Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Drug Distribution: Volume of Distribution01:25

Drug Distribution: Volume of Distribution

7.4K
The volume of distribution refers to the theoretical volume necessary to contain the entire amount of an administered drug at the same concentration observed in the blood plasma. The body's intracellular fluid compartment, which makes up two-thirds of the total body water, is contrasted with the extracellular fluid compartment—comprising plasma and interstitial fluid—that accounts for one-third. The volume of distribution can vary depending on the characteristics of the drug.
7.4K
F Distribution01:19

F Distribution

10.7K
The F distribution was named after Sir Ronald Fisher, an English statistician. The F statistic is a ratio (a fraction) with two sets of degrees of freedom; one for the numerator and one for the denominator. The F distribution is derived from the Student's t distribution. The values of the F distribution are squares of the corresponding values of the t distribution. One-Way ANOVA expands the t test for comparing more than two groups. The scope of that derivation is beyond the level of this...
10.7K
Volume of Distribution01:20

Volume of Distribution

1.2K
The apparent volume of distribution (Vd) is a crucial pharmacokinetic parameter representing the hypothetical body fluid volume into which a drug disperses. It is calculated based on the total amount of drug in the body (estimated from the administered dose and bioavailability) divided by the plasma drug concentration. The total amount of drug in the body does not directly refer to the dose given but is derived by accounting for absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion processes.
1.2K
Uniform Distribution01:19

Uniform Distribution

6.1K
The uniform distribution is a continuous probability distribution of events with an equal probability of occurrence. This distribution is rectangular.
Two essential properties of this distribution are
6.1K
Normal Distribution01:11

Normal Distribution

17.1K
The normal, a continuous distribution, is the most important of all the distributions. Its graph is a bell-shaped symmetrical curve, which is observed in almost all disciplines. Some of these include psychology, business, economics, the sciences, nursing, and, of course, mathematics. Some instructors may use the normal distribution to help determine students’ grades. Most IQ scores are normally distributed. Often real-estate prices fit a normal distribution. The normal distribution is...
17.1K
Sampling Distribution01:12

Sampling Distribution

17.9K
Given simple random samples of size n from a given population with a measured characteristic such as mean, proportion, or standard deviation for each sample, the probability distribution of all the measured characteristics is called a sampling distribution. How much the statistic varies from one sample to another is known as the sampling variability of a statistic. You typically measure the sampling variability of a statistic by its standard error. The standard error of the mean is an example...
17.9K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Spoken disagreement is more constructive than written disagreement.

Nature communications·2026
Same author

Gaps in large language model awareness, usage, and perceptions in the United States: Evidence from a nationally representative longitudinal survey.

PNAS nexus·2026
Same author

Does thinking about God increase acceptance of artificial intelligence in decision-making?

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2024
Same author

Kindness in short supply: Evidence for inadequate prosocial input.

Current opinion in psychology·2022
Same author

Interventions to reduce partisan animosity.

Nature human behaviour·2022
Same author

Computational ethics.

Trends in cognitive sciences·2022
Same journal

Outgroup friendships and social influence in the development of adolescent attitudes toward secondary outgroups.

Journal of personality and social psychology·2026
Same journal

The impact of "relational" Artificial Intelligence on human well-being: A self-determination theory analysis.

Journal of personality and social psychology·2026
Same journal

Is my loneliness killing me? Effects of loneliness and social isolation on transitions between cognitive status categories and death.

Journal of personality and social psychology·2026
Same journal

Listening across the divide: High-quality listening promotes speakers' state well-being through basic psychological need satisfaction during disagreements.

Journal of personality and social psychology·2026
Same journal

Morality cut both ways: The role of cognition and emotion in attitude moralization and demoralization.

Journal of personality and social psychology·2026
Same journal

The predictive validity of vocational interests for life outcomes across adulthood.

Journal of personality and social psychology·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 27, 2026

A Rapid Food-Preference Assay in Drosophila
07:13

A Rapid Food-Preference Assay in Drosophila

Published on: February 11, 2021

7.0K

The preference for distributed helping.

Daron L Sharps1, Juliana Schroeder1

  • 1Haas School of Business.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
|March 19, 2019
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

People generally prefer to distribute aid rather than concentrate it, finding distribution fairer. This preference for distributing help can lead to increased overall donations when decisions are unpacked for each individual in need.

More Related Videos

A System for Tracking the Dynamics of Social Preference Behavior in Small Rodents
08:38

A System for Tracking the Dynamics of Social Preference Behavior in Small Rodents

Published on: November 21, 2019

8.1K
Taste Preference Assay for Adult Drosophila
04:31

Taste Preference Assay for Adult Drosophila

Published on: September 8, 2016

10.2K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 27, 2026

A Rapid Food-Preference Assay in Drosophila
07:13

A Rapid Food-Preference Assay in Drosophila

Published on: February 11, 2021

7.0K
A System for Tracking the Dynamics of Social Preference Behavior in Small Rodents
08:38

A System for Tracking the Dynamics of Social Preference Behavior in Small Rodents

Published on: November 21, 2019

8.1K
Taste Preference Assay for Adult Drosophila
04:31

Taste Preference Assay for Adult Drosophila

Published on: September 8, 2016

10.2K

Area of Science:

  • Psychology
  • Behavioral Economics
  • Social Psychology

Background:

  • Individuals often face decisions on how to allocate limited resources or aid among multiple recipients.
  • Understanding allocation strategies is crucial for fields ranging from charitable giving to social welfare.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the psychological drivers behind helpers' allocation strategies.
  • To compare preferences between distributing aid to multiple recipients versus concentrating aid on a single recipient.
  • To examine the impact of allocation strategies on the total amount of help provided.

Main Methods:

  • Conducted six main experiments and three follow-up experiments with 3,016 participants.
  • Tested preferences for distribution versus concentration allocation strategies.
  • Examined psychological mechanisms and real-world donation decisions.

Main Results:

  • A general preference for distributing help over concentrating it was observed, attributed to perceived procedural fairness.
  • Distribution led to increased aggregate donations when more requesters were present, particularly when donation decisions were unpacked.
  • A boundary condition was identified: concentrating help felt fairer when one individual appeared significantly needier.

Conclusions:

  • Helpers' allocation strategies are influenced by perceptions of fairness, with distribution often being preferred.
  • The way aid allocation decisions are framed (packed vs. unpacked) significantly impacts donation behavior and total aid given.
  • Findings offer insights into prosocial behavior, resource allocation, and the psychology of helping.