We found no association between any measure of cognitive functioning and whether participants were currently "brain training" or not, even for the most committed brain trainers. Duration of brain training also showed no relationship with any cognitive performance measure. This result was the same regardless of participant age, which brain training program they used, or whether they expected brain training to work. Our results pose a significant challenge for "brain training" programs that purport to improve general cognitive functioning among the general population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).When the outcome is binary, psychologists often use nonlinear modeling strategies such as logit or probit. These strategies are often neither optimal nor justified when the objective is to estimate causal effects of experimental treatments. Researchers need to take extra steps to convert logit and probit coefficients into interpretable quantities, and when they do, these quantities often remain difficult to understand. Odds ratios, for instance, are described as obscure in many textbooks (e.g., Gelman & Hill, 2006, p. 83). I draw on econometric theory and established statistical findings to demonstrate that linear regression is generally the best strategy to estimate causal effects of treatments on binary outcomes. Linear regression coefficients are directly interpretable in terms of probabilities and, when interaction terms or fixed effects are included, linear regression is safer. I review the Neyman-Rubin causal model, which I use to prove analytically that linear regression yields unbiased estimates of treatment effects on binary outcomes. Then, I run simulations and analyze existing data on 24,191 students from 56 middle schools (Paluck, Shepherd, & Aronow, 2013) to illustrate the effectiveness of linear regression. Based on these grounds, I recommend that psychologists use linear regression to estimate treatment effects on binary outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).People frequently see design in nature that reflects intuitive teleological thinking-that is, the order in nature that supports life suggests it was designed for that purpose. This research proposes that inferences are stronger when nature supports human life specifically. Five studies (N = 1,788) examine evidence for an anthro-teleological bias. People agreed more with design statements framed to aid humans (e.g., "Trees produce oxygen so that humans can breathe") than the same statements framed to aid other targets (e.g., "Trees produce oxygen so that leopards can breathe"). The bias was greatest when advantages for humans were well-known and salient (e.g., the ozone layer) and decreased when advantages for other targets were made explicit. The bias was not eliminated by highlighting the benefits for other species, however, and emerged spontaneously for novel phenomena ("Jupiter's gravity protects Earth from asteroids"). We conclude that anthropocentric biases enhance existing teleological biases to see stronger design in phenomena where it enables human survival. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).We examine which social comparisons most affect happiness with pay that is unequally distributed (e.g., salaries and bonuses). We find that ensemble representation-attention to statistical properties of distributions such as their range and mean-makes the proximal extreme (i.e., the maximum or minimum) and distribution mean salient social comparison standards. Happiness with a salary or bonus is more affected by how it compares to the distribution mean and proximal extreme than by exemplar-based properties of the payment, like its comparison to the nearest payment or its distribution rank. This holds for randomly assigned and performance-based payments. Process studies demonstrate that ensemble representations lead people to spontaneously select these statistical properties of pay distributions as comparison standards. Exogenously increasing the salience of less extreme exemplars moderates the influence of the maximum on happiness with pay, but exogenously increasing the salience of the distribution maximum does not. As with other social comparison standards, top-down information moderates their selection. Happiness with a bonus payment is influenced by the largest payment made to others who solve the same math problems, for instance, but not by the largest payment made to others who solve different verbal problems. Our findings yield theoretical and practical insights about which members of groups are selected as social comparison standards, effects of relative income on happiness, and the attentional processes involved in ensemble representation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).Pragmatic theories and computational models of reference must account for people's frequent use of redundant color adjectives (e.g., referring to a single triangle as "the blue triangle"). The standard pragmatic view holds that the informativity of a referential expression depends on pragmatic contrast Color adjectives should be used to contrast competitors of the same kind to preempt an ambiguity (e.g., between several triangles of different colors), otherwise they are redundant. Here we propose an alternative to the standard view, the incremental efficiency hypothesis, according to which the efficiency of a referential expression must be calculated incrementally over the entire visual context. This is the first theoretical account of referential efficiency that is sensitive to the incrementality of language processing, making different cross-linguistic predictions depending on word order. Experiment 1 confirmed that English speakers produced more redundant color adjectives (e.g., "the blue triangle") than Spanish speakers (e.g., "el triángulo azul"), but both language groups used more redundant color adjectives in denser displays where it would be more efficient. In Experiments 2A and 2B, we used eye tracking to show that pragmatic contrast is not a processing constraint. Instead, incrementality and efficiency determine that English listeners establish color contrast across categories (BLUE SHAPES > TRIANGULAR ONE), whereas Spanish listeners establish color contrast within a category (TRIANGLES > BLUE ONE).  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/VX-770.html  Spanish listeners, however, reversed their visual search strategy when tested in English immediately after. Our results show that speakers and listeners of different languages exploit word order to increase communicative efficiency. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).