Many citizens in liberal democracies are concerned about immigration and its impact on their countries. Governments often seek to address these concerns by restricting the post-entry rights of immigrants such as the right to permanent settlement or access to welfare benefits. Thereby, it is expected that immigrants with an inferior legal status are (perceived as) less threatening to natives and, as a result, make the latter more willing to accept new immigrants. Does this policy rationale indeed attenuate public opposition to immigrant admission and thus allow for the reconciliation of the economic need for immigrants with the political concerns of domestic constituents? This study advances the theoretical argument of a rights-conditionality in citizens’ immigration preferences and provides empirical evidence on the phenomenon. A factorial survey experiment among citizens in the United States and Switzerland tests the effect of residence and welfare rights on the public opposition to immigrant admission. The results show that restricting immigrants’ welfare rights does significantly decrease public opposition towards immigration across the two countries. In contrast, restricting immigrants’ residence rights does not, and in the context of Switzerland, even increases opposition to immigrant admission. Citizens critical of immigration are thus not per se more welcoming to immigrants if they receive an inferior legal status but seem to care about immigrants’ contributions and commitment to the receiving society. The findings highlight the importance of immigrants‘ post-entry rights in the view of citizens and show how the design of immigration policies may help to understand public immigration preferences.

The retrieval of past instances stored in memory can guide inferential choices and judgments. Yet, little process-level evidence exists that would allow a similar conclusion for preferential judgments. Recent research suggests that eye movements can trace information search in memory. During retrieval, people gaze at spatial locations associated with relevant information, even if the information is no longer present (the so-called ‘looking-at-nothing’ behavior). We examined eye movements based on the looking-at-nothing behavior to explore memory retrieval in inferential and preferential judgments. In Experiment 1, participants assessed their preference for smoothies with different ingredients, while the other half gauged another person’s preference. In Experiment 2, all participants made preferential judgments with or without instructions to respond as consistently as possible. People looked at exemplar locations in both inferential and preferential judgments, and both with and without consistency instructions. Eye movements to similar training exemplars predicted test judgments but not eye movements to dissimilar exemplars. These results suggest that people retrieve exemplar information in preferential judgments but that retrieval processes are not the sole determinant of judgments.

Survey experiments are an important tool to measure policy preferences. Researchers often rely on the random assignment of policy attribute levels to estimate different types of average marginal effects. Yet, researchers are often interested in how respondents trade-off different policy dimensions. We use a conjoint experiment administered to more than 10,000 respondents in Germany, to study preferences over personal freedoms and public welfare during the COVID-19 crisis. Using a pre-registered structural model, we estimate policy ideal points and indifference curves to assess the conditions under which citizens are willing to sacrifice freedoms in the interest of public well-being. We document broad willingness to accept restrictions on rights alongside sharp heterogeneity with respect to vaccination status. The majority of citizens are vaccinated and strongly support limitations on freedoms in response to extreme conditions—especially, when they vaccinated themselves are exempted from these limitations. The unvaccinated minority prefers no restrictions on freedoms regardless of the severity of the pandemic. These policy packages also matter for reported trust in government, in opposite ways for vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens.

Duncan Black, like Adam Smith before him, was trained at, and taught at, the University of Glasgow. Like Smith, Black followed the Enlightenment in appreciating the importance of theory and of its empirical applications. Black sought to apply the ideas of a schedule of preferences and a conception of equilibrium, to politics, as Smith had done in economics. Black believed that his median voter theorem could generalize to a theory of politics, much as Smith’s contributions did for market economics. Black did not complete that generalization, but William Riker did offer a theory of institutional politics, designed to complete Black’s project.

Electoral systems fulfill different functions. Typically, they cannot meet all demands at the same time, so that the evaluation of specific electoral systems depends on subjective preferences about the single demands. We argue that it is the electorate which transfers its power to representatives and, therefore, its preferences should be considered in debates about electoral systems. Consequently, our contribution presents results of citizens’ demands regarding electoral system attributes. Specifically, we rely on a large-scale conjoint experiment conducted in Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK in which subjects were asked to choose between two electoral systems which randomly differed on a set of attributes referring to electoral systems’ core functions. Our results show that all core functions are generally of importance for the respondents but reveal a higher preference for proportional electoral systems. These preferences are largely stable for citizens in different countries but also for other subgroups of subjects.

Preferences for nest box size and position were tested in two groups of common marmoset, Callithrix jacchus jacchus. In a pre-test phase two, new, wooden nest boxes were introduced to each group alongside their old metal one, so that the animals could become familiar with them, and so that any pre-existing preference could be identified. In successive experiments: i) the old metal nest box was closed so that the marmosets had to choose a preferred box from the two new nest boxes; ii) the size of the preferred nest box was systematically reduced; and iii) in one of the groups the reduced nest box was restored to full size, but its position interchanged with the non-preferred box. In a further experiment, the position of the preferred, and then of the non-preferred box was raised to the highest point in the cage. The marmosets showed strong positional preferences which could not have been predicted without performing the tests. One of the groups also showed a strong preference for the high nest box. It was concluded that marmosets may exhibit preferences for their cage furniture, the basis of which may not be clear to us. These preferences should, however, be taken into account when designing cages to maximize the welfare of the animals.

A captive group of white-faced capuchins, Cebus capucinus, was presented with four deep litters in simultaneous choice (or preference) tests. A floor covering of ground corn cob, woodchips, wood wool or peat was presented once in each quarter of the group ‘s indoor floor-area for 14 consecutive days, and the layout of the litters was rotated after each such period. The monkeys were observed on 10 days in each period to determine the occurrence of locomotion, foraging, play, and social contact on each of the litters. The ground corn cob was clearly the least attractive floor covering for the monkeys, while peat and wood wool proved to be the most attractive. Most instances of social contact occurred on the peat, due to the occurrence of communal peat-bathing, while wood wool afforded the most play. The provision of different litter types in different areas of the indoor enclosure is a simple means of promoting a greater range of natural activities in captive primates, and probably also in other animals.

There has been much consideration of well-being in philosophy, especially of human well-being, which contributes to our understanding of animal welfare. Three common approaches to well-being are presented here, which map approximately onto three possible ideas about animal welfare. Perfectionism and other forms of ‘objective list’ theories suggest that there are various values that should be realised or various things that an individual ought to have for his life to be a good life. In the case of humans, this is based on the concept of human nature. This approach is reflected in two ideas about animal welfare: first, that animals should live natural lives (which includes consideration of an animal's nature or ‘telos’), and second, that welfare is concerned with functioning or fitness of animals. The two other approaches are subjective: in other words, they relate solely to the mental processes of the subject. The first, desire fulfilment, suggests that well-being is defined by the satisfaction of desires or preferences. The other, hedonism, states that well-being is the presence of pleasant mental states and the absence of unpleasant ones. These two approaches are both relevant to the idea that the welfare of animals relates solely to their feelings. That idea corresponds most closely to hedonism, so it may be that preferences are most relevant in helping to reveal feelings. However, it is sometimes implied that satisfaction of preferences is itself part of feelings. It would also be possible to maintain, as in the desire fulfilment approach to human well-being, that animal welfare consists of preference satisfaction itself. These possibilities need to be more clearly distinguished. Arguments for and against each approach to well-being are presented, so that scientists may be more aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their own ideas about animal welfare.

Two experiments were carried out to determine whether lighting conditions during handling affected heart rate or behaviour in farmed red deer. In Experiment 1 heart rate was measured in 24 individual deer, held under restraint in a mechanical deer crush for two minutes, under either dark (0lux) or light (1500lux) conditions. A stethoscope was used to monitor heartbeat which was indicated vocally by the stethoscope operator on to a Dictaphone. In Experiment 2, 10 groups of three deer were confined for four minutes in an unfamiliar 4×6m light-proof pen with lighting provided either on the left or right-hand side of the pen, to provide a gradient across the pen from approximately 12 to 1000lux. For the first two minutes the deer were alone and for the second two minutes a person stood in the pen. An infrared video camera was used to record behaviour.

In Experiment 1, heart rate was lower (P < 0.05) in the dark compared with in the light when recording commenced, thereafter it decreased overall with similar (P > 0.05) values observed for the different lighting treatments. In Experiment 2, the mean position of the groups across the pen varied according to whether lighting was on the left or right, with groups displaced to the right when the lights were on the left, and standing in the middle of the pen when the lights were on the right (P < 0.05). During testing, groups moved away from whichever side the lights were on (P < 0.05). The experiments suggested that stress during restraint was reduced by providing darkness and that deer preferred dim lighting compared with bright lighting when confined in unfamiliar surroundings.

This study employs a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) in the health-care sector to test the loss aversion theory that is derived from reference-dependent preferences: The absolute subjective value of a deviation from a reference point is generally greater when the deviation represents a loss than when the same-sized change is perceived as a gain. As far as is known, this paper is the first to use a DCE to test the loss aversion theory. A DCE is a highly suitable tool for such testing because it estimates the marginal valuations of attributes, based on deviations from a reference point (a constant scenario). Moreover, loss aversion can be examined for each attribute separately. Another advantage of a DCE is that is can be applied to non-traded goods with non-tangible attributes. A health-care event is used for empirical illustration: The loss aversion theory is tested within the context of preference structures for maternity-ward attributes, estimated using data gathered from 3850 observations made by a sample of 542 women who had recently given birth. Seven hypotheses are presented and tested. Overall, significant support for behavioral loss aversion theories was found.

Experiments are increasingly moving online. This poses a major challenge forresearchers who rely on in-lab techniques such as eye-tracking. Researchers incomputer science have developed web-based eye-tracking applications (WebGazer;Papoutsaki et al., 2016) but they have yet to see them used in behavioralresearch. This is likely due to the extensive calibration and validationprocedure, inconsistent temporal resolution (Semmelmann & Weigelt, 2018),and the challenge of integrating it into experimental software. Here, weincorporate WebGazer into a JavaScript library widely used by behavioralresearchers (jsPsych) and adjust the procedure and code to reducecalibration/validation and improve the temporal resolution (from 100–1000ms to 20–30 ms). We test this procedure with a decision-making study onAmazon MTurk, replicating previous in-lab findings on the relationship betweengaze and choice, with little degradation in spatial or temporal resolution. Thisprovides evidence that online web-based eye-tracking is feasible in behavioralresearch.

Popular culture reflects whatever piques our imagination. Think of the myriad movies and books that take viewers and readers on an imaginary journey to the past or the future (e.g., Gladiator, The Time Machine). Despite the ubiquity of time travel as a theme in cultural expression, the factors that underlie people’s preferences concerning the direction of time travel have gone unexplored. What determines whether a person would prefer to visit the (certain) past or explore the (uncertain) future? We identified three factors that markedly affect people’s preference for (hypothetical) travel to the past or the future, respectively. Those who think of themselves as courageous, those with a more conservative worldview, and—perhaps counterintuitively—those who are advanced in age prefer to travel into the future. We discuss implications of these initial results.

Trading is a cornerstone of economic exchange and can take many different forms. In simple trades, one item is often exchanged for another; but in more complex trades, agents can trade different numbers of items, reflecting the differing value of the items being traded. Though young children regularly engage in simple trades, we examine whether they understand a key element involved in more complex trades—the idea that people may subjectively value the same item differently and accept trades that numerically disadvantage themselves in the service of acquiring more of a preferred item. To do so, we ran three studies with 5- to 10-year-old children (N = 314) in which they were asked to predict whether a third party would accept or reject different types of trades. Results revealed that children across this age range predict that a third party will accept a numerically disadvantageous trade when they prefer one resource over another, but not when they have an equal preference for both resources. Importantly, their predictions were not merely a reflection of what they thought was fair, but rather what was in the best interest of the third party—they thought a third party would be more likely to accept an “unfair” trade that benefitted himself rather than someone else. We discuss our findings in terms of what they reveal about children’s early economic intuitions.