Peer Toy Play as a Gateway to Children’s Gender Flexibility: The Effect of (Counter)Stereotypic Portrayals of Peers in Children’s Magazines

Extensive evidence has documented the gender stereotypic content of children’s media, and media is recognized as an important socializing agent for young children. Yet, the precise impact of children’s media on the endorsement of gender-typed attitudes and behaviors has received less scholarly attention. We investigated the impact of stereotypic and counter-stereotypic peers pictured in children’s magazines on children’s gender flexibility around toy play and preferences, playmate choice, and social exclusion behavior (n?=?82, age 4–7 years-old). British children were randomly assigned to view a picture of a peer-age boy and girl in a magazine playing with either a gender stereotypic or counter-stereotypic toy. In the stereotypic condition, the pictured girl was shown with a toy pony and the pictured boy was shown with a toy car; these toys were reversed in the counter-stereotypic condition. Results revealed significantly greater gender flexibility around toy play and playmate choices among children in the counter-stereotypic condition compared to the stereotypic condition, and boys in the stereotypic condition were more accepting of gender-based exclusion than were girls. However, there was no difference in children’s own toy preferences between the stereotypic and counter-stereotypic condition, with children preferring more gender-typed toys overall. Implications of the findings for media, education, and parenting practices are discussed, and the potential for counter-stereotypic media portrayals of toy play to shape the gender socialization of young children is explored.     

Cross-Cultural Sexism and the Effectiveness of Gender (Non)Traditional Advertising: A Comparison of Purchase Intentions in Poland,South Africa,and the United Kingdom

Findings regarding the effectiveness of (non)traditionally gendered advertisements are mixed and largely emanate from the United States. We tested the stereotype content model and ambivalent sexism theory cross-nationally in an advertising context and predicted that paternalistic (vs. envious) female stereotypes will trigger higher purchase intent (PI) irrespective of country (Hypothesis 1), viewers’ benevolent sexism will positively predict PI for paternalistic housewife advertisements (Hypothesis 2a), viewers’ hostile sexism will negatively predict PI for envious businesswoman advertisements (Hypothesis 2b), and these relationships with sexism will be confined to less gender egalitarian countries (i.e., Poland and South Africa) (Hypothesis 3). Statistical analyses of data from 468 Polish, South African, and British university students supported Hypothesis 1 and partially supported Hypotheses 2 and 3. The predicted patterns held for South Africa, but in Poland, viewers’ benevolence positively predicted PI for both advertisement types, with the exception of highly hostile women. British viewers’ hostility positively predicted PI for the housewife advertisement. Our findings support the cross-cultural applicability of the stereotype content model to advertising and suggest that the predictive role of sexism changes depending on its type, advertisement type, country, and gender. We recommend that advertisers should adopt a nuanced approach in predicting the effectiveness of gendered advertisements.     

Reward Responsivity in Parenting: Development of a Novel Measure in Mothers of Young Children

The purpose of the current study was to develop and evaluate a measure of maternal reward responsivity in parenting. Deficits in reward responsivity, a common feature of depression, may contribute to maladaptive parenting behaviors. Reward responsivity is an individual difference in reactivity to pleasurable stimuli and represents a key motivational component that could contribute to the frequency and quality of mothers’ interactions with their infants. However, there is currently no measure of reward responsivity in parenting, which would be necessary to evaluate the link between mother reward responsivity, behaviors towards their infant, and infant behavior. Therefore, the current study reports on the development and initial evaluation of a self-report measure of reward responsivity in parenting, the Mother Inventory of Reward Experience (MIRE). We evaluated the MIRE among 200 mothers (M?=?28.45, SD?=?5.50) recruited from a pediatric primary care center. After item analysis, 22 items were retained and displayed high internal consistency reliability and test re-test reliability. Convergent validity was established via a significant correlation with global reward responsivity. Concurrent validity was established via significant correlations with depressive symptoms, parenting stress, and child behavior problems. Incremental validity of the MIRE over a measure of global reward responsivity was supported. These results support the reliability and validity of the MIRE as a measure of reward responsivity in parenting.     

Grandiose-Manipulative,Callous-Unemotional,and Daring-Impulsive: the Prediction of Psychopathic Traits in Adolescence and their Outcomes in Adulthood

There has been much debate about how to measure psychopathic traits in adolescence. One of the main issues is whether one should focus on callous-unemotional (CU) traits alone, or CU traits in combination with Grandiose-Manipulative (GM) and Daring-Impulsive (DI) traits. The current study first investigates the extent to which youth who are high on CU traits are also high on GM and DI traits. In addition, the study investigates if being high on both CU and GM, and high on both CU and DI, identify groups that are particularly characterized by past and future impairments. To investigate this, data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD) was analyzed. The CSDD is a prospective longitudinal study of 411 English boys spanning over 50 years. The information available at age 12–14 was coded on the Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD). Childhood risk factors were measured at age 8–10 and later life outcomes were measured at age 32. The results indicate that being high on CU in combination with DI delineates a clinically interesting group who are characterized by high childhood risk and poorer adult life outcomes. The same applied to the high CU/high GM group, but to a lesser extent.     

Discovering Argumentative Patterns in Energy Polylogues: A Macroscope for Argument Mining

A macroscope is proposed and tested here for the discovery of the unique argumentative footprint that characterizes how a collective (e.g., group, online community) manages differences and pursues disagreement through argument in a polylogue. The macroscope addresses broader analytic problems posed by various conceptualizations of large-scale argument, such as fields, spheres, communities, and institutions. The design incorporates a two-tier methodology for detecting argument patterns of the arguments performed in arguing by an interactive collective that produces views, or topographies, of the ways that issues are generated in the making and defending of standpoints. The design premises for the macroscope build on insights about argument patterns from pragma-dialectical theory by incorporating research and theory on disagreement management and the Argumentum Model of Topics. The design reconceptualizes prototypical and stereotypical argument patterns for characterizing large-scale argumentation. A prototype of the macroscope is tested on data drawn from six threads about oil-drilling and fracking from the subreddit Changemyview. The implementation suggests the efficacy of the macroscope’s design and potential for identifying what communities make controversial and how the disagreement space in a polylogue is managed through stereotypical argument patterns in terms of claims/premises, inferential relations, and presentational devices.     

Splitting a Difference of Opinion: The Shift to Negotiation

Negotiation is not only used to settle differences of interest but also to settle differences of opinion. Discussants who are unable to resolve their difference about the objective worth of a policy or action proposal may be willing to abandon their attempts to convince the other and search instead for a compromise that would, for each of them, though only a second choice yet be preferable to a lasting conflict. Our questions are: First, when is it sensible to enter into negotiations and when would this be unwarranted or even fallacious? Second, what is the nature of a compromise? What does it mean to settle instead of resolve a difference of opinion, and what might be the dialectical consequences of mistaking a compromise for a substantial resolution? Our main aim is to contribute to the theory of argumentation within the context of negotiation and compromise formation and to show how arguing disputants can shift to negotiation in a dialectically virtuous way.     

Legal Audiences

This paper approaches legal argumentation from a rhetorical perspective. It discusses the nature of the audiences that are (and should be) targeted by judges in the legal process. Judicial opinions reach diverse groups of people with very different attitudes and expectations: other judges, lawyers, litigants, concerned citizens, etc. One important way in which these groups differ is that some of them are more likely to be persuaded by legalistic, precedent or statute-based arguments, while others expect judges to decide on grounds of justice or equity. So, judges face the challenge of determining whether they should select particular groups for special attention, or whether they have alternative rhetorical means to approach the problem of audience diversity. One strategy that is likely to be recommended by rhetorical scholars is that judges should not try to accommodate the various preferences of their actual readership, but that they should rather invoke an idealized audience or some version of Chaïm Perelman’s universal audience. However, the paper tries to show that the universal audience is of limited value for a discussion about how judges ought to proceed in the face of audience diversity. In particular, the idea of a universal audience does not help judges to make the choice between a legalistic or an equity-based approach to legal decision-making. By showing that this is so, the paper also raises doubts about the common thought that to invoke the universal audience in law is to appeal to natural law (as distinct from written, positive law).     

Virtuous Arguers: Responsible and Reliable

Virtuous arguers are expected to manifest virtues such as intellectual humility and open-mindedness, but from such traits the quality of arguments does not immediately follow. However, it also seems implausible that a virtuous arguer can systematically put forward bad arguments. How could virtue argumentation theory combine both insights? The solution, I argue, lies in an analogy with virtue epistemology: considering both responsibilist and reliabilist virtues gives us a fuller picture of the virtuous arguer.