Are probabilities overweighted or underweighted when rare outcomes are experienced (rarely)?

When making decisions involving risky outcomes on the basis of verbal descriptions of the outcomes and their associated probabilities, people behave as if they overweight small probabilities. In contrast, when the same outcomes are instead experienced in a series of samples, people behave as if they underweight small probabilities. We present two experiments showing that the existing explanations of the underweighting observed in decisions from experience are not sufficient to account for the effect. Underweighting was observed when participants experienced representative samples of events, so it cannot be attributed to undersampling of the small probabilities. In addition, earlier samples predicted decisions just as well as later samples did, so underweighting cannot be attributed to recency weighting. Finally, frequency judgments were accurate, so underweighting cannot be attributed to judgment error. Furthermore, we show that the underweighting of small probabilities is also reflected in the best-fitting parameter values obtained when prospect theory, the dominant model of risky choice, is applied to the data

Feasibility trial evaluation of a physical activity and screen-viewing course for parents of 6 to 8 year-old children : Teamplay

Background: Many children spend too much time screen-viewing (watching TV, surfing the internet and playing video games) and do not meet physical activity (PA) guidelines. Parents are important influences on children’s PA and screen-viewing (SV). There is a shortage of parent-focused interventions to change children’s PA and SV. Methods: Teamplay was a two arm individualized randomized controlled feasibility trial. Participants were parents of 6–8 year old children. Intervention participants were invited to attend an eight week parenting program with each session lasting 2 hours. Children and parents wore an accelerometer for seven days and minutes of moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA (MVPA) were derived. Parents were also asked to report the average number of hours per day that both they and the target child spent watching TV. Measures were assessed at baseline (time 0) at the end of the intervention (week 8) and 2 months after the intervention had ended (week 16). Results: There were 75 participants who provided consent and were randomized but 27 participants withdrew post-randomization. Children in the intervention group engaged in 2.6 fewer minutes of weekday MVPA at Time 1 but engaged in 11 more minutes of weekend MVPA. At Time 1 the intervention parents engaged in 9 more minutes of weekday MVPA and 13 more minutes of weekend MVPA. The proportion of children in the intervention group watching ≥ 2 hours per day of TV on weekend days decreased after the intervention (time 0 = 76%, time 1 = 39%, time 2 = 50%), while the control group proportion increased slightly (79%, 86% and 87%). Parental weekday TV watching decreased in both groups. In post-study interviews many mothers reported problems associated with wearing the accelerometers. In terms of a future full-scale trial, a sample of between 80 and 340 families would be needed to detect a mean difference of 10-minutes of weekend MVPA. Conclusions: Teamplay is a promising parenting program in an under-researched area. The intervention was acceptable to parents, and all elements of the study protocol were successfully completed. Simple changes to the trial protocol could result in more complete data collection and study engagement

Parental modelling, media equipment and screen-viewing among young children : cross-sectional study

Objective: To examine whether parental screenviewing, parental attitudes or access to media equipment were associated with the screen-viewing of 6-year-old to 8-year-old children. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Online survey. Main outcome: Parental report of the number of hours per weekday that they and, separately, their 6- year-old to 8-year-old child spent watching TV, using a games console, a smart-phone and multiscreen viewing. Parental screen-viewing, parental attitudes and pieces of media equipment were exposures. Results: Over 75% of the parents and 62% of the children spent more than 2 h/weekday watching TV. Over two-thirds of the parents and almost 40% of the children spent more than an hour per day multiscreen viewing. The mean number of pieces of media equipment in the home was 5.9 items, with 1.3 items in the child’s bedroom. Children who had parents who spent more than 2 h/day watching TV were over 7.8 times more likely to exceed the 2 h threshold. Girls and boys who had a parent who spent an hour or more multiscreen viewing were 34 times more likely to also spend more than an hour per day multiscreen viewing. Media equipment in the child’s bedroom was associated with higher TV viewing, computer time and multiscreen viewing. Each increment in the parental agreement that watching TV was relaxing for their child was associated with a 49% increase in the likelihood that the child spent more than 2 h/day watching TV. Conclusions: Children who have parents who engage in high levels of screen-viewing are more likely to engage in high levels of screen-viewing. Access to media equipment, particularly in the child’s bedroom, was associated with higher levels of screen-viewing. Family-based strategies to reduce screen-viewing and limit media equipment access may be important ways to reduce child screen-viewing

Process evaluation of the Teamplay parenting intervention pilot : implications for recruitment, retention and course refinement

Background Parenting programs could provide effective routes to increasing children’s physical activity and reducing screen-viewing. Many studies have reported difficulties in recruiting and retaining families in group parenting interventions. This paper uses qualitative data from the Teamplay feasibility trial to examine parents’ views on recruitment, attendance and course refinement. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 intervention and 10 control group parents of 6–8 year old children. Topics discussed with the intervention group included parents’ views on the recruitment, structure, content and delivery of the course. Topics discussed with the control group included recruitment and randomization. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and thematically analyzed. Results Many parents in both the intervention and control group reported that they joined the study because they had been thinking about ways to improve their parenting skills, getting ideas on how to change behavior, or had been actively looking for a parenting course but with little success in enrolling on one. Both intervention and control group parents reported that the initial promotional materials and indicative course topics resonated with their experiences and represented a possible solution to parenting challenges. Participants reported that the course leaders played an important role in helping them to feel comfortable during the first session, engaging anxious parents and putting parents at ease. The most commonly reported reason for parents returning to the course after an absence was because they wanted to learn new information. The majority of parents reported that they formed good relationships with the other parents in the group. An empathetic interaction style in which leaders accommodated parent’s busy lives appeared to impact positively on course attendance. Conclusions The data presented indicate that a face-to-face recruitment campaign which built trust and emphasized how the program was relevant to families positively affected recruitment in Teamplay. Parents found the parenting component of the intervention attractive and, once recruited, attendance was facilitated by enjoyable sessions, empathetic leaders and support from fellow participants. Overall, data suggest that the Teamplay recruitment and retention approaches were successful and with small refinements could be effectively used in a larger trial

Extensible Terascale Facility (ETF): Indiana-Purdue Grid (IP-Grid)

NSF Award ID: ACI-0338618 Project Dates: 10/1/03-9/30/0

Hot carbon densities in the exosphere of Venus

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/95399/1/jgra17579.pd