE of tile-based levels for games. The tool also allows for direct exploration of the latent dimensions, and allows users to play discovered levels. The tool works for a variety of GAN models trained for both Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda, and is easily generalizable to other games. A user study shows that both the evolution and latent space exploration features are appreciated, with a slight preference for direct exploration, but combining these features allows users to discover even better levels. User feedback also indicates how this system could eventually grow into a commercial design tool, with the addition of a few enhancements.Comment: GECCO 202