Anger and disgust shape judgments of social sanctions across cultures, especially in high individual autonomy societies.

When someone violates a social norm, others may think that some sanction would be appropriate. We examine how the experience of emotions like anger and disgust relate to the judged appropriateness of sanctions, in a pre-registered analysis of data from a large-scale study in 56 societies. Across the world, we find that individuals who experience anger and disgust over a norm violation are more likely to endorse confrontation, ostracism and, to a smaller extent, gossip. Moreover, we find that the experience of anger is consistently the strongest predictor of judgments of confrontation, compared to other emotions. Although the link between state-based emotions and judgments may seem universal, its strength varies across countries. Aligned with theoretical predictions, this link is stronger in societies, and among individuals, that place higher value on individual autonomy. Thus, autonomy values may increase the role that emotions play in guiding judgments of social sanctions.

Bounded research ethicality: researchers rate themselves and their field as better than others at following good research practice.

Bounded ethicality refers to people's limited capacity to consistently behave in line with their ethical standards. Here, we present results from a pre-registered, large-scale (N = 11,050) survey of researchers in Sweden, suggesting that researchers too are boundedly ethical. Specifically, researchers on average rated themselves as better than other researchers in their field at following good research practice, and rated researchers in their own field as better than researchers in other fields at following good research practice. These effects were stable across all academic fields, but strongest among researchers in the medical sciences. Taken together, our findings illustrate inflated self-righteous beliefs among researchers and research disciplines when it comes to research ethics, which may contribute to academic polarization and moral blindspots regarding one's own and one's colleagues' use of questionable research practices.

Ghrelin decreases sensitivity to negative feedback and increases prediction-error related caudate activity in humans, a randomized controlled trial.

The stomach-derived hormone ghrelin plays not only a role in feeding, starvation, and survival, but it has been suggested to also be involved in the stress response, in neuropsychiatric conditions, and in alcohol and drug use disorders. Mechanisms related to reward processing might mediate ghrelin's broader effects on complex behaviors, as indicated by animal studies and mostly correlative human studies. Here, using a within-subject double-blind placebo-controlled design with intravenous ghrelin infusion in healthy volunteers (n = 30), we tested whether ghrelin alters sensitivity to reward and punishment in a reward learning task. Parameters were derived from a computational model of participants' task behavior. The reversal learning task with monetary rewards was performed during functional brain imaging to investigate ghrelin effects on brain signals related to reward prediction errors. Compared to placebo, ghrelin decreased punishment sensitivity (t = -2.448, p = 0.021), while reward sensitivity was unaltered (t = 0.8, p = 0.43). We furthermore found increased prediction-error related activity in the dorsal striatum during ghrelin administration (region of interest analysis: t-values ≥ 4.21, p-values ≤ 0.044). Our results support a role for ghrelin in reward processing that extends beyond food-related rewards. Reduced sensitivity to negative outcomes and increased processing of prediction errors may be beneficial for food foraging when hungry but could also relate to increased risk taking and impulsivity in the broader context of addictive behaviors.

The effect of fast and slow decision-making on equity-efficiency tradeoffs and moral repugnance.

Fast-and-slow models of decision-making are commonly invoked to explain economic behaviour. However, past research has focused on human cooperation and generosity and thus largely overlooked situations where there are sharp conflicts between efficiency and equality, or between efficiency and more intuitive moral values (repugnance). Here, we contribute to fill this gap in the literature. We conducted a preregistered experiment (n = 1500 recruited from Prolific) to assess the effects of fast, intuitive decisions, under time pressure versus slow, deliberate decisions, under time delay, on (i) people's distributional preferences and (ii) their attitudes toward repugnant transactions. The results show increased preference for equality and decreased preference for efficiency under time pressure, but no effects on moral repugnance. Exploratory analyses revealed that most of the observed treatment effects in our data were accounted for by women. Our results provide some support for theories that associate controlled cognition with concern for efficiency, and intuitive, emotional responses with inequality aversion.

Dual-process theory is Barbapapa.

The biggest benefit of dual-process theory lies in its role as a benchmark theory that, regardless of its empirical plausibility, serves as a starting point for better and more domain-specific models. In this sense, dual-process theory is the Barbapapa of psychological theory - a blob-shaped creature that can be reshaped and adapted to fit in the context of any human behavior.

A randomized controlled experimental medicine study of ghrelin in value-based decision making.

BACKGROUNDThe stomach-derived hormone ghrelin stimulates appetite, but the ghrelin receptor is also expressed in brain circuits involved in motivation and reward. We examined ghrelin effects on decision making beyond food or drug reward using monetary rewards.METHODSThirty participants (50% women and 50% men) underwent 2 fMRI scans while receiving i.v. ghrelin or saline in a randomized counterbalanced order.RESULTSStriatal representations of reward anticipation were unaffected by ghrelin, while activity during anticipation of losses was attenuated. Temporal discounting rates of monetary reward were lower overall in the ghrelin condition, an effect driven by women. Discounting rates were inversely correlated with neural activity in a large cluster within the left parietal lobule that included the angular gyrus. Activity in an overlapping cluster was related to behavioral choices and was suppressed by ghrelin.CONCLUSIONThis is, to our knowledge, the first human study to extend the understanding of ghrelin's significance beyond the canonical feeding domain or in relation to addictive substances. Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that ghrelin did not affect sensitivity to monetary reward anticipation, but rather resulted in attenuated loss aversion and lower discounting rates for these rewards. Ghrelin may cause a motivational shift toward caloric reward rather than globally promoting the value of reward.TRIAL REGISTRATIONEudraCT 2018-004829-82.FUNDINGSwedish Research Council (2013-07434), Marcus and Marianne Wallenberg foundation (2014.0187) and National Institute on Drug Abuse/National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Intramural Research Program.

Voting and (im)moral behavior.

Due to diffusion of responsibility, majority voting may induce immoral and selfish behavior because voters are rarely solely responsible for the outcome. Across three behavioral experiments (two preregistered; n = 1983), we test this hypothesis in situations where there is a conflict between morality and material self-interest. Participants were randomly assigned to make decisions about extracting money from a charity either in an experimental referendum or individually. We find no evidence that voting induces immoral behavior. Neither do we find that people self-servingly distort their beliefs about their responsibility for the outcome when they vote. If anything, the results suggest that voting makes people less immoral.

Motivated Down-Regulation of Emotion and Compassion Collapse Revisited.

Compassion collapse is a phenomenon where feelings and helping behavior decrease as the number of needy increases. But what are the underlying mechanisms for compassion collapse? Previous research has attempted to pit two explanations: Limitations of the feeling system vs. motivated down-regulation of emotion, against each other. In this article, we critically reexamine a previous study comparing these two accounts published in 2011 and present new data that contest motivated down-regulation of emotion as the primary explanation for compassion collapse.

COVID-19 and Politically Motivated Reasoning.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the world witnessed a partisan segregation of beliefs toward the global health crisis and its management. Politically motivated reasoning, the tendency to interpret information in accordance with individual motives to protect valued beliefs rather than objectively considering the facts, could represent a key process involved in the polarization of attitudes. The objective of this study was to explore politically motivated reasoning when participants assess information regarding COVID-19. DESIGN: We carried out a preregistered online experiment using a diverse sample (N = 1,500) from the United States. Both Republicans and Democrats assessed the same COVID-19-related information about the health effects of lockdowns, social distancing, vaccination, hydroxychloroquine, and wearing face masks. RESULTS: At odds with our prestated hypothesis, we found no evidence in line with politically motivated reasoning when interpreting numerical information about COVID-19. Moreover, we found no evidence supporting the idea that numeric ability or cognitive sophistication bolster politically motivated reasoning in the case of COVID-19. Instead, our findings suggest that participants base their assessment on prior beliefs of the matter. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that politically polarized attitudes toward COVID-19 are more likely to be driven by lack of reasoning than politically motivated reasoning-a finding that opens potential avenues for combating political polarization about important health care topics. HIGHLIGHTS: Participants assessed numerical information regarding the effect of different COVID-19 policies.We found no evidence in line with politically motivated reasoning when interpreting numerical information about COVID-19.Participants tend to base their assessment of COVID-19-related facts on prior beliefs of the matter.Politically polarized attitudes toward COVID-19 are more a result of lack of thinking than partisanship.

The effect of herd immunity thresholds on willingness to vaccinate.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, media and policymakers openly speculated about the number of immune citizens needed to reach a herd immunity threshold. What are the effects of such numerical goals on the willingness to vaccinate? In a large representative sample (N = 1540) of unvaccinated Swedish citizens, we find that giving a low (60%) compared to a high (90%) threshold has direct effects on beliefs about reaching herd immunity and beliefs about how many others that will get vaccinated. Presenting the high threshold makes people believe that herd immunity is harder to reach (on average about half a step on a seven-point scale), compared to the low threshold. Yet at the same time, people also believe that a higher number of the population will get vaccinated (on average about 3.3% more of the population). Since these beliefs affect willingness to vaccinate in opposite directions, some individuals are encouraged and others discouraged depending on the threshold presented. Specifically, in mediation analysis, the high threshold indirectly increases vaccination willingness through the belief that many others will get vaccinated (B = 0.027, p = 0.003). At the same time, the high threshold also decreases vaccination willingness through the belief that the threshold goal is less attainable (B = -0.053, p < 0.001) compared to the low threshold condition. This has consequences for ongoing COVID-19 vaccination and future vaccination campaigns. One message may not fit all, as different groups can be encouraged or discouraged from vaccination.

Withdrawing or withholding treatments in health care rationing: an interview study on ethical views and implications.

BACKGROUND: When rationing health care, a commonly held view among ethicists is that there is no ethical difference between withdrawing or withholding medical treatments. In reality, this view does not generally seem to be supported by practicians nor in legislation practices, by for example adding a 'grandfather clause' when rejecting a new treatment for lacking cost-effectiveness. Due to this discrepancy, our objective was to explore physicians' and patient organization representatives' experiences- and perceptions of withdrawing and withholding treatments in rationing situations of relative scarcity. METHODS: Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted in Sweden with physicians and patient organization representatives, thematic analysis was used. RESULTS: Participants commonly express internally inconsistent views regarding if withdrawing or withholding medical treatments should be deemed as ethically equivalent. Participants express that in terms of patients' need for treatment (e.g., the treatment's effectiveness and the patient's medical condition) withholding and withdrawing should be deemed ethically equivalent. However, in terms of prognostic differences, and the patient-physician relation and communication, there is a clear discrepancy which carry a moral significance and ultimately makes withdrawing psychologically difficult for both physicians and patients, and politically difficult for policy makers. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the distinction between withdrawing and withholding treatment as unified concepts is a simplification of a more complex situation, where different factors related differently to these two concepts. Following this, possible policy solutions are discussed for how to resolve this experienced moral difference by practitioners and ease withdrawing treatments due to health care rationing. Such solutions could be to have agreements between the physician and patient about potential future treatment withdrawals, to evaluate the treatment's effect, and to provide guidelines on a national level.

Medical Decision Style and COVID-19 Behavior.

Given the flood of health-related information stirred up by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it is important to understand the factors that influence people to engage in protective public health measures so that medical communication can be tailored to be effective. Following the idea that people have a general inclination toward health care utilization, which is either more passive (i.e., medical minimizer) or more aggressive (i.e., medical maximizer), we assess if this inclination extends to being more or less willing to engage in protective public health behavior. We investigate the effect of individual differences in medical minimizing and medical maximizing orientation on COVID-19-related protective behaviors and attitudes. We used the validated Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (MMS) and surveyed a diverse opt-in sample of the Swedish population (n = 806). Our results show that the MMS significantly predicts a wide range of self-reported behaviors and attitudes in relation to COVID-19. Participants with a stronger minimization orientation were significantly less likely to practice social distancing, follow hygiene recommendations, and be supportive of strict COVID-19 policies. Participants with a stronger maximization orientation had a larger discrepancy between perceived own risk and others getting infected. Thus, they perceived themselves as being less at risk for getting infected compared to the average person. Our findings imply that the MMS can be effectively used to predict who is more or less reluctant to follow public health recommendations.JEL codes: D70 E71 I12 I18.

Public Attitudes Toward Priority Setting Principles in Health Care During COVID-19.

What role should cost-effectiveness play in health care priority setting? We assess the level of acceptance toward different priority setting principles in health care during COVID-19 and in general, thereby exploring public support for principles presented at different levels of abstraction. An online survey was distributed to a diverse sample of the Swedish population (n = 1 553). The results show that respondents were generally more supportive of priority setting principles when expressed in general abstract terms than when expressed in more case specific concrete terms. However, prioritization based on cost-effectiveness was deemed as more acceptable when expressed in concrete terms related to health maximization rather than as an abstract principle. Respondents had a general inclination in support of physicians and other health care professionals the primary responsibility for the allocation of scarce resources in the healthcare during COVID-19, while being less supportive of health economists and politicians being involved in these decisions.

Acute effects of alcohol on social and personal decision making.

Social drinking is common, but it is unclear how moderate levels of alcohol influence decision making. Most prior studies have focused on adverse long-term effects on cognitive and executive function in people with alcohol use disorders (AUD). Some studies have investigated the acute effects of alcohol on decision making in healthy people, but have predominantly used small samples and focused on a narrow selection of tasks related to personal decision making, e.g., delay or probability discounting. Here, we conducted a large (n = 264), preregistered randomized placebo-controlled study (RCT) using a parallel group design, to systematically assess the acute effects of alcohol on measures of decision making in both personal and social domains. We found a robust effect of a 0.6 g/kg dose of alcohol on both moral judgment and altruistic behavior, but no effects on several measures of risk taking or waiting impulsivity. These findings suggest that alcohol at low to moderate doses selectively moderates decision making in the social domain, and promotes utilitarian decisions over those dictated by rule-based ethical principles (deontological). This is consistent with existing theory that emphasizes the dual roles of shortsighted information processing and salient social cues in shaping decisions made under the influence of alcohol. A better understanding of these effects is important to understand altered social functioning during alcohol intoxication.

Trust in the government increases financial well-being and general well-being during COVID-19.

We investigate the antecedents of subjective financial well-being and general well-being during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In an online survey conducted in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic with over 1000 Swedish participants we found that distrust in the government to cope with financial (but not healthcare) challenges of the pandemic was negatively related to the feeling of financial security. In a structural equation model, we also show that trust in government to deal with financial challenges of COVID-19 pandemic has a significant impact on general well-being through the mediating channel of financial well-being. In addition, trust in government to deal with healthcare challenges of COVID-19 pandemic has a significant direct impact on individuals' general well-being. Our findings have important implications for public policy as they highlight the importance of citizens' trust in well-functioning governmental institutions to help cope with not only healthcare, but also financial challenges of an ongoing pandemic.

A preregistered replication of motivated numeracy.

Motivated numeracy refers to the idea that people with high reasoning capacity will use that capacity selectively to process information in a manner that protects their own valued beliefs. This concept was introduced in a now classic article by Kahan, Peters, Dawson, & Slovic [2017, Behavioral Public Policy 1, 54-86], who used numeracy to index reasoning capacity, and demonstrated that the tendency to engage in ideologically congruent interpretation of facts increased substantially with people's numeracy. Despite the importance of this finding, both from a theoretical and practical point of view, there is yet no consensus in the literature about the factual strength of motivated numeracy. We therefore conducted a large-scale replication of Kahan, Peters, Dawson, and Slovic (2017), using a pre-specified analysis plan with strict evaluation criteria. We did not find good evidence for motivated numeracy; there are distinct patterns in our data at odds with the core predictions of the theory, most notably (i) there is ideologically congruent responding that is not moderated by numeracy, and (ii) when there is moderation, ideologically congruent responding occurs only at the highest levels of numeracy. Our findings suggest that the cumulative evidence for motivated numeracy is weaker than previously thought, and that caution is warranted when this feature of human cognition is leveraged to improve science communication on contested topics such as climate change or immigration.

Using quantitative trait in adults with ADHD to test predictions of dual-process theory.

Dual-process theory is a widely utilized modelling tool in the behavioral sciences. It conceptualizes decision-making as an interaction between two types of cognitive processes, some of them fast and intuitive, others slow and reflective. We make a novel contribution to this literature by exploring differences between adults with clinically diagnosed ADHD and healthy controls for a wide range of behaviors. Given the clinical picture and nature of ADHD symptoms, we had a strong a priori reason to expect differences in intuitive vs reflective processing; and thus an unusually strong case for testing the predictions of dual-process theory. We found mixed results, with overall weaker effects than expected, except for risk taking, where individuals with ADHD showed increased domain sensitivity for gains vs losses. Some of our predictions were supported by the data but other patterns are more difficult to reconcile with theory. On balance, our results provide only limited empirical support for using dual-process theory to understand basic social and economic decision-making.

Financial well-being, COVID-19, and the financial better-than-average-effect.

At the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak we conducted two surveys in the United Kingdom and Sweden (N=2021) regarding how people assess the near future economic situation within their household, nation, and the world. Together with psychological factors related to information processing we link these prospects to financial well-being. We find that, although generally very pessimistic, a substantial proportion of individuals believes that their households' economy will be doing substantially better than the national and global economy, suggesting a "financial better-than-average" effect. Furthermore, we find that the pessimism regarding future household economic situation and being financially ignorant are associated with decreased financial well-being, while the (inter)national economic situation is not. This study shows how contextual factors and personal aspects shape financial well-being during turbulent and stressful times.

No Effect of Ego Depletion on Risk Taking.

We investigated the effect of ego depletion on risk taking. Specifically, we conducted three studies (total n = 1,716) to test the prediction that ego depletion results in decisions that are more strongly in line with prospect theory, i.e., that ego depletion reduces risk taking for gains, increases risk taking for losses, and increases loss aversion. Ego depletion was induced using two of the most common manipulations from previous literature: the letter 'e' task (Studies 1 and 3) and the Stroop task (Study 2). Risk taking was measured using a series of standard, incentivized economic decision-making tasks assessing risk preferences in the gain domain, risk preferences in the loss domain, and loss aversion. None of the studies revealed a significant effect of ego depletion on risk taking. Our findings cast further doubts about the ability of ego-depletion manipulations to affect actual behavior in experimental settings.