Introduction to the special issue

This article provides an overview of the special issue of Motivation and Emotion, which will appear in two parts. This special issue examines the enduring contributions of the research of John T. Lanzetta and his colleagues on facial expression and emotion. In its entirety, the special issue consists of five articles and an epilogue. Part 1 (this issue of Motivation and Emotion) consists of the first three articles, and Part 2 (to appear as part of the next issue of Motivation and Emotion) consists of the final two articles and the epilogue. The first article provides an in-depth review of the Lanzetta research program, and describes this program as developing along four distinct lines that, respectively, cover work on (a) the facial feedback hypothesis, (b) the power of facial expression as an emotionally evocative stimulus, (c) the role of facial expression in empathy and counter-empathy, and (d) the relations between facial displays of powerful political leaders and observers' attitudes toward those leaders. Each of the subsequent four articles considers, in turn, the current status and future promise of one of these research lines as it has continued to grow and develop outside of the Lanzetta research program. Part 2 of the special issue concludes with an epilogue that highlights the major themes and conclusions that course through the entire body of research considered in this special issue.We would like to express our appreciation to Basil Englis, Arvid Kappas, Bob Kleck, and Scott Orr, each of whom contributed to the development of this special issue in a variety of ways.     

Introduction to the special issue on comparative cognition

Prior research has shown that nonhumans show an extreme preference for variable‐ over fixed‐delays to reinforcement. This well‐established preference for variability occurs because a reinforcer's strength or “value” decreases according to a curvilinear function as its delay increases. The purpose of the present experiments was to investigate whether this preference for variability occurs with human participants making hypothetical choices. In three experiments, participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk made choices between variable and fixed monetary rewards. In a variable‐delay procedure, participants repeatedly chose between a reward delivered either immediately or after a delay (with equal probability) and a reward after a fixed delay (Experiments 1 and 2). In a double‐reward procedure, participants made choices between an alternative consisting of two rewards, one delivered immediately and one after a delay, and a second alternative consisting of a single reward delivered after a delay (Experiments 1 and 3). Finally, all participants completed a standard delay‐discounting task. Although we observed both curvilinear discounting and magnitude effects in the standard discounting task, we found no consistent evidence of a preference for variability—as predicted by two prominent models of curvilinear discounting (i.e., a simple hyperbola and a hyperboloid)—in our variable‐delay and double‐reward procedures. This failure to observe a preference for variability may be attributed to the hypothetical, rule‐governed nature of choices in the present study. In such contexts, participants may adopt relatively simple strategies for making more complex choices.     

Introduction to the special issue on cognitive epidemiology

This is an introduction to a special issue of the journal Intelligence on cognitive epidemiology. Cognitive epidemiology is a new field of study, which examines the associations between intelligence—usually from early in life—and later morbidity (physical and mental) and mortality. In addition to exploring and establishing associations, studies within cognitive epidemiology attempt to explain them, by testing possible confounders and mediators, and complex pathways, of intelligence–health associations. Popular among mediators are health behaviours and education, and the well-known risk factors for chronic illnesses such as cardiovascular disease. In this special issue, readers will find advances in all of these matters. Thirteen new empirical studies, all involving large cohorts of humans, provide novel associations between intelligence and mortality, morbidity, and health behaviours and risk factors. New hypotheses of these associations are tested. This is the largest collection of cognitive epidemiology studies to date. Together, they will take the field forward by a quantum jump. This is a feast of cognitive epidemiology, establishing that, beside education and occupation, health outcomes contribute to the impressive predictive validity of intelligence differences.