Functional Altruism Among Agreeable and Narcissistic Donors: Evidence from Crowdsourced Fundraisers

Given the increasing popularity of crowdsourced fundraisers, understanding how characteristics of funding initiatives and donors influence donations has critical real-world implications. Across two studies, we identified potential situational factors most conducive to successful crowdsourcing while also determining whether individual differences in various personality factors predicted differing levels of donation. Participants in Study 1 (MAge = 19.99; 309 women, 75 men) viewed descriptions that manipulated donation type (organizer donation, anonymous donation, no donation) and type of fundraiser (self-organized, other-organized), and reported their willingness to donate to an individual’s medical treatment and completed inventories assessing Big Five personality traits. In Study 2 participants (MAge = 20.22; 322 women, 102 men) viewed vignettes describing fundraisers for an individual’s vacation fun and completed inventories assessing participantslevels of narcissism using the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Higher agreeableness in men predicted heightened donation interest, regardless of type of cause, particularly when someone else has already donated (Study 1). Unexpectedly, narcissistic men and women both reported heightened donation interest (Study 2). We frame these findings through a framework assessing the adaptive utility of altruism as a function of personality in modern donation contexts

Functional altruism among agreeable and narcissistic donors: Evidence from crowdsourced fundraisers

Given the increasing popularity of crowdsourced fundraisers, understanding how characteristics of funding initiatives and donors influence donations has critical real-world implications. Across two studies, we identified potential situational factors most conducive to successful crowdsourcing while also determining whether individual differences in various personality factors predicted differing levels of donation. Participants in Study 1 (MAge = 19.99; 309 women, 75 men) viewed descriptions that manipulated donation type (organizer donation, anonymous donation, no donation) and type of fundraiser (self-organized, other-organized), and reported their willingness to donate to an individual’s medical treatment and completed inventories assessing Big Five personality traits. In Study 2 participants (MAge = 20.22; 322 women, 102 men) viewed vignettes describing fundraisers for an individual’s vacation fun and completed inventories assessing participants levels of narcissism using the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Higher agreeableness in men predicted heightened donation interest, regardless of type of cause, particularly when someone else has already donated (Study 1). Unexpectedly, narcissistic men and women both reported heightened donation interest (Study 2). We frame these findings through a framework assessing the adaptive utility of altruism as a function of personality in modern donation contexts

Ethical Consistency and Experience: An Attempt to Influence Researcher Attitudes Toward Questionable Research Practices Through Reading Prompts

Over the past couple of decades, the apparent widespread occurrence of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) in scientific research has been widely discussed in the research ethics literature as a source of concern. Various ways of reducing their use have been proposed and implemented, ranging from improved training and incentives for adopting best practices to systematic reforms. This article reports on the results of two studies that investigated the efficacy of simple, psychological interventions aimed at changing researcher attitudes toward QRPs. While the interventions did not significantly modify researchers’ reactions to QRPs, they showed differential efficacy depending on scientists’ experience, suggesting complexities in researcher psychology and the ethics of QRPs that merit further study

Verbal Compliments As a Differential Source of Mate Poaching Threat For Men and Women

Two studies tested whether people feel threatened by another individual verbally complimenting their romantic partner. Such compliments may indicate that the other person is a potential rival who will try to poach their mate. Across two studies, women were more threatened than men when imagining another person complimenting their partner\u27s physical appearance. There were no sex differences in response to imagining another person complimenting their partner\u27s sense of humor. When another person compliments one\u27s partner\u27s physical appearance, this indicates that they may be sexually attracted to the partner. Mediation analyses revealed that the sex difference occurs because women believe men are more open to casual sex, and therefore more vulnerable to mate poaching when another person expresses sexual interest in them

Crowd Salience Heightens Tolerance to Healthy Facial Features

Objective: Recent findings suggest crowd salience heightens pathogen-avoidant motives, serving to reduce individuals’ infection risk through interpersonal contact. Such experiences may similarly facilitate the identification, and avoidance, of diseased conspecifics. The current experiment sought to replicate and extend previous crowding research. Methods: In this experiment, we primed participants at two universities with either a crowding or control experience before having them evaluate faces manipulated to appear healthy or diseased by indicating the degree to which they would want to interact with them. Results: Crowding-primed participants reported a more heightened preferences for healthy faces than control-primed participants. Additionally, crowd salience reduced aversion toward healthy faces but did not heighten aversion to diseased faces. Conclusion: Results suggest crowding appears to heighten tolerance for health cues given the heightened proximal threat of infections through interpersonal contact within crowded environments. Conversely, this work extends previous findings by indicating this preference is not rooted in an aversion to cues of poor health. We frame findings from a threat management perspective in understanding how crowding fosters sensitivity toward pathogenic threats

Common bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, seasonal habitat use and associations with habitat characteristics in Roanoke Sound, North Carolina

Understanding how habitat characteristics influence common bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, distribution and behavior can be useful for conservation. The dolphin community in Roanoke Sound, North Carolina primarily exhibits seasonal residency and there is limited information on their habitat use. The objectives of this study were to increase habitat use knowledge and determine the relationship between habitat characteristics and dolphin distribution using standardized photographic-identification data (2009 – 2017). A hot spot (Getis-Ord Gi*) analysis showed dolphins frequently use the southern region containing the mouth of the estuary for feeding and traveling. Habitat characteristics were modeled with zero-altered gamma (ZAG), generalized linear (GLM), and generalized additive (GAM) models to predict dolphin group density. Models showed that groups were more likely to be present in areas with greater benthic slope variation and shallow areas closer to land, and that different habitat characteristics were associated with feed, social, and travel activities. This study suggests that Roanoke Sound provides a seasonal foraging area and travel corridor between the estuaries and coastal waters. This information contributes baseline knowledge of how habitat potentially influences dolphin distribution and behavior which can be useful for management and conservation, especially in areas where habitat changes and impacts need to be assessed

AHA/ACCF secondary prevention and risk reduction therapy for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2011 update

"Since the 2006 update of the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) guidelines on secondary prevention (1), important evidence from clinical trials has emerged that further supports and broadens the merits of intensive risk-reduction therapies for patients with established coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease, including peripheral artery disease, atherosclerotic aortic disease, and carotid artery disease. In reviewing this evidence and its clinical impact, the writing group believed it would be more appropriate to expand the title of this guideline to “Secondary Prevention and Risk Reduction Therapy for Patients With Coronary and Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease.” Indeed, the growing body of evidence confirms that in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease, comprehensive risk factor management reduces risk as assessed by a variety of outcomes, including improved survival, reduced recurrent events, the need for revascularization procedures, and improved quality of life. It is important not only that the healthcare provider implement these recommendations in appropriate patients but also that healthcare systems support this implementation to maximize the benefit to the patient. Compelling evidence-based results from recent clinical trials and revised practice guidelines provide the impetus for this update of the 2006 recommendations with evidence-based results (2–165) (Table 1). Classification of recommendations and level of evidence are expressed in ACCF/AHA format, as detailed in Table 2. Recommendations made herein are largely based on major practice guidelines from the National Institutes of Health and updated ACCF/AHA practice guidelines, as well as on results from recent clinical trials. Thus, the development of the present guideline involved a process of partial adaptation of other guideline statements and reports and supplemental literature searches. The recommendations listed in this document are, whenever possible, evidence based. Writing group members performed these relevant supplemental literature searches with key search phrases including but not limited to tobacco/smoking/smoking cessation; blood pressure control/hypertension; cholesterol/hypercholesterolemia/lipids/lipoproteins/dyslipidemia; physical activity/exercise/exercise training; weight management/overweight/obesity; type 2 diabetes mellitus management; antiplatelet agents/anticoagulants; renin/angiotensin/aldosterone system blockers; β-blockers; influenza vaccination; clinical depression/depression screening; and cardiac/cardiovascular rehabilitation. Additional searches cross-referenced these topics with the subtopics of clinical trials, secondary prevention, atherosclerosis, and coronary/cerebral/peripheral artery disease. These searches were limited to studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted in human subjects and published in English. In addition, the writing group reviewed documents related to the subject matter previously published by the AHA, the ACCF, and the National Institutes of Health.

AHA/ACCF secondary prevention and risk reduction therapy for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2011 update: A guideline from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation

"Since the 2006 update of the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) guidelines on secondary prevention,1 important evidence from clinical trials has emerged that further supports and broadens the merits of intensive risk-reduction therapies for patients with established coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease, including peripheral artery disease, atherosclerotic aortic disease, and carotid artery disease. In reviewing this evidence and its clinical impact, the writing group believed it would be more appropriate to expand the title of this guideline to “Secondary Prevention and Risk Reduction Therapy for Patients With Coronary and Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease.” Indeed, the growing body of evidence confirms that in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease, comprehensive risk factor management reduces risk as assessed by a variety of outcomes, including improved survival, reduced recurrent events, the need for revascularization procedures, and improved quality of life. It is important not only that the healthcare provider implement these recommendations in appropriate patients but also that healthcare systems support this implementation to maximize the benefit to the patient. Compelling evidence-based results from recent clinical trials and revised practice guidelines provide the impetus for this update of the 2006 recommendations with evidence-based results2–165 (Table 1). Classification of recommendations and level of evidence are expressed in ACCF/AHA format, as detailed in Table 2. Recommendations made herein are largely based on major practice guidelines from the National Institutes of Health and updated ACCF/AHA practice guidelines, as well as on results from recent clinical trials. Thus, the development of the present guideline involved a process of partial adaptation of other guideline statements and reports and supplemental literature searches. The recommendations listed in this document are, whenever possible, evidence based. Writing group members performed these relevant supplemental literature searches with key search phrases including but not limited to tobacco/smoking/smoking cessation; blood pressure control/hypertension; cholesterol/hypercholesterolemia/lipids/lipoproteins/dyslipidemia; physical activity/exercise/exercise training; weight management/overweight/obesity; type 2 diabetes mellitus management; antiplatelet agents/anticoagulants; renin/angiotensin/aldosterone system blockers; β-blockers; influenza vaccination; clinical depression/depression screening; and cardiac/cardiovascular rehabilitation. Additional searches cross-referenced these topics with the subtopics of clinical trials, secondary prevention, atherosclerosis, and coronary/cerebral/peripheral artery disease. These searches were limited to studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted in human subjects and published in English. In addition, the writing group reviewed documents related to the subject matter previously published by the AHA, the ACCF, and the National Institutes of Health.