A comparative approach to affect and cooperation

A central premise of the science of comparative affect is that we can best learn about the causes and consequences of affect by comparing affective phenomena across a variety of species, including humans. We take as a given that affect is widely shared across animals, but a key challenge is to accurately represent each species' affective experience. A common approach in the comparative study of behavior and cognition is to develop standardized experimental paradigms that can be used across species, with the assumption that if the same task is being used, we can directly compare behavioral responses. This experimental approach rests on two underlying assumptions: first, that different species' perception of and affective response to these paradigms are the same; and second, that behavioral and physiological (including endocrine and neural) responses to these paradigms are homologous; if either of these assumptions is not true, then the comparison becomes much less straightforward. Our goal in the present paper is to summarize the dominant paradigms that have been used for such comparative research, with a particular focus on paradigms common in the cooperation literature, and to critically discuss dominant assumptions about what affective states these tasks can or should measure. We then consider the advantages and drawbacks of this experimental method, and consider alternatives that may improve our understanding. We hope that this will help scholars recognize and avoid pitfalls inherent in studying affect, and stimulate them to create novel, ecologically relevant paradigms for examining affect across the animal kingdom.Action Contro

A comparative approach to affect and cooperation

A central premise of the science of comparative affect is that we can best learn about the causes and consequences of affect by comparing affective phenomena across a variety of species, including humans. We take as a given that affect is widely shared across animals, but a key challenge is to accurately represent each species' affective experience. A common approach in the comparative study of behavior and cognition is to develop standardized experimental paradigms that can be used across species, with the assumption that if the same task is being used, we can directly compare behavioral responses. This experimental approach rests on two underlying assumptions: first, that different species' perception of and affective response to these paradigms are the same; and second, that behavioral and physiological (including endocrine and neural) responses to these paradigms are homologous; if either of these assumptions is not true, then the comparison becomes much less straightforward. Our goal in the present paper is to summarize the dominant paradigms that have been used for such comparative research, with a particular focus on paradigms common in the cooperation literature, and to critically discuss dominant assumptions about what affective states these tasks can or should measure. We then consider the advantages and drawbacks of this experimental method, and consider alternatives that may improve our understanding. We hope that this will help scholars recognize and avoid pitfalls inherent in studying affect, and stimulate them to create novel, ecologically relevant paradigms for examining affect across the animal kingdom

A melding of the minds: when primatology meets personality and social psychology

Social/personality psychology and behavioral primatology both enjoy long histories of research aimed at uncovering the proximate and ultimate determinants of primate--human and nonhuman--social behavior. Although they share research themes, methodologies and theories, and their studied species are closely related, there is currently very little interaction between the fields. This separation means that researchers in these disciplines miss out on opportunities to advance understanding by combining insights from both fields. Social/personality psychologists additionally miss the opportunity for a phylogenetic analysis. The time has come to integrate perspectives on primate social psychology. Here we provide a historical background and document the main similarities and differences in approaches. Next we present some examples of research programs that may benefit from an integrated primate perspective. Finally, we propose a framework for developing a social psychology inclusive of all primates. Such a melding of minds promises to greatly benefit those who undertake the challenge

Genetic Predisposition to Coronary Artery Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is accelerated in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). METHODS: To test whether this reflects differential genetic influences on CAD risk in subjects with T2D, we performed a systematic assessment of genetic overlap between CAD and T2D in 66 643 subjects (27 708 with CAD and 24 259 with T2D). Variants showing apparent association with CAD in stratified analyses or evidence of interaction were evaluated in a further 117 787 subjects (16 694 with CAD and 11 537 with T2D). RESULTS: None of the previously characterized CAD loci was found to have specific effects on CAD in T2D individuals, and a genome-wide interaction analysis found no new variants for CAD that could be considered T2D specific. When we considered the overall genetic correlations between CAD and its risk factors, we found no substantial differences in these relationships by T2D background. CONCLUSIONS: This study found no evidence that the genetic architecture of CAD differs in those with T2D compared with those without T2D.Peer reviewe