The gatekeeper: individual differences are key in the chain from perception to behaviour

A basic assumption in mainstream social cognition is that the path from perception to behaviour is often automatic and direct, as supported for example by several experimental studies showing that priming can lead directly to a congruent behaviour without any need of conscious awareness of the process. However, we argue that the priming of a goal or an object activates individual differences in automatic evaluations at the associative level that in turn are the key predictors of action (gatekeeper model). A study (n = 90) on the American stereotype is presented to support the model. The results show that individual differences of the American stereotype as assessed with the IAT predicts a relevant action (essay evaluation) but only under condition of priming. Broader implications for predictive validity of implicit measures are also discussed

The bright optical flash from GRB 060117

We present a discovery and observation of an extraordinarily bright prompt optical emission of the GRB 060117 obtained by a wide-field camera atop the robotic telescope FRAM of the Pierre Auger Observatory from 2 to 10 minutes after the GRB. We found rapid average temporal flux decay of alpha = -1.7 +- 0.1 and a peak brightness R = 10.1 mag. Later observations by other instruments set a strong limit on the optical and radio transient fluxes, unveiling an unexpectedly rapid further decay. We present an interpretation featuring a relatively steep electron-distribution parameter p ~ 3.0 and providing a straightforward solution for the overall fast decay of this optical transient as a transition between reverse and forward shock.Comment: Accepted to A&A, 4 pages, corected few typos pointed out by X.F. W

A Gaze-Driven Evolutionary Algorithm to Study Aesthetic Evaluation of Visual Symmetry

Empirical work has shown that people like visual symmetry. We used a gaze-driven evolutionary algorithm technique to answer three questions about symmetry preference. First, do people automatically evaluate symmetry without explicit instruction? Second, is perfect symmetry the best stimulus, or do people prefer a degree of imperfection? Third, does initial preference for symmetry diminish after familiarity sets in? Stimuli were generated as phenotypes from an algorithmic genotype, with genes for symmetry (coded as deviation from a symmetrical template, deviation–symmetry, DS gene) and orientation (0° to 90°, orientation, ORI gene). An eye tracker identified phenotypes that were good at attracting and retaining the gaze of the observer. Resulting fitness scores determined the genotypes that passed to the next generation. We recorded changes to the distribution of DS and ORI genes over 20 generations. When participants looked for symmetry, there was an increase in high-symmetry genes. When participants looked for the patterns they preferred, there was a smaller increase in symmetry, indicating that people tolerated some imperfection. Conversely, there was no increase in symmetry during free viewing, and no effect of familiarity or orientation. This work demonstrates the viability of the evolutionary algorithm approach as a quantitative measure of aesthetic preference

A national survey on violence and discrimination among people with disabilities

Background: The aim of the study was to quantify levels of violence and discrimination among people with disabilities and analyze the effects of gender and the type and degree of disability. Methods: The study analyzed data on self-reported violence and discrimination from a Danish national survey of 18,019 citizens, of whom 4519 reported a physical disability and 1398 reported a mental disability. Results: Individuals with disabilities reported significantly higher levels of violence than those without. Specifically, individuals reporting a mental disability reported higher levels of violence and discrimination. Significant gender differences were found with regard to type of violence: while men with disabilities were more likely to report physical violence, women with disabilities were more likely to report major sexual violence, humiliation and discrimination. Neither severity nor visibility of disability was found to be a significant factor for risk of violence. Conclusions: This large-scale study lends support to existing research showing that people with disabilities are at greater risk of violence than people without disabilities. Further, the study found that people with mental disabilities were significantly more likely to report all types of violence and discrimination than those with physical disabilities. The findings also show that gender is significant in explaining the type of violence experienced and the experience of discrimination

Ensuring the quality and specificity of preregistrations

Researchers face many, often seemingly arbitrary, choices in formulating hypotheses, designing protocols, collecting data, analyzing data, and reporting results. Opportunistic use of “researcher degrees of freedom” aimed at obtaining statistical significance increases the likelihood of obtaining and publishing false-positive results and overestimated effect sizes. Preregistration is a mechanism for reducing such degrees of freedom by specifying designs and analysis plans before observing the research outcomes. The effectiveness of preregistration may depend, in part, on whether the process facilitates sufficiently specific articulation of such plans. In this preregistered study, we compared 2 formats of preregistration available on the OSF: Standard Pre-Data Collection Registration and Prereg Challenge Registration (now called “OSF Preregistration,” http://osf.io/prereg/). The Prereg Challenge format was a “structured” workflow with detailed instructions and an independent review to confirm completeness; the “Standard” format was “unstructured” with minimal direct guidance to give researchers flexibility for what to prespecify. Results of comparing random samples of 53 preregistrations from each format indicate that the “structured” format restricted the opportunistic use of researcher degrees of freedom better (Cliff’s Delta = 0.49) than the “unstructured” format, but neither eliminated all researcher degrees of freedom. We also observed very low concordance among coders about the number of hypotheses (14%), indicating that they are often not clearly stated. We conclude that effective preregistration is challenging, and registration formats that provide effective guidance may improve the quality of research