What If Companies Get Big Because They're Better? The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms

The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms. David Autor, David Dorn, Lawrence F. Katz, Christina Patterson, and John Van Reenen. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Forthcoming. Dec 2019. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/lkatz/files/adkpv-superstars-qje-manuscript-accepted-20191028.pdf

Abstract: The fall of labor’s share of GDP in the United States and many other countries in recent decades is well documented but its causes remain uncertain. Existing empirical assessments typically rely on industry or macro data, obscuring heterogeneity among firms. In this paper, we analyze micro panel data from the U.S. Economic Census since 1982 and document empirical patterns to assess a new interpretation of the fall in the labor share based on the rise of “superstar firms.” If globalization or technological changes push sales towards the most productive firms in each industry, product market concentration will rise as industries become increasingly dominated by superstar firms, which have high markups and a low labor share of value-added. We empirically assess seven predictions of this hypothesis: (i) industry sales will increasingly concentrate in a small number of firms; (ii) industries where concentration rises most will have the largest declines in the labor share; (iii) the fall in the labor share will be driven largely by reallocation rather than a fall in the unweighted mean labor share across all firms; (iv) the between-firm reallocation component of the fall in the labor share will be greatest in the sectors with the largest increases in market concentration; (v) the industries that are becoming more concentrated will exhibit faster growth of productivity; (vi) the aggregate markup will rise more than the typical firm’s markup; and (vii) these patterns should be observed not only in U.S. firms, but also internationally. We find support for all of these predictions.

---
What If Companies Get Big Because They're Better? Peter R. Orszag. Bloomberg, December 2, 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-02/antitrust-zealots-beware-big-companies-are-more-productive

New research suggests that industry concentration just reflects the superior productivity of superstar firms. Are you listening, trust-busters?


Fewer U.S. companies are controlling more market share as industrial concentration has settled over the U.S. economy during the past two decades. That trend has provoked fierce debates among economists and politicians over whether the government should do more to break up big companies, especially the dominant technology giants.

But what if industries are concentrating because size confers real benefits to the economy rather than because of lax antitrust enforcement?

That’s where the evidence points in forthcoming research by a team of leading economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, the University of Chicago and the University of Zurich. Their study gives reason to be cautious about the growing enthusiasm for inadequate enforcement as the explanation for increased concentration.

In 2015, the economist Jason Furman of Harvard and I took note of the emergence of growing disparities across U.S. companies, with the leading firms in each sector outpacing others in productivity, return on capital and market share. We highlighted the emergence of superstar firms that were earning high returns, enjoyed high productivity and paid high wages. But we weren’t able to tease out what was causing those trends, and thus were forced to admit that “our only real conclusion is thus that more attention needs to be paid to what is driving firm-level trends in the United States.”

In the years since, the topic has received increasing attention from economists, policymakers and presidential candidates. One view of the facts and causes is laid out in a new book by the New York University economist Thomas Philippon, who puts most of the blame on inadequate antitrust enforcement.

Quicktake
Q&A: Are U.S. Companies Too Big?

Philippon argues that U.S. markets were more competitive than European markets two decades ago, but that policymakers defended competition more rigorously in Europe than America since then (thus the title “The Great Reversal”). As the book summary argues:

Sector after economic sector is more concentrated than it was 20 years ago, dominated by fewer and bigger players who lobby politicians aggressively to protect and expand their profit margins. Across the country, this drives up prices while driving down investment, productivity, growth, and wages, resulting in more inequality. Meanwhile, Europe ― long dismissed for competitive sclerosis and weak antitrust ― is beating America at its own game.

That’s contradicted by the latest research, to be published in the Quarterly Review of Economics by economists David Autor, David Dorn, Larry Katz, Christina Patterson and John Van Reenan.  They focus on why the share of labor compensation in national income has been declining, but their exhaustive empirical work winds up clarifying the causes behind the rise of superstar firms. (My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Noah Smith also explored this literature in a column last week, emphasizing the potential role of technology in creating and perpetuating superstar firms.)

Autor and his team find support for a productivity-based explanation of increased market concentration. As they note, “If globalization or technological changes push sales towards the most productive firms in each industry, product market concentration will rise as industries become increasingly dominated by superstar firms.” This more benign view is supported in several ways.

First, the economists found clear upward trends in various concentration measures, with a smaller number of firms accounting for a larger share of U.S. industry sales. That’s consistent with Philippon’s research and with most other commentary on the topic, though there are some industrial-organization economists who agree with the general conclusion but quibble with the measures used to confirm it. Where Philippon and the Autor team diverge, though, is in the causes of those facts.

Second, the productivity-based view, but not the antitrust one, would predict that the industries concentrating fastest would be the ones with the fastest growth in productivity. The economists show that larger firms are more productive than smaller ones, that industries concentrating faster are ones with faster growth in patents, and that industries with bigger gains in labor productivity had larger increases in concentration. How can these observations be reconciled with the overall slowing of aggregate productivity growth? Either the effects aren’t that large, or they have been offset by the growing productivity gap between leading firms and others in each sector.

Finally and most crucially, if rising concentration is caused by the benign productivity explanation as opposed to the more troubling lax-antitrust one, the patterns should be similar across the globe despite varying antitrust laws and enforcement. And that’s precisely what the new research shows. As the economists note: “An alternative interpretation of these patterns is … that weakening U.S. antitrust enforcement has led to an erosion of product-market competition. The broad similarity of the trends in concentration, markups and labor shares across many countries that we document below casts some doubt on the centrality of such U.S.-specific institutional explanations. Indeed … antitrust enforcement has, if anything, strengthened in the European Union — and yet … industry concentration appears to have risen in the European Union despite this countervailing force.”

A productivity-based explanation for rising industry concentration would suggest dramatically different policies than the antitrust one does. The evidence uncovered by Autor and his collaborators buttresses the view that superstar firms are thriving because they are simply more productive than other firms, not because they have been given a special break by regulators.

Sleeping With Younger Men: Women’s Accounts of Sexual Interplay in Age-Hypogamous Intimate Relationships

Sleeping With Younger Men: Women’s Accounts of Sexual Interplay in Age-Hypogamous Intimate Relationships. Milaine Alarie. The Journal of Sex Research, Feb 22 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1574704

Abstract: Influenced by cultural representations of “cougars,” society commonly imagines women who date younger men as challenging some of the gendered expectations regarding appropriate sexual desire and behavior. Based on 55 semistructured interviews with women ages 30 to 60 who date younger men, I explore how having younger male partners relates to women’s desire and ability to reproduce/disrupt the traditional cultural script for heterosexual sex. I found that compared to their experiences of sex with men of their own age or older, women perceived age-hypogamous intimate relationships as a context in which they can more easily disrupt some facets of that script, namely those regarding (a) the expression of sexual desire, (b) sexual assertiveness, and/or (c) the importance of female pleasure. However, the participants reproduced certain facets of the cultural sexual script, such as the emphasis on penile–vaginal intercourse. In light of women’s experiences, I show that younger men’s stamina and erectile capacities influenced women’s ability to challenge certain facets of the script. Furthermore, I argue that women’s perceptions of younger men as fantasizing about sexually experienced women altered the gender power dynamics, ultimately facilitating the modification of interpersonal sexual scripts. This study contributes to improving our understanding of the way age, age differences, and gender interact and influence interpersonal sexual scripts.

---
Discussion

In line with some aspects of common cultural representations of cougars (Alarie, 2018; Aoun, 2013; Barrett & Levin, 2014; Collard, 2012; Kaklamanidou, 2012; Montemurro & Siefken, 2014), the women in this study presented themselves as confident, sexually assertive women with strong sex drives. Based on their accounts of sex with younger men, it appears that the sexual dynamic within age-hypogamous intimate relationships departs, to some level, from the traditional cultural script for (heterosexual) sex.

Indeed, age-hypogamous intimate relationships were depicted as a context where women are encouraged to present themselves as highly desiring and sexually assertive, and where they can easily ensure that their pleasure will be attended to.

This study shows that women’s ability to destabilize the traditional cultural script for heterosexual sex was facilitated in part by younger men’s stamina and erectile capacities. Most women talked about younger men’s high sex drive, sexual endurance, and reliable erections as facilitating their efforts to present themselves as highly desiring, to act on their sexual desires, and to ensure that they could reach maximal pleasure. Indeed, many women described being at times uncomfortable with acting on their strong libido when partnered with men their own age or older, as they perceived the risk of being criticized for being highly desiring and/or the risk of hurting a partner’s masculinity to be higher than in age-hypogamous intimate relationships.

Older participants’ discussion of how older men experiencing erectile dysfunction affects their sexual satisfaction resonates with contemporary research on the topic. Indeed, research shows that many women report that their partners’ erectile dysfunction has a negative impact on their sexual satisfaction (Cameron & Tomlin, 2007; Chevret et al., 2004).  There is clear evidence that the likelihood of erectile dysfunction among men increases with age (Laumann, Paik, & Rosen, 1999; Rosen et al., 2004). However, one should note that only a minority (roughly 18% to 22%) of middle-aged men suffer from erectile dysfunctions (Laumann et al., 1999; Rosen et al., 2004). It is also worth reiterating that a man’s erectile capacities are not the sole factor contributing to women’s sexual pleasure (Armstrong et al., 2012; Hite, 1976; Koedt, 1973; Richters et al., 2006; Rostosky & Travis, 2000). In fact, studies show that not all women are happy to see penile–vaginal intercourse being reintroduced into their sex lives once their partners start using sexual enhancement drugs (Meika, 2004; Potts, Gavey, Grace, & Vares, 2003; Vares et al., 2007).

Based on women’s discourses, I also suggest that most women felt comfortable to disrupt certain aspects of the traditional script for (heterosexual) sex with younger men in part because they perceived younger men as preferring sexually experienced and assertive women with high sex drives. Indeed, many participants reported that their younger partners had complained about young women’s lack of sexual experience, lack of confidence, and/or passivity in bed. According to the participants, younger men often emphasized how pleasant it was for them to be with women who were confident in their own skins, who knew what they liked in bed and who were not afraid to say it.

Furthermore, a large portion of women felt that younger men were more open-minded with regard to sexuality, which made it easier for them to express their sexual desires and fantasies and to act on them. In comparison, many of the participants felt that men their own age or older were often uncomfortable or judgmental if women presented themselves as highly desiring, as having accumulated much sexual experience, and/or as interested in exploring unconventional sexual practices. With that in mind, most women felt it was easier to express their sexual desires and steer sexual interactions in ways that would increase their pleasure when they were with younger men.

The participants’ interpretations of younger men’s appreciation of sexually assertive women resonate with recent research on young men’s sexual desires and practices. Indeed, based on 32 interviews with young men aged 18 to 24 years old, Dworkin and O’Sullivan (2005) found that although the majority of young men tended to initiate sexual practices with their female partners, only some of them reported preferring male-dominated patterns of initiation. In fact, most young men indicated that their ideal sexual interaction would be one where the two partners shared the responsibility of sexual initiation, and one out of four young men actually preferred a female-dominated pattern of initiation. Other studies show that a large portion of young men wish their partners would take more initiative in signaling what they like in bed, such as asking them to perform clitoral stimulation or touching themselves if they wanted to (Salisbury & Fisher, 2014).

Overall, it appears that many younger men would prefer women to be more assertive in bed.  While the dichotomized view of older versus younger women presented by the women in this study is arguably an exaggerated portrait of how aging affects women’s sex performances, the literature on young adults’ sexual practices supports, to a certain extent, these participants’ perceptions of young women. Indeed, research shows that young women are often too shy to ask men to do certain sexual acts that they enjoy (i.e., manual stimulation of the clitoris, cunnilingus) or to take the matter into their own hands and self-stimulate, especially in the context of casual sex (Backstrom et al., 2012; Salisbury & Fisher, 2014).  Other research shows that most young women believe that it is men’s responsibility to physically stimulate women until they reach orgasm, and that they therefore often wait for men to provide them with pleasure (Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). Research on young women’s experiences of heterosexual sex also shows that many of them have insecurities about their physical appearance and that these body image issues influence their behavior during sex (Weaver & Byers, 2018). Ultimately, women’s (in)ability to assert themselves during sexual interactions with men has considerable impact on their sexual satisfaction, as communicating their desires and preferences plays an important role in maximizing their own sexual pleasure (Armstrong et al., 2012; Bridges, Lease, & Ellison, 2004; Ménard & Offman, 2009).

The participants’ depiction of younger men as particularly generous lovers also merits discussion. This result is particularly intriguing considering that previous studies depicted a rather disappointing portrait of young adults’ ability to reach an egalitarian dynamic with regard to female/male sexual pleasure. Indeed, many studies show that while young women often perform fellatio on men, it is much less common for young men to perform cunnilingus on their female partners (Armstrong et al., 2015; Backstrom et al., 2012; Lewis & Marston, 2016). There is in fact a well-documented gap between young men’s and young women’s frequency of orgasm during heterosexual sex (Armstrong et al., 2015; Richters et al., 2006). Therefore, one cannot conclude that younger men are inherently attentive and generous lovers in every context. Instead, based on women’s discourses, I argue that women’s perceptions of younger men as fantasizing about older women combined with women’s perceptions of young women as passive sex partners contribute to shifting the gender power dynamics at play during sexual interactions, ultimately facilitating women’s ability to renegotiate interpersonal sexual scripts with younger men. Women’s perceptions of younger men as fantasizing about older women provided women with more confidence in themselves, which then facilitated their ability to assert and enjoy themselves sexually.

It is worth highlighting that women’s appreciations of age-hypogamous sex was also influenced, especially in the case of women over age 40, by the perception of middleaged men as showing little interest in women in their own age bracket, a perception which is supported by empirical evidence (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2009; Buunk et al., 2001; Conway et al., 2015; Pixley et al., 2007; South, 1991).  For those who had recently divorced or separated and had felt undesired in the last years of their marriage or cohabitational relationship, the perception of younger men as fantasizing about older women felt particularly empowering.

This study shows that in a culture where aging is depicted as having a much stronger devaluation effect on women than on men (Carpenter, Nathanson, & Kim, 2006; England & McClintock, 2009; Wolf, 1991), younger men’s enthusiasm for older women’s sexual experience, confidence, and high sex drive has a particularly positive effect on older women’s ability/desire to renegotiate the terms of the gendered sexual script.

It is difficult to speculate on whether the participants’ younger partner’s (perceived) appreciation for older women will last as they age. It is unclear whether young men today are less likely to internalize ageist conceptions of women’s worth as intimate partners and therefore less likely than men from previous generations to prefer younger women to women their age once they reach middle age. The current study adds to the conversation by suggesting that younger men’s appreciation of older women is partly influenced by their (disappointing) experiences with women their own age and by their desire to have sexually experienced and confident sex partners. Arguably, as they advance in age and accumulate new experiences, these men’s sexual desires, preferences, and expectations might evolve. This area of inquiry definitely deserves more attention in the future.

One should note that while the women in this study challenged certain aspects of the traditional cultural script for (heterosexual) sex when partnered with younger men, they also reproduced other aspects of the script. For instance, the women in this study placed a great value on men’s erectile capacities, reproducing the idea that penile– vaginal intercourse is the most important part of the sexual interaction (Fahs, 2011; Fishman & Mamo, 2001; GewirtzMeydan et al., 2018; Vares et al., 2007). Furthermore, many women—mostly women in their 40s and 50s—saw the careful filtering of potential younger sex partners as a crucial step they had to go through to find men who would provide them with a respectful and pleasurable experience, one where they would not feel reduced to a sex object of temporary value. This last discourse highlights how gender power dynamics influencing heterosexual sex are not automatically removed because of an age difference between partners, and that women often feel like they must deploy strategies to avoid being potentially “used” by younger men.

It is also important to mention that, during their interview, most participants talked about the stigma associated with being read as a cougar, and that many expressed a certain level of caution with regard to how sexual they wanted to be perceived by others. Navigating the sexist and ageist conceptions of women’s sexuality appeared to be particularly challenging for women in their 40s and 50s, as they often seemed torn between their desire to present themselves as sexually empowered women and their desire to avoid being associated with negative cultural representations of cougars. Arguably, older participants’ fear of stigmatization is influenced not only by the cultural taboo for age-hypogamous intimate relationships but also by the cultural representation of female sexuality as more acceptable for the younger, more physically attractive, or childless woman (Friedman et al., 1998; Montemurro & Siefken, 2012; Travis et al., 2000). That said, it can also reflect generational differences with regard to perceptions of acceptable sexual desire and conduct for women, as there have been significant changes in terms of gendered norms regarding sexuality over the past 60 years (Allyn, 2000; Kamen, 2000; Lévy, 2008; Thornton & YoungDeMarco, 2001).

---
Interview Guide

Motivation for doing the interview:
⦁ Could you tell me what motivated you to participate in this study?
Perceptions of what “younger man” means
⦁ This study focused on women’s experiences with younger men. In your mind, how young does a man have to be for you to think you are dating a “younger man”?
Current love/sexual life
⦁ Could you tell me more about where you are right now with regards to your current love life and sexual life?

Love/sexual history
⦁ In order for me to have a general idea of who you are, could you provide me with a quick overview of the important intimate relationships you’ve had in your life?

Dating at midlife
⦁ How would you describe your experience being on the dating market at midlife?
Dating preferences
⦁ Thinking about the last years of your life as a single woman, what do you usually look for…
⦁ in terms of relationships?
⦁ In terms of personal characteristics in men?
⦁ How does age matter for you, if at all?
⦁ Have your preferences changed over time, and if so, how?

Experience with age-hypogamous intimate relationships- Overview
⦁ Is (NAME- current younger partner) the first younger partner you’ve ever had?
⦁ Who was the first younger partner you’ve ever had?
⦁ If not, how many younger male partners have you had in your life?
⦁ In your lifetime, would you say you’ve chosen mostly younger, same-age or older men?

Experiences with your FIRST younger partner (* if different from current younger partner)
⦁ How did you meet (NAME- first younger partner)?
⦁ (* if needed) Tell me more about the first interactions…
⦁ How did you feel about the age difference at first?
⦁ Has your feeling changed over time? How so?
⦁ At that time, were you looking specifically for a younger man?
⦁ What kind of relationship were you looking for when you met him?
⦁ Did the relationship evolved over time? How so?

Experiences with CURRENT younger man
⦁ How did you meet (NAME- current younger partner)?
⦁ (* if needed) Tell me more about the first interactions…
⦁ How did you feel about the age difference at first?
⦁ Has your feeling changed over time? How so?
⦁ At that time, were you looking specifically for a younger man?
⦁ What kind of relationship were you looking for when you met him?
⦁ Did the relationship evolved over time? How so?

Age preference
⦁ When you think of the kind of partners you could be interested in, do you have a limit with regards to how young/how old a new partner could be?
⦁ Can you explain why you wouldn’t consider a man younger than (MINIMUM AGE) and older than (MAXIMUM AGE)?
⦁ How strict are you about those limits? Are there contexts in which you don’t mind going younger or older, and if so, what contexts?

Perceived benefits, disadvantages and risks associated with age hypogamy
⦁ Do you see any advantages to dating younger men? If so, what are they?
⦁ Do you see any disadvantages to dating younger men? If so, what are they?

Expectations with regards to the future
⦁ What do you expect out of your relationships with (NAME- current younger partner)?
⦁ How does the age difference influence the way you see the future with him?
⦁ If you were to imagine a long-term relationship with (NAME- current younger partner), would there be any risks or benefits that you associate to his age?

Younger men’s interest in older women
⦁ What do you think young men are looking for in older women like you?

Age identity
⦁ In general, do you mention your age when you meet a new partner?
⦁ When? Why/Why not?
⦁ Do you ask how old he is? When? Why/Why not?
⦁ With regards to disclosing your age, do you act differently with men your age/older men compared to younger men? Why (or why not)?
⦁ When on a date with younger men, do you feel like you have to adapt your look or your approach in order to look more youthful?  How so?

Power dynamics
⦁ Do you feel like the age difference influence the power dynamics between you and your younger partner(s)? And if so, how?
⦁ How does it differ, if at all, from your experience with men your age/older?

Children
⦁ Do you feel like having children/not having children influences your interactions or relationships with younger men?  And if so, how?
⦁ How does it differ, if at all, from your experience with men your age/older?

Money
⦁ Do you feel like money influences your interactions or relationships with younger men?  And if so, how?
⦁ How does it differ, if at all, from your experience with men your age/older?
⦁ Do you see any differences with regards to who pays for the bill?
⦁ Do you think your financial resources could be something that attracts younger men? Why/why not?

Sexuality
⦁ Do you see any differences with regards to sex when you compare you experiences with younger men with those with men your age/older?
⦁ How does dating younger (vs. older) men influence the way you feel in bed?

Body image
⦁ How does dating younger (vs. older) men influences the way you feel about your body?
People’s reactions and stigma management
⦁ Have you introduced (current younger partner) to your friends and family?
⦁ Why? Why not?
⦁ What have been their reactions?
⦁ Have you ever encountered reactions (positive or negative) from people outside of your friends and family? Tell me about it.
⦁ Do you have strategies to avoid negative comments or reactions?
⦁ If someone had an issue with you dating younger men, what would you say?

Feelings towards aging
⦁ How do you feel about aging?

Feelings towards cultural representations of older women
⦁ How do you feel about the way older women/older men are presented in the media?
⦁ How does that make you feel?

Feelings towards age hypergamy
⦁ How do you feel about men who date younger women?

“Cougar” and identity choices
⦁ I see you already know the term ‘cougar’ / Do you know the term ‘cougar’?
⦁ What does that term mean to you?
⦁ Do you see yourself as a “cougar”? Why? Why not?
⦁ Has anyone ever referred to you as a “cougar”? How did you react?

Advice for other women
⦁ If a friend of yours came to you, told you she was curious about dating younger men, and asked you for advice, what would you tell her?

Last words
Is there anything you would want the public to know about women’s intimate relationships with younger men? Or is there anything else would like to add before we finish up this interview?

---
Popular press that mentions this paper: Why Older Women (Cougars) Seek Sex With Younger Men (Cubs) https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/all-about-sex/202001/why-older-women-cougars-seek-sex-younger-men-cubs

No Evidence for Social Genetic Effects or Genetic Similarity Among Friends Beyond that Due to Population Stratification: A Reappraisal of Domingue et al (2018)

No Evidence for Social Genetic Effects or Genetic Similarity Among Friends Beyond that Due to Population Stratification: A Reappraisal of Domingue et al (2018). Loic Yengo et al. Behavior Genetics, January 2020, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 67–71. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-019-09979-2

Abstract: Using data from 5500 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, Domingue et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci 25:256., 2018) claimed to show that friends are genetically more similar to one another than randomly selected peers, beyond the confounding effects of population stratification by ancestry. The authors also claimed to show ‘social-genetic’ effects, whereby individuals’ educational attainment (EA) is influenced by their friends’ genes. We argue that neither claim is justified by the data. Mathematically we show that (1) the genetic similarity reported between friends is far larger than theoretically possible if it was caused by phenotypic assortment as the authors claim; uncontrolled population stratification is a likely reason for the genetic similarity they observed, and (2) significant association between individuals’ EA and their friends’ polygenic scores for EA is a necessary consequence of EA similarity among friends, and does not provide evidence for social-genetic effects. Going forward, we urge caution in the analysis and interpretation of data at the intersection of human genetics and the social sciences.

Keywords: Genomic similarity Social-genetic effects Confound Kinship

---
The availability of large samples of individuals with genomewide genetic data in combination with behavioural phenotypes and social outcomes has led to a resurgence in research
that addresses questions at the interface of genetics and the
social sciences. Some of that research is hypothesis driven,
while much of it is data-driven and hypothesis-generating.
The genetics and statistical analysis of human traits has a
solid underpinning theory in quantitative and population
genetics (Lynch and Walsh 1998; Walsh and Lynch 2018),
and rigorous benchmarking against these underpinnings is
essential—especially when novel or unexpected results in
human behaviour are reported. In this paper, we highlight
one example (and list others) where novel results and claims
are not justifed by the data presented and instead have alternative and more parsimonious explanations.
Using data from 5500 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, Domingue
et al. (2018) claimed to show that friends are genetically
more similar to one another than randomly selected peers,
beyond the confounding efects of population stratifcation
by ancestry. The authors also claimed to fnd evidence of
‘social-genetic’ efects, whereby individuals’ educational
attainment (EA) is infuenced by their friends’ genes. Here
we argue that neither claim is justifed by the data.

A Novel Model to Explain Extreme Feather Pecking Behavior in Laying Hens: New trait has a medium heritability of 0.35 & is positively correlated with the fear traits

A Novel Model to Explain Extreme Feather Pecking Behavior in Laying Hens. H. Iffland et al. Behavior Genetics, January 2020, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 41–50. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-019-09971-w

Abstract: Feather pecking (FP) is a serious economic and welfare problem in the domestic fowl. It has recently been shown that the distribution of FP bouts within groups is heterogeneous and contains a sub-population of extreme feather peckers (EFP). The present study proposed a novel model to detect EFP hens. A mixture of two negative binomial distributions was fitted to FP data of a F2 cross of about 960 hens, and, based on the results, a calculation of the posterior probability for each hen belonging to the EFP subgroup (pEFP) was done. The fit of the mixture distribution revealed that the EFP subgroup made up a proportion of one third of the F2 cross. The EFP birds came more frequently into pecking mood and showed higher pecking intensities compared to the remaining birds. Tonic immobility and emerge box tests were conducted at juvenile and adult age of the hens to relate fearfulness to EFP. After dichotomization, all traits were analyzed in a multivariate threshold model and a genomewide association study was performed. The new trait pEFP has a medium heritability of 0.35 and is positively correlated with the fear traits. Breeding for this new trait could be an interesting option to reduce the proportion of extreme feather peckers. An index of fear related traits might serve as a proxy to breed indirectly for pEFP. GWAS revealed that all traits are typical quantitative traits with many genes and small effects contributing to the genetic variance.

Keywords: Laying hen Extreme feather pecking Fearfulness Genetic architecture Mixture distributions

Estimated heritability of coffee intake ranges from 0.36 to 0.58; factors that distinguish heavier vs. lighter drinkers (smoking, male sex) will likely manifest differences in estimated heritability

Quantile-Specific Heritability may Account for Gene–Environment Interactions Involving Coffee Consumption. Paul T. Williams. Behavior Genetics, Jan 3 2020. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-019-09989-0

Abstract: Estimated heritability of coffee intake ranges from 0.36 to 0.58, however, these point estimates assume that inherited effects are the same throughout the distribution of coffee intake, i.e., whether consumption is high or low relative to intake in the population. Quantile regression of 4788 child–parent pairs and 2380 siblings showed that offspring–parent and sibling concordance became progressively greater with increasing quantiles of coffee intake. Each cup/day increase in the parents’ coffee intake was associated with an offspring increase of 0.020 ± 0.013 cup/day at the 10th percentile of the offsprings’ coffee intake (slope ± SE, NS), 0.137 ± 0.034 cup/day at their 25th percentile (P = 5.2 × 10–5), 0.159 ± 0.029 cup/day at the 50th percentile (P = 5.8 × 10–8), 0.233 ± 0.049 cup/day at the 75th percentile (P = 1.8 × 10–6), and 0.284 ± 0.054 cup/day at the 90th percentile (P = 1.2 × 10–7). This quantile-specific heritability suggests that factors that distinguish heavier vs. lighter drinkers (smoking, male sex) will likely manifest differences in estimated heritability, as reported.

Youth submissive behavior exerted a significant indirect effect on cyber bullying via cyber victimization and moral disengagement

Eraslan-Çapan, B. and Bakioğlu, F., 2020. Submissive Behavior and Cyber Bullying: A Study on the Mediator Roles of Cyber Victimization and Moral Disengagement. Psychologica Belgica, 60(1), pp.18–32. http://doi.org/10.5334/pb.509

Abstract: In order to prevent cyberbullying and cyber-victim behaviors that are very common among adolescents, it is important to investigate the factors that underlie these behaviors. The purpose of the present study was to examine the mediator roles of cyber victimization and moral disengagement in the relationship between submissive behavior and cyber bullying. The participants involved 370 Turkish adolescent (female: 47%; male, 53%). The age of participants ranged between 12 and 19 years (M = 15.92, SD = 1.87). Data were collected using the Submissive Behavior Scale, the Cyber Bullying Scale, the Cyber Victimization Scale, and the Moral Disengagement Scale. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. A bootstrapping analysis was conducted in order to determine any indirect effects. Structural equation modeling results provided evidence of indirect effects of submissive behavior on cyber bullying mediated by cyber victimization and moral disengagement. Bootstrapping showed that submissive behavior exerted a significant indirect effect on cyber bullying via cyber victimization and moral disengagement. The findings emphasized the role of youth cyber victimization and moral disengagement in explaining the relationship between submissive behavior and cyber bullying. The results of the study were discussed based on relevant literature, and suggestions for future studies were made.

Keywords: Submissive behavior, Cyber bullying, Cyber victimization, Moral disengagement, Adolescents

Discussion

With widespread and active use of the Internet, cyber bullying and cyber victimization have been a major problem in the world. Therefore, it will be helpful to reveal protective and risk factors of cyber bullying and cyber victimization. In this study, the mediator role of cyber victimization and moral disengagement in the relationship between submissive behavior and cyber bullying of Turkish adolescents was investigated. As expected, the results show that the cyber victimization and moral disengagement plays a mediator role in the relationship between submissive behavior and cyber bullying. Accordingly, moral disengagement was positively correlated with submissive behavior and cyber victimization, and submissive behavior positively predicted cyber victim. In short, it can be expressed that as the adolescents’ submissive behavior level increased, their moral disengagement, cyber victimization, and cyber bullying behaviors increased as well.
Studies are in parallel with the research findings. In studies on adolescents, it has been found that submissive behaviors were an important predictor and risk factor of cyber victimization and cyber bullying. (Atik, Özmen, & Kemer, 2012; Kowalski et al., 2014; Ogurlu & Sarıçam, 2018; Özkan & Özen, 2008; Peker, Eroğlu, & Çitemel, 2012). It has been found that adolescents who were unable to protect their own rights and behave according to others’ wills were kept on being exposed to negative behaviors by remaining passive rather than blocking individuals who were bullying themselves or taking necessary intervention and help behaviors (Peker, Eroğlu, & Çitemel, 2012). Moreover, it was asserted that these individuals had low self-esteem and more prone to become cyber victims (Brewer, & Kerslake, 2015). As it is seen, the finding that submissive behaviors leading cyber victimization were supported in our study.
The other finding of the study was the relationship among the moral disengagement strategies of adolescents, cyber victimization, and cyber bullying behaviors. The literature shows that high moral disengagement increased the relationship between cyber victimization and cyber bullying (Hood & Duffy, 2018, Johnson, 2015). This finding is supported by other studies concluding that individuals who became cyber victims started to think that the cyberbullies deserved aggression or cyberbullying behaviors were not that bad (Johnson, 2015). It is indicated that cyber victims might use moral disengagement strategies since they feel disappointment, sorrow (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007), anger (Beran & Li, 2005), suicidal feelings (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009), revenge feelings (Bauman, Toomey & Walker, 2013; Dioguardi & Theodore, 2006; Yaman & Peker, 2012), and thoughts that others deserve hostile behaviors (Diguardi & Theodore, 2006, Johnson, 2015). It was also found that cyber victims felt shame and revenge more (Dilber, 2013) and 72% of cyber bullies demonstrate harmful behaviors for revenge or retaliation (Mark & Ratliffe, 2011), which supported the findings of the current study. In their study, Mishna et al., (2012) found that some students were shy people who could not bullies or demonstrate aggression in real life, and that they committed cyber bullying behaviors to avenge what they experienced in real life by making use of the opportunity to disguise their identity in the virtual world, which also supported the findings of the current study. In short, adolescents who were victims of cyber bullying due to their passive and submissive personality traits commit cyber bullying behaviors in order to avenge the bullying they were exposed to and use moral disengagement strategies to justify their bullying behaviors.
As a result of the bootstrapping analysis, it was found that the relationships among all variables were significant. Firstly, the effect size obtained in submissive behavior predicted moral disengagement was found to be low (Cohen, 1988, Sawilowsky, 2003). Moreover, the value of effect size obtained from the cyberbullying predictions of moral disengagement was found to be low. These results showed that submissive behavior alone is not sufficient to explain moral disengagement behavior, and moral disengagement also explains low levels of cyber bullying. The upper limit of the magnitude of effect size, which is explained by the submissive behavior of moral disengagement and cyber bullying of moral disengagement, was found to be moderate. Cyber victimization of submissive behaviors, moral disengagement of cyber victimization and cyber bullying of cyber victimization were seen to have high effect size values (Cohen, 1988). Therefore, it can be stated for bigger samples that submissive behaviors predicted cyber victimization and moral disengagement, cyber victimization predicted moral disengagement and cyberbullying, and moral disengagement predicted cyberbullying directly. Moreover, it was found that the results of this study were confirmed in bigger samples, and moral disengagement and cyber victimization played a mediator role in the relationship between submissive behaviors and cyberbullying.

Neurobehavioral traits & intelligence are differentially associated with university-level grades, depending on the major; but mixed-handedness may prove to be a better general predictor of academic performance across disciplines

Differential associations of neurobehavioral traits and cognitive ability to academic achievement in higher education. Graham Pluck et al. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, Volume 18, March 2020, 100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2019.100124

Abstract
Background People vary between each other on several neurobehavioral traits, which may have implications for understanding academic achievement.

Methods University-level Psychology or Engineering students were assessed for neurobehavioral traits, intelligence, and current psychological distress. Scores were compared with their grade point average (GPA) data.

Results Factors associated with higher GPA differed markedly between groups. For Engineers, intelligence, but not neurobehavioral traits or psychological distress, was a strong correlate of grades. For Psychologists, grades were not correlated with intelligence but they were with the neurobehavioral traits of executive dysfunction, disinhibition, apathy, and positive schizotypy. However, only the latter two were associated independently of psychological distress. Additionally, higher mixed-handedness was associated with higher GPA in the combined sample.

Conclusions Neurological factors (i.e., neurobehavioral traits and intelligence), are differentially associated with university-level grades, depending on the major studied. However, mixed-handedness may prove to be a better general predictor of academic performance across disciplines.

The sexually antagonistic gene hypothesis states that genes associated with male androphilia reduce reproduction when present in males but increase reproduction when present in their female relatives; study of the Istmo Zapotec

Offspring Production Among the Relatives of Istmo Zapotec Men and Muxes. Francisco R. Gómez Jiménez, Scott W. Semenyna & Paul L. Vasey. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Jan 2 2020. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01611-y

Abstract: Male androphilia (i.e., sexual attraction toward adult males) is influenced by biological factors, reliably occurs across diverse cultures, and has persisted over evolutionary time despite the fact that it reduces reproduction. One possible solution to this evolutionary paradox is the sexually antagonistic gene hypothesis (SAGH), which states that genes associated with male androphilia reduce reproduction when present in males but increase reproduction when present in their female relatives. The present study tested the SAGH among the Istmo Zapotec—a non-Euro-American culture in Oaxaca, Mexico, where transgender and cisgender androphilic males are known as muxe gunaa and muxe nguiiu, respectively. To test the SAGH, we compared offspring production by the biological relatives of muxe gunaa (n = 115), muxe nguiiu (n = 112), and gynephilic men (i.e., cisgender males who are sexually attracted to adult females; n = 171). The mothers and paternal aunts of muxe gunaa had higher offspring production than those of muxe nguiiu. Additionally, the relatives of muxe gunaa had more offspring than those of gynephilic men, whereas no such differences were found between the families of gynephilic men and muxe nguiiu. Elevated reproduction by the mothers and, particularly the aunts, of muxe gunaa is consistent with the SAGH. However, the absence of group differences between gynephilic men and muxe nguiiu, and the group differences between the two types of muxes are not predicted by the SAGH. This is the first study to demonstrate reproductive differences between kin of transgender and cisgender androphilic males within the same non-Euro-American culture.