Intimate partner aggression--what have we learned? Comment on Archer (2000)

This commentary on J. Archer (2000) identifies limitations at the level of the primary data, the formal meta-analysis, and the interpretations of the results. Highlighted are concerns with the conceptual dichotomy that is the foundation of the analysis, how aggression was conceptualized and defined, and the methodological problems in the studies included in the database that were not neutralized by the meta-analysis. These include inadequate measurement of contextual factors and injury outcomes, scaling issues, and sampling concerns. The authors question the degree to which the field is advanced by this meta-analysis when the results are placed in the context of these limitations. Following American Association for the Advancement of Science directives (I. Lerch, 1999), the authors believe that inadequate attention was paid to the policy implications of the conclusions raising the potential to undermine societal efforts to eradicate violence against women.     

Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?

Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.     

Are women always more interpersonally sensitive than men? Impact of goals and content domain

Two studies examined motivation and content domain as possible influences on sex differences in interpersonal sensitivity. Although much research has found women to excel on tasks measuring interpersonal sensitivity, most of the tasks have measured accuracy in female-relevant domains such as emotion. The present studies measured interpersonal sensitivity, defined as accurate recall of another person, for both female-relevant and male-relevant content domains and also included motivational manipulations intended to influence men and women differently. Study 1 measured accuracy of recalling information in a written vignette about a person, and Study 2 measured accuracy of recalling details about an interaction partner. Both studies supported hypotheses about domain specificity and gender-relevant motivation. However, even for male-stereotypic content and for tasks framed to favor men's motivation to perform well, men's accuracy never exceeded women's.     

Are perceptuo-motor decisions really more optimal than cognitive decisions?

Human high-level cognitive decisions appear sub-optimal (Kahneman and Slovic, 1982, Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). Paradoxically, perceptuo-motor decisions appear optimal, or nearly optimal (Trommershäuser, Maloney, & Landy, 2008). Here, we highlight limitations to the comparison of performance between and within domains. These limitations are illustrated by means of two perceptuo-motor decision-making experiments. The results indicate that participants did not optimize fundamental performance-related factors (precision and time usage), even though standard analyses may have classed participants as ‘optimal’. Moreover, simulations and comparisons across our studies demonstrate that optimality depends on task difficulty. Thus, it seems that a standard model of perceptuo-motor decision-making fails to provide an absolute standard of performance. Importantly, this appears to be a limitation of optimal models of human behaviour in general. This, in conjunction with non-trivial evaluative- and methodological differences, suggests that verdicts favouring perceptuo-motor, or perceptual, systems over higher-level cognitive systems in terms of level of performance are premature.     

Sex differences in face processing: Are women less lateralized and faster than men?

The aim of this study was to determine the influence of sex on hemispheric asymmetry and cooperation in a face recognition task. We used a masked priming paradigm in which the prime stimulus was centrally presented; it could be a bisymmetric face or a hemi-face in which facial information was presented in the left or the right visual field and projected to the right or the left hemisphere. The target stimulus was always a bisymmetric face presented centrally. Faces were selected from Minear and Park’s (2004) database. Fifty-two right-handed students (26 men, 26 women) participated in this experiment, in which accuracy (percentage of correct responses) and reaction times (RTs in ms) were measured. Although accuracy data showed that the percentage of correct recognition – when prime and target matched – was equivalent in men and women, men’s RTs were longer than women’s in all conditions. Accuracy and RTs showed that men are more strongly lateralized than women, with right hemispheric dominance. These results suggest that men are as good at face recognition as women, but there are functional differences in the two sexes. The findings are discussed in terms of functional cerebral networks distributed over both hemispheres and of interhemispheric transmission.     

What do men and women want in a partner? Are educated partners always more desirable?

Previous research has shown that males value a potential partner’s physical attractiveness more than females do, whereas females value a potential partner’s socioeconomic status (SES) more than males do. But are men really so unconcerned about a potential partner’s SES? Five studies revealed that men do integrate information about a woman’s SES into their decisions on whether to consider her as a romantic partner or not. Results consistently demonstrated that male participants preferred women with lower SES. Female participants, in contrast, preferred men with higher SES. These sex differences were more pronounced when a long-term romantic relationship rather than a one-night stand was being considered. In addition, men’s lower reported likelihood of romantic contact with a woman with high SES was due to her high educational level rather than her high income. Mediational analyses showed that men perceived a potential partner with high educational level as less likeable and less faithful, and thus reported less likelihood of romantic contact.     

All else being equal: Are men always higher in social dominance orientation than women?

The belief in the gender invariance of many traits is a view that dominates much of psychology. In social psychology, this position is clearly represented by social dominance theory and the construct of social dominance orientation (SDO) where it is argued that, all else being equal, men will be higher in SDO than women. In other domains, though, these assumptions are being questioned, and researchers are arguing for a gender similarities hypothesis. The argument is that men and women are more similar than different, and where there are effects for gender, these are small. In this investigation, men and women are compared under similar cultural (Study 1), ideological, (Study 2) and status (Study 3) contexts to examine whether, all else being equal, men really are higher in SDO than women. In an additional study (Study 4), a meta‐analysis is conducted aggregating the effect sizes of the previous studies. Results demonstrated either no effect for gender or an interaction between gender and the relevant social context and only a small effect size of gender—findings that disconfirm the ceteris paribus assumption of social dominance theory. In conclusion, the implications of the findings for understanding gender effects in social psychology are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Are fluctuations in personality states more than fluctuations in affect?

People fluctuate in their behavior as they go about their daily lives, but little is known about the processes underlying these fluctuations. In two ecological momentary assessment studies (Ns = 124, 415), we examined the extent to which negative and positive affect accounted for the within-person variance in Big Five states. Participants were prompted six times a day over six days (Study 1) or four times a day over two weeks (Study 2) to report their recent thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Multilevel modeling results indicated that negative and positive affect account for most, but not all, of the within-person variance in personality states. Importantly, situation variables predicted variance in some personality states even after accounting for fluctuations in affect, indicating that fluctuations in personality states may be more than fluctuations in state affect.     

Why are women more religious than men? Testing the explanatory power of personality theory among undergraduate students in Wales

This study tests the explanatory power of personality-based psychologically grounded theories to account for the well-established finding within the psychology of religion that within Christian and post-Christian contexts women are more religious than men. A sample of 1682 undergraduate students in Wales completed the short form of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised together with the adult form of the Francis Scale of Attitude towards Christianity and measures of frequency of church attendance, and frequency of personal prayer. These data confirm that women record higher levels of religiosity and lower levels of psychoticism, and demonstrate that psychoticism is the strongest predictor of individual differences in religiosity. Multiple-regression analyses show that, when individual differences in personality are taken into account, biological sex adds no further impact on religiosity. This finding suggests that higher levels of religiosity among women may be interpreted as a function of basic psychological differences in levels of psychoticism rather than as a sociological function of being female.     

Are children any more logical than monkeys on the five-term series problem?

Six-year-old children were tested on several versions of the five-term transitivity problem as used by B. O. McGonigle and M. Chalmers (1977, Nature (London), 267, 694–696) with squirrel monkeys as subjects. Both binary and triadic versions of the tests were administered in both verbal and nonverbal modes to help determine whether or not any major procedural differences between the monkey version and that used conventionally in research with children might account for the monkey's apparently nonlogical solution of the problem. The main result is that children showed very similar response profiles to that of monkeys in all the conditions used. In addition, “labeling”, direct seriation, and “association” post-tests suggest that nonlogical strategies can underwrite ostensibly impeccable transitive “reasoning” in child as well as monkey.     

Gender differences in erotic plasticity--evolutionary or sociocultural forces? Comment on Baumeister (2000)

R. F. Baumeister (2000) argued that there are gender differences in erotic plasticity, meaning that women are more influenced by cultural and social factors than men are. He attributed the gender difference in erotic plasticity to evolutionary, biological forces. We propose an alternative account of the data using a multifactor sociocultural model that rests on 4 assertions: (a) Men have more power than women on many levels including the institutional and the interpersonal levels, (b) education increases women's power, (c) groups with less power (women) pay more attention to and adapt their behavior more to the group with more power (men) than the reverse, and (d) gender roles powerfully shape behavior, and heterosexuality is a more important element of the male role than the female role.     

Are students in some college majors more self-determined in their studies than others?

Self-determination theory proposes that the extent to which students’ motivation is self-determined is critical to learning outcomes. Based on occasional research evidence and our perceptions, we hypothesize that college students in certain majors have profiles that are higher in self-determined motivation than students in other majors. Specifically, our primary hypothesis is that students in the social sciences and humanities tend to be more self-determined, whereas students in business-related majors tend to be less self-determined. The results from two studies using large samples and advanced analytical methods support the primary hypotheses. Comparison results were also obtained for other majors (e.g., engineering and natural sciences), and supplemental analyses supported the critical role of self-determined motivation in learning outcomes among students in all majors. Study 2 also found support for two mechanisms for such differences, i.e., the majors’ learning climates and students’ individual differences in autonomous functioning. The current evidence suggests the importance of promoting more humanistic learning environments in certain academic disciplines.     

Dispositional optimism among American and Jordanian college students: Are Westerners really more upbeat than Easterners?

The present study aimed at assessing some previous research conclusions, based primarily on comparisons of North Americans and East Asians, that Westerners tend to be optimistic while Easterners tend to be pessimistic. Two samples of European American and Jordanian college students were administered a questionnaire consisting of items measuring dispositional optimism along with items pertaining to risk and self‐protective behaviors (e.g., seatbelt use, vehicular speeding, smoking) and social and demographic factors (e.g., sex, socioeconomic status, religiosity). The findings uncovered dispositional optimism to be stronger for American compared to Jordanian participants. Separate analyses of optimism versus pessimism revealed that Jordanian participants were more pessimistic, but not less optimistic than their American counterparts. No significant correlations were found between dispositional optimism and sex, socioeconomic status, or religiosity. The levels of optimism displayed by Jordanians in this study are inconsistent with previous claims of an optimistic West and a pessimistic East, and suggest that self‐enhancing processes may not be confined to Western or highly individualistic groups. The findings did not uncover an association between dispositional optimism and risk or self‐protective behaviors. Multiple regression analyses showed cultural background and sex to be the best predictors of these behaviors. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Are people really more patient than other animals? Evidence from human discounting of real liquid rewards

In previous studies, researchers have found that humans discount delayed rewards orders of magnitude less steeply than do other animals. Humans also discount smaller delayed reward amounts more steeply than larger amounts, whereas animals apparently do not. These differences between humans and animals might reflect differences in the types of rewards studied and/or the fact that animals actually had to wait for their rewards. In the present article, we report the results of three experiments in which people made choices involving liquid rewards delivered and consumed after actual delays, thereby bridging the gap between animal and human studies. Under these circumstances, humans, like animals, discounted the value of rewards delayed by seconds; however, unlike animals, they still showed an effect of reward amount. Human discounting was well described by the same hyperboloid function that has previously been shown to describe animal discounting of delayed food and water rewards, as well as human discounting of real and hypothetical monetary rewards.     

Handedness and lateral positioning in heterosexual couples: Are men still strong-arming women?

This study examined the way in which heterosexual couples arrange themselves while walking together. In same-handed couples, significantly more females were on the males' preferred (dominant) side than expected by chance — especially when the partners were touching. Apparently, handedness and lateral positioning combine to reflect a male-dominance tendency in this type of situation. In opposite-handed couples, males and females put their dominant sides together, especially when touching. Social implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are also discussed.     

Gender differences in unrealistic optimism about marriage and divorce: are men more optimistic and women more realistic?

Two studies (n = 497) examine gender differences in "unrealistic optimism" in beliefs of marriage using a Taiwanese population. Unrealistic optimism is defined as the beliefs that positive (negative) events are more (less) likely to happen to one's self versus others. Although the bias is robust, it has been shown to be lower among people with an interdependent orientation, specifically those from a collectivist culture (e.g., Taiwan). We find that the unrealistic optimism bias is stronger (Study 1) and more resilient to change when base rates are provided (Study 2) for men as compared to women. Results are consistent with the interpretation that men have a less relationally interdependent self-construal than women. Theoretical implications for unrealistic optimism, cross-cultural psychology, as well as gender differences are discussed.