A view through gloomy glasses: accuracy and bias in relationships of narcissists

Narcissists’ perception of others is marked by a negative bias in the service of their own self-enhancement. The aim of this study was to determine whether narcissists’ negative bias extends to the perception of romantic partners too. In addition, we explored whether partners of narcissists succumb to specific perception biases as well. During 14 days, 86 couples completed measures of support given to and received from their partners. The results indicated that both male and female narcissists were more accurate in detecting negative support (e.g., blaming the partner for his or her problems) received from their partners, while female narcissists only were less accurate in perceiving altruistic support motives (e.g., truly enjoying to help the partner) of their male partner. Moreover, narcissists as well as their partners displayed a negative bias by underestimating the amount of altruistic support motives reported by each of them. On the other hand, partners of narcissists were positively biased as well and underestimated the negative support given by the narcissists. Results are discussed in relation to the self-regulatory goals of narcissists and of their partners and with respect to the possible impact of their accuracy and biases on the couple wellbeing.

Bias associated with detrital zircon geochronology and thermochronometry

Detrital studies that utilize zircon U–Pb geochronology and fission-track (FT) thermochronometry are subject to a range of potential sources of bias that should be properly evaluated and minimized. Some of them are common to any single-grain mineral analysis (e.g., variable bedrock mineral fertility, hydraulic sorting during transport, selective grain loss during sample processing), whereas others are intrinsic to zircon, and are related to radiation damage and age discordance. In this article, we quantify the impact of intrinsic bias on detrital studies thanks to the analysis of modern detritus shed from the European Alps, and illustrate the general implications on geological interpretations. We show that detrital zircon U–Pb age distributions based on statistically robust datasets are highly reproducible and representative of the parent bedrock ages in the catchment. Arbitrary or selective removal of discordant grain ages can be minimized by using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test to identify an appropriate cutoff level. Loss of metamict (α-damaged) zircon has a minor impact on data representativeness, and is mainly controlled by regional metamorphism rather than by mechanical abrasion during river transport. Zircon FT grain-age distributions were found to have poor reproducibility, although age spectra are consistent with bedrock data. However, unlike the U–Pb datasets, U-rich zircon grains (> 1000 ppm) are systematically missed, and undatable grains may exceed 50%. We identify two major sources of distribution bias specific to zircon FT datasets: (i) sediment sources dominated by U-rich zircon grains are markedly underrepresented in the detrital record, because such grains often have uncountable high densities of fission tracks (“U concentration bias”); (ii) sediment sources that shed zircon grains with high levels of α-damage are underrepresented, because these grains are lost during chemical etching for FT revelation (“etching bias”). In the case of multimethod dating on the same grains (e.g., FT and U–Pb double dating), bias affecting detrital zircon FT dating propagates to the entire dataset. These effects may not impact on exhumation-rate studies that utilize the youngest grain ages (i.e., lag-time approach). However, they represent a limiting factor for conventional provenance studies, and generally preclude application of zircon FT dating to sediment budget calculations.

Poor Reliability between Cochrane Reviewers and Blinded External Reviewers When Applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool in Physical Therapy Trials

OBJECTIVES To test the inter-rater reliability of the RoB tool applied to Physical Therapy (PT) trials by comparing ratings from Cochrane review authors with those of blinded external reviewers. METHODS Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PT were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analysis of PT interventions. RoB assessments were conducted independently by 2 reviewers blinded to the RoB ratings reported in the Cochrane reviews. Data on RoB assessments from Cochrane reviews and other characteristics of reviews and trials were extracted. Consensus assessments between the two reviewers were then compared with the RoB ratings from the Cochrane reviews. Agreement between Cochrane and blinded external reviewers was assessed using weighted kappa (κ). RESULTS In total, 109 trials included in 17 Cochrane reviews were assessed. Inter-rater reliability on the overall RoB assessment between Cochrane review authors and blinded external reviewers was poor (κ  =  0.02, 95%CI: -0.06, 0.06]). Inter-rater reliability on individual domains of the RoB tool was poor (median κ  = 0.19), ranging from κ  =  -0.04 ("Other bias") to κ  =  0.62 ("Sequence generation"). There was also no agreement (κ  =  -0.29, 95%CI: -0.81, 0.35]) in the overall RoB assessment at the meta-analysis level. CONCLUSIONS Risk of bias assessments of RCTs using the RoB tool are not consistent across different research groups. Poor agreement was not only demonstrated at the trial level but also at the meta-analysis level. Results have implications for decision making since different recommendations can be reached depending on the group analyzing the evidence. Improved guidelines to consistently apply the RoB tool and revisions to the tool for different health areas are needed.

Intergroup bias in third-party punishment stems from both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination

Social norms pervade almost every aspect of social interaction. If they are violated, not only legal institutions, but other members of society as well, punish, i.e., inflict costs on the wrongdoer. Sanctioning occurs even when the punishers themselves were not harmed directly and even when it is costly for them. There is evidence for intergroup bias in this third-party punishment: third-parties, who share group membership with victims, punish outgroup perpetrators more harshly than ingroup perpetrators. However, it is unknown whether a discriminatory treatment of outgroup perpetrators (outgroup discrimination) or a preferential treatment of ingroup perpetrators (ingroup favoritism) drives this bias. To answer this question, the punishment of outgroup and ingroup perpetrators must be compared to a baseline, i.e., unaffiliated perpetrators. By applying a costly punishment game, we found stronger punishment of outgroup versus unaffiliated perpetrators and weaker punishment of ingroup versus unaffiliated perpetrators. This demonstrates that both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination drive intergroup bias in third-party punishment of perpetrators that belong to distinct social groups.

Negative bias of processing ambiguously cued emotional stimuli.

Daily we cope with upcoming potentially disadvantageous events. Therefore, it makes sense to be prepared for the worst case. Such a 'pessimistic' bias is reflected in brain activation during emotion processing. Healthy individuals underwent functional neuroimaging while viewing emotional stimuli that were earlier cued ambiguously or unambiguously concerning their emotional valence. Presentation of ambiguously announced pleasant pictures compared with unambiguously announced pleasant pictures resulted in increased activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal, premotor and temporal cortex, and in the caudate nucleus. This was not the case for the respective negative conditions. This indicates that pleasant stimuli after ambiguous cueing provided 'unexpected' emotional input, resulting in the adaptation of brain activity. It strengthens the hypothesis of a 'pessimistic' bias of brain activation toward ambiguous emotional events.

Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a study protocol

BACKGROUND The Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool has been widely embraced by the systematic review community, but several studies have reported that its reliability is low. We aim to investigate whether training of raters, including objective and standardized instructions on how to assess risk of bias, can improve the reliability of this tool. We describe the methods that will be used in this investigation and present an intensive standardized training package for risk of bias assessment that could be used by contributors to the Cochrane Collaboration and other reviewers. METHODS/DESIGN This is a pilot study. We will first perform a systematic literature review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that will be used for risk of bias assessment. Using the identified RCTs, we will then do a randomized experiment, where raters will be allocated to two different training schemes: minimal training and intensive standardized training. We will calculate the chance-corrected weighted Kappa with 95% confidence intervals to quantify within- and between-group Kappa agreement for each of the domains of the risk of bias tool. To calculate between-group Kappa agreement, we will use risk of bias assessments from pairs of raters after resolution of disagreements. Between-group Kappa agreement will quantify the agreement between the risk of bias assessment of raters in the training groups and the risk of bias assessment of experienced raters. To compare agreement of raters under different training conditions, we will calculate differences between Kappa values with 95% confidence intervals. DISCUSSION This study will investigate whether the reliability of the risk of bias tool can be improved by training raters using standardized instructions for risk of bias assessment. One group of inexperienced raters will receive intensive training on risk of bias assessment and the other will receive minimal training. By including a control group with minimal training, we will attempt to mimic what many review authors commonly have to do, that is-conduct risk of bias assessment in RCTs without much formal training or standardized instructions. If our results indicate that an intense standardized training does improve the reliability of the RoB tool, our study is likely to help improve the quality of risk of bias assessments, which is a central component of evidence synthesis.

Confusion over live/dead stainings for the detection of vital microorganisms in oral biofilms--which stain is suitable?

BACKGROUND There is confusion over the definition of the term "viability state(s)" of microorganisms. "Viability staining" or "vital staining techniques" are used to distinguish live from dead bacteria. These stainings, first established on planctonic bacteria, may have serious shortcomings when applied to multispecies biofilms. Results of staining techniques should be compared with appropriate microbiological data. DISCUSSION Many terms describe "vitality states" of microorganisms, however, several of them are misleading. Authors define "viable" as "capable to grow". Accordingly, staining methods are substitutes, since no staining can prove viability.The reliability of a commercial "viability" staining assay (Molecular Probes) is discussed based on the corresponding product information sheet: (I) Staining principle; (II) Concentrations of bacteria; (III) Calculation of live/dead proportions in vitro. Results of the "viability" kit are dependent on the stains' concentration and on their relation to the number of bacteria in the test. Generally this staining system is not suitable for multispecies biofilms, thus incorrect statements have been published by users of this technique.To compare the results of the staining with bacterial parameters appropriate techniques should be selected. The assessment of Colony Forming Units is insufficient, rather the calculation of Plating Efficiency is necessary. Vital fluorescence staining with Fluorescein Diacetate and Ethidium Bromide seems to be the best proven and suitable method in biofilm research.Regarding the mutagenicity of staining components users should be aware that not only Ethidium Bromide might be harmful, but also a variety of other substances of which the toxicity and mutagenicity is not reported. SUMMARY - The nomenclature regarding "viability" and "vitality" should be used carefully.- The manual of the commercial "viability" kit itself points out that the kit is not suitable for natural multispecies biofilm research, as supported by an array of literature.- Results obtained with various stains are influenced by the relationship between bacterial counts and the amount of stain used in the test. Corresponding vitality data are prone to artificial shifting.- As microbiological parameter the Plating Efficiency should be used for comparison.- Ethidium Bromide is mutagenic. Researchers should be aware that alternative staining compounds may also be or even are mutagenic.

Can eye movements bias memory recall?

A large body of research suggests that when we retrieve visual information from memory, we look back to the location where we encoded these objects. It has been proposed that the oculomotor trace we act out during encoding is stored in long-term memory, along other contents of the episodic representation. If memory recall triggers the eyes to revisit the location where the stimulus was encoded, is there also an effect in the reverse direction? Can eye movements trigger memory recall? In Experiment 1 participants encoded two faces at two different locations on the computer screen. Then, the average face (morph) of these two faces appeared in either of the two encoding locations and participants had to indicate whether it resembles more the first or second face. In Experiment 2 the morph appeared in a new location, but participants had to repeat one of the oculomotor traces that was used during encoding. Participants’ morph perception was influenced both by the location and the eye-movement it was presented with. Our results suggest that eye-movements can bias memory recall, but only in a short-lasting and rather fragile way.