GENDER, JEALOUSY, AND REASON

Abstract— Research has suggested that men are especially bothered by evidence of their partner's sexual infidelity, whereas women are troubled more by evidence of emotional infidelity. One evolutionary account (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992) argues that this is an innate difference, arising from men's need for paternity certainty and women's need for male investment in their offspring. We suggest that the difference may instead be based on reasonable differences between the sexes in how they interpret evidence of infidelity. A man, thinking that women have sex only when in love, has reason to believe that if his mate has sex with another man, she is in love with that other. A woman, thinking that men can have sex without love, should still be bothered by sexual infidelity, but less so because it does not imply that her mate has fallen in love as well. A survey of 137 subjects confirmed that men and women do differ in the predicted direction in how much they think each form of infidelity implies the other, proposing innate emotional differences may, therefore, be gratuitous.     

Filled pauses and gestures: It's not coincidence

Though filled pauses and gestures frequently accompany speech, their function is not well understood. We suggest that it may be helpful in furthering our knowledge of these phenomena to examine their relationship to each other. To this end, we carried out two studies examining whether they tend to occur together, or to occur at separate times. Both faculty colloquium speakers and undergraduate subjects used filled pauses less frequently when they were gesturing than when they were not gesturing. This effect held for 30 out of 31 subjects. We suggest that detailed theories may be premature, but speculate that gestures may be an indication that the speech production apparatus has completed its search for the next word, phrase or idea and is ready to continue.     

THE VOCABULARIES OF ACADEMIA

Abstract— It has been demonstrated that humanists are far more likely to use filled pauses ("uh,""ah," or "um") during their lectures than are social or natural scientists This finding has been interpreted in terms of the hypothesis that filled pauses indicate time out while the speaker searches for the next word or phrase Based on the assumption that the more options at a choice point, the more likely a speaker will say "uh," it is hypothesized that the humanities are characterized by richer vocabularies (i e, more synonyms) than are the sciences An analysis of the number of different words used in lectures and in professional publications indicates that this is indeed the case Scientists consistently use fewer different words than do humanists Further, the number of different words correlates positively with the frequency of saying "uh" during lectures These findings are not restricted to academics, for in newspaper accounts, journalists use fewer different words in stories about science than in stories about the arts     

Correcting memory improves accuracy of predicted task duration

People are often inaccurate in predicting task duration. The memory bias explanation holds that this error is due to people having incorrect memories of how long previous tasks have taken, and these biased memories cause biased predictions. Therefore, the authors examined the effect on increasing predictive accuracy of correcting memory through supplying feedback for actual task duration. For Experiments 1 (paper-counting task) and 2 (essay-writing task), college students were supplied with duration information about their previous performance on a similar task before predicting task duration. For Experiment 3, participants were recruited at various locations, such as fast food restaurants and video arcades, and supplied with average task duration for others before predicting how long the task would take. In all 3 experiments, supplying feedback increased predictive accuracy. Overall, results indicate that, when predicting duration, people do well when they rely not on memory of past task duration but instead on measures of actual duration, whether their own or that of others. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved).     

Who’s funny: Gender stereotypes,humor production,and memory bias

It has often been asserted, by both men and women, that men are funnier. We explored two possible explanations for such a view, first testing whether men, when instructed to be as funny as possible, write funnier cartoon captions than do women, and second examining whether there is a tendency to falsely remember funny things as having been produced by men. A total of 32 participants, half from each gender, wrote captions for 20 cartoons. Raters then indicated the humor success of these captions. Raters of both genders found the captions written by males funnier, though this preference was significantly stronger among the male raters. In the second experiment, male and female participants were presented with the funniest and least funny captions from the first experiment, along with the caption author’s gender. On a memory test, both females and males disproportionately misattributed the humorous captions to males and the nonhumorous captions to females. Men might think men are funnier because they actually find them so, but though women rated the captions written by males slightly higher, our data suggest that they may regard men as funnier more because they falsely attribute funny things to them.     

Can a machine tickle?

It has been observed at least since the time of Aristotle that people cannot tickle themselves, but the reason remains elusive. Two sorts of explanations have been suggested. Theinterpersonal explanation suggests that tickling is fundamentally interpersonal and thus requires another person as the source of the touch. Thereflex explanation suggests that tickle simply requires an element of unpredictability or uncontrollability and is more like a reflex or some other stereotyped motor pattern. To test these explanations, we manipulated the perceived source of tickling. Thirty-five subjects were tickled twice-once by the experimenter, and once, they believed, by an automated machine. The reflex view predicts that our “tickle machine” should be as effective as a person in producing laughter, whereas the interpersonal view predicts significantly attenuated responses. Supporting the reflex view, subjects smiled, laughed, and wiggled just as often in response to the machine as to the experimenter. Self-reports of ticklishness were also virtually identical in the two conditions. Ticklish laughter evidently does not require that the stimulation be attributed to another person, as interpersonal accounts imply.