He writes a lot, she gets to the point - sex differences in bathroom graffiti. Kathrin Masuch, Susanne Schmehl, Elisabeth Oberzaucher. Human Behavior and Evolution Society 31st annual meeting. Boston 2019. http://tiny.cc/aa1w6y
Abstract: Graffiti might be seen as a special kind of art or vandalism, but they are a special way of communication. Public bathrooms are most suitable for research on graffiti as they offer privacy and shield from the influence of other persons. Earlier research on graffiti showed that women are not as likely as men to create graffiti. Robin Dunbar claimed that the content of gossip is based on evolutionary strategies. Therefore, females tend to talk about social interactions and support, whereas men are more likely to verbally intimidate possible competitors. We examined 165 bathrooms in restaurants and bars and classified 4747 graffiti. We picked locations of high variability to ensure high social and educational diversity of visitors. Data analysis revealed a number of sex differences. Graffiti conveying social information and sexual content are found more often in ladies’ bathrooms, but generally, more graffiti are found in men’s rooms. The results partially support earlier findings but also raise new questions: The fact that women wrote more graffiti with sexual content might be explained by the SIDE-model which states that breaking with social norms is easier in groups or in situations of total anonymity.
Sunday, June 2, 2019
Sense of humor is a sexuality selected trait, signalling underlying mate quality and intelligence; women view humor production ability as more important when choosing a mate; men are better at it
Sex differences in humor production ability - a meta-analysis. Gil Greengross, Paul J. Silvia, Emily C. Nusbaum. Human Behavior and Evolution Society 31st annual meeting. Boston 2019. http://tiny.cc/aa1w6y
Abstract: There is abundant evidence that sense of humor is a sexuality selected trait, signalling underlying mate quality and intelligence. Consistent with sexual selection and mental fitness indicator theories, women view humor production ability as more important when choosing a mate. However, it is not clear if men actually possess higher humor abilities than women. We offer the first comprehensive quantitative meta-analysis on the topic, aimed at measuring the magnitude of such differences, if present. We included studies where participants identified as male or female created humor output that was assessed for funniness by independent raters who were blind to any characteristics of the subjects. Our meta-analysis includes 36 effect sizes from 28 studies (N = 5057, 67% women, including college and non-college students). Twenty of the 36 effect sizes, accounting for 61% of the participants, were not previously published. Results based on random-effects model revealed that men’s humor output was rated as funnier than women’s, with a combined effect size d = 0.321. Results were robust across various moderators and study characteristics, and multiple tests indicated that publication bias is unlikely. Overall, the results are consistent with the signalling hypothesis, and the view that humor is a sexually selected trait.
Abstract: There is abundant evidence that sense of humor is a sexuality selected trait, signalling underlying mate quality and intelligence. Consistent with sexual selection and mental fitness indicator theories, women view humor production ability as more important when choosing a mate. However, it is not clear if men actually possess higher humor abilities than women. We offer the first comprehensive quantitative meta-analysis on the topic, aimed at measuring the magnitude of such differences, if present. We included studies where participants identified as male or female created humor output that was assessed for funniness by independent raters who were blind to any characteristics of the subjects. Our meta-analysis includes 36 effect sizes from 28 studies (N = 5057, 67% women, including college and non-college students). Twenty of the 36 effect sizes, accounting for 61% of the participants, were not previously published. Results based on random-effects model revealed that men’s humor output was rated as funnier than women’s, with a combined effect size d = 0.321. Results were robust across various moderators and study characteristics, and multiple tests indicated that publication bias is unlikely. Overall, the results are consistent with the signalling hypothesis, and the view that humor is a sexually selected trait.
Male Solosexuality: A man's preference to engage in masturbation as a sole or primary means of sexual expression; the central emotional hallmark is admiration, veneration, and glorification of the penis
The Practice, Identity, and Ideology of Male Solosexuality: Description and Sexual Health Overview. Bill Herring. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, Jun 1 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720162.2019.1615586
Abstract: This article introduces the core characteristics of male solosexuality, a recent identity construction, ideological narrative and set of associated sexual practices organized around communal online male masturbation and idealization of the penis. Behaviorally, solosexuality refers to a man's preference to engage in masturbation as a sole or primary means of sexual expression, while its central emotional hallmark is admiration, veneration, and glorification of the penis. After introducing the central behavioral and ideological components of male solosexuality this article applies a concise set of sexual health principles to assess the potential benefits and risks of what some people consider to be not just a collection of sexual attitudes and behaviors but an emerging sexual identity. This article reviews a range of potential motivations for solosexual behavior and shows how the same behavior may represent different degrees of adaptive or problematic components among its practitioners.
Abstract: This article introduces the core characteristics of male solosexuality, a recent identity construction, ideological narrative and set of associated sexual practices organized around communal online male masturbation and idealization of the penis. Behaviorally, solosexuality refers to a man's preference to engage in masturbation as a sole or primary means of sexual expression, while its central emotional hallmark is admiration, veneration, and glorification of the penis. After introducing the central behavioral and ideological components of male solosexuality this article applies a concise set of sexual health principles to assess the potential benefits and risks of what some people consider to be not just a collection of sexual attitudes and behaviors but an emerging sexual identity. This article reviews a range of potential motivations for solosexual behavior and shows how the same behavior may represent different degrees of adaptive or problematic components among its practitioners.
We remember & act on others’ unique preferences, especially our kin and romantic partners; women are better at predicting some preferences (food, environments & pastimes) of their male partner than vice versa
Gifted at gift giving- An evolutionary perspective on preference accuracy. Diana Fleischman, Sophie Berryman. Human Behavior and Evolution Society 31st annual meeting. Boston 2019. http://tiny.cc/aa1w6y
Abstract: Humans remember and act on others’ unique preferences, especially our kin and romantic partners. Preference accuracy has been shown in two monogamous bird species, but there is little other comparative evidence. Although men give the majority of gifts cross-culturally, some evidence indicates women are better at anticipating the gift preferences of others, even when only presented with a photo of the recipient. Here I present a new study of 54 heterosexual romantic couples and their ability to predict one another’s preferences in domains including food, environments and pastimes. We find that, in two out of three domains, women are better at predicting the preferences of their male partner than vice versa. We also find that social intelligence, measured by accuracy in the "Mind in the Eyes" task, predicts better preference accuracy. We replicate a previous counterintuitive effect showing worse prediction accuracy in couples who have been together longer. We do not find that preference accuracy predicts relationship satisfaction. I’ll consider why we take the time, attention and effort to learn one another’s preferences from an evolutionary perspective.
Abstract: Humans remember and act on others’ unique preferences, especially our kin and romantic partners. Preference accuracy has been shown in two monogamous bird species, but there is little other comparative evidence. Although men give the majority of gifts cross-culturally, some evidence indicates women are better at anticipating the gift preferences of others, even when only presented with a photo of the recipient. Here I present a new study of 54 heterosexual romantic couples and their ability to predict one another’s preferences in domains including food, environments and pastimes. We find that, in two out of three domains, women are better at predicting the preferences of their male partner than vice versa. We also find that social intelligence, measured by accuracy in the "Mind in the Eyes" task, predicts better preference accuracy. We replicate a previous counterintuitive effect showing worse prediction accuracy in couples who have been together longer. We do not find that preference accuracy predicts relationship satisfaction. I’ll consider why we take the time, attention and effort to learn one another’s preferences from an evolutionary perspective.
Understanding hostility in online political discussions: Individuals who are hostile online are equally likely to be hostile offline, motivated by status and seeking to challenge existing political hierarchies
Why so angry? Understanding hostility in online political discussions. Alexander Bor, Michael Bang Petersen. Behavior and Evolution Society 31st annual meeting. Boston 2019. http://tiny.cc/aa1w6y
Abstract: Across Western democracies, online discussions about politics are considered uncivil, aggressive and hostile. Previous evolutionary research has explained this online political hostility as the result of the evolutionarily novel psychophysics of online environments: Lack of face-to-face interaction etc. down-regulate empathy and prompt hostility as a result of lack of emotion-regulation. On this explanation, online political hostility thus reflects an evolutionary mismatch. In contrast, we integrate (i) classical work on the adaptive functions of aggression and (ii) recent evidence on social media behavior to propose that online political hostility is deliberately employed as an instrumental strategy to further particular political agendas. We investigate this using a large representative sample of US citizens (N = 1500). Against the mismatch account, we find that individuals who are hostile online are equally likely to be hostile offline. Consistent with adaptive accounts of aggression, these individuals are motivated by status and seek to challenge existing political hierarchies. To this end, they invest more in online (vs. offline) political discussions as these discussions offer greater benefits (e.g., more interactions and greater reach) at lower costs. Thus, the hostility of online political discussions reflects a strategic investment in online discussions by aggressive prone individuals rather than an evolutionary mismatch.
Abstract: Across Western democracies, online discussions about politics are considered uncivil, aggressive and hostile. Previous evolutionary research has explained this online political hostility as the result of the evolutionarily novel psychophysics of online environments: Lack of face-to-face interaction etc. down-regulate empathy and prompt hostility as a result of lack of emotion-regulation. On this explanation, online political hostility thus reflects an evolutionary mismatch. In contrast, we integrate (i) classical work on the adaptive functions of aggression and (ii) recent evidence on social media behavior to propose that online political hostility is deliberately employed as an instrumental strategy to further particular political agendas. We investigate this using a large representative sample of US citizens (N = 1500). Against the mismatch account, we find that individuals who are hostile online are equally likely to be hostile offline. Consistent with adaptive accounts of aggression, these individuals are motivated by status and seek to challenge existing political hierarchies. To this end, they invest more in online (vs. offline) political discussions as these discussions offer greater benefits (e.g., more interactions and greater reach) at lower costs. Thus, the hostility of online political discussions reflects a strategic investment in online discussions by aggressive prone individuals rather than an evolutionary mismatch.
Why do (some) women wear chokers? Wearing chokers is a function of short-term mating orientation and both male and female observers see them as such
Why do (some) women wear chokers? Laith Al-Shawaf, Heather Williquette. Human Behavior and Evolution Society 31st annual meeting. Boston 2019. http://tiny.cc/aa1w6y
Abstract: In a series of three studies, we generated and tested seven distinct hypotheses about why women wear choker necklaces and what they signify. Study 1 (n=102) showed that interest in wearing chokers and frequency of wearing chokers were both predicted by women’s sociosexuality, a stable individual difference variable that indexes a person’s dispositional orientation toward short-term mating. Study 2 (n=104) showed that male observers correctly use women’s chokers as a cue to their sociosexuality. Study 3 (n=100) showed that female observers also correctly use women’s chokers as a cue to their short-term mating orientation. These studies find clear support for the hypothesis that wearing chokers is a function of short-term mating orientation and no evidence for the other six hypotheses. These findings suggest two key conclusions: a) choker necklaces appear to be valid cues of sociosexual orientation and b) both male and female observers use them as such.
Abstract: In a series of three studies, we generated and tested seven distinct hypotheses about why women wear choker necklaces and what they signify. Study 1 (n=102) showed that interest in wearing chokers and frequency of wearing chokers were both predicted by women’s sociosexuality, a stable individual difference variable that indexes a person’s dispositional orientation toward short-term mating. Study 2 (n=104) showed that male observers correctly use women’s chokers as a cue to their sociosexuality. Study 3 (n=100) showed that female observers also correctly use women’s chokers as a cue to their short-term mating orientation. These studies find clear support for the hypothesis that wearing chokers is a function of short-term mating orientation and no evidence for the other six hypotheses. These findings suggest two key conclusions: a) choker necklaces appear to be valid cues of sociosexual orientation and b) both male and female observers use them as such.
Alone Together: Important gender imbalances exist in what partners do when together; men are much more likely to watch TV and enjoy leisure while women do domestic chores
Alone Together: Gender Inequalities in Couple Time. Giacomo Vagni. Social Indicators Research, Jun 1 2019. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-019-02135-7
Abstract: An important body of research has used time diaries to assess the transformation of gender relationships at home. However, little is known about how partners perceive time shared together. While the household division of labor still remains heavily gendered, it can be expected that what partners do, even when they are together, is also gendered. The aim of this paper is to address the question of the discrepancy (or mismatch) in couples’ reporting of time together as well as the potential discrepancy in the activities engaged in during shared time. Using the 2015 UK Time Use Survey, I show that there is no gender difference in how partners report being together; however, important gender imbalances exist in what partners do when together. In particular, I find that, when together with their partner, men are much more likely to watch TV and enjoy leisure while women do domestic chores. I conclude by discussing different concepts of time together and the usefulness of couple-level diary data for studying gender relationships at home.
Keywords: Time use Gender Families Dyadic data
Abstract: An important body of research has used time diaries to assess the transformation of gender relationships at home. However, little is known about how partners perceive time shared together. While the household division of labor still remains heavily gendered, it can be expected that what partners do, even when they are together, is also gendered. The aim of this paper is to address the question of the discrepancy (or mismatch) in couples’ reporting of time together as well as the potential discrepancy in the activities engaged in during shared time. Using the 2015 UK Time Use Survey, I show that there is no gender difference in how partners report being together; however, important gender imbalances exist in what partners do when together. In particular, I find that, when together with their partner, men are much more likely to watch TV and enjoy leisure while women do domestic chores. I conclude by discussing different concepts of time together and the usefulness of couple-level diary data for studying gender relationships at home.
Keywords: Time use Gender Families Dyadic data
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
