When What Is Beautiful Is Not Good: The Role of Trait Self-Control in Resisting Eye Candy.

People are drawn to and like others who are physically attractive. In the present research, we investigated the influence of trait self-control on individuals' interest in relationships with physically attractive others. We hypothesized that high (vs. low) self-control individuals would approach relationships by considering information beyond appearance about potential partners, including partners' self-control. We additionally explored the influence of other traits (e.g., Big 5, self-esteem, and attachment styles) on relationship interest. Across studies, we consistently found that individuals with higher self-control avoided pursuing relationships with attractive individuals who display low self-control. In Study 3, we observed a similar pattern for three other traits: conscientiousness, extraversion, and positivity embracement. These results suggest perceivers' self-control shapes relationship interest, particularly when attractive individuals possess less desirable qualities. The findings extend past research that attractiveness increases interest in others and highlights the potential for trait self-control to direct relationship interest during initial interactions.

Partner-Involved Financial Incentives for Smoking Cessation in Dual-Smoker Couples: A Randomized Pilot Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Members of dual-smoker couples (in which both partners smoke) are unlikely to try to quit smoking and are likely to relapse if they do make an attempt. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility, tolerability, and preliminary outcomes of dyadic adaptations of financial incentive treatments (FITs) to promote smoking cessation in dual-smoker couples. AIMS AND METHODS: We enrolled 95 dual-smoker couples (N = 190) in a three-arm feasibility RCT comparing two partner-involved FITs (single vs. dual incentives) against a no-treatment control condition. Participants in all conditions were offered nicotine replacement and psychoeducation. A 3-month follow-up provided information about retention, tolerability (ie, self-reported benefits and costs of the study), and preliminary efficacy (ie, program completion, quit attempts, point-prevalent abstinence, and joint quitting). RESULTS: Results suggest dyadic adaptations were feasible to implement (89% retention rate) and highly tolerable for participants (p < .001). Neither feasibility nor tolerability varied across the treatment arm. Preliminary efficacy outcomes indicated partner-involved FITs have promise for increasing smoking cessation in dual-smoker couples (OR = 2.36-13.06). CONCLUSIONS: Dyadic implementations of FITs are feasible to implement and tolerable to participants. IMPLICATIONS: The evidence that dyadic adaptations of FITs were feasible and tolerable, and the positive preliminary efficacy outcomes suggest that adequately powered RCTs formally evaluating the efficacy of dyadic adaptations of FITs for dual-smoker couples are warranted.

Correction: Politicization of COVID-19 health-protective behaviors in the United States: Longitudinal and cross-national evidence.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256740.].

Feasibility, tolerability, and potential advantages of a dyadic financial incentive treatment for smoking cessation among dual-smoker couples: A pilot study.

As of 2019, 34.1 million adults in the United States smoke cigarettes. People who smoke and who are partnered with other smokers (i.e., dual-smoker couples [DSCs]) represent an estimated two-thirds of U.S. smokers. DSCs face unique obstacles to quitting, are less likely to try to quit, and are more likely to relapse during a quit attempt. Although joint quit attempts hold promise for DSCs' abstinence, few DSCs report trying to quit together. Financial incentive treatments [FITs]-where individuals receive monetary incentives for quitting and maintaining abstinence-increase motivation to quit, and so may help DSCs engage in joint quit attempts. We tested the feasibility and tolerability of adapting a financial incentive treatment to a dyadic context (N = 14 DSCs), in which both individuals of a smoking couple are offered incentives for attendance in a smoking cessation program ($100 USD) and abstinence at follow-up ($100 USD). Ten DSCs (71.4%) completed the follow-up session. Seven participants had biochemically verified abstinence at the follow-up session; of these, six of the seven (86%) were members of DSCs in which both partners were abstinent. Among participants who completed the follow-up session, cravings to smoke and tobacco withdrawal symptom severity were reduced over the study period. Participants rated the study as highly tolerable and listed many benefits and few costs from participation. The present study demonstrates the feasibility, tolerability, and potential advantages of implementing a dyadic financial incentive treatment for smoking cessation for DSCs in the U.S. over the course of 2 months. Public Health Significance: This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility, tolerability, and potential advantages of implementing a dyadic financial incentive treatment for smoking cessation for people who smoke who are coupled with other smokers (dual-smoker couples). The majority of participants (86%) who were abstinent at 2-month follow-up were in a relationship with another smoker who was abstinent at follow-up, suggesting advantages of a dyadic financial incentive treatment to promote joint quit attempts among dual-smoker couples. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Politicization of COVID-19 health-protective behaviors in the United States: Longitudinal and cross-national evidence.

During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. conservative politicians and the media downplayed the risk of both contracting COVID-19 and the effectiveness of recommended health behaviors. Health behavior theories suggest perceived vulnerability to a health threat and perceived effectiveness of recommended health-protective behaviors determine motivation to follow recommendations. Accordingly, we predicted that-as a result of politicization of the pandemic-politically conservative Americans would be less likely to enact recommended health-protective behaviors. In two longitudinal studies of U.S. residents, political conservatism was inversely associated with perceived health risk and adoption of health-protective behaviors over time. The effects of political orientation on health-protective behaviors were mediated by perceived risk of infection, perceived severity of infection, and perceived effectiveness of the health-protective behaviors. In a global cross-national analysis, effects were stronger in the U.S. (N = 10,923) than in an international sample (total N = 51,986), highlighting the increased and overt politicization of health behaviors in the U.S.