Impact on species' online attention when named after celebrities.

Celebrities can generate substantial attention and influence public interest in species. Using a large-scale examination of publicly available data, we assessed whether species across 6 taxonomic groups received more page views on Wikipedia when the species was named after a celebrity than when it was not. We conducted our analysis for 4 increasingly strict thresholds of how many average daily Wikipedia page views a celebrity had (1, 10, 100, or 1000 views). Overall, we found a high probability (0.96-0.98) that species named after celebrities had more page views than their closest relatives that were not named after celebrities, irrespective of the celebrity threshold. The multiplicative effect on species' page views was larger but more uncertain as celebrity page-view thresholds increased. The range for thresholds of 1 to 1000 was 1.08 (95% credible interval [CI] 1.00-1.18) to 1.76 (95% CI 0.96-2.80), respectively. The hierarchical estimates for the taxa tended to be positive. The strongest effects were for invertebrates, followed by amphibians, reptiles, fish, and mammals, whereas the weakest effect was for birds at lower page-view thresholds. Our results suggest that naming species after celebrities could be particularly significant for those belonging to taxonomic groups that are generally less popular than others (e.g., invertebrates). Celebrities may further influence the effectiveness of this marketing strategy, depending on their likability and connection to the species named after them. Eponyms may serve as a reminder of the disproportionate power dynamics between populations and some namesakes' untenable actions. However, they also provide an opportunity to recognize remarkable individuals and promote equity, inclusivity, and diversity in taxonomic practice. We encourage taxonomists to examine whether naming threatened species after celebrities could affect conservation support, especially for species that are otherwise typically overlooked by the public.

Impacto sobre la atención virtual de una especie si lleva el nombre de una celebridad Resumen Las celebridades pueden generar atención considerable e influir sobre el interés público por las especies. Usamos un análisis a gran escala de datos con disponibilidad pública para evaluar si las especies de seis grupos taxonómicos recibían más visitas en Wikipedia cuando el nombre de la especie provenía del de una celebridad que cuando no. Realizamos nuestro análisis en cuatro umbrales cada vez más estrictos de cuántas visitas diarias en promedio tenía la página de Wikipedia de una celebridad (1, 10, 100 or 1000 visitas). En general, descubrimos una probabilidad alta (0.96­0.98) de que las especies con nombres de celebridades tuvieran más visitas que sus parientes más cercanos que no tenían un nombre así, sin importar el umbral de la celebridad. El efecto multiplicativo sobre las visitas a la página de la especie fue mayor pero más incierto si incrementaba el umbral de visitas de la celebridad. El rango para los umbrales de 1 a 1000 fue de 1.08 (95% intervalo creíble [IC] 1.00­1.18) a 1.76 (95% IC 0.96­2.80) respectivamente. Los estimados jerárquicos para los taxones tuvieron una tendencia positiva. Los efectos más fuertes se presentaron en los invertebrados, seguidos de los anfibios, reptiles, peces y mamíferos, mientras que el efecto más débil fue para las aves en los umbrales de menor número de visitas. Nuestros resultados sugieren que nombrar a una especie con el nombre de una celebridad podría ser particularmente importante para aquellas que pertenecen a grupos taxonómicos que generalmente suelen ser menos populares que otros (invertebrados). Las celebridades podrían influir todavía más en la efectividad de esta estrategia de marketing, dependiendo de su popularidad y la conexión con la especie que lleva su nombre. Los epónimos pueden funcionar como recordatorios de las dinámicas disparejas de poder entre las poblaciones y las acciones indefendibles de algunos homónimos. Sin embargo, los epónimos también proporcionan la oportunidad para reconocer individuos destacados y promover la equidad, inclusividad y diversidad en la práctica taxonómica. Alentamos a que los taxónomos analicen si nombrar a una especie amenazada con el nombre de una celebridad podría afectar el apoyo a su conservación, especialmente para las especies que de otra manera suelen ser ignoradas por el público.

Theory protection: Do humans protect existing associative links?

Theories of associative learning often propose that learning is proportional to prediction error, or the difference between expected events and those that occur. Spicer et al. (2020) suggested an alternative, that humans might instead selectively attribute surprising outcomes to cues that they are not confident about, to maintain cue-outcome associations about which they are more confident. Spicer et al. reported three predictive learning experiments, the results of which were consistent with their proposal ("theory protection") rather than a prediction error account (Rescorla, 2001). The four experiments reported here further test theory protection against a prediction error account. Experiments 3 and 4 also test the proposals of Holmes et al. (2019), who suggested a function mapping learning to performance that can explain Spicer et al.'s results using a prediction-error framework. In contrast to the previous study, these experiments were based on inhibition rather than excitation. Participants were trained with a set of cues (represented by letters), each of which was followed by the presence or absence of an outcome (represented by + or -). Following this, a cue that previously caused the outcome (A+) was placed in compound with another cue (B) with an ambiguous causal status (e.g., a novel cue in Experiment 1). This compound (AB-) did not cause the outcome. Participants always learned more about B in the second training phase, despite A always having the greater prediction error. In Experiments 3 and 4, a cue with no apparent prediction error was learned about more than a cue with a large prediction error. Experiment 4 tested participants' relative confidence about the causal status of cues A and B prior to the AB- stage, producing findings that are consistent with theory protection and inconsistent with the predictions of Rescorla, and Holmes et al. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).