“I'll Take Gender Differences for $1000!” Domain-Specific Intellectual Success on “Jeopardy”

A great deal of laboratory research has demonstrated that women underestimate their intellect and abilities, and we studied whether this tendency manifested itself outside the laboratory by examining the performance of men and women on the television game show Jeopardy. Information about the masculinity and femininity of the topic categories for 65 games was collected, and selections, answers,wagering strategies, and earnings were noted for 195 White men and women contestants on the show. Men were more likely than women to appear as contestants, made most of the selections in the game, and won more money. Until the end of the game, men selected and correctly answered a disproportional number of questions from masculine topic categories, which appeared more often during the first round of play. Women chose more feminine and neutral questions than did men, and correctly answered those questions at a proportional rate. Wagering strategies differed late in the game, as men bet a higher percent of their earnings than did women, but only when wagering on masculine topics. Several explanations for differing performance of men and women on Jeopardyare offered, including confidence in ability due to self-estimation of intelligence, differential use of evaluative feedback, and the gender role appropriateness of demonstrating intellect.     

On Fork Arrow Logic and its Expressive Power

We compare fork arrow logic, an extension of arrow logic, and its natural first-order counterpart (the correspondence language) and show that both have the same expressive power. Arrow logic is a modal logic for reasoning about arrow structures, its expressive power is limited to a bounded fragment of first-order logic. Fork arrow logic is obtained by adding to arrow logic the fork modality (related to parallelism and synchronization). As a result, fork arrow logic attains the expressive power of its first-order correspondence language, so both can express the same input–output behavior of processes.     

The challenge of prejudice: counsellors’ talk about challenging clients’ prejudices

This paper considers the implications for training and practice of counsellors’ responses to the notion of challenging clients’ prejudices. It explores tensions in counselling discourse between social responsibility, responsibility to the client and responsibility for one's self as counsellor. Three focus groups of counsellors were asked whether a counsellor should challenge clients’ prejudices. Responses were categorised as challenge, not-challenge or exit responses. Discursive themes identified in the responses are: managing congruence and being non-judgemental; self-care and self-respect; and social responsibility. Strategies for managing the discursive conflicts identified in responding to counsellor-identified client prejudices are summarised.