Human players/signallers act as coding intermediaries who use lee-way alongside “a small set of arbitrary rules selected from a potentially unlimited number" to "ensure a specific correspondence between two independent worlds"

Wide coding: Tetris, Morse and, perhaps, language. S J Cowley. Biosystems, Volume 185, November 2019, 104025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2019.104025

Abstract
Code biology uses protein synthesis to pursue how living systems fabricate themselves. Weight falls on intermediary systems or adaptors that enable translated DNA to function within a cellular apparatus. Specifically, code intermediaries bridge between independent worlds (e.g. those of RNAs and proteins) to grant functional lee-way to the resulting products. Using this Organic Code (OC) model, the paper draws parallels with how people use artificial codes. As illustrated by Tetris and Morse, human players/signallers manage code functionality by using bodies as (or like) adaptors. They act as coding intermediaries who use lee-way alongside “a small set of arbitrary rules selected from a potentially unlimited number in order to ensure a specific correspondence between two independent worlds” (Barbieri, 2015). As with deep learning, networked bodily systems mesh inputs from a coded past with current inputs.

Received models reduce ‘use’ of codes to a run-time or program like process. They overlook how molecular memory is extended by living apparatuses that link codes with functioning adaptors. In applying the OC model to humans, the paper connects Turing’s (1937) view of thinking to Wilson’s (2004) appeal to wide cognition. The approach opens up a new view of Kirsh and Maglio’s (1994) seminal studies on Tetris. As players use an interface that actualizes a code or program, their goal-directed (i.e. ‘pragmatic’) actions co-occur with adaptor-like ‘filling in’ (i.e. ‘epistemic’ moves). In terms of the OC model, flexible functions derive from, not actions, but epistemic dynamics that arise in the human-interface-computer system. Second, I pursue how a Morse radio operator uses dibs and dabs that enable the workings of an artificial code. While using knowledge (‘the rules’) to resemiotize by tapping on a transmission key, bodily dynamics are controlled by adaptor-like resources. Finally, turning to language, I sketch how the model applies to writing and reading. Like Morse operators, writers resemiotize a code-like domain of alphabets, spelling-systems etc. by acting as (or like) bodily adaptors. Further, in attending to a text-interface (symbolizations), a reader relies on filling-in that is (or feels) epistemic. Given that humans enact or mimic adaptor functions, it is likely that the OC model also applies to multi-modal language.

These results suggest that genetic assortative mating (choosing those that are more like us) may be speeding up evolution in humans

Assortative Mating at Loci Under Recent Natural Selection in Humans. Akihiro Nishi et al. Biosystems, October 1 2019, 104040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2019.104040

Abstract: Genetic correlation between mates at specific loci can greatly alter the evolutionary trajectory of a species. Genetic assortative mating has been documented in humans, but its existence beyond population stratification (shared ancestry) has been a matter of controversy. Here, we develop a method to measure assortative mating across the genome at 1,044,854 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), controlling for population stratification and cohort-specific cryptic relatedness. Using data on 1,683 human couples from two data sources, we find evidence for both assortative and disassortative mating at specific, discernible loci throughout the entire genome. Then, using the composite of multiple signals (CMS) score, we also show that the group of SNPs exhibiting the most assortativity has been under stronger recent positive selection. Simulations using realistic inputs confirm that assortative mating might indeed affect changes in allele frequency over time. These results suggest that genetic assortative mating may be speeding up evolution in humans.

Religion and the Extension of Trust: The ability to cooperate with others, both individuals and institutions, is an essential social function built on trust

Religion and the Extension of Trust. Benjamin O. Hsiung, Paul A. Djupe. Political Behavior, September 2019, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 609–631. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-018-9466-4

Abstract: The ability to cooperate with others, both individuals and institutions, is an essential social function built on trust. We explore the competing religious logics that shape the radius of trust, placing emphasis on communicated values in the social context of the congregation. Using cross-sectional data from American adults, we show the effects of religious beliefs that augment risk, values that demand outreach, and practices that capture experience with collective action. With a survey experiment, we show that priming different religious styles (inclusive of beliefs, values, and outreach) shifts the propensity to trust government and the social other in expected ways. In this way, we attempt to make sense of previous variant findings by suggesting that religious influence is dynamic and dependent on the religious style choices communicated to congregants.

Keywords: Political trust Social trust Religion and politics Experiment Devil

Highly educated people are more likely to view voting as a civic duty; but also education is associated with a higher likelihood of overreporting voting in the 2016 election

Educational Attainment and Social Norms of Voting. Eric R. Hansen, Andrew Tyner. Political Behavior, October 8 2019. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-019-09571-8

Abstract: Why does the likelihood of voting increase with education in the US? Prominent theories attribute education’s effect to human capital, which affords individuals resources needed to participate, but neglect social motivations. We test a theory of internalized social norms as another contributing factor, providing evidence in three studies. First, we show that highly educated people are more likely to view voting as a civic duty, and that civic duty partially mediates the effect of education on voting. Second, we show education is associated with a higher likelihood of overreporting voting in the 2016 election. Third, we show that educated respondents are more likely to withstand stimuli incentivizing them to report they will not vote in an upcoming election. The results imply that voting norms vary by education, and invite more attention to social explanations for socioeconomic disparities in turnout.

Keywords: Voting Education Civic duty Norms

What Does It Take to Get a Vegetarian to Eat Meat? The majority (54%) of vegetarians were open to the possibility of eating meat

Rosenfeld, Daniel L. 2019. “What Does It Take to Get a Vegetarian to Eat Meat? Factors Predicting Dietary Adherence.” PsyArXiv. October 8. doi:10.31234/osf.io/97a2s

Abstract: Many people say they are vegetarian yet still eat meat on occasion. Despite this paradox having been documented extensively, multivariate attempts to explain individual differences in vegetarians’ levels of dietary adherence are lacking. The current paper presents three highly powered studies (Ns = 589, 592, and 594) that examined what psychological constructs predict a vegetarian’s level of self-imposed dietary adherence, along with a meta-analysis (Study 4) of these studies. The meta-analysis indicated that the majority (54%) of vegetarians were open to the possibility of eating meat. Consistently, factors that distinguished low-adherence from high-adherence vegetarians were social identity variables related to vegetarianism, motivation for vegetarianism, disgust toward meat, and general liking of meat. Higher centrality of vegetarian dieting to one’s identity, greater disgust toward meat, lower liking of meat, longer duration of following a vegetarian diet, and considering oneself to be a vegan were unique predictors of higher dietary adherence intention. Implications for theory, research methodology, and practice are discussed.

Is Nutrition Knowledge Related to Diet Quality and Obesity?; & men had a poorer diet

Is Nutrition Knowledge Related to Diet Quality and Obesity? Şengül Akkartal & Ceren Gezer. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, Oct 8 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2019.1675654

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study is to assess the relationship between nutrition knowledge and diet quality. It was conducted with 382 individuals aged 18–64 living in Famagusta, Cyprus. Data was obtained through face-to-face interviews. Individuals with a high-quality diet had high nutrition knowledge (p < .05). Nutrition knowledge level increases as education level increases (p < .001). An increase in the level of nutrition knowledge is related to a reduction in body mass index (r = −0.12, p = .02), waist circumference (r = −0.16, p < .001), and body fat mass (r = −0.10, p = .04). Gender, education level, obesity, and diet quality were all found to be correlated with nutrition knowledge. There is a need for advanced analysis of nutrition knowledge level, diet quality, and obesity with larger samples.

KEYWORDS: Nutrition knowledge, diet quality, obesity

Analysis of 72 Social Science Reviews of the Literature Published Between 2001 and 2017: Consensus is That LGBTQ Parents Are Not More Likely to Have LGBTQ Children

Schumm, Walter and Crawford, Duane (2019). Scientific Consensus on Whether LGBTQ Parents Are More Likely (or Not) to Have LGBTQ Children: An Analysis of 72 Social Science Reviews of the Literature Published Between 2001 and 2017. Journal of International Women's Studies, 20(7), 1-12. https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol20/iss7/1

Abstract: Until the 1950’s, it was widely assumed that homosexuality was a pathological condition. Even after leading social science organizations rejected that assumption in the early 1970’s, many believed that LGBTQ parents would not be able to parent as well as heterosexual parents. Further social science research has generally rejected the latter assumption as well. Using a complex citation network method of assessing scientific consensus, Adams and Light (2015) concluded that consensus on same-sex or LGBTQ parenting had been achieved by the late 1990’s and that the consensus formed was that children’s outcomes were no different than for children of heterosexual parents. We have proposed a more direct and simple measure of scientific consensus, using social science literature reviews. We evaluated 72 social science reviews of the literature between 2001 and 2017, based on English language social science journal sources, in the area of same-sex or LGBTQ parenting, with a focus on whether the authors concluded if there was any apparent association between parental and child sexual orientations. Over 90% of the reviews assessed concluded that there was no association between parent and child sexual orientations, demonstrating a clear scientific consensus on the issue since at least 2001. The small minority of reviews that concluded otherwise often had issues that might lead many scholars to discredit the validity of their conclusions. Our results provide another approach for assessing scientific consensus in the social sciences and confirm the findings of Adams and Light (2015), despite our different methodologies, about the development of scientific consensus in the area of same-sex parenting, that it was probably achieved by the late 1990’s. Future research might investigate the existence of similar consensus in medical or legal journals prior to 2001 or take the quality of literature reviews into account, including their consideration of intersectionality.

References

*Indicates part of the set of reviews included in analysis.

*Abbott, D. A.(2012).Do lesbian couples make better parents than heterosexual couples?International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(13), 30-46.Adams, J., & Light, R.(2015).Scientific consensus, the law, and same sex parenting outcomes.Social Science Research, 53, 300-310.
*Allen, D. W.(2015).More heat thanlight: A critical assessment of the same-sex parenting literature, 1995-2013.Marriage & Family Review, 51, 154-182.
*Allen, M., & Burrell, N. A.(2002).Sexual orientation of the parent: The impact on thechild.In M. Allen, R. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, & N. A. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis(pp. 125-143).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.*Anderssen, N., Amlie, C., & Ytteroy, E. A.(2002).Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: A review of studies from 1978 to 2000.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 335-351.
*Armesto, J. C.(2002).Developmental and contextual factors that influence gay fathers’ parental competence: A review of the literature.Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3, 67-78.
Bailey,J. M., & Dawood, K.(1998).Behavioral genetics, sexual orientation, and the family.In C. J. Patterson & A. R. D’Augelli (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities in families: Psychological perspectives(pp. 3-18).New York: Oxford University Press.
Ball, C. A.(2003).Lesbian and gay families: Gender nonconformity and the implications of difference.Capital University Law Review, 31, 691-749.
Ball, C. A.(2016a).Same-sex marriage and children: A tale of history, social science, and the law.New York: Oxford University Press.
*Ball, C. A.(2016b).Sexual orientation and parenting.In C. A. Ball, Same-sex marriage and children: A tale of history, social science, and law(pp. 83-110, 168-174).New York: Oxford University Press.
*Barrett, H., & Tasker, F.(2002).Gay fathers and their children: What we know and what we need to know.Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review, 3(Part 1), 3-10.Bem, D. J.(1995).Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin.Psychological Bulletin, 118, 172-177.
*Biblarz, T. J., & Savci, E.(2010).Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families.Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 480-497.
*Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J.(2010).How does the gender of parents matter?Journal ofMarriage and Family, 72, 3-22.*Bos, H. M. W.(2013).Lesbian-mother families formed through donor insemination.In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice(pp. 21-37).New York: Springer.Byrd, A. D.(2011).Homosexual couples and parenting: What science can and cannot say.Journal of Human Sexuality, 3, 4-34.
*Cameron, P.(2006).Children of homosexuals and transsexuals more apt to be homosexual.Journal of Biosocial Science, 38, 413-418.
8Journal of InternationalWomen’s Studies  Vol. 20, No. 7August2019Carroll, M.(2018).Gay fathers on the margins: Race, class, marital status, and pathway to parenthood.Family Relations, 67, 104-117.
Chan, C. D., & Erby, A. N.(2018).A critical analysis and applied intersectionality framework with intercultural queer couples.Journal of Homosexuality, 65, 1249-1274.
*Clarke, V.(2001).What about the children? Arguments against lesbian and gay parenting.Women’s Studies International Forum, 24, 555-570.
*Crowl, A., Ahn, S., & Baker, J.(2008).A meta-analysis of developmental outcomes for children of same-sex and heterosexual parents.Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4, 385-407.
*Dempsey, D.(2013).Same-sex parented families in Australia.(CFCA Paper No. 18). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
*Diamond, L. M., & Butterworth, M.(2009).The close relationships of sexual minorities: Partners, friends, and family.In M. C. Smith & N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.), Handbook of research on adult learning and development (pp. 355-377).New York: Routledge(Taylor & Francis Group).
*Diamond, L. M., & Rosky, C. J.(2016).Scrutinizing immutability: Research on sexual orientation and U.S. legal advocacy for sexual minorities.Journal of Sex Research, 53, 363-391.DiBennardo, R., & Saguy, A.(2018).How children of LGBQ parents negotiate courtesystigma over the life course.Journal of International Women’s Studies, 19, 290-304.
*Duncan, M.(2016).Adoption, GLBT.In C. Shehan (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies(Vol. 1, pp. 44-49).Hoboken, NJ:Wiley-Blackwell.
*Fedewa, A. L., Black, W. W., & Ahn, S.(2015).Children and adolescents with same-gender parents: A meta-analytic approach in assessing outcomes.Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11, 1-34.Fish, J. N., & Russell, S. T.(2018).Queering methodologies to understandqueer families.Family Relations, 67, 12-25.*Fisher, S. K., Easterly, S., & Lazear, K. J.(2008).Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families.In T. P. Gulotta & G. M. Blau (Eds.), Family influences on childhood behavior and development: Evidence-based prevention and treatment approaches (pp. 187-208).New York: Routledge.
Gartrell, N., Bos, H. M. W., & Goldberg, N. G.(2011).Adolescents ofthe U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and sexual risk exposure.Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1199-1209.
 *Gartrell, N., Peyser, H., & Bos, H.(2012).Planned lesbian families: A review of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study.In D. Brodzinsky & A. Pertman (Eds.), Adoption by lesbians and gay men: A new dimension in family diversity(pp. 112-129).New York: Oxford University Press.
*Gates, G. J.(2015).Marriage and family: LGBT individuals and same-sex couples.Future of Children, 25, 67-87.
*Gates, G. J., & Romero, A. P.(2009).Parenting by gay men and lesbians: Beyond the current research.In H. E. Peters & C. M. Kamp Dush (Eds.), Marriage and family: Perspectives and complexities(pp. 227-243).New York, NY:Columbia University Press.
*Gilmore, D. L., Esmail, A., & Eargle, L. A. (2016).Lesbian parents.In C. Shehan (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies(Vol. 3, pp. 1287-1291).Hoboken, NJ:Wiley-Blackwell.
9Journal of InternationalWomen’s Studies  Vol. 20, No. 7August2019
*Goldberg, A. E.(2009).Lesbian, gay, and bisexual family psychology: A systemic, life-cycle perspective.In J. H. Bray & M. Stanton (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of family psychology(pp. 576-587).Malden, MA:Wiley-Blackwell.*Goldberg, A. E.(2010).Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Research on the family life cycle.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
*Goldberg, A. E.(2017).LGBQ-parent families: Development and functioning in context.In C. A. Price, K. R. Bush, & S. J. Price (Eds.), Families & change: Coping with stressful events and transitions(pp. 95-117).Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
*Goldberg, A. E., Downing, J. B., & Richardson, H. B.(2012).Lesbian and gay parenting.In R. Levesque, Jr. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence(21-38).New York: Springer.
*Goldberg, A. E., & Gartrell, N. K.(2014).LGB-parent families: The current state of the research and directions for the future.Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 46, 57-88.
*Goldberg, A. E., Gartrell, N. K., & Gates, G.(2014).Research report on LGB-parent families.Los Angeles, CA:The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.
*Goldberg, A.E., & Weber, E. R.(2015).Parenting, gay and lesbian.In P. Whelehan & A. Bolin (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of humansexuality(Vol. 2, pp. 872-874).Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
*Golombok, S.(2015).Modern families: Parents and children in new family forms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Golombok, S., Perry, B., Burston, A., Murray, C., Mooney-Somers, J., Stevens, M., & Golding, J.(2003).Children with lesbian parents: A community study.Developmental Psychology, 39, 20-33.
*Golombok, S., & Tasker, F.(2015).Socioemotional development in changing families.In M. E. Lamb & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology anddevelopmental science(pp. 419-463).Hoboken, NJ:Wiley
*Grotevant, H. D., & Lo, A. Y. H.(2017).Adoptive parenting.Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 71-75.
*Haney-Caron, E., & Heilbrun, K.(2014).Lesbian and gay parents and determination of child custody: The changing legal landscape and implications for policy and practice.Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1, 19-29.
*Harder, B. M.(2016a).Lesbian relationships.In C. Shehan (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies(Vol. 3, pp. 1292-1297).Hoboken, NJ:Wiley-Blackwell.*Harder, B. M.(2016b).Gay men’s relationships in the United States.In C. Shehan (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies(Vol. 2, pp. 896-901).Hoboken, NJ:Wiley-Blackwell.Hequembourg, A.(2007).Lesbian motherhood: Stories of becoming.New York: Harrington Park Press.
*Herek, G. M.(2006).Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective.American Psychologist, 61, 607-621.
*Herek, G. M.(2010).Sexual orientation differences as deficits: Science and stigma in the history of American psychology.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 693-699.*Hicks, S.(2005).Is gay parenting bad for kids? Responding to the ‘very idea of difference’ in research on lesbian and gay parents. Sexualities, 8, 153-168.
*James, W. H.(2004).The sexual orientation of men who were brought up in gay or lesbian households.Journal of Biosocial Science, 36, 371-374.
10Journal of InternationalWomen’s Studies  Vol. 20, No. 7August2019Juros, T. V.(2017).Comparing the outcomes of children of same-sex and opposite-sex partners: Overview of the quantitative studies conducted on random representative samples.Revija za Sociologiju, 47, 65-95.
*Kuvalanka, K.(2013).The “second generation”: LGBTQ youthwith LGBTQ parents.In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications (pp. 163-175).New York: Springer Science+Business Media.*Laird, J.(2003).Lesbian and gay families.In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity(pp. 176-209).New York, NY: Guilford Press.
*Lambert, S.(2005).Gay and lesbian families: What we know and where to go from here.The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 13,43-51.*Marks, L.(2012).Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting.Social Science Research, 41, 735-751.*McCann, D., & Delmonte, H.(2005).Lesbian and gayparenting: Babes in arms or babes in the woods?Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 333-347.
*McClellan, D. L.(2006).Bisexual relationships and families.In D. F. Morrow & L. Messinger (Eds.), Sexual orientation and gender expression in social work practice(pp. 243-262).New York: Columbia University Press.
*McKinney, R. E.(2006).Gay male relationships and families.In D. F. Morrow & L. Messinger (Eds.), Sexual orientation and gender expression in social work practice(pp. 198-215).New York: Columbia University Press.
*Meezan, W., & Rauch, J.(2005).Gay marriage, same-sex parenting, and America’s children.Future of Children, 15, 97-115.*Mendez, N.(2009).Lesbian families.In S. Loue (Ed.), Sexualities and identities of minority women(pp. 91-104).New York: Springer-Science+Business Media.
Milardo, R. M.(2009).Editorial: Following a sociological imagination.Journal of FamilyTheory & Review, 1, 1-3.Milardo, R. M., (2014).Exit act I: JFTR, 2009-2013.Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6, 437-442.
*Millbank, J.(2003).From here tomaternity: A review of research on lesbian and gay families.Australian Journal of Social Issues, 38, 541-600.*Moore, M. R., & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, M.(2013).LGBT sexuality and families at the start of the twenty-first century.Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 491-507.
*Parks, C. A., & Humphreys, N. A.(2006).Lesbian relationships and families.In D. F. Morrow & L. Messinger (Eds.), Sexual orientation and gender expression in social work practice(pp. 216-242).New York: Columbia University Press.
*Patterson, C. J. (2002).Lesbian and gay parenthood.In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook ofparenting(2ndEd., Vol. 3, pp. 317-338).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
*Patterson, C. J.(2003).Children of lesbian and gay parents.In L. D. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences(pp. 497-548).New York: Columbia University Press.
*Patterson, C. J.(2005).Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Summary of research findings.In Lesbian and gay parenting(pp. 5-22).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
*Patterson, C. J.(2006).Children of lesbian and gay parents.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 241-244.
11Journal of InternationalWomen’s Studies  Vol. 20, No. 7August2019
*Patterson, C. J.(2009a).Children of lesbian and gay parents: Psychology, law, and policy. American Psychologist, 64, 727-736.
*Patterson, C. J.(2009b).Lesbian and gay parents and their children: A social science perspective.In D. A. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, andbisexual identities(pp. 141-182).New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
*Patterson, C. J.(2013).Family lives of lesbian and gay adults.In G. W. Peterson & K. R. Bush (Eds.),Handbook of marriage and the family(pp. 659-681).New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
*Patterson, C. J.(2017).Parents’ sexual orientation and children’s development.ChildDevelopment Perspectives, 11, 45-49.
*Patterson, C. J., & Farr, R. H.(2016).Children of lesbian and gay parents: Reflections on the research-policy interface.In K. Durkin & H. R. Schaffer (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of developmental psychology in practice: Implementation and impact(pp. 129-142).Malden, MA: Wiley.
*Patterson, C. J., & Goldberg, A. E.(2016).Lesbian and gay parents and their children.NCFR Policy Brief, 1, 1-4.
*Patterson, C. J., Fulcher, M., & Wainwright, J.(2002).Children of lesbian and gay parents: Research, law, and policy.In B. L. Bottoms, M. B. Kovera, & B. D. McAuliff (Eds.), Children, social science, and the law(pp. 176-199).New York: Cambridge University Press.
Patterson, C. J., & Redding, R. E.(1996).Lesbian and gay families with children: Implications of social science research for policy.Journal of Social Issues, 52, 29-50.Riley, M.(1975).The avowed lesbian mother and her right to child custody: A constitutional challenge that can no longer be denied.San Diego Law Review, 12, 799-864.
*Ross, L. E., & Dobinson, C.(2013).Where is the “B” in LGBT parenting?A call for research on bisexual parenting.In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parentfamilies: Innovations in research and implications (pp. 87-103).New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
*Ruspini, E.(2016).Gay men as parents.In C. Shehan (Ed.), The Wiley-BlackwellEncyclopedia of Family Studies(Vol. 2, pp. 893-896).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Schumm, W. R.(2010).Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals? A reply to Morrison and to Cameron based on anexamination of multiple sources of data.Journal of Biosocial Science, 42, 721-742.
Schumm, W. R.(2018).Same-sex parenting research: A critical assessment.London, UK:Wilberforce Press.Schumm, W. R., & Crawford, D. W.(2015).Violations of fairness insocial science research: The case of same-sex marriage and parenting.International Journal of Jurisprudence of the Family, 6, 67-113.
*Schofield, T.(2016).Knowing what we don’t know: A meta-analysis of children being raised by gay or lesbian parents.The Winnower, 3, e147568.84110.
*Short, E., Riggs, D. W., Perlesz, A., Brown, R., & Kane, G.(2007).Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) parented families: A literature review prepared for the Australian Psychological Society.Melbourne, Australia: Australian Psychological Society.Stacey, J.(2011).Unhitched: Love, marriage, and family values from West Hollywood to Western China.New York: New York University Press.
*Stacey, J., & Biblarz,T. J. (2001).(How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter?American Sociological Review, 66, 159-183.
*Tasker, F.(2002).Lesbian and gay parenting.In A. Coyle & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: New perspectives (pp. 81-97).Bodmin, UK: MPG Books.Tasker, F.(2010).Same-sex parenting and child development: Reviewing the contribution of parental gender.Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 35-40.
*Tasker, F.(2013) Lesbian and gay parenting post-heterosexual divorce and separation.In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications (pp. 3-20).New York: Springer Science+Business Media.*Tasker, F., & Patterson, C. J.(2007).Research on gay and lesbian parenting: Retrospect and prospect.Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3(2/3), 9-34.
*Telingator, C. J., & Patterson, C. J.(2008).Children and adolescents of lesbian and gay parents.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1364-1368.
Van Eeden-Moorefield, B.(2018).Introduction to the special issue: Intersectional variationsin theexperiences of queer families.Family Relations, 67, 7-11.

In humans and other species, males show greater variability in multiple traits; there is also evidence of higher male susceptibility to environmental factors; hypothesis is that early androgen exposure increases plasticity in both sexes

Individual differences in developmental plasticity: A role for early androgens? Marco Del Giudice et al. Psychoneuroendocrinology, Volume 90, April 2018, Pages 165-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.02.025

Highlights
•    In humans and other species, males show greater variability in multiple traits.
•    There is also evidence of higher male susceptibility to environmental factors.
•    We hypothesize that early androgen exposure increases plasticity in both sexes.
•    Androgens may promote plasticity through various physiological pathways.
•    Our hypothesis is speculative but testable, and can inform developmental research.

Abstract: Developmental plasticity is a widespread property of living organisms, but different individuals in the same species can vary greatly in how susceptible they are to environmental influences. In humans, research has sought to link variation in plasticity to physiological traits such as stress reactivity, exposure to prenatal stress-related hormones such as cortisol, and specific genes involved in major neurobiological pathways. However, the determinants of individual differences in plasticity are still poorly understood. Here we present the novel hypothesis that, in both sexes, higher exposure to androgens during prenatal and early postnatal life should lead to increased plasticity in traits that display greater male variability (i.e., a majority of physical and behavioral traits). First, we review evidence of greater phenotypic variation and higher susceptibility to environmental factors in males; we then consider evolutionary models that explain greater male variability and plasticity as a result of sexual selection. These empirical and theoretical strands converge on the hypothesis that androgens may promote developmental plasticity, at least for traits that show greater male variability. We discuss a number of potential mechanisms that may mediate this effect (including upregulation of neural plasticity), and address the question of whether androgen-induced plasticity is likely to be adaptive or maladaptive. We conclude by offering suggestions for future studies in this area, and considering some research designs that could be used to empirically test our hypothesis.

Two types of sexual content – “details of my sex life” and “my sexual desires and fantasies” – were the most common topics of dishonesty with therapists; motivation of 80% of clients was to avoid shame or embarrassment

Sex, Dishonesty, and Psychotherapy. Melanie Nicole Love. PhD Thesis, Columbia Univ. October 2, 2019. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/d8-cpz2-yq18

Purpose: Honest disclosure about salient information is at the heart of the therapy process but sexual material has been found to be among the most frequently concealed types of content. Understanding why clients choose to be avoidant or explicitly dishonest about sexual topics may attune therapists to the types of concerns clients have when deciding whether or not to disclose this material, how non-disclosure or dishonesty about sex impacts therapy, and what would help clients be more honest about such material. This study directly queried clients who had been dishonest about four types of sexual content in order to learn how therapists can better promote honest disclosure about different domains of sex and sexuality.

Method: As part of a comprehensive study of client “secrets and lies,” a sample of 798 outpatient therapy clients rated their dishonesty or honesty about four sexually related topics (“details of my sex life,” “my sexual desires or fantasies,” “my sexual orientation,” and “times I have cheated on a partner”) and completed measures about attitudes toward disclosure along with ratings of the therapeutic alliance. Follow-up samples of clients who stated that a sexual topic had been hardest to talk about in therapy answered multiple-choice and open-text questions about their motivations for being dishonest with the therapist, how it impacted them in terms of therapy progress and feelings about the decision, and what they believed the therapist could do to help them be more honest about this topic.

Results: Two types of sexual content – “details of my sex life” and “my sexual desires and fantasies” – were the most common topics of dishonesty across the whole sample. Dishonesty about sex tended to manifest in total avoidance of the topic in therapy. Approximately 80% of clients indicated that their motivation for dishonesty was to avoid shame or embarrassment, while smaller numbers reported concerns about how the therapist would react to the disclosure. These clients cited worries about being stigmatized or judged, or felt unsure that the therapist would understand or be able to help; some referred to their belief that the therapy relationship could be jeopardized if they were more disclosing, a particularly salient theme for those who had been dishonest about sexual orientation and sexual fantasies. Based on a multiple choice format, a majority stated that their dishonesty about sexual issues had “no effect” but in an open-text format, a majority described more negative impacts, mainly the inability to address a relevant topic. A significant number of clients felt conflicted, guilty, or regretful about being dishonest, though some felt largely neutral; very few had positive feelings. When asked what would help facilitate honesty, about 80% of clients stated their wish for the therapist to “ask directly.” Some differences occurred in terms of specific facilitators based on topic. For instance, clients who had concealed a more overtly sexual topic (e.g., “details of my sex life” and “my sexual desires or fantasies”) wanted the therapist to normalize or provide a rationale for why it would be helpful to disclose; clients who concealed their sexual orientation wished for the therapist to display cultural competence and to ensure the safety of the relationship; and clients concealing infidelity were unsure if there was anything the therapist could do.

Limitations: The findings of this study may be limited in its generalizability due to a few key factors. First, the sample contained a majority of highly educated Caucasian female clients, which mirrors the therapy-seeking population but may not accurately reflect the concerns of male or minority clients. Second, it was comprised solely of individuals who were willing to speak more about their experience in therapy, while the follow-up samples contained respondents who identified that a sexual topic had been hardest to talk about in therapy. Finally, self-report data is by its very nature limited by the willingness of clients to answer accurately. As such, it is unclear how these data extend to the general or clinical population more broadly.

Conclusions: The concerns expressed by clients suggest that shame and the anticipation of a negative therapist reaction primarily motivate sexual dishonesty, and that direct inquiry by the therapist can help alleviate both of these interconnected worries by signaling that sex is a welcomed topic of disclosure. These findings also indicate the high prevalence of dishonesty about a spectrum of sexual topics and highlight the way that clients tend to avoid these discussions, which further supports the need for more active therapist intervention to frame the rationale and normalize honest discussion about clinically relevant sexual material.

Subjects: Clinical psychology Psychotherapy Therapist and patient Sex