Something for the weekend? Examining the bias in avian phenological recording

In this paper we examine the bias towards weekend recording (the weekend effect) in volunteer phenology, using over 14,000 bird migration phenological observations from eight locations in the UK as a data source. Data from 45 bird species were used. Overall, 44% of all records were taken at weekends in contrast to the 28.6% (i.e. two out of seven days) that would be expected if records were evenly spread throughout the week. Whilst there is documented evidence of environmental differences at weekends, particularly in large urban areas, we believe the weekend effect is mostly a consequence of greater recorder effort at weekends. Some birds, likely to be obvious by their behaviour or abundance, had fewer weekend records than the remaining species. The weekend effect, to some extent, differed between locations and between seasons. There was some evidence that, particularly in autumn, the weekend bias may be lessening. If so, this will increase the accuracy of phenological records, making the detection of changes and responses to temperature easier

Exploring a Multidimensional Approach to Impulsivity in Predicting College Student Gambling

Impulsivity has been implicated as a contributing factor in the development of gambling problems among college students, but attempts to confirm this relation have been inconsistent. One explanation for these incongruent findings is that impulsivity may be multidimensional and that distinct dimensions differentially predict separate behaviors. Using a large, diverse sample of college students, a factor analysis of self-report measures related to impulsivity revealed a three-factor structure of Behavioral Activation, Preference for Stimulation, and Inhibition Control that was similar to the structure found by Meda and colleagues (2009) in a different adult sample. Low risk gamblers and symptomatic gamblers scored significantly lower on Behavioral Activation and Inhibition Control than non-gamblers. Conversely, low risk gamblers and symptomatic gamblers scored significantly higher on Preference for Stimulation. Prevalence of gambling and gambling activity preference for this sample was also assessed