As information about COVID-19 safety behavior changed, people had to judge how likely others were to protect themselves through mask-wearing and vaccination seeking. In a large, campus-wide survey, we assessed whether University of Kansas students viewed others’ protective behaviors as different from their own, how much students assumed others shared their beliefs and behaviors, and which individual differences were associated with those estimations. Participants in our survey (N = 1, 704; 81.04% white, 64.08% female) estimated how likely they and others were to have worn masks on the University of Kansas campus, have worn masks off-campus, and to seek a vaccine. They also completed measures of political preference, numeracy, and preferences for risk in various contexts. We found that participants estimated that others were less likely to engage in health safety behaviors than themselves, but that their estimations of others were widely shared. While, in general, participants saw themselves as more unique in terms of practicing COVID-19 preventative behaviors, more liberal participants saw themselves as more unique, while those that were more conservative saw their own behavior as more similar to others. At least for masking, this uniqueness was false—estimates of others’ health behavior were lower than their actual rates. Understanding this relationship could allow for more accurate norm-setting and normalization of mask-wearing and vaccination.

Introduction The competing neurobehavioral decision systems theory conceptualizes addictive behavior, such as cigarette smoking, as arising from the imbalance between stronger impulsive relative to weaker executive decision processes. Working memory trainings may enhance executive decision processes, yet few studies have evaluated its efficacy on substance misuse, with mixed evidence. The current study is the first to evaluate the efficacy of a working memory training on cigarette smoking. We consider the moderating role of delay discounting, or the preference for smaller, immediately available rewards relative to larger, delayed rewards, which has been associated with smoking onset, progression, and resumption. The investigation focuses on individuals living in high-poverty, low-resource environments due high burden of tobacco-related disease they experience. Method The study utilized a subset of data (N = 177 individuals who smoke) generated from a randomized clinical trial that is evaluating the efficacy of working memory training for improving health-related outcomes. Participants were randomized to complete up to 15 sessions of the active, working memory training or a control training. Results Findings showed that among participants who were randomized to the working memory condition, those with higher rates of baseline delay discounting demonstrated decreases in cigarette smoking (p = .05). Conversely, individuals randomized to the control condition, who had higher rates of baseline delay discounting exhibited increases in cigarette smoking (p = .025). Conclusions Results suggest that DD may be an important indicator of working memory training outcomes and a possible approach for effectively targeting treatments in the future. Implications Delay discounting is important indicator of working memory training outcomes on cigarette smoking. The findings suggest the possibility to effectively target treatments considering the impact of delay discounting. Given that rates of DD tend to be higher among individuals from low-resource communities, and that computer-based working memory training programs are relatively low-cost and scalable, these findings suggest this approach may have specific utility for adults at heightened risk for cigarette use.

As information about COVID-19 safety behavior changed, people had to judge how likely others were to protect themselves through mask-wearing and vaccination seeking. In a large, campus-wide survey, we assessed whether University of Kansas students viewed others' protective behaviors as different from their own, how much students assumed others would share their beliefs and behaviors, and which individual differences were associated with those estimations. Participants in our survey (N = 1,704; 81.04% white, 64.08% female) evaluated how likely they and others were to wear masks on the University of Kansas campus, wear masks off-campus, and seek a vaccine. They also completed measures of political preference, numeracy, and preferences for risk in various contexts. We found that participants estimated that others would be less likely to engage in health safety behaviors than themselves, but that their estimations of others were widely shared. In addition, of all the individual differences we assessed, political preference displayed the most consistent associations across health behaviors. Not only was false uniqueness ubiquitous across different forms of COVID-19 safety behavior, it was indeed false - estimates of others' health behavior were lower than their actual rates. Understanding this relationship could allow for more accurate norm-setting and normalization of mask-wearing and vaccination.

Does attending to an option lead to liking it? Though attention-induced valuation is often hypothesized, evidence for this causal link has remained elusive. We test this hypothesis across 2 studies by manipulating attention during a preferential decision and its perceptual analog. In a free-viewing task, attention impacted choice and eye movement pattern in the preferential decision more than the perceptual analog. Similarly, in a controlled-viewing task, attention had a larger effect on choice in the preferential decision than its perceptual analog. Across these experimental manipulations of attention, choice and eye-tracking data provide converging evidence that attention enhances value, and computational modeling further supports this attention-induced valuation hypothesis. A possible explanation for our results is a normalization mechanism where attention induces a gain modulation on an option's representation at both the sensory and value processing levels.

Delay discounting (DD) research has become ubiquitous due to its robust associations with clinical outcomes. Typical DD tasks involve multiple trials in which participants indicate preference between smaller, sooner and larger, later rewards. Scoring of these binary choice tasks has not considered trial-level ambivalence as a possible decision-making construct. The present study explored the extent to which trial-level ambivalence varied within-individual using an established assessment of DD (the Monetary Choice Questionnaire). Results indicate that degree of ambivalence peaks around the trials associated with the DD rate. Moreover, ambivalence is associated with a diminished impact of reward delay differences on choice, where greater delay differences decrease the odds of choosing the larger, later rewards. Taken together, we believe ambivalence to be a relevant construct for research on intertemporal decision making, and it may be particularly useful in the study of manipulations on individual rates of DD.