Evidence of a Flynn Effect in Children's Human Figure Drawings (1902–1968). Jeremy E. C. Genovese. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2018.1469113
ABSTRACT: The Flynn effect is the long-term trend for scores on tests of cognitive ability to increase across cohorts. Several samples of children's human figure drawings, published in 1902, 1926, 1963, and 1968, are examined for evidence of a Flynn effect. Results show that larger percentages of children draw more complete human figures over the course of the 20th century.
KEYWORDS: children's drawings, Draw-a-Person test, Flynn effect, history of Psychology
Bipartisan Alliance, a Society for the Study of the US Constitution, and of Human Nature, where Republicans and Democrats meet.
Saturday, May 26, 2018
Stone-age strategies, space-age media & signaling in profile photos: Males emphasized social status, ambition & access to material resources, females physical appearance & youthfulness. Perception of masculinity was tied to display of resources & physical strength, femininity to physical appearance & flirtatious behavior
Stone-age strategies and space-age media: Sex differences in sexual signaling on Facebook. Igor Miklousic, Mia Karabegović, Lukrecija Puljić. Periodicum Biologorum, Vol 119 No 4 (2017). DOI: https://doi.org/10.18054/pb.v119i4.5787
Abstract: Building on the proposition of the Sexual Strategies Theory that sex differences in mating strategies and intrasexual competition will be reflected in sexual signaling behavior towards possible mates, we sought to examine if such strategies would be observable on social networking sites.
For the purpose of the study, ten male and ten female public profile pictures were randomly selected from a large pool of users (N = 1386) who chose to participate in the study and subscribed to a Facebook page created in order to aggregate users with an interest in Evolutionary psychology. Selected profile photos were then included in an online evaluation protocol, filled out by 31 independent raters, resulting in a total of 620 ratings. The protocol addressed nine evolutionarily relevant partner choice characteristics; 1) physical strength or athleticism, (2) access to resources or material possessions, (3) ambition or industriousness, (4) social status, (5) intelligence, (6) features of physical appearance, (7) features accentuating youthfulness, (8) high activity level, and (9) flirtatious behavior.
Males more frequently emphasized cues of social status, ambition and access to material resources, whereas females tended to emphasize features of physical appearance and of youthfulness. Furthermore, the perception of masculinity was mostly tied to the display of resources and physical strength, as was femininity to physical appearance and flirtatious behavior.
The Sexual Strategies Theory predictions of mating display behaviors were confirmed in online settings, demonstrating the robustness of sex differences in mating-related behaviors.
Abstract: Building on the proposition of the Sexual Strategies Theory that sex differences in mating strategies and intrasexual competition will be reflected in sexual signaling behavior towards possible mates, we sought to examine if such strategies would be observable on social networking sites.
For the purpose of the study, ten male and ten female public profile pictures were randomly selected from a large pool of users (N = 1386) who chose to participate in the study and subscribed to a Facebook page created in order to aggregate users with an interest in Evolutionary psychology. Selected profile photos were then included in an online evaluation protocol, filled out by 31 independent raters, resulting in a total of 620 ratings. The protocol addressed nine evolutionarily relevant partner choice characteristics; 1) physical strength or athleticism, (2) access to resources or material possessions, (3) ambition or industriousness, (4) social status, (5) intelligence, (6) features of physical appearance, (7) features accentuating youthfulness, (8) high activity level, and (9) flirtatious behavior.
Males more frequently emphasized cues of social status, ambition and access to material resources, whereas females tended to emphasize features of physical appearance and of youthfulness. Furthermore, the perception of masculinity was mostly tied to the display of resources and physical strength, as was femininity to physical appearance and flirtatious behavior.
The Sexual Strategies Theory predictions of mating display behaviors were confirmed in online settings, demonstrating the robustness of sex differences in mating-related behaviors.
Temptation & self-selection into an opportunistic environment on an individual’s likelihood of engaging in dishonest behavior: people who tempt themselves to cheat are more likely to cheat & in greater magnitude. Self-reported value of ethics predicts honest behavior only for subjects who consider their moral principles to be “very important” in their everyday lives
Temptation and Cheating Behavior: Experimental Evidence. Jennifer Pate. Journal of Economic Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.05.006
Highlights
• This study features an experiment testing the impact of temptation and self-selection into an opportunistic environment on an individual’s likelihood of engaging in dishonest behavior.
• The empirical evidence demonstrates that people who tempt themselves to cheat are more likely to cheat.
• Further, people who self-select into the opportunistic setting cheat to a greater magnitude than individuals placed into the same opportunistic condition by random assignment.
• There are no gender differences in self-selection into the opportunistic environment or in overall likelihood of cheating.
• An individual’s self-reported value of ethics predicts honest behavior but only for subjects who consider their moral principles to be “very important” in their everyday lives.
Abstract: This article presents an experiment designed to test the impact of temptation and self-selection into an opportunistic environment on an individual’s likelihood of engaging in dishonest behavior. In doing so, this experiment is the first of its kind to isolate the relationship between temptation and cheating as its primary focus, to create a randomized control group for comparative purposes, and to be conducted without deceiving subjects. The evidence shows that people who tempt themselves to cheat are more likely to cheat. Further, people who self-select into the opportunistic setting cheat to a greater extent than individuals placed into the same opportunistic condition by random assignment. There are no gender differences in choice of environment or likelihood of cheating. An individual’s self-reported value of ethics predicts honest behavior but only for subjects who consider their moral principles to be “very important” in their everyday lives. The results have direct implications for any environment where individuals can self-select into an opportunistic setting.
Keywords: Temptation; cheating; dishonesty; opportunism
Highlights
• This study features an experiment testing the impact of temptation and self-selection into an opportunistic environment on an individual’s likelihood of engaging in dishonest behavior.
• The empirical evidence demonstrates that people who tempt themselves to cheat are more likely to cheat.
• Further, people who self-select into the opportunistic setting cheat to a greater magnitude than individuals placed into the same opportunistic condition by random assignment.
• There are no gender differences in self-selection into the opportunistic environment or in overall likelihood of cheating.
• An individual’s self-reported value of ethics predicts honest behavior but only for subjects who consider their moral principles to be “very important” in their everyday lives.
Abstract: This article presents an experiment designed to test the impact of temptation and self-selection into an opportunistic environment on an individual’s likelihood of engaging in dishonest behavior. In doing so, this experiment is the first of its kind to isolate the relationship between temptation and cheating as its primary focus, to create a randomized control group for comparative purposes, and to be conducted without deceiving subjects. The evidence shows that people who tempt themselves to cheat are more likely to cheat. Further, people who self-select into the opportunistic setting cheat to a greater extent than individuals placed into the same opportunistic condition by random assignment. There are no gender differences in choice of environment or likelihood of cheating. An individual’s self-reported value of ethics predicts honest behavior but only for subjects who consider their moral principles to be “very important” in their everyday lives. The results have direct implications for any environment where individuals can self-select into an opportunistic setting.
Keywords: Temptation; cheating; dishonesty; opportunism
For men, psychopathy was a negative predictor, and narcissism a positive predictor of lifetime offspring; for women, psychopathy emerged as a negative predictor of lifetime offspring
Lifetime offspring and the Dark Triad. Gregory L. Carter, Minna Lyons, Gayle Brewer. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 132, 1 October 2018, Pages 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.017
Abstract: There is a paucity of literature investigating the extent to which human personality predicts lifetime (age-controlled) offspring. The present study contributes to this field in assessing whether the inter-related ‘dark’ personalities that have been linked to mating success (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy: the ‘Dark Triad’) predict number of children. Analyses from an online sample (N = 314) revealed that for men, psychopathy was a negative predictor, and narcissism a positive predictor of lifetime offspring. For women, psychopathy emerged as a negative predictor of lifetime offspring. Results are discussed in respect of the importance of these traits to fitness-related outcomes, including reproduction, and the need to consider sex differences, as these traits may have a different function in men and women.
Keywords: Reproduction; Dark Triad; Narcissism; Machiavellianism; Psychopathy
Abstract: There is a paucity of literature investigating the extent to which human personality predicts lifetime (age-controlled) offspring. The present study contributes to this field in assessing whether the inter-related ‘dark’ personalities that have been linked to mating success (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy: the ‘Dark Triad’) predict number of children. Analyses from an online sample (N = 314) revealed that for men, psychopathy was a negative predictor, and narcissism a positive predictor of lifetime offspring. For women, psychopathy emerged as a negative predictor of lifetime offspring. Results are discussed in respect of the importance of these traits to fitness-related outcomes, including reproduction, and the need to consider sex differences, as these traits may have a different function in men and women.
Keywords: Reproduction; Dark Triad; Narcissism; Machiavellianism; Psychopathy
Low (high) skill subjects are more (less) willing to take risks on gambles where the probabilities depend on relative skill. This suggests that the wrong people may engage in risky activities, such as entering competitive markets or career paths, while the right people may be crowded out
How do beliefs about skill affect risky decisions? Adrian Bruhin, Luís Santos-Pinto, David Staubli. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Volume 150, June 2018, Pages 350-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.01.016
Highlights
• In this paper, we use a laboratory experiment to study the causal effect of beliefs about skill on risky choices.
• The paper offers an innovative experimental test that is free of strategic confounds and based on revealed preference.
• Low (high) skill subjects are more (less) willing to take risks on gambles where the probabilities depend on relative skill.
• This suggests that the wrong people may engage in risky activities V such as entering competitive markets or career paths V while the right people may be crowded out.
• Revealed beliefs are only moderately correlated with stated beliefs and so relying only on stated beliefs may be misleading.
Abstract: Beliefs about relative skill matter for risky decisions such as market entry, career choices, and financial investments. Yet in most laboratory experiments risk is exogenously given and beliefs about relative skill play no role. We use a laboratory experiment without strategy confounds to isolate the impact of beliefs about relative skill on risky choices. We find that low (high) skill individuals are more (less) willing to take risks on gambles where the probabilities depend on relative skill than on gambles with exogenously given probabilities. This happens because low (high) skill individuals overestimate (underestimate) their relative skill. Consequently, the wrong people may engage in risky activities where performance is based on relative skill while the right people may be crowded out.
Highlights
• In this paper, we use a laboratory experiment to study the causal effect of beliefs about skill on risky choices.
• The paper offers an innovative experimental test that is free of strategic confounds and based on revealed preference.
• Low (high) skill subjects are more (less) willing to take risks on gambles where the probabilities depend on relative skill.
• This suggests that the wrong people may engage in risky activities V such as entering competitive markets or career paths V while the right people may be crowded out.
• Revealed beliefs are only moderately correlated with stated beliefs and so relying only on stated beliefs may be misleading.
Abstract: Beliefs about relative skill matter for risky decisions such as market entry, career choices, and financial investments. Yet in most laboratory experiments risk is exogenously given and beliefs about relative skill play no role. We use a laboratory experiment without strategy confounds to isolate the impact of beliefs about relative skill on risky choices. We find that low (high) skill individuals are more (less) willing to take risks on gambles where the probabilities depend on relative skill than on gambles with exogenously given probabilities. This happens because low (high) skill individuals overestimate (underestimate) their relative skill. Consequently, the wrong people may engage in risky activities where performance is based on relative skill while the right people may be crowded out.
We look at more information, pay more for information, look at different information when choosing for others; those who choose for others focus more on choice-alternatives, and when choosing for themselves focus more on choice-attributes
Choosing for others and its relation to information search, Yi Liu et al. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 147, July 2018, Pages 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.05.005
Highlights
• We show that people look at more information when choosing for others.
• We show that people will pay more for information when choosing for others.
• We show that people will look at different information when choosing for others.
• People who choose for others focus more on choice-alternatives.
• People who choose for themselves focus more on choice-attributes.
Abstract: When people make choices, they both identify their options and research the unique details that comprise their options. Respectively, these two search behaviors are called alternative- and attribute-search. The literature treats these separate information search behaviors as a trade-off: Choosing to examine extant alternatives (alternative-search) means suffering the costs of not analyzing the details of alternatives (attribute-search), and vice versa. Here, we found that in choices people make for others, they search for more alternatives and more attributes than in choices people make for themselves. Moreover, we found that when people face a trade-off between searching for alternatives and attributes, people choosing for others will favor alternatives, whereas people choosing for themselves will favor attributes. Thus, we found that the pursuit of information is different when people choose for others (vs. themselves), suggesting a novel pivot to a range of areas in decision making where the alternative-attribute trade-off is ubiquitous.
Keywords: Self-other decision making; Information search; Regulatory focus; Social distance
Highlights
• We show that people look at more information when choosing for others.
• We show that people will pay more for information when choosing for others.
• We show that people will look at different information when choosing for others.
• People who choose for others focus more on choice-alternatives.
• People who choose for themselves focus more on choice-attributes.
Abstract: When people make choices, they both identify their options and research the unique details that comprise their options. Respectively, these two search behaviors are called alternative- and attribute-search. The literature treats these separate information search behaviors as a trade-off: Choosing to examine extant alternatives (alternative-search) means suffering the costs of not analyzing the details of alternatives (attribute-search), and vice versa. Here, we found that in choices people make for others, they search for more alternatives and more attributes than in choices people make for themselves. Moreover, we found that when people face a trade-off between searching for alternatives and attributes, people choosing for others will favor alternatives, whereas people choosing for themselves will favor attributes. Thus, we found that the pursuit of information is different when people choose for others (vs. themselves), suggesting a novel pivot to a range of areas in decision making where the alternative-attribute trade-off is ubiquitous.
Keywords: Self-other decision making; Information search; Regulatory focus; Social distance