GENDER DIFFERENCES IN REASONING ABOUT MILITARY INTERVENTION

The question of gender associations with moral reasoning and values has received a great deal of attention since Gilligan first published In a Different Voice in 1982. Various authors have argued that women are less hierarchical, more relational, more caring, more empathetic, and more concerned about not harming others than men. Yet, these claims have been questioned by other scholars. Data from a small survey of college students are used to address this question. We found that, in examining students' narrative justifications of their opinion on a particular question of military intervention, gender was related to the type of justification used in a manner consistent with the arguments of Gilligan. We argue that "objective" tests are less likely to detect this difference than content analyses of narratives. The different bases of judgments have implications for political opinions as well as interpersonal interactions.     

Training Observers to Detect Deception Effects of Self-Monitoring and Rehearsal

It was predicted that trained observers would detect deception more accurately than untrained observers. More specifically, it was predicted that the highest deception detection accuracy would be found among trained observers judging the veracity of low self-monitors and unrehearsed liars, whereas the lowest detection accuracy would be found among untrained observers judging the veracity of high self-monitors and rehearsed deceivers. It also was hypothesized that the discrepancy between observers‘actual ability to detect deception and their certainty in the accuracy of their judgments would be smaller for trained observers than for untrained observers. Observers trained to detect deception used six behavioral cues based on research by deTurck and Miller (1985): (a) message duration, (b) response latency, (c) adaptors, (d) pauses, (e) nonfluencies, and (f) hand gestures. Results confirmed both hypotheses.