Romance, risk, and replication: Can consumer choices and risk-taking be primed by mating motives?

Interventions aimed at influencing spending behavior and risk-taking have considerable practical importance. A number of studies motivated by the costly signaling theory within evolutionary psychology have reported that priming inductions (such as looking at pictures of attractive opposite sex members) designed to trigger mating motives increase males' stated willingness to purchase conspicuous consumption items and to engage in risk-taking behaviors, and reduce loss aversion. However, a meta-analysis of this literature reveals strong evidence of either publication bias or p-hacking (or both). We then report 8 studies with a total sample of over 1,600 participants which sought to reproduce these effects. None of the studies, including one that was fully preregistered, was successful. The results question the claim that romantic primes can influence risk-taking and other potentially harmful behaviors. (PsycINFO Database Recor

Dynamic Modelling of Mental Resilience in Young Adults: Protocol for a Longitudinal Observational Study (DynaM-OBS)

Background Stress-related mental disorders are highly prevalent and pose a substantial burden on individuals and society. Improving strategies for the prevention and treatment of mental disorders requires a better understanding of their risk and resilience factors. This multicenter study aims to contribute to this endeavor by investigating psychological resilience in healthy but susceptible young adults over 9 months. Resilience is conceptualized in this study as the maintenance of mental health or quick recovery from mental health perturbations upon exposure to stressors, assessed longitudinally via frequent monitoring of stressors and mental health. Objective This study aims to investigate the factors predicting mental resilience and adaptive processes and mechanisms contributing to mental resilience and to provide a methodological and evidence-based framework for later intervention studies. Methods In a multicenter setting, across 5 research sites, a sample with a total target size of 250 young male and female adults was assessed longitudinally over 9 months. Participants were included if they reported at least 3 past stressful life events and an elevated level of (internalizing) mental health problems but were not presently affected by any mental disorder other than mild depression. At baseline, sociodemographic, psychological, neuropsychological, structural, and functional brain imaging; salivary cortisol and α-amylase levels; and cardiovascular data were acquired. In a 6-month longitudinal phase 1, stressor exposure, mental health problems, and perceived positive appraisal were monitored biweekly in a web-based environment, while ecological momentary assessments and ecological physiological assessments took place once per month for 1 week, using mobile phones and wristbands. In a subsequent 3-month longitudinal phase 2, web-based monitoring was reduced to once a month, and psychological resilience and risk factors were assessed again at the end of the 9-month period. In addition, samples for genetic, epigenetic, and microbiome analyses were collected at baseline and at months 3 and 6. As an approximation of resilience, an individual stressor reactivity score will be calculated. Using regularized regression methods, network modeling, ordinary differential equations, landmarking methods, and neural net–based methods for imputation and dimension reduction, we will identify the predictors and mechanisms of stressor reactivity and thus be able to identify resilience factors and mechanisms that facilitate adaptation to stressors. Results Participant inclusion began in October 2020, and data acquisition was completed in June 2022. A total of 249 participants were assessed at baseline, 209 finished longitudinal phase 1, and 153 finished longitudinal phase 2. Conclusions The Dynamic Modelling of Resilience–Observational Study provides a methodological framework and data set to identify predictors and mechanisms of mental resilience, which are intended to serve as an empirical foundation for future intervention studies. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/3981

Enhancing precision in human neuroscience

Human neuroscience has always been pushing the boundary of what is measurable. During the last decade, concerns about statistical power and replicability - in science in general, but also specifically in human neuroscience - have fueled an extensive debate. One important insight from this discourse is the need for larger samples, which naturally increases statistical power. An alternative is to increase the precision of measurements, which is the focus of this review. This option is often overlooked, even though statistical power benefits from increasing precision as much as from increasing sample size. Nonetheless, precision has always been at the heart of good scientific practice in human neuroscience, with researchers relying on lab traditions or rules of thumb to ensure sufficient precision for their studies. In this review, we encourage a more systematic approach to precision. We start by introducing measurement precision and its importance for well-powered studies in human neuroscience. Then, determinants for precision in a range of neuroscientific methods (MRI, M/EEG, EDA, Eye-Tracking, and Endocrinology) are elaborated. We end by discussing how a more systematic evaluation of precision and the application of respective insights can lead to an increase in reproducibility in human neuroscience

Psychological Resilience Factors and Their Association With Weekly Stressor Reactivity During the COVID-19 Outbreak in Europe: Prospective Longitudinal Study

Background Cross-sectional relationships between psychosocial resilience factors (RFs) and resilience, operationalized as the outcome of low mental health reactivity to stressor exposure (low “stressor reactivity” [SR]), were reported during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Objective Extending these findings, we here examined prospective relationships and weekly dynamics between the same RFs and SR in a longitudinal sample during the aftermath of the first wave in several European countries. Methods Over 5 weeks of app-based assessments, participants reported weekly stressor exposure, mental health problems, RFs, and demographic data in 1 of 6 different languages. As (partly) preregistered, hypotheses were tested cross-sectionally at baseline (N=558), and longitudinally (n=200), using mixed effects models and mediation analyses. Results RFs at baseline, including positive appraisal style (PAS), optimism (OPT), general self-efficacy (GSE), perceived good stress recovery (REC), and perceived social support (PSS), were negatively associated with SR scores, not only cross-sectionally (baseline SR scores; all P<.001) but also prospectively (average SR scores across subsequent weeks; positive appraisal (PA), P=.008; OPT, P<.001; GSE, P=.01; REC, P<.001; and PSS, P=.002). In both associations, PAS mediated the effects of PSS on SR (cross-sectionally: 95% CI –0.064 to –0.013; prospectively: 95% CI –0.074 to –0.0008). In the analyses of weekly RF-SR dynamics, the RFs PA of stressors generally and specifically related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and GSE were negatively associated with SR in a contemporaneous fashion (PA, P<.001; PAC,P=.03; and GSE, P<.001), but not in a lagged fashion (PA, P=.36; PAC, P=.52; and GSE, P=.06). Conclusions We identified psychological RFs that prospectively predict resilience and cofluctuate with weekly SR within individuals. These prospective results endorse that the previously reported RF-SR associations do not exclusively reflect mood congruency or other temporal bias effects. We further confirm the important role of PA in resilience

Coping with COVID: risk and resilience factors for mental health in a German representative panel study

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic might affect mental health. Data from population-representative panel surveys with multiple waves including pre-COVID data investigating risk and protective factors are still rare. METHODS: In a stratified random sample of the German household population (n = 6684), we conducted survey-weighted multiple linear regressions to determine the association of various psychological risk and protective factors assessed between 2015 and 2020 with changes in psychological distress [(PD; measured via Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety (PHQ-4)] from pre-pandemic (average of 2016 and 2019) to peri-pandemic (both 2020 and 2021) time points. Control analyses on PD change between two pre-pandemic time points (2016 and 2019) were conducted. Regularized regressions were computed to inform on which factors were statistically most influential in the multicollinear setting. RESULTS: PHQ-4 scores in 2020 (M = 2.45) and 2021 (M = 2.21) were elevated compared to 2019 (M = 1.79). Several risk factors (catastrophizing, neuroticism, and asking for instrumental support) and protective factors (perceived stress recovery, positive reappraisal, and optimism) were identified for the peri-pandemic outcomes. Control analyses revealed that in pre-pandemic times, neuroticism and optimism were predominantly related to PD changes. Regularized regression mostly confirmed the results and highlighted perceived stress recovery as most consistent influential protective factor across peri-pandemic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several psychological risk and protective factors related to PD outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. A comparison of pre-pandemic data stresses the relevance of longitudinal assessments to potentially reconcile contradictory findings. Implications and suggestions for targeted prevention and intervention programs during highly stressful times such as pandemics are discussed

Coping With COVID: Risk and Resilience Factors for Mental Health in a German Representative Panel Study

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic might affect mental health. Data from population-representative panel surveys with multiple waves including pre-COVID data investigating risk and protective factors are still rare. Methods: In a stratified random sample of the German household population (n=6,684), we conducted survey-weighted multiple linear regressions to determine the association of various psychological risk and protective factors assessed between 2015 and 2020 with changes in psychological distress (PD; measured via PHQ-4) from pre-pandemic (average of 2016 and 2019) to peri-pandemic (both 2020 and 2021) time points. Control analyses on PD change between two pre-pandemic time points (2016 and 2019) were conducted. Regularized regressions were computed to inform on which factors were statistically most influential in the multicollinear setting. Results: PHQ-4 scores in 2020 (M=2.45) and 2021 (M=2.21) were elevated compared to 2019 (M=1.79). Several risk factors (catastrophizing, neuroticism, asking for instrumental support) and protective factors (perceived stress recovery, positive reappraisal, optimism) were identified for the peri-pandemic outcomes. Control analyses revealed that in pre-pandemic times, neuroticism and optimism were predominantly related to PD changes. Regularized regression mostly confirmed the results and highlighted perceived stress recovery as most consistent influential protective factor across peri-pandemic outcomes. Conclusions: We identified several psychological risk and protective factors related to PD outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparison to pre-pandemic data stress the relevance of longitudinal assessments to potentially reconcile contradictory findings. Implications and suggestions for targeted prevention and intervention programs during highly stressful times such as pandemics are discusse

Psycho-social factors associated with mental resilience in the Corona lockdown

Funder: State of Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany (MARP program, DRZ program, Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research)Abstract: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is not only a threat to physical health but is also having severe impacts on mental health. Although increases in stress-related symptomatology and other adverse psycho-social outcomes, as well as their most important risk factors have been described, hardly anything is known about potential protective factors. Resilience refers to the maintenance of mental health despite adversity. To gain mechanistic insights about the relationship between described psycho-social resilience factors and resilience specifically in the current crisis, we assessed resilience factors, exposure to Corona crisis-specific and general stressors, as well as internalizing symptoms in a cross-sectional online survey conducted in 24 languages during the most intense phase of the lockdown in Europe (22 March to 19 April) in a convenience sample of N = 15,970 adults. Resilience, as an outcome, was conceptualized as good mental health despite stressor exposure and measured as the inverse residual between actual and predicted symptom total score. Preregistered hypotheses (osf.io/r6btn) were tested with multiple regression models and mediation analyses. Results confirmed our primary hypothesis that positive appraisal style (PAS) is positively associated with resilience (p < 0.0001). The resilience factor PAS also partly mediated the positive association between perceived social support and resilience, and its association with resilience was in turn partly mediated by the ability to easily recover from stress (both p < 0.0001). In comparison with other resilience factors, good stress response recovery and positive appraisal specifically of the consequences of the Corona crisis were the strongest factors. Preregistered exploratory subgroup analyses (osf.io/thka9) showed that all tested resilience factors generalize across major socio-demographic categories. This research identifies modifiable protective factors that can be targeted by public mental health efforts in this and in future pandemics