Recent evidence suggests that Americans’ beliefs about upward mobility are overly optimistic. Davidai & Gilovich (2015a), Kraus & Tan (2015), and Kraus (2015) all found that people overestimate the likelihood that a person might rise up the economic ladder, and underestimate the likelihood that they might fail to do so. However, using a different methodology, Chambers, Swan and Heesacker (2015) reported that Americans’ beliefs about mobility are much more pessimistic. Swan, Chambers, Heesacker and Nero (2017) provide a much-needed summary of these conflicting findings and question the utility of measuring population-level biases in judgments of inequality and mobility. We value their summary but argue that their conclusion is premature. By focusing on measures that best tap how laypeople naturally think about the distribution of income, we believe that researchers can draw meaningful conclusions about the public’s perceptions of economic mobility. When more ecologically representative measures are used, the consistent finding is that Americans overestimate the extent of upward mobility in the United States. To explain the divergent findings in the literature, we provide evidence that the methods used by Chambers et al. (2015) inadvertently primed participants to think about immobility rather than mobility. Finally, using a novel method to examine beliefs about economic mobility, we show that Americans indeed overestimate the degree of mobility in the United States.

Davidai and Gilovich (2018) contend that (a) Americans tend to think about their nation’s income distribution in terms of quintiles (fifths), and (b) when Americans’ perceptions of socio-economic mobility rates are measured properly (e.g., by asking online survey respondents to guess upward-mobility rates across quintiles), a trend of overestimation (too much optimism concerning the number of people who manage to transcend poverty) will emerge. In this reply, we hail Davidai and Gilovich’s new data as novel, important, and relevant to the former (a), but we doubt that they can support the latter (b) claim about population-level (in)accuracy. Namely, we note that even if mobility-rate perceptions could be measured perfectly, inferences about the accuracy of those perceptions still depend on a particular comparator—a point-estimate of the "true" rate of upward social mobility in the U.S. against which survey respondents’ guesses are evaluated—that is itself an error-prone estimate. Applying different established comparators to survey respondents’ guesses changes both the direction and magnitude of previously observed overestimation effects. We conclude with a challenge: researchers who wish to compute the average distance between socio-economic perceptions and socio-economic reality must first select and justify a fair comparator.

Studies on laypersons' beliefs and knowledge about mental disorders have proliferated in recent years. However, attention has been focused mainly on depression and schizophrenia and on young adults. The aim of this paper is to summarize research in the area, and to discuss the need to expand research in the elderly population. The unique characteristics of older persons in terms of the prevalence and type of mental disorders, especially Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other dementias, as well as in terms of their being victims of “double jeopardy” require special attention and research. The present review has three main objectives. First, it summarizes the findings of studies examining different aspects of mental health literacy. Second, the importance of age in the study of mental health literacy is discussed. Third, findings of the few studies examining laypersons' beliefs in the area of AD are presented. Finally, research directions are suggested with special emphasis on the importance of geriatric mental health and mental health literacy.

Increasing numbers of people are using complementary therapies, and many are in older age groups. Although recent empirical research has considered the demands for complementary medicine, and in particular its recent consumer boom, little acknowledgement is given in research to the different social categories of users, and to the intricacies of their different motivations and consumer behaviours. In the context of a relative paucity of dedicated research investigations, the paper highlights the relevance of social gerontological perspectives. Based on a questionnaire survey of 144 older users, and in-depth interviews with 20 older users in southern England, it considers trends in local use and user actions, attitudes and opinions. From a disciplinary perspective, the paper also contributes to a growing body of research which focuses on older peoples’ self-implemented health and health care strategies. There is a substantial degree of user satisfaction with the therapies used, and many respondents claimed to have benefited in terms of their physical and mental health. Older users are also empowered by their treatment decisions and negotiations, many of which are made either independently, or jointly between themselves and their therapists. Treatment solutions are typically constructed with combinations of complementary therapies, or combinations of complementary therapies and orthodox health services.