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

Shanks, David R.; Vadillo, Miguel A.; Riedel, Benjamin; Clymo, Ashley; Govind, Sinita; Hickin, Nisha; Tamman, Amanda J. F.; Puhlmann, Lara

doi:10.1037/xge0000116

Cited by 53 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Alternatively, these findings are compatible with an emerging body of literature which questions the validity and replicability of priming studies (e.g. Pashler et al 2012;Newell and Shanks 2014a, b;Shariff et al 2015).…”

Section: Priming Does Not Affect Scent Preferencesupporting

confidence: 76%

“…Failures to replicate priming effects have been found within the domain of mate-related decision making (Shanks et al 2015), religiosity (Gomes and McCullough 2015;Shariff et al 2015), honesty cues (Pashler et al 2013) and goal achievement . Investigations into these failed replications have found evidence of both phacking and publication biases (Gomes and McCullough 2015;meta-analytic evidence: Shanks et al 2015;Shariff et al 2015). Within the context of this research, it remains unclear whether visual primes of pathogen stress were sufficiently stable to endure the length of testing.…”

Section: Priming Does Not Affect Scent Preferencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effects of Disease Vulnerability on Preferences for Self-Similar Scent

Muggleton

Fincher

2016

Evolutionary Psychological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans possess disease avoidance mechanisms, which promote xenophobic attitudes under conditions of perceived vulnerability to disease (PVD). We investigate whether concerns about disease vulnerability influence attraction to olfactory cues of self-similarity. Participants donated a sample of their body odour, then completed a PVD questionnaire (subscales: germ aversion, perceived infectability; ). Told that they were rating strangers' odours, participants rated self, versus non-self, scent donations. Among women, attraction to self-scent was positively predicted by germ aversion (but not perceived infectability); surprisingly, men's ratings of self-scent were negatively associated with germ aversion. Priming with pathogenic cues did not influence scent preferences. This association between germ aversion and odour preference suggests that mere scent exposure can inform the receiver of the immunological similarity between self and sender, which can influence social responses (i.e. attraction to vs. avoidance of scent sender). We discuss these results, as well as implications for the study of intergroup biases.

show abstract

Section: Priming Does Not Affect Scent Preferencesupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Priming Does Not Affect Scent Preferencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Disease Vulnerability on Preferences for Self-Similar Scent

Muggleton

Fincher

2016

Evolutionary Psychological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The replicability woes of other medical and social science fields, as well as concerning examples of unreplicable findings close to our field (e.g., LaCour & Green, 2014;Shanks et al, 2015), should serve as a warning to sexual scientists. Replicability is important for good science, in general, and I have tried to present a case for why I believe it is especially important for sexual scientists to take a greater active role in contributing to the published record regarding replicability and how it may be improved.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Failures to replicate can take a number of different forms, and occur for numerous reasons: a specific effect may not hold across multiple studies (e.g., Shanks et al, 2015); a broader field may struggle with producing replicable findings (e.g., Open Science Collaboration, Running head: SEXUAL METASCIENCE 7 2015); or in the most extreme of cases, effects may not replicate because researchers have deliberately engaged in fraud (see Simonsohn, 2013, for a discussion). And though sexual science likely struggles-knowingly or not-with each of these causes of unreplicable findings to a comparable extent, the fallout from each of these issues could be greater for sexual science.…”

Section: Sexual Science Is Vulnerablementioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting replicable sexual science: A methodological review and call for metascience

Sakaluk

2016

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns have increased within the medical and social science communities about the replicability of scientific findings, and subsequently, assessments of replicability and proposals for how it may be increased have become more common. Sexual scientists, however, with few exceptions, have yet to formally participate in the published discourses about replicability. In this commentary, I begin by highlighting how replicability is important for science in general, and then arguing that sexual science could be uniquely and negatively impacted without more direct involvement in the replicability movement from those within our field. I then briefly review several mechanisms through which replicability can be undermined in research, and some of the proposals for addressing these issues. I conclude by offering some ideas for how sexual scientists might begin to evaluate and improve the replicability of our field, and stress the need for sexual scientists to add their voices to the ongoing discussions about the problem of replicability of scientific findings.

show abstract

“…The differences between animal and human experimental designs are shocking, and go a long way to explain the failure of translation 17,18 . Similarly, basic errors in experimental design and analysis are easy to spot and do predict the likelihood of a result being robust and replicable 7,17,19,106 . This question, once again, challenges us to ask, are we treating animals as tools or patients?…”

Section: What Principles Of Experimental Design and Statistics Are Igmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing Therioepistemology: the study of how knowledge is gained from animal research

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We are honored to write the opening article of this focus issue of Lab Animal. This focus issue could not occur at a more important time for biomedical research and the use of animals in science in general. The progressive worsening of success rates in human trials (currently 1 in 9 drugs entering human trials will succeed) 1-4 , combined with the explosion of interest in the reproducibility crisis 5-8 and the recognition that most drugs fail in human trials due to insufficient efficacy 1,2,4 , has led to a growing suspicion that the failure of translation from animal work to human outcomes may in some way reflect issues in animal research itself 5-19 -after all, every drug that fails in humans "worked" in an animal model. Indeed pharmaceutical companies continue to disinvest in internal animal R&D, a trend begun in the last decade, passing on the cost and risk to academia and startups 5,20 . Even this approach is not foolproof as pharmaceutical companies often cannot replicate the results of published work from academia 5,8,13 . Accordingly, there is a growing trend to focus on human, not animal, work for basic discovery 17 .Discarding animal research entirely is not the answer. When properly used, animal models have incredible value, not least the ability to follow biomarkers from birth to disease onset in a year or less (in the case of mice), which is impossible in humans 17,18 . There are patterns and principles that can help us identify models and results that are more or less likely to translate, and there are also easily realized, simple changes in the execution of animal work that will inherently improve translation [16][17][18] . This isn't a new concept; looking back over the last 10-15 years we can see many authors have been candid about the merits, strengths, weaknesses, reproducibility, and translatability of various animal models 1,2,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] . Our goal with this article is to unite the common themes in this broader emerging literature and this special issue.Thus, the central point is that we (i.e., refs. 17,18,26-28,39,41) do not represent a voice in the wilderness, but one voice in a chorus and that this emerging literature 1,2,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]42,43 reflects a nascent discipline which can be codified as the study of how knowledge is gained from animal research. We propose the title "Therioepistemology" This focus issue of Lab Animal coincides with a tipping point in biomedical research. For the first time, the scale of the reproducibility and translatability crisis is widely understood beyond the small cadre of researchers who have been studying it and the pharmaceutical and biotech companies who have been living it. Here we argue that an emerging literature, including the papers in this focus issue, has begun to congeal around a set of recurring themes, which themselves represent a paradigm shift. This paradigm shift can be c...

show abstract

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

Cited by 53 publications

References 68 publications

The Effects of Disease Vulnerability on Preferences for Self-Similar Scent

The Effects of Disease Vulnerability on Preferences for Self-Similar Scent

Promoting replicable sexual science: A methodological review and call for metascience

Introducing Therioepistemology: the study of how knowledge is gained from animal research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About