When Darwin flopped: The rejection of sexual selection

Charles Darwin considered sexual selection as integral to evolution as natural selection, but the theory of sexual selection was rejected by most scientific and lay audiences. This article argues that sexual selection theory clashed with biases prevalent in the 19th-century—about culture and nature, mind and body, male and female—in ways that Darwin’s first sketch of evolution did not. Whereas the 1859 The Origin of Species tracked the development of bodily structures, the 1871 The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex focused not on form but function—on behavior. In Darwin’s view, “mind is function of body,” and the mind was the seat not of reason but of sex. Also, when he postulated that female choice sculpted the male form, he conflicted with the long-standing cultural assumption that men controlled women. And, in discussing female beauty, Darwin showed a fascinating ambivalence about its implications for human gender relations. Finally, he was at odds with his culture in the premium he placed on desire. In short, his theory landed on a cultural fault line, causing upheaval and mayhem, and then it fell into an abyss it had helped to create.     

Left–right ideological differences in system justification following exposure to complementary versus noncomplementary stereotype exemplars

The capacity for victim‐derogating stereotypes and attributions to justify social inequality and maintain the status quo is well known among social scientists and other observers. Research conducted from the perspective of system justification theory suggests that an alternative to derogation is to justify inequality through the use of complementary stereotypes that ascribe compensating benefits and burdens to disadvantaged and advantaged groups, respectively. In two experimental studies conducted in Poland we investigated the hypothesis that preferences for these two routes to system justification would depend upon one's political orientation. That is, we predicted that the system‐justifying potential of complementary versus noncomplementary stereotype exemplars would be moderated by individual differences in left–right ideology, such that left‐wingers would exhibit stronger support for the societal status quo following exposure to complementary (e.g., “poor but happy,” “rich but miserable”) representations, whereas right‐wingers would exhibit stronger support for the status quo following exposure to noncomplementary (e.g., “poor and dishonest,” “rich and honest”) representations. Results were supportive of these predictions. Implications for theory and practice concerning stereotyping, ideology, and system justification are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

“Watch out!”: Effects of instructed threat and avoidance on human free‐operant approach–avoidance behavior

Approach–avoidance paradigms create a competition between appetitive and aversive contingencies and are widely used in nonhuman research on anxiety. Here, we examined how instructions about threat and avoidance impact control by competing contingencies over human approach–avoidance behavior. Additionally, Experiment 1 examined the effects of threat magnitude (money loss amount) and avoidance cost (fixed ratio requirements), whereas Experiment 2 examined the effects of threat information (available, unavailable and inaccurate) on approach–avoidance. During the task, approach responding was modeled by reinforcing responding with money on a FR schedule. By performing an observing response, participants produced an escalating “threat meter”. Instructions stated that the threat meter levels displayed the current probability of losing money, when in fact loss only occurred when the level reached the maximum. Instructions also stated pressing an avoidance button lowered the threat level. Overall, instructions produced cycles of approach and avoidance responding with transitions from approach to avoidance when threat was high and transitions back to approach after avoidance reduced threat. Experiment 1 revealed increasing avoidance cost, but not threat magnitude, shifted approach–avoidance transitions to higher threat levels and increased anxiety ratings, but did not influence the frequency of approach–avoidance cycles. Experiment 2 revealed when threat level information was available or absent earnings were high, but earnings decreased when inaccurate threat information was incompatible with contingencies. Our findings build on prior nonhuman and human approach–avoidance research by highlighting how instructed threat and avoidance can impact human AA behavior and self‐reported anxiety.     

“One Nation Under God”: The System‐Justifying Function of Symbolically Aligning God and Government

Do references to God in political discourse increase confidence in the U.S. sociopolitical system? Using a system justification framework (Jost & Banaji, 1994 ), five studies provide evidence that, (1) increasingly governments symbolically associate the nation with God when public confidence in the social system may be threatened and (2) associating the nation with God serves a system‐justifying function by increasing public confidence in the system. In an analysis of U.S. presidential speeches, presidents were more likely to symbolically associate the nation with God during threatening times (Study 1). Among religious individuals, referencing God in political rhetoric increased the perceived trustworthiness of politicians, compared to patriotic secular rhetoric (Study 2) or simply priming the concept of God (Study 3). These effects were also unique to politicians from one's own sociopolitical system (Study 4). Finally, believing God has a plan for the United States attenuates the deleterious effect that perceptions of national decline have on system confidence (Study 5). Implications for the system‐justifying function of religion are discussed.     

Confidentiality, privacy, and the facilitating role of psychoanalytic organizations

Burgeoning external threats to confidentiality by claims to clinical information create unprecedented challenges for psychoanalysts. Internal threats arise from the use of clinical material for educational, scientific and historical purposes. Traditionally, confidentiality is considered a patient's right and an analyst's obligation; privacy is not usually stated as a professional requirement. Little consideration has been given to the impact of the confidentiality and privacy dilemmas that analysts encounter throughout their careers. There has been no systematic examination of the confidentiality policies of psychoanalytic organizations, nor has their role in facilitating maintenance of patient confidentiality and analysts' privacy been made explicit. The research reported here was undertaken to address these issues and to obtain baseline information about the current confidentiality policies and practices of psychoanalytic organizations in three English-speaking countries (Britain, Canada and the USA). The author discusses survey results in the light of the challenges which arise at each phase of the analytic career. She makes suggestions as to how psychoanalytic organizations can and should facilitate analysts' resolutions of contemporary confidentiality and privacy dilemmas.     

Questioning the social intelligence hypothesis

The social intelligence hypothesis posits that complex cognition and enlarged "executive brains" evolved in response to challenges that are associated with social complexity. This hypothesis has been well supported, but some recent data are inconsistent with its predictions. It is becoming increasingly clear that multiple selective agents, and non-selective constraints, must have acted to shape cognitive abilities in humans and other animals. The task now is to develop a larger theoretical framework that takes into account both inter-specific differences and similarities in cognition. This new framework should facilitate consideration of how selection pressures that are associated with sociality interact with those that are imposed by non-social forms of environmental complexity, and how both types of functional demands interact with phylogenetic and developmental constraints.