The Uncertainty Paradox: Perceived Threat Moderates the Effect of Uncertainty on Political Tolerance

People respond to dissimilar political beliefs in a variety of ways, ranging from openness and acceptance to closed‐mindedness and intolerance. While there is reason to believe that uncertainty may influence political tolerance, the direction of this influence remains unclear. We propose that threat moderates the effect of uncertainty on tolerance; when safe, uncertainty leads to greater tolerance, yet when threatened, uncertainty leads to reduced tolerance. Using independent manipulations of threat and uncertainty, we provide support for this hypothesis. This research demonstrates that, although feelings of threat and uncertainty can be independent, it is also important to understand their interaction.     

Consequences of aggressive threats by Betta splendens

Male Siamese fighting fish continued to approach visual stimuli associated with conspecifics in the absence of opportunities to perform threat displays or to attack. Dominant fish performed more operant responses than subordinates when such responses led to the appearance of their own mirror images, and all fish learned to delay their threat displays if these resulted in disappearance of the mirror image. In a second experiment, subjects overwhelmingly preferred to view conspecifics (to whom they frequently displayed) compared to no stimulus or members of other species (to whom they did not display). The functions of threat displays in aggressive encounters is discussed.     

Disentangling the facilitating and hindering effects of threat-related stimuli – A visual search study

Although large body of research has demonstrated the attention-grabbing nature of threat-related stimuli, threat could also facilitate attentional processes. Previous studies suggest a linear relationship between the facilitating effect of the arousal level conveyed by threat and performance on visual search tasks. Due to the temporal competition bias favouring stimuli with higher arousal level, this could be more pronounced for shorter onset times. Here, through two experiments we aimed to disentangle the two effects by using a visual search paradigm that allowed us to separate the emotional stimuli and the cognitive task. We manipulated stimulus onset time and threat intensity. Participants saw neutral and threatening pictures as priming stimuli, and then, they had to find numbers in ascending order in a matrix array. We measured the reaction time for finding the first number, and search time for finding all the numbers. Our results showed that when the priming stimulus is presented, longer threatening pictures produced longer reaction times compared to neutral ones, which was reversed with increase in arousal. We did not find any significant effects for the shorter onset time. Further theoretical and methodological implications are discussed.     

Do changes in threat salience predict the moral content of sermons? The case of Friday Khutbas in Turkey

We analyzed the content of “Friday Khutbas” delivered in Turkish mosques between January 2001 and December 2018 to test the prediction of moral foundations theory (MFT) literature that threat salience would lead to an increased endorsement of binding moral foundations. As societal-level indicators of threat, we examined (a) historical data on the proportion of terrorism-related news published in a Turkish newspaper, (b) the geopolitical risk score of Turkey as measured by Geopolitical Risk Index, and (c) Google Trends data on the search frequency of words “terror”, “terrorism”, or “terrorist”. To measure the endorsement of moral foundations, we built a Turkish Moral Foundations Dictionary and counted the relative frequency of morality-related words in the khutbas delivered in Istanbul, Turkey. Time series analyses showed that risk salience in a certain month was positively related to endorsement of the loyalty/betrayal foundation in that month’s Friday Khutbas. There were mixed results for the other moral foundations.     

Why So Low?

Empirical evidence indicates that women philosophers tend to submit their work to journals substantially less often than their male colleagues. This paper points out that this difference in submission behavior comes with other specific aspects of women philosophers’ behavior, such as a tendency to be reluctant to participate in discussions, to be willing to do work low in prestige, and to specialize in certain research topics, and it argues that these differences can be understood as indirect effects of social biases: namely, effects on the working behavior of members of targeted social groups. Recent findings from philosophy journals’ book review sections and from other academic disciplines known to suffer from gender problems, especially from STEM disciplines, lend additional weight to this hypothesis.