RESUMO
Individuals living in either harsh or favorable environments display well-documented psychological and behavioral differences. For example, people in favorable environments tend to be more future-oriented, trust strangers more, and have more explorative preferences. To account for such differences, psychologists have turned to evolutionary biology and behavioral ecology, in particular, the literature on life-history theory and pace-of-life syndrome. However, critics have found that the theoretical foundations of these approaches are fragile and that differences in life expectancy cannot explain vast psychological and behavioral differences. In this article, we build on the theory of optimal resource allocation to propose an alternative framework. We hypothesize that the quantity of resources available, such as income, has downstream consequences on psychological traits, leading to the emergence of behavioral syndromes. We show that more resources lead to more long-term orientation, more tolerance of variance, and more investment in low marginal-benefit needs. At the behavioral level, this translates, among others, into more large-scale cooperation, more investment in health, and more exploration. These individual-level differences in behavior, in turn, account for cultural phenomena such as puritanism, authoritarianism, and innovation.
RESUMO
Previous studies have shown that people change their behaviour in response to negative shocks such as economic downturns or natural catastrophes. Indeed, the optimal behaviour in terms of inclusive fitness often varies according to a number of parameters, such as the level of mortality risk in the environment. Beyond unprecedented restrictions in everyday life, the COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected people's environment. In this study, we investigated how people form their perception of morbidity and mortality risk associated with COVID-19 and how this perception in turn affects psychological traits, such as risk-taking and patience. We analysed data from a large survey conducted during the first wave in France on 3353 nationally representative people. We found that people use public information on COVID-19 deaths in the area where they live to form their perceived morbidity and mortality risk. Using a structural model approach to lift endogeneity concerns, we found that higher perceived morbidity and mortality risk increases risk aversion. We also found that higher perceived morbidity and mortality risk leads to less patience, although this was only observed for high levels of perceived risk. Our results suggest that people adapt their behaviour to anticipated negative health shocks, namely the risk of becoming sick or dying of COVID-19.
RESUMO
Recent empirical research has shown that improving socio-emotional skills such as grit, conscientiousness and self-control leads to higher academic achievement and better life outcomes. However, both theoretical and empirical works have raised concerns about the reliability of the different methods used to measure socio-emotional skills. We compared the reliability and validity of the three leading measurements methods-a student-reported questionnaire, a teacher-reported questionnaire, and a behavioral task-in a sample of 3997 French students. Before analyzing the data, we polled 114 international researchers in cognitive development and education economics; most researchers in both fields predicted that the behavioral task would be the best method. We found instead that the teacher questionnaire was more predictive of students' behavioral outcomes and of their grade progression, while the behavioral task was the least predictive. This work suggests that researchers may not be using optimal tools to measure socio-emotional skills in children.
