How Cross‐Linguistic Differences in the Grammaticalization of Future Time Reference Influence Intertemporal Choices

According to Chen's (2013) Linguistic Savings Hypothesis (LSH), our native language affects our economic behavior. We present three studies investigating how cross‐linguistic differences in the grammaticalization of future‐time reference (FTR) affect intertemporal choices. In a series of decision scenarios about finance and health issues, we let speakers of altogether five languages that represent FTR with increasing strength, that is, Chinese, German, Danish, Spanish, and English, choose between hypothetical sooner‐smaller and later‐larger reward options. While the LSH predicts a present‐bias that increases with FTR‐strength, our decision makers preferred later‐larger options and this future‐bias increased with FTR‐strength. In multiple regressions, the FTR‐strength effect persisted when controlled for socioeconomic and cultural differences. We discuss why our findings deviate from the LSH and ask in how far the FTR‐strength effect represents a habitual constitution of linguistic relativity or an instance of online decision framing.     

Suddenly included: Cultural differences in experiencing re‐inclusion

In the current research, we examined whether re‐inclusion (i.e. the change from a previous state of exclusion to a new state of inclusion) was perceived differently by people with individualistic and collectivistic cultural backgrounds. Individualists (German and Austrian participants) but not collectivists (Chinese participants) experienced re‐inclusion differently than continued inclusion: While collectivistic participants did not differentiate between both kinds of inclusion, individualistic participants showed reduced fulfilment of their psychological needs under re‐inclusion compared to continued inclusion. The results moreover revealed that only participants from individualistic cultures expressed more feelings of exclusion when re‐included than when continually included. These exclusionary feelings partially mediated the relationship between the different states of inclusion and basic need fulfilment.     

An Examination of Potential Misclassification of Army Suicides: Results from the Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers

Debate continues about the accuracy of military suicide reporting due to concerns that some suicides may be classified as accidents to minimize stigma and ensure survivor benefits. We systematically reviewed records for 998 active duty Army deaths (510 suicides; 488 accident, homicide, and undetermined deaths; 2005‐2009) and, using research criteria, reclassified 8.2% of the nonsuicide cases to definite suicide (1), suicide probable (4), or suicide possible (35). The reclassification rate to definite suicide was only 0.2% (1/488). This low rate suggests that flagrant misclassification of Army deaths is uncommon and surveillance reports likely reflect the “true” population of Army suicides.