Beliefs about polarization have significant social consequences, whether accurate or not [1][2][3][4] . They also complicate the study of social issues as reported attitudes might be impacted by inaccurate out-group perceptions and thus make conflicts around a specific issue or policy appear more severe than they actually are 5 . This can result in significant distortions in numerous behaviours, including health, voting and financial choices, each of which has consequences on population wellbeing 6 .There is growing interest in the origins of polarization across populations as well as its features and impacts across communities and society 7,8 . This interest is global and includes both scientific research as well as general public interest 9,10 . As polarization seemingly permeates a growing number of personal and public domains, there is some sense of renewed urgency to understand it and its effects more deeply 11,12 . This includes extending study to understand the extent of polarization on community and global levels.However, with increasing interest in polarization itself, broadening evidence indicates that inaccuracies in perceptions of how the out-group feels about the in-group can be harmful 13 . The origin of these 'meta-perceptions' may be rooted in negative stereotypes that individuals feel have been applied to them, often incorrectly 14 . This results in an inaccurate perception of differences in beliefs and attitudes between groups 15 , which can have negative results for individuals 16,17 . On a population level, such misperceptions can even result in overstated reactions that exacerbate existing biases 18 .To investigate roots and moderators of polarization across groups, Lees and Cikara 13 ran a series of experiments with US participants identifying as Republican or Democrat. In what they refer

Economic inequality is associated with preferences for smaller, immediate gains over larger, delayed ones. Such temporal discounting may feed into rising global inequality, yet it is unclear whether it is a function of choice preferences or norms, or rather the absence of sufficient resources for immediate needs. It is also not clear whether these reflect true differences in choice patterns between income groups. We tested temporal discounting and five intertemporal choice anomalies using local currencies and value standards in 61 countries (N = 13,629). Across a diverse sample, we found consistent, robust rates of choice anomalies. Lower-income groups were not significantly different, but economic inequality and broader financial circumstances were clearly correlated with population choice patterns.

A pervading global narrative suggests that political polarisation is increasing in the US and around the world. Beliefs in increased polarisation impact individual and group behaviours regardless of whether they are accurate or not. One driver of polarisation are beliefs about how members of the out-group perceive us, known as group meta-perceptions. A 2020 study by Lees and Cikara in US samples suggests that not only are out-group meta-perceptions highly inaccurate, but informing people of this inaccuracy reduces negative beliefs about the out-group. Given the importance of these findings for understanding and mitigating polarisation, it is essential to test to what extent they generalise to other countries. We assess that generalisability by replicating two of the original experiments in 10,207 participants from 26 countries in the first experiment and 10 in the second. We do this by studying local group divisions, which we refer to as fault lines. In line with our hypotheses, results show that the pattern found in the US broadly generalises, with greater heterogeneity explained by specific policies rather than between-country differences. The replication of a simple disclosure intervention in the second experiment yielded a modest reduction in negative motive attributions to the out-group, similar to the original study. These findings indicate first that inaccurate and negative group meta-perceptions are exhibited in a large number of countries, not only the US, and that informing individuals of their misperceptions can yield positive benefits for intergroup relations. The generalisability of these findings highlights a robust phenomenon with major implications for political discourse worldwide.

Social and behavioral science research proliferated during the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting the substantial increase in influence of behavioral science in public health and public policy more broadly. This review presents a comprehensive assessment of 742 scientific articles on human behavior during COVID-19. Two independent teams evaluated 19 substantive policy recommendations (“claims”) on potentially critical aspects of behaviors during the pandemic drawn from the most widely cited behavioral science papers on COVID-19. Teams were made up of original authors and an independent team, all of whom were blinded to other team member reviews throughout. Both teams found evidence in support of 16 of the claims; for two claims, teams found only null evidence; and for no claims did the teams find evidence of effects in the opposite direction. One claim had no evidence available to assess. Seemingly due to the risks of the pandemic, most studies were limited to surveys, highlighting a need for more investment in field research and behavioral validation studies. The strongest findings indicate interventions that combat misinformation and polarization, and to utilize effective forms of messaging that engage trusted leaders and emphasize positive social norms.

Event-related potentials (ERPs) provide great insight into neural responses, yet developmental ERP work is plagued with inconsistent approaches to identifying and quantifying component latency. In this analytical review, we describe popular conventions for the selection of time windows for ERP analysis and assert that a data-driven strategy should be applied to the identification of component latency within individual participants' data. This may overcome weaknesses of more general approaches to peak selection; however, it does not account for trial-by-trial variability within a participant. This issue, known as ERP latency jitter, may blur the average ERP, misleading the interpretation of neural mechanisms. Recently, the ReSync MATLAB toolbox has been made available for correction of latency jitter. Although not created specifically for pediatric ERP data, this approach can be adapted for developmental researchers. We have demonstrated the use of the ReSync toolbox with individual infant and child datasets to illustrate its utility. Details about our peak detection script and the ReSync toolbox are provided. The adoption of data processing procedures that allow for accurate, studyspecific component selection and reduce trial-by-trial asynchrony strengthens developmental ERP research by decreasing noise included in ERP analyses and improving the representation of the neural response.