The General Decision-Making Styles (GDMS) scale measures five decision-making styles: rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant and spontaneous. GDMS has been related to coping and some personality factors and sex-differences has been described. In spite of its usefulness, there is not a validated Spanish translation. The aim of this study is to translate to Spanish and provide psychometric evidence considering sex differences and the relationships between GDMS, personality and coping variables. Two samples were used for this study; the first sample composed by 300 participants who completed the GDMS and the Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI), and the second sample of 361 participants who completed the GDMS, the Ten Item Personality Trait Inventory and the brief COPE scales. Participants from second sample filled in GDMS a second time (137 participants) after eight weeks from the first data collection. Confirmatory factor analyses showed a five-factor composition of GDMS with equivalence across sex using invariance analyses. Moreover, GDMS showed acceptable internal consistency and temporal stability. Finally, rational and intuitive styles were related to healthier coping patterns and emotional stability, while dependent, avoidant and spontaneous styles were associated with unhealthy coping patterns and emotional instability.

In “The value of nothing: asymmetric attention to opportunity costs drives intertemporal decision making” Read, Olivola and Hardisty (2017) proposed an asymmetric subjective opportunity cost (ASOC) effect to explain and predict why impatience can be detected in intertemporal choice. This work deserves to be replicated and extended for its novel and potentially important findings. The present study aimed to examine the reliability and robustness of the evidence presented by Read et al. by conducting precise replications of their key findings in Study 1. The ASOC effect (Read, et al., 2017) was important for expanding its application and reported to be typically stronger when baseline larger-but-later option (LL) and smaller-but-sooner option (SS) preferences were closer to 50% in the authors’ original condition. Therefore, the present study also aimed to replicate and test the ASOC effect when baseline LL preferences were higher or lower than those in the original condition. We intended to set two additional conditions wherein either LL or SS is more obviously favored (i.e., baseline LL preferences were higher or lower than those in the original condition) by respectively applying the common difference effect (Kirby & Herrnstein, 1995) and the unit effect (Burson, Larrick & Lynch Jr., 2009; Pandelaere, Briers & Lembregts, 2011). Having successfully generated two more obviously favored conditions, the ASOC effect was replicated and confirmed under the original condition and one additional condition wherein SS was more obviously favored. However, the ASOC effect was not detected under the other additional condition wherein LL was more obviously favored. The implications of these findings were discussed.

Political identification is the basis of enduring conflict, suggesting thatpolitical attitudes are difficult to change. Here we show that in the 2016 U.S.Presidential Election, political identities underwent modification in responseto salient political events. We investigate these dynamics in detail bycollecting data at periodic intervals from mid-June 2016 through the generalelection (N = 3,958). We operationalize identification using prosocial giving inDictator Games played between supporters of competing primary candidatesrecruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. The observed dynamics differed acrosspolitical parties. In-group bias among Democrats remained high until theDemocratic National Convention, disappeared shortly thereafter, and thenreturned during the final stage of the election. Bias among Republicans wasgenerally high until the final days of the election. The late resurgence of biasamong Democrats was not reflected in voting intentions, but may have presagedthe Democratic election loss.