Some people share knowledge online, often without tangible compensation. Who does this, when, and why? People use behavioral displays to provide observers with useful information about traits in exchange for fitness benefits

The quality of online knowledge sharing signals general intelligence. Christian N.Yoder, Scott A.Reid. Personality and Individual Differences. Volume 148, 1 October 2019, Pages 90-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.013

Abstract: Some people share knowledge online, often without tangible compensation. Who does this, when, and why? According to costly signaling theory people use behavioral displays to provide observers with useful information about traits or states in exchange for fitness benefits. We tested whether individuals higher in general intelligence, g, provided better quality contributions to an information pool under high than low identifiability, and whether observers could infer signaler g from contribution quality. Using a putative online wiki (N = 98) we found that as individuals' scores on Ravens Progressive Matrices (RPM) increased, participants were judged to have written better quality articles, but only when identifiable and not when anonymous. Further, the effect of RPM scores on inferred intelligence was mediated by article quality, but only when signalers were identifiable. Consistent with costly signaling theory, signalers are extrinsically motivated and observers act as “naive psychometricians.” We discuss the implications for understanding online information pools and altruism.

Sexuality and sexism: Differences in ambivalent sexism across gender and sexual identity

Sexuality and sexism: Differences in ambivalent sexism across gender and sexual identity. Lucy J.Cowie, Lara M.Greaves, Chris G.Sibley. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 148, 1 October 2019, Pages 85-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.023

Abstract: Heterosexual intimacy is theorised to play a key role in Ambivalent Sexism, yet gay, lesbian, and bisexual people's levels of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism have not been previously examined. This paper draws upon data from the national probability New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (N = 18,266) to examine levels of Hostile and Benevolent sexism across gender (men and women) and sexual identity (gay/lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual individuals). Overall, we found that men compared to women, and heterosexuals compared to lesbian/gay and bisexuals, had significantly higher Hostile and Benevolent Sexism than other groups. The interaction of gender and sexual identity was significant for Benevolent, but not Hostile, Sexism. Gay men had the lowest levels of Benevolent Sexism, with bisexual men scoring between gay and heterosexual men. Heterosexual women were higher in Benevolent Sexism than lesbian and bisexual women. These findings lend support to the notion that heterosexual intimacy is an important driver sustaining Benevolent Sexism.

Gossip and the Reasons Why We and Individuals With “Dark” Personalities Talk About Others: Even dark personalities appear to use gossip to tune their picture of other humans and themselves and not to harm others

Better Than Its Reputation? Gossip and the Reasons Why We and Individuals With “Dark” Personalities Talk About Others. Freda-Marie Hartung*, Constanze Krohn and Marie Pirschtat. Front. Psychol., May 29 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01162

Abstract: Gossip is an ubiquitous phenomenon. Hearing information about others serves important social functions such as learning without direct interaction and observation. Despite important social functions gossip has a rather negative reputation. Therefore, the present online study focuses on the reasons why people gossip and how these reasons are related to personality (i.e., dark triad) and situational settings. Six distinct motives were identified that underlie gossip behavior: information validation, information gathering, relationship building, protection, social enjoyment, and negative influence. The most important motive was validating information about the gossip target followed by the motive to acquire new information about the gossip target. The least important motive was harming the gossip target. The motivational pattern was highly similar between private and work context. Interestingly, the importance of motives mainly depends on the gossiper's narcissism both in work and in private settings. The findings suggest that the negative reputation of gossip is not justified. In fact, even “dark” personalities appear to use gossip to tune their picture of other humans and themselves and not to harm others.


Introduction

Eavesdropping in public settings reveals that people devote a substantial part of their conversations to gossip (e.g., Levin and Arluke, 1985; Dunbar et al., 1997). Accordingly, important social functions have been postulated for gossip in science (e.g., Foster, 2004). Despite these important functions, gossip has a rather bad reputation since it is perceived as inherently malicious harming people and society (e.g., Farley, 2011; Hartung and Renner, 2013; Peters and Kashima, 2013). Whether behavior can be judged as good or bad depends, at least in part, on the intention of the individuals engaging in that behavior. Therefore, the present study aims to examine whether the bad reputation of gossip is justified by examining reasons to gossip. In addition, we examine the reasons of individuals scoring high on the dark triad personality traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) as they are known to ignore commonly accepted norms and to act selfishly (e.g., O‘Boyle et al., 2012; Muris et al., 2017). More specifically, we investigate whether individuals scoring high on the dark triad personality traits are more ready to use gossip in order to harm others and to serve themselves, thereby, contributing to the negative reputation of gossip.

Gossip refers to the exchange of information about characteristics and behaviors of an absent person (Dunbar, 2004b; Foster, 2004; Peters and Kashima, 2015). From an anthropological perspective, it has been argued that human language primarily evolved to exchange social information in order to deal with complex social situations (Dunbar, 1998, 2004a; Barrett et al., 2002), and that we, therefore, preferentially attend to social information (e.g., Mesoudi et al., 2006). Accordingly, two thirds of adult conversations in public settings involve gossip (e.g., Levin and Arluke, 1985; Dunbar et al., 1997). Experimental evidence is in line with that notion (e.g., Mesoudi et al., 2006). In general, gossip appears to be a widely spread and almost inevitable phenomenon.

As a result, important social functions have been postulated for gossip in anthropological and psychological science (e.g., Suls, 1977; Baumeister et al., 2004; Dunbar, 2004a,b; Foster, 2004; Hartung and Renner, 2013). First, gossip is an efficient means of gathering and disseminating information (Foster, 2004). The exchanged information enables individuals to get a map of their social environment and their position within that social environment (Suls, 1977; Baumeister et al., 2004; Foster, 2004; De Backer et al., 2007; Sommerfeld et al., 2007; Martinescu et al., 2014). Baumeister et al. (2004), for instance, understand gossip as an extension of observational learning. People learn about the complex social and cultural life by hearing about the success and misadventures of others. It appears that we do not learn only about extraordinary experience made by others but also about more trivial things such as dressing style (De Backer et al., 2007). Thus, exchanging information about others enables us to learn without direct interaction and observation.

Secondly, Dunbar (1998, 2004a) and Mesoudi et al. (2006) argues in his social gossip theory of language that human language evolved in order to keep track of complex social networks and to ensure the cohesion in large social groups. More specifically, it has been suggested and empirically shown that, at the dyadic level, sharing gossip is associated with friendship (Grosser et al., 2010; Watson, 2011; Ellwardt et al., 2012b) and even leads to the development of friendships (Ellwardt et al., 2012b; see also Bosson et al., 2006). In addition, it has been suggested that, at the group level, gossip leads to group specific knowledge, norms, and trust, in turn supporting group cohesion and bonding (e.g., Dunbar, 2004b; Foster, 2004; Peters et al., 2017). Thus, sharing information about others is a way to build and maintain relationships and networks.

Thirdly, a growing number of researchers assume that gossip serves as an informal policing device for controlling free riders and social cheats (Dunbar, 2004b; Keltner et al., 2008; Feinberg et al., 2012). Faced with the concern that information about negative behavior runs through the grapevine and may consequently lead to the loss of reputation or even social exclusion, it prevents people from acting against social norms and the good of the group (Piazza and Bering, 2008; Beersma and Van Kleef, 2011; Feinberg et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2016). Thus, gossip keeps people from acting against the good of the group and fosters cooperation.

Finally, it has been suggested that gossip has an entertainment function providing recreational value and considerable stimulation for very little costs (Foster, 2004; Peng et al., 2015). Taken together, research has postulated and empirically shown that the exchange of information about absent third persons serves several important functions in a social environment.

However, despite its important social functions, gossip has a rather negative reputation (Farley, 2011; Hartung and Renner, 2013; Peters and Kashima, 2013). For instance, asking individuals to rate their tendency to gossip, they rate themselves to be less gossipy than an average peer of the same sex, suggesting that gossiping is perceived rather negatively (Hartung and Renner, 2013). Also, frequent gossipers are perceived as less likable and less popular than people gossiping less frequently (Farley, 2011; Ellwardt et al., 2012b). Supporting the bad reputation, some researchers suggest that gossip is a covert form of aggression (i.e., non-confrontational) especially used by women (e.g., McAndrew, 2014). Thus, the positive “social function view” is not mirrored in the reputation of gossip and gossipers.

Thus, evaluating gossip as a rather positive or negative behavior is not as easy as it may appear at first sight. Focusing on the social functions, that can be understood as not necessarily intended social consequences of gossip behavior, research clearly paints a positive picture of gossip. However, one might also evaluate gossip with respect to other dimensions such as positivity or negativity of the transmitted information or the intention of the gossiper (Eckhaus and Ben-Hador, 2018). Focusing on one of these dimensions of gossip might change the evaluation and emphasize the negative reputation of gossip. And indeed, research has shown that people give consideration to the fact that gossip differs and also gossipers differ from each other (Farley, 2011; Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012; Peters and Kashima, 2015). Empirical findings have shown that people take the presumed motivation of a gossiper into account when judging the morality of the respective gossiper, for instance (Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012). Thus, even though people disapprove of gossip in general, they consider the reasons people might have to gossip.

Hence, to evaluate whether a certain behavior is good or bad, the underlying reasons or the intentions should be taken into account. Curiously, very few research exists on simply asking people about the reasons why they gossip (Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012). In their study, Beersma and Van Kleef (2012) distinguished four different reasons to gossip, namely information gathering and validation, social enjoyment, negative influence, and group protection. This means, people instigate gossip to gather information and compare their ideas about others, to enjoy themselves, to spread negative information about a third person, and/or to protect the person they are talking with. The study provides initial evidence that people primarily gossip to gain information about other people and not to harm others (Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012). Thus, when focusing on gossipers' intentions, a rather positive picture of gossip is painted.

Another way to explore whether the reputation of gossip is justified is to examine the gossip reasons of individuals scoring high on narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. These three traits are summarized under the umbrella term dark triad and gained considerable attention in the past years (Jones and Paulhus, 2011; O‘Boyle et al., 2012; Furnham et al., 2013; Jones and Figueredo, 2013; Lee et al., 2013; Book et al., 2015; Muris et al., 2017). It has been shown that the three traits are overlapping, but are nevertheless distinct concepts (e.g., Furnham et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2013; but see also Muris et al., 2017). As the common core the tendency to deceive, manipulate, and exploit others for one's own benefit has been suggested (Lee et al., 2013; see also Jones and Figueredo, 2013). Conversations about absent third parties appear to be an apparent method to do exactly that. Thus, if individuals with “dark” personalities regularly use gossip to spread negative information and harm others that would surely contribute to the negative reputation of gossip. However, if even individuals with “dark” personalities rarely use gossip with the intention to harm others, the positive aspects of gossip would be underlined.

Research has shown that the dark triad personality traits are related to a variety of negative social and non-social outcomes (e.g., Baughman et al., 2012; O‘Boyle et al., 2012; Wisse and Sleebos, 2016; Muris et al., 2017; Deutchman and Sullivan, 2018). For instance, individuals scoring higher on the dark triad traits show a higher tendency to tell lies and to cheat than individuals scoring lower on these traits (Nathanson et al., 2006; Williams et al., 2010; Baughman et al., 2014; Jonason et al., 2014; Roeser et al., 2016; Muris et al., 2017). In addition, individuals scoring higher on the dark triad value themselves over the others (Jonason et al., 2015), are less concerned with others' welfare (Djeriouat and Trémolière, 2014; Jonason et al., 2015; Noser et al., 2015) and with fairness (Jonason et al., 2015). Taken together, these studies and reviews illustrate that individuals scoring higher on the dark triad personality traits are willing to dismiss commonly accepted social norms and harm others for their own good.

Therefore, it is plausible to assume that individuals scoring higher on the dark traits are also more ready to use gossip for their own sake without caring about potentially negative effects for others. More specifically, it is easy to imagine that individuals scoring higher on the dark triad readily use gossip to negatively influence another person's reputation (i.e., potential competitor or rival) to push through self-beneficial agendas. In line with that notion, women scoring high on the dark triad traits use gossip—among other strategies—to derogate competitors (Carter et al., 2015). Additionally, as people with dark personalities are not concerned with others' welfare, they probably use gossip less often to protect other individuals or their group from harm (but see Lyons and Hughes, 2015). In a similar vein, the dark side of personality probably has a high impact on gossip motives that serve individual purposes. For instance, people scoring high on the dark triad traits report to have a strong desire for power, control, and dominance (e.g., Jonason et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2013; Semenyna and Honey, 2015). Gaining social information and knowledge about people surrounding us provides us with a sense of control and advantage over others (e.g., Swann et al., 1981; Fiske, 2004). Therefore, simply gathering and validating social information might be another salient reason for dark personalities to gossip.

Taken together, the present online study focuses on the reasons why people engage in conversations about absent third parties. The aims of the present study are 2-fold. First, we aim to examine the reasons for people to engage in gossip, replicating the study of Beersma and Van Kleef (2012). To do so, we translated the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire into German. In addition, we extended the questionnaire by widening the number of possible reasons including gossiping in order to foster relationship building and to gather social information. Second, to examine whether the bad reputation of gossip is justified or not, we explore the role of the “dark” personality traits in gossip motivation. One might assume that individuals scoring higher on narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy are more likely unconcerned with moral considerations and driven by selfish reasons when engaging in gossip, consequently, contributing to the negative reputation of gossip. However, we have no specific hypotheses concerning the single dark triad traits.

The Motives to Gossip Questionnaire asks participants to rate their reasons for gossip in a specific situation. In order to explore to what extent gossip motives can be generalized across situations, two different situations were incorporated in the study (i.e., private as well as workplace situations). Based on the work of Mischel (1977), researchers differentiate between strong situations with normative expectations and clear roles that constrain behavior, and weak situations which do not provide normative expectations, and, therefore, allow for more freedom in behavior and the expression of personality. Mischel (1977) argued that behavior in strong situations is based on situational circumstances rather than on the individual's personality. In the workplace, people have to follow rules and adjust their behavior to fulfill or support organizational objectives. Here we can assume rather strong situations. In private situations on the other hand, people are mostly unrestricted and have to comply with fewer norms or rules. Also, it is likely that work and private setting differ on a competitiveness-cooperativeness dimension. A competitive situation might elicit motives that serve the individual more easily and hazards negative consequences for others. Taken together, we assume that the work context reflects a rather strong (i.e., clear normative expectations) and competitive situation; and the private context reflects a rather weak and more cooperative situation. Consequently, we explore whether motives show differential importance between these two situations and whether the dark triad traits show differential relationships to gossip reasons across situations (see also Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012).

Beauty Is Not Always in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Vision in the Emergence of Mate Preferences

Scheller, Meike, Francine Matorres, Lucy Tompkins, Anthony C. Little, and Alexandra A. de Sousa. 2019. “Beauty Is Not Always in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Vision in the Emergence of Mate Preferences.” PsyArXiv. May 29. doi:10.31234/osf.io/nt3x

Abstract: Cross-cultural research has repeatedly demonstrated sex differences in the importance of different partner traits when choosing a mate. Here, men typically report higher preferences for younger, more physically attractive women, while women prefer men that are wealthier and of higher status. As the assessment of such partner characteristics often relies on visual cues, this raises the question whether visual experience is necessary in order for sex-specific mate preferences to develop. To shed more light onto the emergence of sex differences in mate choice, the current study assesses how preferences for attractiveness, resources, and personality factors differ between sighted and blind individuals. We further investigate the role of social factors and sensory cue selection in these sex-specific differences. Our sample consisted of 94 participants, 19 blind/28 sighted males, and 19 blind/28 sighted females. Results replicated well-documented findings in the sighted, with men placing more importance on physical attractiveness and women placing more importance on status and resources. However, while physical attractiveness was less important to blind men, blind women considered physical attractiveness as important as sighted women. The importance of a high status and similar personality was not influenced by sightedness. Blind individuals considered auditory cues more important than visual cues, while sighted males showed the opposite pattern. A good odor was generally rated as more important than other cues. Further, relationship status and indirect, social influences were related to preferences. Overall, our findings shed light on the emergence of sex-differences in mate preference by evaluating the influence previous exposure to certain partner characteristics has on the emergence of mate preferences.

Preliminary data, Millennials' philanthropic behavior: One cannot reject the hypothesis that Millennials donate more than members of earlier generations; but also seems true that are somewhat less likely to make any donations at all

Are Millennials Really Particularly Selfish? Preliminary Evidence From a Cross-Sectional Sample in the Philanthropy Panel Study. Peter Koczanski, Harvey S. Rosen. American Behavioral Scientist, May 28, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219850871

Abstract: We use panel data on charitable donations to analyze how the philanthropic behavior of Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) compares with that of earlier generations. On the basis of a multivariate analysis with a rich set of economic and demographic variables, we find that conditional on making a gift, one cannot reject the hypothesis that Millennials donate more than members of earlier generations. However, Millennials are somewhat less likely to make any donations at all than their generational predecessors. While our data do not allow us to explore causal mechanisms, our findings suggest a more nuanced view of the Millennials’ prosocial behavior than is depicted in popular accounts.

Keywords: generosity, Millennials, selfishness, emerging adulthood theory, charity

Only cultural individualism, historic pathogen prevalence & food availability are relevant for sex differences in personality, which means that those differences are uniquely correlated to ecological stress

Nature and evoked culture: Sex differences in personality are uniquely correlated with ecological stress. Tim Kaiser. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 148, 1 October 2019, Pages 67-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.011

Abstract
Sex differences in personality were found to be larger in more developed and more gender-equal societies. However, the studies that report this effect either have methodological shortcomings or do not take into account possible underlying effects of ecological variables.

Here, a large, multinational (N = 867,782) dataset of personality profiles was used to examine sex differences in Big Five facet scores for 50 countries. Gender differences were related to estimates of ecological stress as well as socio-cultural variables. Using a regularized partial-correlation approach, the unique associations of those correlates with sex differences were isolated.

Sex differences were large (median Mahalanobis' D = 1.97) and varied substantially across countries (range 1.49 to 2.48). Global sex differences are larger in more developed countries with higher food availability, less pathogen prevalence, higher gender equality and an individualistic culture. After controlling for confounds, only cultural individualism, historic pathogen prevalence and food availability remained. Sex differences in personality are uniquely correlated to ecological stress. Previously reported correlations between greater sex differences and socio-cultural liberalism could be due to confounding by influences of ecological stress.

Recent changes in narcissism of Chinese youth, 2008–2017: Narcissism had a downward temporal trend; neither gender nor region moderated the trend; this finding challenged individualism was a global determinant of narcissism

Recent changes in narcissism of Chinese youth: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 2008–2017. Shuang Gao et al. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 148, 1 October 2019, Pages 62-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.035

Highlights
•    Narcissism had a downward temporal trend among Chinese youth.
•    Neither gender nor region moderated the time trend.
•    The finding challenged individualism was a global determinant of narcissism.

Abstract: The present study examined potential changes in narcissistic traits of Chinese youth from 2008 to 2017. A cross-temporal meta-analysis involving 29 independent samples (N = 14,795) found a downward temporal trend: Mean scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and Narcissistic Personality Inventory for Chinese are significantly negatively associated with year of data collection, weighted by sample size (β = −0.49). Moderator analyses found that this trend was independent of the measurement instrument used, gender distribution, or region of data collection. These findings contradict claims that Chinese youth have become more narcissistic of late. The findings also challenge the common assumption that societal increases in individualism are a global determinant of narcissism.

Drug users : High scores in the dimensions of novelty seeking & harm avoidance, & low scores in the dimensions of reward dependence, persistence, and self-directedness; in a pathological personality model most scores were high

Personality traits and substance use disorders: Comparative study with drug user and non-drug user population. Seyed GhasemSeyed Hashemi et al. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 148, 1 October 2019, Pages 50-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.015

Abstract
Objective: Personality traits play a vital role in addictive behaviors, drug addiction in particular.

Aim of study: To compare normal and pathological personality traits in drug users and non-drug users.

Methods: In this comparative study, we employed convenience sampling to recruit drug users (n = 110; 58 men and 52 women), from addiction treatment centers in a selected city in Azarbaijan province, and matched group of non-drug users (n = 110; 58 men and 52 women). The data were collected using demographic information questionnaire, Jakson-5 scale, Temperament and Character Cloninger (TCI), and Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form (PID-5-BF). The data were analyzed by chi square and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).

Results: Two groups were significantly different in normal (r-RST, TCI) and pathological (PID-5) personality models. In TCI model, drug users gained high scores in the dimensions of novelty seeking and harm avoidance; and obtained low scores in the dimensions of reward dependence, persistence, and self-directedness. In r-RST model, they gained high scores in r-BAS and r-fight System; and obtained low scores in r-BIS. Also, in pathological personality model (PID-5), the scores of drug users were high in all of the dimensions except for detachment dimension.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that personality traits are coincidence in drug users. Professional evaluation of drug using patients in order to differentiate normal and pathological personality models of them is recommended.

Moderating effect of emotional awareness on the association between maltreatment experiences and resilience

Moderating effect of emotional awareness on the association between maltreatment experiences and resilience. Sang Won Lee, Seunghee Won, Bumseok Jeong. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 148, 1 October 2019, Pages 38-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.037

Abstract: Childhood maltreatment experiences are closely related to aberrant emotional processing that may be associated with resilience. Although different stages of emotion processing, such as identification of emotion, selection of regulation strategies, and implementation of regulation strategies, can be affected by maltreatment experiences, it is still unclear which part of emotion processing is closely associated with the vulnerability the victims have. In this study, we investigated the effects of different emotion regulation strategies on psychological resilience. Among a total of 360 participants, 89 maltreatment and 112 no-maltreatment subjects were included in the analysis of a questionnaire survey. An additional cognitive reappraisal task was conducted in 25 maltreatment and 25 age-, gender-, and education-matched no-maltreatment subjects. The maltreatment group reported greater difficulties in identifying emotion, such as lack of emotional awareness or clarity. Moderation analysis revealed that lack of emotional awareness has a significant effect on the relationship between childhood maltreatment experiences and low psychological resilience. In the cognitive reappraisal task, the maltreatment subjects reported higher negative valence scores on ambiguous neutral pictures than the no-maltreatment subjects. Our results suggest that difficulties in emotional awareness, especially with ambiguous emotional cues, play a crucial role in low resilience in maltreatment victims.