Norm-of-reaction: definition and misinterpretation of animal research

The development of a phenotype is due to an interaction of the genotype with the environment. Two terms have been used to describe the outcome of this interaction, the norm-of-reaction and the reaction range. The first represents the theoretically limitless distribution of the phenotypes that may be expressed by a given genotype. The reaction range implies an upper and lower limit for phenotype expression possible from a given genotype. A critical distinction between the reaction range and the norm-of-reaction is that the norm-of-reaction is a statement of the conceivable interactions found but does not imply any predictability other than that within the conditions previously tested experimentally, that is, the tails of a normal distribution are infinitely variable, whereas the concept of reaction range implies a limitation inherent in the genotype, that is, a finite range. Empirical support for the reaction-range concept is questionable. Animal studies cited in support of the reaction range have been inappropriately and incorrectly interpreted.     

Microprocessors in the laboratory: Dedicated computation and time-shared peripherals with REMOTE-11

This article describes a new solution to the dilemma faced by investigators who need dedicated computers but cannot afford the cost of expensive peripherals. An available software-hardware combination is described that permits users to timeshare expensive peripherals but to have a dedicated microprocessor at their disposal.     

Duchenne display responses towards sixteen enjoyable emotions: Individual differences between no and fear of being laughed at

The present study aims to identify whether individuals’ with a fear of being laughed at (gelotophobia), respond with less facially displayed joy (Duchenne display) generally towards enjoyable emotions or only those eliciting laughter. Forty participants (no vs. gelotophobia) described their feelings to scenarios prototypical for the 16 enjoyable emotions proposed by Ekman (Emotions revealed: recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication and emotional life. Times Books, New York, 2003), while being unobtrusively filmed. Facial responses were coded using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS, Ekman et al. in Facial Action Coding System: a technique for the measurement of facial movement. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, 2002). The gelotophobes showed less facial expression of joy compared to the non-gelotophobes (Hypothesis 1) and this effect was stronger for frequency and intensity of Duchenne displays towards laughter-eliciting enjoyable emotions than for no laughter-eliciting enjoyable emotions (Hypothesis 2). Moreover, the no gelotophobia group responded more strongly to laughter-eliciting than to no laughter-eliciting enjoyable emotions. Individuals with marked gelotophobia showed the reverse pattern, displaying less joy in laughter-eliciting emotions which may impact on their social interaction, as communication may break down when positive emotion are not reciprocated.     

Understanding prism adaptation: An individual differences approach

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics - Adaptation of college students to wedge prisms was studied in terminal exposure and continuous exposure conditions. The adaptation experience was...