Do people cheat more when they have something to gain, or when they have something to lose? The answer to this question isn’t straightforward, as research is mixed when it comes to understanding how unethical people will be when they might acquire something good versus avoid something bad. To wit, research has found that people cheat more in a loss (vs. gain) frame, yet research on regulatory focus has found that people cheat more in a promotion focus (where the focus is on acquiring gains) than in a prevention focus (where the focus is on avoiding losses). Through a large-scale field study containing 332,239 observations including 27,350 transgressions, we address the contradictory results of gain/loss frames and regulatory focus on committing unethical behavior in a context that contains a high risk of detecting unethical behavior (NFL football games). Our results replicated the separate effects of more cheating in a loss frame, and more cheating in a promotion focus. Furthermore, our data revealed a heretofore undocumented crossover interaction, in accordance with regulatory fit, which could disentangle past results: Specifically, we found promotion focus is associated with more cheating in a loss (vs. gain) frame, whereas prevention focus is associated with more cheating in a gain (vs. loss) frame. In gridiron football, this translates to offensive players fouling more when their team is losing (vs. winning) and defensive players fouling more when their team is winning (vs. losing).

The large-scale adoption of occupational exoskeletons (OEs) will only happen if clear evidence of effectiveness of the devices is available. Performing product-specific field validation studies would allow the stakeholders and decision-makers (e.g., employers, ergonomists, health, and safety departments) to assess OEs’ effectiveness in their specific work contexts and with experienced workers, who could further provide useful insights on practical issues related to exoskeleton daily use. This paper reviews present-day scientific methods for assessing the effectiveness of OEs in laboratory and field studies, and presents the vision of the authors on a roadmap that could lead to large-scale adoption of this technology. The analysis of the state-of-the-art shows methodological differences between laboratory and field studies. While the former are more extensively reported in scientific papers, they exhibit limited generalizability of the findings to real-world scenarios. On the contrary, field studies are limited in sample sizes and frequently focused only on subjective metrics. We propose a roadmap to promote large-scale knowledge-based adoption of OEs. It details that the analysis of the costs and benefits of this technology should be communicated to all stakeholders to facilitate informed decision making, so that each stakeholder can develop their specific role regarding this innovation. Large-scale field studies can help identify and monitor the possible side-effects related to exoskeleton use in real work situations, as well as provide a comprehensive scientific knowledge base to support the revision of ergonomics risk-assessment methods, safety standards and regulations, and the definition of guidelines and practices for the selection and use of OEs.

Multiple species infections with parasitic helminths, including nematodes, are common in wild rodent populations. In this paper we first define different types of associations and review experimental evidence for different categories of interactions. We conclude that whilst laboratory experiments have demonstrated unequivocally that both synergistic and antagonistic interactions involving nematodes exist, field work utilizing wild rodents has generally led to the conclusion that interactions between nematode species play no, or at most a minor, role in shaping helminth component communities. Nevertheless, we emphasize that analysis of interactions between parasites in laboratory systems has been fruitful, has made a fundamental contribution to our understanding of the mechanisms underlying host-protective intestinal immune responses, and has provided a rationale for studies on polyparasitism in human beings and domestic animals. Finally, we consider the practical implications for transmission of zoonotic diseases to human communities and to their domestic animals, and we identify the questions that merit research priority.

It is difficult to undertake field studies with non marketed psychotropic drugs because of two apparently contradictory conditions : on the one hand, the methodology has to be rigorously controlled, and on the other hand, such studies have to be carried out in their future environment by general practitioners (GPs). Bearing in mind the lack of training and experience regarding this kind of approach, the author adopted a discussion group method according to the techniques developed by M. Balint. The study group comprised five GPs, a clinical pharmacology expert and a doctor from the pharmaceutical laboratory which had developed the test drug. These persons met on a monthly basis over a one year period. In the present paper, the author indicates the benefits of such a methodology, based on six years’ experience and several trials, with special emphasis placed on the pedagogical aspects.