Measuring Spiritual Fitness: Atheist Military Personnel,Veterans, and Civilians

This study investigated the impact of transcendent item phrasing (i.e., phrasing which assumes the respondent believes in certain sacred or supernatural concepts) on the validity of the U.S. Army’s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) program’s spiritual fitness scale when administered to atheist military personnel, veterans, and civilians. Results indicated that the inclusion of transcendent phrasing led to reduced concurrent validity for the spiritual fitness scale when administered to atheist military personnel and veterans, reduced concurrent and predictive validity when administered to atheists’ but not Christians’ spiritual fitness. Notably, the removal of transcendent phrasing actually led to increased concurrent validity for Christian respondents. Taken together, these findings suggest the Revised scale, which is composed of items that do not rely on transcendent phrasing, produces better psychometric outcomes for both atheist and Christian respondents. Implications for the CSF program and the measurement of spiritual fitness are addressed.     

The Adaptive Use of Recognition in Group Decision Making

Applying the framework of ecological rationality, the authors studied the adaptivity of group decision making. In detail, they investigated whether groups apply decision strategies conditional on their composition in terms of task‐relevant features. The authors focused on the recognition heuristic, so the task‐relevant features were the validity of the group members' recognition and knowledge, which influenced the potential performance of group strategies. Forty‐three three‐member groups performed an inference task in which they had to infer which of two German companies had the higher market capitalization. Results based on the choice data support the hypothesis that groups adaptively apply the strategy that leads to the highest theoretically achievable performance. Time constraints had no effect on strategy use but did have an effect on the proportions of different types of arguments. Possible mechanisms underlying the adaptive use of recognition in group decision making are discussed.     

Personality Expression and Impression Formation in Online Social Networks: An Integrative Approach to Understanding the Processes of Accuracy,Impression Management and Meta‐accuracy

In this paper, we investigate personality expression and impression formation processes in online social networks (OSNs). We explore whether, when and why people accurately judge others' personalities (accuracy), successfully manage the impressions that others form of them (impression management) and accurately infer others' impressions of them (meta‐accuracy) at zero acquaintance. On the basis of targets' OSN profiles (N = 103), overall perceiver impressions were collected and compared with targets' self‐view, desired impression and meta‐perception. In addition, independent groups of thin‐slice perceivers based their personality impressions solely on one of four kinds of information within the OSN profiles (profile picture, interests field, group list and notice board), and more than 300 OSN cues (e.g. attractive person and number of friends) were coded. Results showed evidence of accuracy, impression management and meta‐accuracy, but their extent was moderated by the trait (e.g. Big Five and self‐esteem), the kind of information and the interplay of trait and information. Findings could be explained by cue expression and cue utilization processes (lens model analyses). Future prospects for studying personality impressions in online and offline environments are discussed. Copyright © 2013 European Association of Personality Psychology.     

Focus on the essential: all great apes know when others are being attentive

When begging for food, all great ape species are sensitive to a human’s attention. However, studies investigating which cues are relevant for chimpanzees to assess the attentional state of others have produced highly inconsistent results. Some have suggested chimpanzees differentiate attention based on the status of the face or even the eyes, while others have indicated that body posture alone is the relevant cue. Kaminski et al. (Anim Cogn 7:216–223, 2004) compared the behaviour of chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans while begging for food from a human experimenter who systematically varied his face and body orientation. Their results indicated that both factors, face and body orientation, affect apes’ begging behaviour. The authors claimed that while body orientation provides information about the experimenter’s general disposition to offer food, the visibility of the face provides information about the human’s attentional state. In the current study, we tested this hypothesis with all four great apes species. However, unlike Kaminski et al. (Anim Cogn 7:216–223, 2004), the experimenter was able to hand over food regardless of body orientation. The results show that as soon as the offering of the food was no longer restricted, the orientation of the face became the key factor. Therefore, we present the first evidence that all great ape species are able to assess the attentional state of a recipient based on the orientation of the face.     

Gibbons (Hylobates pileatus, H. moloch, H. lar, Symphalangus syndactylus) follow human gaze, but do not take the visual perspective of others

We investigated four gibbon species of two different genera (Hylobates pileatus, H. moloch, H. lar, Symphalangus syndactylus) in terms of their looking behavior in response to a human who either looked up or looked at the gibbon. Comparing those two conditions, gibbons as a group looked up more when the human was looking up, but they also performed more looks in other directions and thus generally looked more in this condition. Unlike great apes, gibbons did not respond differently between conditions when only the first look on every trial was considered. Furthermore, they did not perform double looks up to check where the human was looking and also did not habituate to the human’s looks up. This suggests that gibbons co-orient with human gaze, but unlike great apes, they do not take the visual perspective of others.