Liebst, Lasse S., Richard Philpot, Mark Levine, and Marie R. Lindegaard. 2020. “Would I Be Hurt? Cross-national CCTV Footage Shows Low Victimization Risk for Bystander Interveners in Public Conflicts.” PsyArXiv. January 11. doi:10.31234/osf.io/v3me8
Abstract: Accumulating evidence shows that bystanders witnessing public disputes frequently intervene to help. However, little is known regarding the risks entailed for those bystanders who enter the fray to stop conflicts. This study systematically examined the prevalence of bystander victimizations and associated risk factors. Data were a cross-national sample of CCTV video recordings of real-life public disputes, capturing the potential victimizations of intervening bystanders. Data showed that interveners were rarely physically harmed, at a rate of approximately one in twenty-five. Confirmatory regression results indicated, although not robustly, that conflict party affiliation and male gender were possible risk factors of bystander victimization. The severity of the conflict at the time of intervention was not found to increase the risk of victimization. Our findings highlight the ecological value of naturalistic observation for bystander research, and emphasize the need for evidence-based bystander intervention recommendations.
Saturday, January 11, 2020
Sports fans provided forecasts about an upcoming game between a favorite & rival team; participants demonstrated reduced wishful thinking effects when thinking about how a rival fan might see the game going
“To hope was to expect”: The impact of perspective taking and forecast type on wishful thinking. Jason P. Rose Olivia Aspiras. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, January 10 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2170
Abstract: When forecasting future outcomes, people tend to believe that the outcomes they want to happen are also likely to happen. Despite numerous attempts, few systematic factors have been identified that consistently and robustly reduce wishful thinking (WT) effects. Using elections and sporting event outcomes as contexts, three experiments examined whether taking the perspective of a political rival or opposing fan reduced WT effects. We also examined whether making deliberative (vs. intuitive‐based) forecasts was associated with lower WT effects. Online adult samples of U.S. citizens from Mechanical Turk and U.S. college students provided their preferences and forecasts for the U.S. presidential election (Experiments 1 and 2) and a sports competition outcome (Experiment 3). Critically, some participants received perspective taking prompts immediately before providing forecasts. First, results revealed reductions in WT effects when participants engaged in perspective taking. Interestingly, this effect only emerged when intuitive‐based forecasts were made first (Experiment 3). Second, intuitive‐based forecasts revealed stronger evidence of WT effects. Finally, we found that perspective taking and forming forecasts deliberately promoted a shift in focus away from preferences and toward a consideration of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the entities (i.e., candidates and teams). Theoretical implications for understanding WT effects and applied implications for developing interventions are discussed.
8 GENERAL DISCUSSION
Three experiments using different populations and domains investigated the roles of perspective taking and forecast type in impacting WT effects. Overall, our results revealed that instructions encouraging participants to consider the perspective of someone with an opposing viewpoint and the use of deliberative forecast measures were both associated with lower WT effects. Moreover, we found that this may have been due, in part, to changes in how people evaluated evidence about the two teams. Below, we describe the results in more detail and provide our interpretations.
8.1 Results overview and explanations
8.1.1 Impact of perspective taking on WT effects
The evidence across our experiments suggests WT effects can be reduced (or even eliminated) through the use of perspective taking. For example, when Trump (Clinton) supporters were asked to think about how Clinton (Trump) supporters might view the election outcome immediately before providing their own forecasts, this reduced WT effects about the election (Experiments 1 and 2). Likewise, when sports fans provided forecasts about an upcoming game between a favorite and rival team (Experiment 3), participants demonstrated reduced WT effects when thinking about how a rival fan might see the game going (at least when intuitive‐based measures came first; see below for discussion). Moreover, in Experiment 3, we provided evidence that considering the perspective of a rival fan shifted participants' weighting of evidence when making forecasts. Indeed, forecasts of those who took the perspective of a rival fan tended to be as related to their own preferences as they were to perceptions of the relative strengths/weaknesses of the teams (which is critical for accurate judgments). Contrariwise, forecasts of participants in the control condition tended to be more related to their preferences than to their perceptions of the relative strengths/weaknesses of the teams.
Overall, this evidence is consistent with prior research showing that focalism in referent‐dependent judgments (such as those used in the present study) can be debiased through changes in contextual features (e.g., salience in a questionnaire and information sharing; see Bar‐Hillel et al., 2008; Koriat et al., 1980; Pahl, 2012; Rose & Windschitl, 2008; Rose et al., 2012; Windschitl et al., 2008). Of course, there may be other potential mechanisms to explain changes in WT effects as a function of perspective‐taking instructions, such as shifts in anchoring and adjustment processes (Epley, Keysar, Van Boven, & Gilovich, 2004; Mussweiler, Ruter, & Epstude, 2004), changes in memory sampling procedures used when forming judgments (Hollander, 2004; Mutz & Martin, 2001), or simulation of worst case scenarios (Sharot, Korn, & Dolan, 2011). Follow‐up studies could be designed to test such alternative mechanisms.
Our research also revealed that taking the perspective of a person with a similar preference did not increase or decrease WT effects compared with the control condition. Although exposure to similar others can alter psychological and behavioral experiences under some conditions (Lewis & Neighbors, 2004; Mussweiler, 2003a, 2003b; Neighbors et al., 2010), thinking about a similar other does not appear to alter how participants go about forecasting future outcomes. This may be due to overlap in how participants viewed the self vis‐à‐vis a peer with the same political preferences (Mussweiler, 2003a, 2003b).
8.1.2 Impact of forecast type on WT effects
Across experiments, we found that participants demonstrated less WT effects when prompted to think deliberatively (vs. intuitively) when forecasting future outcomes. That is, when participants were asked to think about evidence statistically, judge with their heads, or provide precise probability judgments, forecasts were relatively less aligned with their preferences than when participants were asked to go with their gut impression, judge with their hearts, or make an outcome prediction (see also Windschitl et al., 2010). One explanation for this result is that, when prompted to think deliberatively, participants considered evidence in a more balanced manner such that they weighted both focal (about the target/preferred team) and nonfocal evidence (about the referent/nonpreferred team). Indeed, Experiment 3 showed that deliberative forecasts were less correlated with preferences and more correlated with perceptions of the relative strengths of the teams. Intuitive‐based judgments showed the opposite pattern. Aside from this core explanation, other potential reasons that deliberative measures may be less impacted by desirability could be that such measures disrupt the link between positive affect and forecasting desirable outcomes (Lench, 2009; Lench & Bench, 2012) and are more limited by reality constraints (Windschitl et al., 2010). Follow‐up studies could be conducted to test such alternative mechanisms.
As a final note, it is important to mention that instructions to make forecasts in a deliberative fashion did not completely eliminate WT effects. Rather, the impact of such measures resulted in a relative shift in biases, such that the effect dropped in magnitude but not direction (and WT effects were still present). The limiting impact for deliberative measures to completely debias WT effects could have to do with the fact that participants were considering nonstochastic outcomes (e.g., sporting events and political elections) that involved nonrandom processes, hence keeping open the possibility that anything could happen (Windshcitl et al., 2010; for review, see Krizan & Windschitl, 2007).
8.2 Limitations and future directions
There are several limitations to this research. First, rather than manipulating preferences, we assessed natural preferences for candidates and sports teams. This approach was used to capture ecologically valid beliefs about important real‐world outcomes. However, we are unable to establish that preferences were responsible for guiding expectations (vs. the reverse causal path or third variables). It is notable, though, that prior research examining the preference–expectation link experimentally (Windschitl et al., 2013; for review see Krizan & Windschitl, 2007, 2009) and longitudinally (Krizan & Sweeny, 2013) has already established that preferences guide expectations rather than the other way around or that third variables (e.g., knowledge) account for the effect. Moreover, regardless of whether preferences were manipulated, we did manipulate other variables in the design and elucidated their impact as a function of preferences. Nevertheless, future research examining the impact of perspective taking and forecast measures in WT effects following manipulated preferences would be informative.
Second, our results may not apply to all contexts in which WT occurs. Indeed, we used two specific real‐world events: the U.S. Presidential election and an American football game involving two specific college teams. Although our use of two different contexts helps with generalizability, it still could be the case that there is something idiosyncratic about these events. Further, these specific examples of the 2016 U.S. President election and a football game in 1 year between two universities may not be fully representative of all elections or sporting event outcomes. Additionally, and more broadly, taking the perspective of someone with an opposing preference works well in political and sports contexts because there are clear, opposing viewpoints. However, not all contexts are like this. For example, when thinking about the likelihood of a self‐relevant outcome (e.g., getting cancer and owning a home), perspective taking would not make sense given that there are no other people hoping for the opposite, nonpreferred outcome (at least we hope not!). However, it could be argued that a conceptually similar idea would involve a “consider‐the‐opposite” strategy wherein a person thinks about evidence for alternatives to their preferred outcome (Hirt & Markman, 1995; Koriat et al., 1980; Mussweiler, Strack, & Pfeiffer, 2000). Future research should examine other types of events and contexts to see whether our results replicate.
Third, it is notable that the timing in which forecasts were made varied across Experiments 1 and 3, such that the forecasts made for elections tended to be somewhat closer in time to the target event than forecasts made about the sporting events. Prior research suggests that the immediacy of an event can sometimes dampen optimism about the event (Shepperd, Ouellette, & Fernandez, 1996; for review see Sweeny & Krizan, 2013). As we did not systematically vary this feature across our experiments, it is unclear whether forecast timing would interact with our perspective taking and forecast type factors. This would make for interesting follow‐up research.
Fourth, although most of the main results were robust and consistent, in Experiment 3 we found that perspective taking only decreased WT effects when intuitive‐based measures came first in the sets of judgments (Experiments 1 and 2 always assessed measures in this order). Whereas this result was unexpected and would need replication, our research and that of others have already established that intuitive‐based and deliberative measures are not always correlated, trigger unique judgment processes, and are differentially related to certain outcomes (Portnoy et al., 2014; Sloman, 1996; Suls et al., 2013; Windschitl et al., 2010; Windschitl & Wells, 1996). One possibility for the differences across order conditions could be that the perspective‐taking instructions had a different meaning for participants depending upon whether they received an intuitive‐based versus deliberative forecast first. For instance, when an intuitive‐based forecast appeared first, participants might have more easily recognized the value of the perspective‐taking advice and applied this when making forecasts. That is, because intuitive‐based assessments reveal stronger default evidence of WT effects, participants who provided such forecasts first may have had the heightened experience (relative to when deliberative measures came first) of wanting to go with their preference, which then simultaneously imbued the perspective‐taking instructions with inherent validity. On the other hand, when a deliberative forecast appeared first, participants might have balked at the need for such instructions given that they were already (at a default) attempting to provide more balanced forecasts. Then, upon completing an intuitive‐based measure, participants may have felt the need to inflate (in a preference‐consistent direction) their responses in order contrast to the already less biased deliberative forecasts. Additionally, speculation about this effect is further complicated by the fact that the specific items used for intuitive‐based and deliberative forecasts were always presented in the same order within sets rather than completely randomized. Future research would need to follow‐up on these findings and explanations.
8.3 Implications and conclusions
The current research has both theoretical and applied implications. In relation to theoretical implications, our findings have relevance to at least two distinct research literatures: (a) WT, optimism, and uncertainty and (b) perspective taking. First, our research is broadly relevant to the literature on optimism and uncertainty where people develop expectations for preferred and nonpreferred outcomes in a variety of contexts (e.g., health, academics, and sports). Indeed, our research provides further evidence that people form expectations that are consistent with their preferences (for reviews, see Krizan & Windschitl, 2007, 2009). Moreover, whereas past research has yielded inconsistent or negligible debiasing effects, our experiments suggest that perspective taking and making deliberative forecasts reduces optimism‐based biases. Additionally, our research provides some support for at least one nonmotivational mechanism underlying WT (see Krizan & Windschitl, 2007, 2009). Specifically, we showed that undue focus on focal entity information, and insufficient attention to referent entity information (which inhibits a balanced evaluation of the relative strengths/weaknesses of the entities), can inflate WT effects and factors that undercut this can reduce them (Windschitl et al., 2013). Finally, our work can be positioned alongside a growing literature highlighting that not all types of uncertainty forecasts should be treated equally (Portnoy et al., 2014; Sloman, 1996; Suls et al., 2013; Windschitl et al., 2010; Windschitl & Wells, 1996).
Second, our research also has relevance to the perspective‐taking literature. Past research demonstrates that taking the perspective of others' viewpoints has a range of positive benefits (for review, see Hodges, Clark, & Myers, 2011), including greater empathy (Batson, 1987), reduced stereotypes and discrimination (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000; Wang et al., 2014), and more rational judgments (Yaniv & Choshen‐Hillel, 2012). Our research suggests that an additional benefit is reduced WT when forecasting preferred future outcomes that involve others. Interestingly, our research also suggests that taking the perspective of someone who has the same opinion as us does not appear to change WT effects for better or worse (Experiment 2).
From an applied perspective, researchers and practitioners are often interested in examining people's beliefs about future outcomes. As expectations can impact behavior, researchers may wish to design easy, portable, and effective interventions to modify overly optimistic forecasts to be more realistic. Our research offers two potential approaches that might be fruitful in allowing people to form judgments in ways that rely on more than just their preferences when formulating future forecasts. Ideally, these approaches will be useful in reducing WT, biased information processing, and potential downstream maladaptive consequences in such diverse contexts as health, academics, business, sports, and politics.
8 GENERAL DISCUSSION
Three experiments using different populations and domains investigated the roles of perspective taking and forecast type in impacting WT effects. Overall, our results revealed that instructions encouraging participants to consider the perspective of someone with an opposing viewpoint and the use of deliberative forecast measures were both associated with lower WT effects. Moreover, we found that this may have been due, in part, to changes in how people evaluated evidence about the two teams. Below, we describe the results in more detail and provide our interpretations.
8.1 Results overview and explanations
8.1.1 Impact of perspective taking on WT effects
The evidence across our experiments suggests WT effects can be reduced (or even eliminated) through the use of perspective taking. For example, when Trump (Clinton) supporters were asked to think about how Clinton (Trump) supporters might view the election outcome immediately before providing their own forecasts, this reduced WT effects about the election (Experiments 1 and 2). Likewise, when sports fans provided forecasts about an upcoming game between a favorite and rival team (Experiment 3), participants demonstrated reduced WT effects when thinking about how a rival fan might see the game going (at least when intuitive‐based measures came first; see below for discussion). Moreover, in Experiment 3, we provided evidence that considering the perspective of a rival fan shifted participants' weighting of evidence when making forecasts. Indeed, forecasts of those who took the perspective of a rival fan tended to be as related to their own preferences as they were to perceptions of the relative strengths/weaknesses of the teams (which is critical for accurate judgments). Contrariwise, forecasts of participants in the control condition tended to be more related to their preferences than to their perceptions of the relative strengths/weaknesses of the teams.
Overall, this evidence is consistent with prior research showing that focalism in referent‐dependent judgments (such as those used in the present study) can be debiased through changes in contextual features (e.g., salience in a questionnaire and information sharing; see Bar‐Hillel et al., 2008; Koriat et al., 1980; Pahl, 2012; Rose & Windschitl, 2008; Rose et al., 2012; Windschitl et al., 2008). Of course, there may be other potential mechanisms to explain changes in WT effects as a function of perspective‐taking instructions, such as shifts in anchoring and adjustment processes (Epley, Keysar, Van Boven, & Gilovich, 2004; Mussweiler, Ruter, & Epstude, 2004), changes in memory sampling procedures used when forming judgments (Hollander, 2004; Mutz & Martin, 2001), or simulation of worst case scenarios (Sharot, Korn, & Dolan, 2011). Follow‐up studies could be designed to test such alternative mechanisms.
Our research also revealed that taking the perspective of a person with a similar preference did not increase or decrease WT effects compared with the control condition. Although exposure to similar others can alter psychological and behavioral experiences under some conditions (Lewis & Neighbors, 2004; Mussweiler, 2003a, 2003b; Neighbors et al., 2010), thinking about a similar other does not appear to alter how participants go about forecasting future outcomes. This may be due to overlap in how participants viewed the self vis‐à‐vis a peer with the same political preferences (Mussweiler, 2003a, 2003b).
8.1.2 Impact of forecast type on WT effects
Across experiments, we found that participants demonstrated less WT effects when prompted to think deliberatively (vs. intuitively) when forecasting future outcomes. That is, when participants were asked to think about evidence statistically, judge with their heads, or provide precise probability judgments, forecasts were relatively less aligned with their preferences than when participants were asked to go with their gut impression, judge with their hearts, or make an outcome prediction (see also Windschitl et al., 2010). One explanation for this result is that, when prompted to think deliberatively, participants considered evidence in a more balanced manner such that they weighted both focal (about the target/preferred team) and nonfocal evidence (about the referent/nonpreferred team). Indeed, Experiment 3 showed that deliberative forecasts were less correlated with preferences and more correlated with perceptions of the relative strengths of the teams. Intuitive‐based judgments showed the opposite pattern. Aside from this core explanation, other potential reasons that deliberative measures may be less impacted by desirability could be that such measures disrupt the link between positive affect and forecasting desirable outcomes (Lench, 2009; Lench & Bench, 2012) and are more limited by reality constraints (Windschitl et al., 2010). Follow‐up studies could be conducted to test such alternative mechanisms.
As a final note, it is important to mention that instructions to make forecasts in a deliberative fashion did not completely eliminate WT effects. Rather, the impact of such measures resulted in a relative shift in biases, such that the effect dropped in magnitude but not direction (and WT effects were still present). The limiting impact for deliberative measures to completely debias WT effects could have to do with the fact that participants were considering nonstochastic outcomes (e.g., sporting events and political elections) that involved nonrandom processes, hence keeping open the possibility that anything could happen (Windshcitl et al., 2010; for review, see Krizan & Windschitl, 2007).
8.2 Limitations and future directions
There are several limitations to this research. First, rather than manipulating preferences, we assessed natural preferences for candidates and sports teams. This approach was used to capture ecologically valid beliefs about important real‐world outcomes. However, we are unable to establish that preferences were responsible for guiding expectations (vs. the reverse causal path or third variables). It is notable, though, that prior research examining the preference–expectation link experimentally (Windschitl et al., 2013; for review see Krizan & Windschitl, 2007, 2009) and longitudinally (Krizan & Sweeny, 2013) has already established that preferences guide expectations rather than the other way around or that third variables (e.g., knowledge) account for the effect. Moreover, regardless of whether preferences were manipulated, we did manipulate other variables in the design and elucidated their impact as a function of preferences. Nevertheless, future research examining the impact of perspective taking and forecast measures in WT effects following manipulated preferences would be informative.
Second, our results may not apply to all contexts in which WT occurs. Indeed, we used two specific real‐world events: the U.S. Presidential election and an American football game involving two specific college teams. Although our use of two different contexts helps with generalizability, it still could be the case that there is something idiosyncratic about these events. Further, these specific examples of the 2016 U.S. President election and a football game in 1 year between two universities may not be fully representative of all elections or sporting event outcomes. Additionally, and more broadly, taking the perspective of someone with an opposing preference works well in political and sports contexts because there are clear, opposing viewpoints. However, not all contexts are like this. For example, when thinking about the likelihood of a self‐relevant outcome (e.g., getting cancer and owning a home), perspective taking would not make sense given that there are no other people hoping for the opposite, nonpreferred outcome (at least we hope not!). However, it could be argued that a conceptually similar idea would involve a “consider‐the‐opposite” strategy wherein a person thinks about evidence for alternatives to their preferred outcome (Hirt & Markman, 1995; Koriat et al., 1980; Mussweiler, Strack, & Pfeiffer, 2000). Future research should examine other types of events and contexts to see whether our results replicate.
Third, it is notable that the timing in which forecasts were made varied across Experiments 1 and 3, such that the forecasts made for elections tended to be somewhat closer in time to the target event than forecasts made about the sporting events. Prior research suggests that the immediacy of an event can sometimes dampen optimism about the event (Shepperd, Ouellette, & Fernandez, 1996; for review see Sweeny & Krizan, 2013). As we did not systematically vary this feature across our experiments, it is unclear whether forecast timing would interact with our perspective taking and forecast type factors. This would make for interesting follow‐up research.
Fourth, although most of the main results were robust and consistent, in Experiment 3 we found that perspective taking only decreased WT effects when intuitive‐based measures came first in the sets of judgments (Experiments 1 and 2 always assessed measures in this order). Whereas this result was unexpected and would need replication, our research and that of others have already established that intuitive‐based and deliberative measures are not always correlated, trigger unique judgment processes, and are differentially related to certain outcomes (Portnoy et al., 2014; Sloman, 1996; Suls et al., 2013; Windschitl et al., 2010; Windschitl & Wells, 1996). One possibility for the differences across order conditions could be that the perspective‐taking instructions had a different meaning for participants depending upon whether they received an intuitive‐based versus deliberative forecast first. For instance, when an intuitive‐based forecast appeared first, participants might have more easily recognized the value of the perspective‐taking advice and applied this when making forecasts. That is, because intuitive‐based assessments reveal stronger default evidence of WT effects, participants who provided such forecasts first may have had the heightened experience (relative to when deliberative measures came first) of wanting to go with their preference, which then simultaneously imbued the perspective‐taking instructions with inherent validity. On the other hand, when a deliberative forecast appeared first, participants might have balked at the need for such instructions given that they were already (at a default) attempting to provide more balanced forecasts. Then, upon completing an intuitive‐based measure, participants may have felt the need to inflate (in a preference‐consistent direction) their responses in order contrast to the already less biased deliberative forecasts. Additionally, speculation about this effect is further complicated by the fact that the specific items used for intuitive‐based and deliberative forecasts were always presented in the same order within sets rather than completely randomized. Future research would need to follow‐up on these findings and explanations.
8.3 Implications and conclusions
The current research has both theoretical and applied implications. In relation to theoretical implications, our findings have relevance to at least two distinct research literatures: (a) WT, optimism, and uncertainty and (b) perspective taking. First, our research is broadly relevant to the literature on optimism and uncertainty where people develop expectations for preferred and nonpreferred outcomes in a variety of contexts (e.g., health, academics, and sports). Indeed, our research provides further evidence that people form expectations that are consistent with their preferences (for reviews, see Krizan & Windschitl, 2007, 2009). Moreover, whereas past research has yielded inconsistent or negligible debiasing effects, our experiments suggest that perspective taking and making deliberative forecasts reduces optimism‐based biases. Additionally, our research provides some support for at least one nonmotivational mechanism underlying WT (see Krizan & Windschitl, 2007, 2009). Specifically, we showed that undue focus on focal entity information, and insufficient attention to referent entity information (which inhibits a balanced evaluation of the relative strengths/weaknesses of the entities), can inflate WT effects and factors that undercut this can reduce them (Windschitl et al., 2013). Finally, our work can be positioned alongside a growing literature highlighting that not all types of uncertainty forecasts should be treated equally (Portnoy et al., 2014; Sloman, 1996; Suls et al., 2013; Windschitl et al., 2010; Windschitl & Wells, 1996).
Second, our research also has relevance to the perspective‐taking literature. Past research demonstrates that taking the perspective of others' viewpoints has a range of positive benefits (for review, see Hodges, Clark, & Myers, 2011), including greater empathy (Batson, 1987), reduced stereotypes and discrimination (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000; Wang et al., 2014), and more rational judgments (Yaniv & Choshen‐Hillel, 2012). Our research suggests that an additional benefit is reduced WT when forecasting preferred future outcomes that involve others. Interestingly, our research also suggests that taking the perspective of someone who has the same opinion as us does not appear to change WT effects for better or worse (Experiment 2).
From an applied perspective, researchers and practitioners are often interested in examining people's beliefs about future outcomes. As expectations can impact behavior, researchers may wish to design easy, portable, and effective interventions to modify overly optimistic forecasts to be more realistic. Our research offers two potential approaches that might be fruitful in allowing people to form judgments in ways that rely on more than just their preferences when formulating future forecasts. Ideally, these approaches will be useful in reducing WT, biased information processing, and potential downstream maladaptive consequences in such diverse contexts as health, academics, business, sports, and politics.
Older men more than older women report interest in a greater number of sexual partners; need less time before consenting to sex; have higher frequency of sexual arousal & sexual fantasies
Later life sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Gavin Vance et al. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 157, 15 April 2020, 109730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109730
Abstract: Several sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior have been documented across cultures and across historical periods. These differences have been investigated almost exclusively in young adult samples, however. Using data secured from an older adult sample of retirement center residents in Southeast Florida, USA (n = 186, M = 67.00 years), we assessed the replicability of several sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior in later life. Results replicate the sex differences identified in younger adult samples, including: (1) older men more than older women report interest in a greater number of sexual partners; (2) older men require less time before consenting to sex than do older women; (3) older men more than older women prioritize attractiveness in a prospective romantic partner, whereas older women more than older men prioritize good financial prospects; and (4) older men report a higher frequency of sexual arousal and sexual fantasies than do older women. Discussion addresses limitations of the current research and directions for future research addressing later life sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior.
Keywords: Older adultsLater lifeSexual psychologySexual behaviorSex differencesSexual fantasies
6. Discussion
The results of the current study provide a compelling argument for
the persistence of several sex differences in sexual psychology and
behavior among older adults, replicating the results of parallel research
on young adults. Older men desire a greater number of sexual partners
than do older women, require less time before consenting to sex, and
fantasize about more sexual partners, indicating that sex differences in
sexual psychology and behavior identified in young adulthood persist
into later life.
6.1. Factors in choosing a long-term partner
Older men report a preference for attractive long-term partners, as
well as good housekeepers, whereas older women report a preference
for prospective partners with access to resources. Younger men also
prefer attractive long-term partners more than do younger women,
indicating that attractiveness in a long-term partner remains important
for men into later life. Older women more than older men, in contrast,
report preferences for financial prospects, emotional stability, and
ambition in a prospective long-term partner. These findings are consistent with sex differences documented in younger adults; however,
unlike younger women, older women placed greater importance than
did older men on emotional stability in a long-term partner (Buss et al.,
2001). These results suggest that emotional stability in a long-term
partner becomes more important to women as they age, or less important to men as they age. This could be because older women, relative
to younger women, associate emotional stability more closely with
earning potential or because older women perceive emotional stability
as indicative of a partner's ability to provide adequate care for them in
their old age.
6.2. Sexual behaviors and attitudes
Older men are more likely than older women to report sex with
someone other than their committed romantic partner at some point in
their lives, but were just as likely as older women to report that they
had been unfaithful to their current romantic partner. Because participants were asked about behaviors in the past, it is perhaps not surprising that older men's reported frequencies of infidelity and lifetime
sexual partners are similar to reports by younger men (Blumstein &
Schwartz, 1983; Buss, 1989; Wiederman, 1997).
Consistent with sex differences identified in younger adults, older
men desired more sexual partners than did older women for every future time interval from 6 months to the remainder of their lives
(Buss, 1989). Although nearly all (95.5%) of the older men reported
that they were currently in a romantic relationship, they also reported a
desire for more sexual partners than did older women, only 63.7% of
whom reported that they were currently in a romantic relationship.
Regardless of age or relationship status, men desire a greater number of
sexual partners than do women.
Relative to older women, older men report a greater likelihood of
consenting to sex with a desirable person after knowing that person for
time periods ranging from one second to three months. Replicating sex
differences documented in younger adults, older men appear to be less
interested in spending time getting to know a prospective sexual
partner than are older women (Buss, 1989). Given that older men desire
more sexual partners than do older women, it follows that they are
more eager than older women to have sex with a person they have
known for a relatively short period of time.
6.3. Sexual fantasies
Asking participants about their sexual fantasies provided further
insight into the sexual desires of older people, in addition to affording
an opportunity to investigate whether these desires differ between older
men and older women in ways paralleling sex differences identified in
younger adults. Older men, relative to older women, report a greater
frequency of sexual arousal and sexual fantasy, more imagined sexual
partners during their fantasies, and place greater importance on the
facial and genital features of their imagined partners. From these survey
items, we documented not only that older men engage in certain sexual
behaviors more frequently than do older women, but also that the sexes
differ markedly in reported sexual arousal and desire. These results are
notable because they indicate that, even if older adults are inaccurate in
their estimates of lifetime sexual partners, older men currently desire
more sexual partners than do older women. These sex differences in
sexual fantasy replicate those documented in younger adults (Ellis &
Symons, 1990).
6.4. Limitations and future directions
The current results may not be generalizable to older people outside
of Southeastern Florida or, indeed, to older people not living in retirement communities. Moreover, further research might investigate
whether the sex differences observed among older people in the current
research are replicated in non-Western countries.
Self-report items assessing past sexual behaviors may be subject to
biases to appear more or less sexually promiscuous, for example
(Schmitt & Buss, 1996). Such biases may result in underreporting or
overreporting of lifetime sexual partners, or dishonest reports of infidelities. Similarly, items assessing past sexual behaviors may be vulnerable to recall errors, resulting in unintentionally inaccurate responses (Shaw, Bjork, & Handal, 1995; Zaragoza & Lane, 1994).
Problems of recall might be especially concerning for older people
(Gilewski, Zelinski, & Schaie, 1990). Asking participants to report on
the behaviors of their current romantic partner (rather than providing
self-reports) and conducting a prospective longitudinal study may meliorate some bias in reports and problems with recall, respectively. Finally, the stability of the effects observed in the current research would
be improved with a larger sample, especially by securing responses
from a larger sample of older men, who were considerably outnumbered by older women in the current study.
Previous research has provided evidence that partner preferences in
younger adults shift in response to the sex ratio, or the number of men
to women available as potential partners (Stone, Shackelford, & Buss,
2007). As is the case in other populations of older adults given the
greater life expectancy of women, women in the current sample outnumbered men (Barford, Dorling, Smith, & Shaw, 2006). The impact of
sex ratio on the sexual psychology and behavior of older adults may,
therefore, be of interest to future researchers.
In summary, identifying whether and to what degree older men and
older women differ in their sexual psychology and behaviors is as important as investigating whether and to what degree older adults differ
from younger adults in sexual psychology and behaviors, not least because such sex differences can inform counseling and treatment programs (Camacho & Reyes-Ortiz, 2005; Nicolosi et al., 2004).
Abstract: Several sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior have been documented across cultures and across historical periods. These differences have been investigated almost exclusively in young adult samples, however. Using data secured from an older adult sample of retirement center residents in Southeast Florida, USA (n = 186, M = 67.00 years), we assessed the replicability of several sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior in later life. Results replicate the sex differences identified in younger adult samples, including: (1) older men more than older women report interest in a greater number of sexual partners; (2) older men require less time before consenting to sex than do older women; (3) older men more than older women prioritize attractiveness in a prospective romantic partner, whereas older women more than older men prioritize good financial prospects; and (4) older men report a higher frequency of sexual arousal and sexual fantasies than do older women. Discussion addresses limitations of the current research and directions for future research addressing later life sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior.
Keywords: Older adultsLater lifeSexual psychologySexual behaviorSex differencesSexual fantasies
6. Discussion
The results of the current study provide a compelling argument for
the persistence of several sex differences in sexual psychology and
behavior among older adults, replicating the results of parallel research
on young adults. Older men desire a greater number of sexual partners
than do older women, require less time before consenting to sex, and
fantasize about more sexual partners, indicating that sex differences in
sexual psychology and behavior identified in young adulthood persist
into later life.
6.1. Factors in choosing a long-term partner
Older men report a preference for attractive long-term partners, as
well as good housekeepers, whereas older women report a preference
for prospective partners with access to resources. Younger men also
prefer attractive long-term partners more than do younger women,
indicating that attractiveness in a long-term partner remains important
for men into later life. Older women more than older men, in contrast,
report preferences for financial prospects, emotional stability, and
ambition in a prospective long-term partner. These findings are consistent with sex differences documented in younger adults; however,
unlike younger women, older women placed greater importance than
did older men on emotional stability in a long-term partner (Buss et al.,
2001). These results suggest that emotional stability in a long-term
partner becomes more important to women as they age, or less important to men as they age. This could be because older women, relative
to younger women, associate emotional stability more closely with
earning potential or because older women perceive emotional stability
as indicative of a partner's ability to provide adequate care for them in
their old age.
6.2. Sexual behaviors and attitudes
Older men are more likely than older women to report sex with
someone other than their committed romantic partner at some point in
their lives, but were just as likely as older women to report that they
had been unfaithful to their current romantic partner. Because participants were asked about behaviors in the past, it is perhaps not surprising that older men's reported frequencies of infidelity and lifetime
sexual partners are similar to reports by younger men (Blumstein &
Schwartz, 1983; Buss, 1989; Wiederman, 1997).
Consistent with sex differences identified in younger adults, older
men desired more sexual partners than did older women for every future time interval from 6 months to the remainder of their lives
(Buss, 1989). Although nearly all (95.5%) of the older men reported
that they were currently in a romantic relationship, they also reported a
desire for more sexual partners than did older women, only 63.7% of
whom reported that they were currently in a romantic relationship.
Regardless of age or relationship status, men desire a greater number of
sexual partners than do women.
Relative to older women, older men report a greater likelihood of
consenting to sex with a desirable person after knowing that person for
time periods ranging from one second to three months. Replicating sex
differences documented in younger adults, older men appear to be less
interested in spending time getting to know a prospective sexual
partner than are older women (Buss, 1989). Given that older men desire
more sexual partners than do older women, it follows that they are
more eager than older women to have sex with a person they have
known for a relatively short period of time.
6.3. Sexual fantasies
Asking participants about their sexual fantasies provided further
insight into the sexual desires of older people, in addition to affording
an opportunity to investigate whether these desires differ between older
men and older women in ways paralleling sex differences identified in
younger adults. Older men, relative to older women, report a greater
frequency of sexual arousal and sexual fantasy, more imagined sexual
partners during their fantasies, and place greater importance on the
facial and genital features of their imagined partners. From these survey
items, we documented not only that older men engage in certain sexual
behaviors more frequently than do older women, but also that the sexes
differ markedly in reported sexual arousal and desire. These results are
notable because they indicate that, even if older adults are inaccurate in
their estimates of lifetime sexual partners, older men currently desire
more sexual partners than do older women. These sex differences in
sexual fantasy replicate those documented in younger adults (Ellis &
Symons, 1990).
6.4. Limitations and future directions
The current results may not be generalizable to older people outside
of Southeastern Florida or, indeed, to older people not living in retirement communities. Moreover, further research might investigate
whether the sex differences observed among older people in the current
research are replicated in non-Western countries.
Self-report items assessing past sexual behaviors may be subject to
biases to appear more or less sexually promiscuous, for example
(Schmitt & Buss, 1996). Such biases may result in underreporting or
overreporting of lifetime sexual partners, or dishonest reports of infidelities. Similarly, items assessing past sexual behaviors may be vulnerable to recall errors, resulting in unintentionally inaccurate responses (Shaw, Bjork, & Handal, 1995; Zaragoza & Lane, 1994).
Problems of recall might be especially concerning for older people
(Gilewski, Zelinski, & Schaie, 1990). Asking participants to report on
the behaviors of their current romantic partner (rather than providing
self-reports) and conducting a prospective longitudinal study may meliorate some bias in reports and problems with recall, respectively. Finally, the stability of the effects observed in the current research would
be improved with a larger sample, especially by securing responses
from a larger sample of older men, who were considerably outnumbered by older women in the current study.
Previous research has provided evidence that partner preferences in
younger adults shift in response to the sex ratio, or the number of men
to women available as potential partners (Stone, Shackelford, & Buss,
2007). As is the case in other populations of older adults given the
greater life expectancy of women, women in the current sample outnumbered men (Barford, Dorling, Smith, & Shaw, 2006). The impact of
sex ratio on the sexual psychology and behavior of older adults may,
therefore, be of interest to future researchers.
In summary, identifying whether and to what degree older men and
older women differ in their sexual psychology and behaviors is as important as investigating whether and to what degree older adults differ
from younger adults in sexual psychology and behaviors, not least because such sex differences can inform counseling and treatment programs (Camacho & Reyes-Ortiz, 2005; Nicolosi et al., 2004).
Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures, (169 404 patients in 73 hospitals): The use of robotic surgery for all general surgery procedures increased from 1.8% to 15.1%, 2012-2018
Trends in the Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures. Kyle H. Sheetz, Jake Claflin, Justin B. Dimick. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1918911. January 10, 2020, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911
Key Points
Question Given concerns that robotic surgery is increasing for common surgical procedures with limited evidence and unclear clinical benefit, how is the use of robotic surgery changing over time?
Findings In this cohort study of 169 404 patients in 73 hospitals, the use of robotic surgery for all general surgery procedures increased from 1.8% to 15.1% from 2012 to 2018. Hospitals that launched robotic surgery programs had a broad and immediate increase in the use of robotic surgery, which was associated with a decrease in traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery.
Meaning These findings highlight a need to continually monitor the adoption of robotic surgery to ensure that enthusiasm for new technology does not outpace the evidence needed to use it in the most effective clinical contexts.
Abstract
Importance Increasing use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures with limited evidence and unclear clinical benefit is raising concern. Analyses of population-based trends in practice and how hospitals’ acquisition of robotic surgical technologies is associated with their use are limited.
Objective To characterize trends in the use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures.
Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study used clinical registry data from Michigan from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2018. Trends were characterized in the use of robotic surgery for common procedures for which traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery was already considered a safe and effective approach for most surgeons when clinically feasible. A multigroup interrupted time series analysis was performed to determine how procedural approaches (open, laparoscopic, and robotic) change after hospitals launch a robotic surgery program. Data were analyzed from March 1 through April 19, 2019.
Exposures Initiation of robotic surgery.
Main Outcomes and Measures Procedure approach (ie, robotic, open, or laparoscopic).
Results The study cohort included 169 404 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.4 [16.9] years; 90 595 women [53.5%]) at 73 hospitals. The use of robotic surgery increased from 1.8% in 2012 to 15.1% in 2018 (8.4-fold increase; slope, 2.1% per year; 95% CI, 1.9%-2.3%). For certain procedures, the magnitude of the increase was greater; for example, for inguinal hernia repair, the use of robotic surgery increased from 0.7% to 28.8% (41.1-fold change; slope, 5.4% per year; 95% CI, 5.1%-5.7%). The use of robotic surgery increased 8.8% in the first 4 years after hospitals began performing robotic surgery (2.8% per year; 95% CI, 2.7%-2.9%). This trend was associated with a decrease in laparoscopic surgery from 53.2% to 51.3% (difference, −1.9%; 95% CI, −2.2% to −1.6%). Before adopting robotic surgery, hospitals’ use of laparoscopic surgery increased 1.3% per year. After adopting robotic surgery, the use of laparoscopic surgery declined 0.3% (difference in trends, −1.6%; 95% CI, −1.7% to −1.5%).
Conclusions and Relevance These results suggest that robotic surgery has continued to diffuse across a broad range of common surgical procedures. Hospitals that launched robotic surgery programs had a broad and immediate increase in the use of robotic surgery, which was associated with a decrease in traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery.
Key Points
Question Given concerns that robotic surgery is increasing for common surgical procedures with limited evidence and unclear clinical benefit, how is the use of robotic surgery changing over time?
Findings In this cohort study of 169 404 patients in 73 hospitals, the use of robotic surgery for all general surgery procedures increased from 1.8% to 15.1% from 2012 to 2018. Hospitals that launched robotic surgery programs had a broad and immediate increase in the use of robotic surgery, which was associated with a decrease in traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery.
Meaning These findings highlight a need to continually monitor the adoption of robotic surgery to ensure that enthusiasm for new technology does not outpace the evidence needed to use it in the most effective clinical contexts.
Abstract
Importance Increasing use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures with limited evidence and unclear clinical benefit is raising concern. Analyses of population-based trends in practice and how hospitals’ acquisition of robotic surgical technologies is associated with their use are limited.
Objective To characterize trends in the use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures.
Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study used clinical registry data from Michigan from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2018. Trends were characterized in the use of robotic surgery for common procedures for which traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery was already considered a safe and effective approach for most surgeons when clinically feasible. A multigroup interrupted time series analysis was performed to determine how procedural approaches (open, laparoscopic, and robotic) change after hospitals launch a robotic surgery program. Data were analyzed from March 1 through April 19, 2019.
Exposures Initiation of robotic surgery.
Main Outcomes and Measures Procedure approach (ie, robotic, open, or laparoscopic).
Results The study cohort included 169 404 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.4 [16.9] years; 90 595 women [53.5%]) at 73 hospitals. The use of robotic surgery increased from 1.8% in 2012 to 15.1% in 2018 (8.4-fold increase; slope, 2.1% per year; 95% CI, 1.9%-2.3%). For certain procedures, the magnitude of the increase was greater; for example, for inguinal hernia repair, the use of robotic surgery increased from 0.7% to 28.8% (41.1-fold change; slope, 5.4% per year; 95% CI, 5.1%-5.7%). The use of robotic surgery increased 8.8% in the first 4 years after hospitals began performing robotic surgery (2.8% per year; 95% CI, 2.7%-2.9%). This trend was associated with a decrease in laparoscopic surgery from 53.2% to 51.3% (difference, −1.9%; 95% CI, −2.2% to −1.6%). Before adopting robotic surgery, hospitals’ use of laparoscopic surgery increased 1.3% per year. After adopting robotic surgery, the use of laparoscopic surgery declined 0.3% (difference in trends, −1.6%; 95% CI, −1.7% to −1.5%).
Conclusions and Relevance These results suggest that robotic surgery has continued to diffuse across a broad range of common surgical procedures. Hospitals that launched robotic surgery programs had a broad and immediate increase in the use of robotic surgery, which was associated with a decrease in traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery.
The Prevalence of Paraphilic Interests in the Czech Population: The high prevalence of some paraphilic patterns might render their pathologization problematic
The Prevalence of Paraphilic Interests in the Czech Population: Preference, Arousal, the Use of Pornography, Fantasy, and Behavior. Klára Bártová et al. The Journal of Sex Research, Jan 9 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1707468
ABSTRACT: The number of population-based studies focused on the prevalence of paraphilic sexual interests in men is very low and for women, the subject remains largely unexplored. The two main aims of this study are to investigate the prevalence of paraphilias and to explore sex differences in an online representative sample of Czech men and women using various dimensions of sexual experience. We collected data about sexual motivations and behavior from a representative online sample of 10,044 Czechs (5,023 men and 5,021 women). In a standardized online interview, participants answered questions about selected dimensions of sexual experience within specific paraphilic patterns: sexual preferences, sexual arousal, sexual fantasies in the past 6 months, pornography use in the past 6 months, and experience with paraphilic behaviors. Our results show that 31.3% of men (n = 1,571) and 13.6% of women (n = 683) admitted to at least one paraphilic preference. Moreover, 15.5% of men and 5% of women reported more than one paraphilic preference. Except for beating/torture and humiliation/submission, in terms of real experience with such behaviors almost all paraphilias were more common among men than among women. Our results indicate that the high prevalence of some paraphilic patterns might render their pathologization problematic.
Discussion
Following the main aims of this study, we collected data on
the prevalence of paraphilic sexual interests and paraphilia in
five dimensions of sexual experience using a large and representative online sample of Czech men and women (N =
10,044). We found a relatively high general prevalence of
paraphilias in the population: 31.3% of men and 13.6% of
women admitted preference for at least one paraphilia. The
most prevalent paraphilic patterns across all dimensions (in
both men and women) were voyeurism, frotteurism/toucherism, and fetishism. Their prevalence exceeded statistical criteria for rare (less than 2.3%) or unusual (less than 15.9%)
population phenomena. Paraphilias and paraphilic interests
including paraphilic objects (i.e., not phenotypically normal,
physically mature, consenting human partners, as noted in the
definition of paraphilia in DSM-5; APA, 2013) were uncommon, especially in women where their prevalence was close to
zero. We also found that very few of the individuals who
indicated a strong preference for some paraphilic pattern
sought the help of health-care professionals.
In all dimensions, we confirmed a higher prevalence of
paraphilias in men than in women, the only exception being
paraphilic patterns related to BDSM practices such as beating/
torture and humiliation/submission, which were in some
dimensions more common in women. With the exception of
differences in the most prevalent paraphilic patterns (voyeurism, frotteurism/toucherism, and fetishism), which reached
moderate effect sizes, the effect sizes were either statistically
negligible or low. Associations between the dimensions of
sexual experience (Preference, Arousal, Fantasy, Porn Use,
and Behavior) were all significant and of moderate or large
effect sizes, with high internal consistency across dimensions
in all paraphilias. This suggests that assessments of paraphilia
and paraphilic interests should indeed treat all dimensions of
sexual experience as relevant.
Our findings are in line with a recent study by Joyal and
Carpentier (2017), especially with respect to the behavioral
dimension of paraphilia (“I often behave in line with
a paraphilic pattern”), the desire to engage in a paraphilic behavior (“I absolutely wish to experience …”), and regarding the
dimension of Preference. Similar to Joyal and Carpentier (2017),
the prevalence rates we found are higher than those found in
older, mostly non-representative surveys undertaken in the
1990s or earlier (e.g., Janus & Janus, 1993). These surveys were
conducted prior to the social change which led to a higher
acceptance of unusual sexual preferences and prior to the cultural spread (via, e.g., popular literature) of unusual practices
such as BDSM. This cultural shift took place mainly in recent
decades (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006). We found a relatively high
general prevalence of any paraphilia and especially in the case of
voyeurism, fetishism, and toucherism/frotteurism (across all
dimensions), the rates exceed statistical norms for being rare
or unusual. Earlier studies (e.g., Ahlers et al., 2011; Dawson et al.,
2016; Joyal & Carpentier, 2017) have also demonstrated high
prevalence of voyeurism, fetishism, frotteurism/toucherism, and
sadism/masochism, which suggests that a priori labeling of these
patterns as atypical or pathological may be at least problematic.
However, high numbers of these patterns could also be false
positives due to discrepancies in definitions of paraphilic patterns. For example, not all studies (including ours) clearly specify
the potential victim as being unaware of the behavior in definition, which is key to acknowledge a pattern as paraphilic and is
present in the ICD-10 definition (e.g., “carried out without the
observed people being aware”). Another important factor is
intentionality of voyeuristic or toucheristic/frotteuristic acts,
which is rarely included in questionnaires and thus, behaviors
which happened by chance are not always excluded from the
behavioral dimension.
Based on these results, we would like to argue that one
ought to make a strict distinction not only between paraphilic
interests and paraphilias but also between paraphilias as variants of sexuality and paraphilic disorders that should be
treated (and acknowledged by the DSM – 5). Moreover, in
the light of a recent modification in the ICD 11, which
removed sadomasochism, fetishism, and transvestism from
its list of paraphilias, thus diverging significantly from the
DSM-5, it seems even more important to use as precise
a language as possible when speaking about these subjects.
High prevalence does not, however, imply that the affected
individuals do not find life with their preference in current
society problematic. Studies on individuals with paraphilic
interests (such as pedophilia) show increased rates of personality disturbances, mood disorders, and intimacy deficits
(Gerwinn et al., 2018; Raymond et al., 1999), which can be
related to their sexual preference. It might also be a result of
the stigmatization stress that these individuals face in contemporary societies (e.g., Jahnke, 2018).
It should be noted, though, that due to methodological
differences, comparisons of the prevalence of paraphilic patterns reported by different studies can be problematic.
Different authors use different questions (for instance, asking
about “experience with a behavior” is different from asking
about “desire for a behavior”, with the latter likely to yield
higher prevalence), different scales, and different criteria, so
that some authors, for example, report any arousal higher
than zero (Dawson et al., 2016), whereas others, such as
ourselves and Joyal and Carpentier (2017), report only strong
arousal. Meta-analytic comparison of existing studies based
on unified criteria and transformed scales may be needed to
gain a more accurate view of similarities and differences
between surveys, let alone entire nations and cultures.
In line with our hypothesis and with previous research (e.g.,
Ahlers et al., 2011; Dawson et al., 2016; Joyal & Carpentier, 2017;
Makanjuola, Adegunloye, & Adelekan, 2008; Oliveira Júnior &
Abdo, 2010), we found that paraphilias are more common
among men than among women in all dimensions of sexual
experience. Compared to 13.6% of women, almost one-third of
men admitted to the presence of at least one paraphilia in the
dimension of Preference. In the dimension of Arousal, the
differences were even greater: 40.2% of men compared to
18.7% of women. In the remaining dimensions of Porn Use,
Fantasy, and Behavior, the prevalence was over 20% in men and
5% in women. Regarding the type of paraphilia, we found support for the prediction that sex differences would be present in
all paraphilic patterns except for activities related to BDSM
practices. This result is partly congruent with previous research
(Joyal & Carpentier, 2017) in the sense that one could expect
a comparable prevalence of complementary activities. This was
mostly seen in the Behavior dimension (prevalence in men:
beating and torture 1.6%, humiliation/submission 2.2%; prevalence in women: beating and torture 1.9%, humiliation/submission 2.1%).
Our study also shows that paraphilias and paraphilic
interests involving unusual targets (e.g., pedophilia, zoophilia, hebephilia) are less common than paraphilic patterns
involving unusual activities. In women, the prevalence of
interest in paraphilic objects was close to zero. This is in
line with evolutionary logic which highlights the importance
of appropriate mate choice for reproductive success and
inclusive fitness of both sexes. The choice of a partner
with suitable reproduction-relevant characteristics, i.e., phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human
partners as noted in the definition of paraphilia in DSM-5
(APA, 2013), is subject to intense selection and leaves less
space for errors and mutations. This holds particularly for
women, in whom the cost of reproduction and offspring
nurture is higher than in men (Trivers, 1972). When it
comes to extreme options, such as paraphilic objects or
unusual partners, one can thus expect women to be more
selective in their mate choice than men are.
Moreover, Dawson et al. (2016) suggested that sex differences
in the prevalence of paraphilias could be linked to the level of sex
drive which is on average higher among men than among
women (Baumeister et al., 2001; Lippa, 2006). Higher sex drive
motivates interest in paraphilic activities. Furthermore, this
assumption is in line with studies which showed that high sex
drive is linked to diverse sexual activities and could also lower
the baseline of sexual aversion and disgust (Baumeister et al.,
2001; de Jong, van Overveld, & Borg, 2013).
In regard to the possibility of socio-sexual explanations of sex
differences e.g., women being more sexually restricted by society
than men (Bhugra, Popelyuk, & McMullen, 2010), it must be
noted that studies from across the world examining societies
with various levels of restrictiveness (from very liberal to very
conservative), all show higher prevalence of paraphilic interests
and paraphilia in men. Interestingly, Långström and Seto (2006)
found that the immigrant status of a respondent was not
a significant correlate of paraphilic behavior and based on their
findings, these authors claimed that “paraphilia-like behavior is
not specific to sociocultural subgroups” (p. 433).
The abovementioned theoretical explanations could also
account for sex differences and ought to be further explored in
detail. Doing so, however, was beyond the scope of the present
study. Nevertheless, it should be noted that with the exception of
sex differences in the most prevalent paraphilic patterns (voyeurism, frotteurism/toucherism, and fetishism), which were of
moderate effect size, differences between the prevalence of studied patterns were of negligible or low effect size.
The surprisingly low percentage of people with paraphilias
who confided in health-care professionals found in our study
could be the cause of some concern for public safety and
health policies because it indicates that most people with
paraphilias tend to remain undetected until they violate the
law. This finding may be specific to the Czech society (we
have no comparison data from other countries) and it may be
due to either a low need of external management of paraphilias on the part of affected individuals, due to the lack of an
effective system of help and prevention on the part of the
society, and at least in some cases, also due to a denial of one’s
own sexual problems. Of importance may also be the extreme
stigmatization of paraphiles (e.g., Jahnke, Schmidt, Geradt, &
Hoyer, 2015), which lowers the likelihood of contacting
a health-care professional. In line with this explanation, individuals who admitted to pedophilia reported by far the lowest
level of help seeking (the percentage in our sample was even
lower than in Dombert et al., 2016, where 12.3% of pedophiles
reported they think about seeking professional help). This is
associated with the fact that pedophilic interest is heavily
stigmatized (for an overview, see Jahnke, 2018). Further
exploration of this subject is clearly needed.
The high internal consistency found across dimensions of
sexual experience in most paraphilic patterns indicates that the
results of various studies could perhaps be compared by proxy,
that is, by using a different dimension highly correlated with the
one in question. Based on our findings, the use of composite or
factor scores is justified and could be recommended for future
research. Nevertheless, in some paraphilias, we also found some
interesting differences between their dimensions. For instance,
zoophilia was the only paraphilia that displayed low levels of
internal consistency across the tested dimensions for both men
and women. It may thus seem that zoophilia-like behaviors may
not be a manifestation of real zoophilic preference but rather of a
different paraphilia (for instance, BDSM practices can involve
sex with animals but the purpose is to humiliate a partner). In
women, low levels of internal consistency were found also in
other paraphilias, namely those involving human paraphilic
subjects (hebephilia and pedophilia) and in activities involving
crossdressing (autoandrophilia and transvestitism). Mostly,
however, we found a notable discrepancy between behavioral
aspects (Behavior, Porn Use) and other ratings of preference,
which indicates that fantasies, preferences, and actual behavior
do not necessarily match. This could be due to women being
more fearful of the criminalization of sexually inappropriate
behavior or also possibly due to fears of being victimized and
a wish to remain in control of one’s behavior.
In general, our results suggest that behavior might be
constrained by external factors, such as lack of opportunity
(e.g., paraphilic patterns related to BDSM require a willing
partner) or law (e.g., pedophilia, biastophilia, zoophilia).
Limitations
The following limitations of our study should be considered.
First of all, as discussed above, the prevalence rate is a direct
result of the methodology used and may account for many
differences among studies. Moreover, the number of paraphilic patterns described in the literature (Aggrawal, 2008) is
large but the format of a national survey made it impossible
to include them all. Another methodological concern has to
do with the representativeness of our internet-based sample
and generalization of results based on this sample to the
population as a whole. The mode of contact is an important
aspect of research that deals with subjects as intimate as sexual
behavior and sexual preferences. On the one hand, an online
setting provides an increased feeling of anonymity, so that
individuals may well be more willing to reveal their preferences. Moreover, the online format enables access even to
persons who live in remote areas or unique communities.
On the other hand, this format also makes it more difficult
to control the characteristics of people involved in a study.
Generalizability of our results is furthermore limited by the
fact that individuals without internet access are highly unlikely to get involved (Wright, 2006). Nevertheless, a previous
study which compared two modes of contact (representative
surveys conducted online and by phone) found no differences
in the prevalence rates of paraphilic interests between the two
modes of data collection (Joyal & Carpentier, 2017). We,
therefore, believe that our internet-based data do provide
a valid and important insight into the distribution of paraphilic preferences in the current Czech population.
ABSTRACT: The number of population-based studies focused on the prevalence of paraphilic sexual interests in men is very low and for women, the subject remains largely unexplored. The two main aims of this study are to investigate the prevalence of paraphilias and to explore sex differences in an online representative sample of Czech men and women using various dimensions of sexual experience. We collected data about sexual motivations and behavior from a representative online sample of 10,044 Czechs (5,023 men and 5,021 women). In a standardized online interview, participants answered questions about selected dimensions of sexual experience within specific paraphilic patterns: sexual preferences, sexual arousal, sexual fantasies in the past 6 months, pornography use in the past 6 months, and experience with paraphilic behaviors. Our results show that 31.3% of men (n = 1,571) and 13.6% of women (n = 683) admitted to at least one paraphilic preference. Moreover, 15.5% of men and 5% of women reported more than one paraphilic preference. Except for beating/torture and humiliation/submission, in terms of real experience with such behaviors almost all paraphilias were more common among men than among women. Our results indicate that the high prevalence of some paraphilic patterns might render their pathologization problematic.
Discussion
Following the main aims of this study, we collected data on
the prevalence of paraphilic sexual interests and paraphilia in
five dimensions of sexual experience using a large and representative online sample of Czech men and women (N =
10,044). We found a relatively high general prevalence of
paraphilias in the population: 31.3% of men and 13.6% of
women admitted preference for at least one paraphilia. The
most prevalent paraphilic patterns across all dimensions (in
both men and women) were voyeurism, frotteurism/toucherism, and fetishism. Their prevalence exceeded statistical criteria for rare (less than 2.3%) or unusual (less than 15.9%)
population phenomena. Paraphilias and paraphilic interests
including paraphilic objects (i.e., not phenotypically normal,
physically mature, consenting human partners, as noted in the
definition of paraphilia in DSM-5; APA, 2013) were uncommon, especially in women where their prevalence was close to
zero. We also found that very few of the individuals who
indicated a strong preference for some paraphilic pattern
sought the help of health-care professionals.
In all dimensions, we confirmed a higher prevalence of
paraphilias in men than in women, the only exception being
paraphilic patterns related to BDSM practices such as beating/
torture and humiliation/submission, which were in some
dimensions more common in women. With the exception of
differences in the most prevalent paraphilic patterns (voyeurism, frotteurism/toucherism, and fetishism), which reached
moderate effect sizes, the effect sizes were either statistically
negligible or low. Associations between the dimensions of
sexual experience (Preference, Arousal, Fantasy, Porn Use,
and Behavior) were all significant and of moderate or large
effect sizes, with high internal consistency across dimensions
in all paraphilias. This suggests that assessments of paraphilia
and paraphilic interests should indeed treat all dimensions of
sexual experience as relevant.
Our findings are in line with a recent study by Joyal and
Carpentier (2017), especially with respect to the behavioral
dimension of paraphilia (“I often behave in line with
a paraphilic pattern”), the desire to engage in a paraphilic behavior (“I absolutely wish to experience …”), and regarding the
dimension of Preference. Similar to Joyal and Carpentier (2017),
the prevalence rates we found are higher than those found in
older, mostly non-representative surveys undertaken in the
1990s or earlier (e.g., Janus & Janus, 1993). These surveys were
conducted prior to the social change which led to a higher
acceptance of unusual sexual preferences and prior to the cultural spread (via, e.g., popular literature) of unusual practices
such as BDSM. This cultural shift took place mainly in recent
decades (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006). We found a relatively high
general prevalence of any paraphilia and especially in the case of
voyeurism, fetishism, and toucherism/frotteurism (across all
dimensions), the rates exceed statistical norms for being rare
or unusual. Earlier studies (e.g., Ahlers et al., 2011; Dawson et al.,
2016; Joyal & Carpentier, 2017) have also demonstrated high
prevalence of voyeurism, fetishism, frotteurism/toucherism, and
sadism/masochism, which suggests that a priori labeling of these
patterns as atypical or pathological may be at least problematic.
However, high numbers of these patterns could also be false
positives due to discrepancies in definitions of paraphilic patterns. For example, not all studies (including ours) clearly specify
the potential victim as being unaware of the behavior in definition, which is key to acknowledge a pattern as paraphilic and is
present in the ICD-10 definition (e.g., “carried out without the
observed people being aware”). Another important factor is
intentionality of voyeuristic or toucheristic/frotteuristic acts,
which is rarely included in questionnaires and thus, behaviors
which happened by chance are not always excluded from the
behavioral dimension.
Based on these results, we would like to argue that one
ought to make a strict distinction not only between paraphilic
interests and paraphilias but also between paraphilias as variants of sexuality and paraphilic disorders that should be
treated (and acknowledged by the DSM – 5). Moreover, in
the light of a recent modification in the ICD 11, which
removed sadomasochism, fetishism, and transvestism from
its list of paraphilias, thus diverging significantly from the
DSM-5, it seems even more important to use as precise
a language as possible when speaking about these subjects.
High prevalence does not, however, imply that the affected
individuals do not find life with their preference in current
society problematic. Studies on individuals with paraphilic
interests (such as pedophilia) show increased rates of personality disturbances, mood disorders, and intimacy deficits
(Gerwinn et al., 2018; Raymond et al., 1999), which can be
related to their sexual preference. It might also be a result of
the stigmatization stress that these individuals face in contemporary societies (e.g., Jahnke, 2018).
It should be noted, though, that due to methodological
differences, comparisons of the prevalence of paraphilic patterns reported by different studies can be problematic.
Different authors use different questions (for instance, asking
about “experience with a behavior” is different from asking
about “desire for a behavior”, with the latter likely to yield
higher prevalence), different scales, and different criteria, so
that some authors, for example, report any arousal higher
than zero (Dawson et al., 2016), whereas others, such as
ourselves and Joyal and Carpentier (2017), report only strong
arousal. Meta-analytic comparison of existing studies based
on unified criteria and transformed scales may be needed to
gain a more accurate view of similarities and differences
between surveys, let alone entire nations and cultures.
In line with our hypothesis and with previous research (e.g.,
Ahlers et al., 2011; Dawson et al., 2016; Joyal & Carpentier, 2017;
Makanjuola, Adegunloye, & Adelekan, 2008; Oliveira Júnior &
Abdo, 2010), we found that paraphilias are more common
among men than among women in all dimensions of sexual
experience. Compared to 13.6% of women, almost one-third of
men admitted to the presence of at least one paraphilia in the
dimension of Preference. In the dimension of Arousal, the
differences were even greater: 40.2% of men compared to
18.7% of women. In the remaining dimensions of Porn Use,
Fantasy, and Behavior, the prevalence was over 20% in men and
5% in women. Regarding the type of paraphilia, we found support for the prediction that sex differences would be present in
all paraphilic patterns except for activities related to BDSM
practices. This result is partly congruent with previous research
(Joyal & Carpentier, 2017) in the sense that one could expect
a comparable prevalence of complementary activities. This was
mostly seen in the Behavior dimension (prevalence in men:
beating and torture 1.6%, humiliation/submission 2.2%; prevalence in women: beating and torture 1.9%, humiliation/submission 2.1%).
Our study also shows that paraphilias and paraphilic
interests involving unusual targets (e.g., pedophilia, zoophilia, hebephilia) are less common than paraphilic patterns
involving unusual activities. In women, the prevalence of
interest in paraphilic objects was close to zero. This is in
line with evolutionary logic which highlights the importance
of appropriate mate choice for reproductive success and
inclusive fitness of both sexes. The choice of a partner
with suitable reproduction-relevant characteristics, i.e., phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human
partners as noted in the definition of paraphilia in DSM-5
(APA, 2013), is subject to intense selection and leaves less
space for errors and mutations. This holds particularly for
women, in whom the cost of reproduction and offspring
nurture is higher than in men (Trivers, 1972). When it
comes to extreme options, such as paraphilic objects or
unusual partners, one can thus expect women to be more
selective in their mate choice than men are.
Moreover, Dawson et al. (2016) suggested that sex differences
in the prevalence of paraphilias could be linked to the level of sex
drive which is on average higher among men than among
women (Baumeister et al., 2001; Lippa, 2006). Higher sex drive
motivates interest in paraphilic activities. Furthermore, this
assumption is in line with studies which showed that high sex
drive is linked to diverse sexual activities and could also lower
the baseline of sexual aversion and disgust (Baumeister et al.,
2001; de Jong, van Overveld, & Borg, 2013).
In regard to the possibility of socio-sexual explanations of sex
differences e.g., women being more sexually restricted by society
than men (Bhugra, Popelyuk, & McMullen, 2010), it must be
noted that studies from across the world examining societies
with various levels of restrictiveness (from very liberal to very
conservative), all show higher prevalence of paraphilic interests
and paraphilia in men. Interestingly, Långström and Seto (2006)
found that the immigrant status of a respondent was not
a significant correlate of paraphilic behavior and based on their
findings, these authors claimed that “paraphilia-like behavior is
not specific to sociocultural subgroups” (p. 433).
The abovementioned theoretical explanations could also
account for sex differences and ought to be further explored in
detail. Doing so, however, was beyond the scope of the present
study. Nevertheless, it should be noted that with the exception of
sex differences in the most prevalent paraphilic patterns (voyeurism, frotteurism/toucherism, and fetishism), which were of
moderate effect size, differences between the prevalence of studied patterns were of negligible or low effect size.
The surprisingly low percentage of people with paraphilias
who confided in health-care professionals found in our study
could be the cause of some concern for public safety and
health policies because it indicates that most people with
paraphilias tend to remain undetected until they violate the
law. This finding may be specific to the Czech society (we
have no comparison data from other countries) and it may be
due to either a low need of external management of paraphilias on the part of affected individuals, due to the lack of an
effective system of help and prevention on the part of the
society, and at least in some cases, also due to a denial of one’s
own sexual problems. Of importance may also be the extreme
stigmatization of paraphiles (e.g., Jahnke, Schmidt, Geradt, &
Hoyer, 2015), which lowers the likelihood of contacting
a health-care professional. In line with this explanation, individuals who admitted to pedophilia reported by far the lowest
level of help seeking (the percentage in our sample was even
lower than in Dombert et al., 2016, where 12.3% of pedophiles
reported they think about seeking professional help). This is
associated with the fact that pedophilic interest is heavily
stigmatized (for an overview, see Jahnke, 2018). Further
exploration of this subject is clearly needed.
The high internal consistency found across dimensions of
sexual experience in most paraphilic patterns indicates that the
results of various studies could perhaps be compared by proxy,
that is, by using a different dimension highly correlated with the
one in question. Based on our findings, the use of composite or
factor scores is justified and could be recommended for future
research. Nevertheless, in some paraphilias, we also found some
interesting differences between their dimensions. For instance,
zoophilia was the only paraphilia that displayed low levels of
internal consistency across the tested dimensions for both men
and women. It may thus seem that zoophilia-like behaviors may
not be a manifestation of real zoophilic preference but rather of a
different paraphilia (for instance, BDSM practices can involve
sex with animals but the purpose is to humiliate a partner). In
women, low levels of internal consistency were found also in
other paraphilias, namely those involving human paraphilic
subjects (hebephilia and pedophilia) and in activities involving
crossdressing (autoandrophilia and transvestitism). Mostly,
however, we found a notable discrepancy between behavioral
aspects (Behavior, Porn Use) and other ratings of preference,
which indicates that fantasies, preferences, and actual behavior
do not necessarily match. This could be due to women being
more fearful of the criminalization of sexually inappropriate
behavior or also possibly due to fears of being victimized and
a wish to remain in control of one’s behavior.
In general, our results suggest that behavior might be
constrained by external factors, such as lack of opportunity
(e.g., paraphilic patterns related to BDSM require a willing
partner) or law (e.g., pedophilia, biastophilia, zoophilia).
Limitations
The following limitations of our study should be considered.
First of all, as discussed above, the prevalence rate is a direct
result of the methodology used and may account for many
differences among studies. Moreover, the number of paraphilic patterns described in the literature (Aggrawal, 2008) is
large but the format of a national survey made it impossible
to include them all. Another methodological concern has to
do with the representativeness of our internet-based sample
and generalization of results based on this sample to the
population as a whole. The mode of contact is an important
aspect of research that deals with subjects as intimate as sexual
behavior and sexual preferences. On the one hand, an online
setting provides an increased feeling of anonymity, so that
individuals may well be more willing to reveal their preferences. Moreover, the online format enables access even to
persons who live in remote areas or unique communities.
On the other hand, this format also makes it more difficult
to control the characteristics of people involved in a study.
Generalizability of our results is furthermore limited by the
fact that individuals without internet access are highly unlikely to get involved (Wright, 2006). Nevertheless, a previous
study which compared two modes of contact (representative
surveys conducted online and by phone) found no differences
in the prevalence rates of paraphilic interests between the two
modes of data collection (Joyal & Carpentier, 2017). We,
therefore, believe that our internet-based data do provide
a valid and important insight into the distribution of paraphilic preferences in the current Czech population.
Anxiety about the robot workforce reduces prejudice toward outgroups, makes people more accepting of outgroup members as leaders & family members, & increases wage equality across ingroup & outgroup members
Jackson, J. C., Castelo, N., & Gray, K. (2020). Could a rising robot workforce make humans less prejudiced? American Psychologist. Jan 2020, https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000582
Abstract: Automation is becoming ever more prevalent, with robot workers replacing many human employees. Many perspectives have examined the economic impact of a robot workforce, but here we consider its social impact: How will the rise of robot workers affect intergroup relations? Whereas some past research has suggested that more robots will lead to more intergroup prejudice, we suggest that robots could also reduce prejudice by highlighting commonalities between all humans. As robot workers become more salient, intergroup differences—including racial and religious differences—may seem less important, fostering a perception of common human identity (i.e., panhumanism). Six studies (ΣN = 3,312) support this hypothesis. Anxiety about the rising robot workforce predicts less anxiety about human outgroups (Study 1), and priming the salience of a robot workforce reduces prejudice toward outgroups (Study 2), makes people more accepting of outgroup members as leaders and family members (Study 3), and increases wage equality across ingroup and outgroup members in an economic simulation (Study 4). This effect is mediated by panhumanism (Studies 5–6), suggesting that the perception of a common human ingroup explains why robot salience reduces prejudice. We discuss why automation may sometimes exacerbate intergroup tensions and other times reduce them.
Abstract: Automation is becoming ever more prevalent, with robot workers replacing many human employees. Many perspectives have examined the economic impact of a robot workforce, but here we consider its social impact: How will the rise of robot workers affect intergroup relations? Whereas some past research has suggested that more robots will lead to more intergroup prejudice, we suggest that robots could also reduce prejudice by highlighting commonalities between all humans. As robot workers become more salient, intergroup differences—including racial and religious differences—may seem less important, fostering a perception of common human identity (i.e., panhumanism). Six studies (ΣN = 3,312) support this hypothesis. Anxiety about the rising robot workforce predicts less anxiety about human outgroups (Study 1), and priming the salience of a robot workforce reduces prejudice toward outgroups (Study 2), makes people more accepting of outgroup members as leaders and family members (Study 3), and increases wage equality across ingroup and outgroup members in an economic simulation (Study 4). This effect is mediated by panhumanism (Studies 5–6), suggesting that the perception of a common human ingroup explains why robot salience reduces prejudice. We discuss why automation may sometimes exacerbate intergroup tensions and other times reduce them.
When Robots are Salient, Human Groups Don’t Seem So Different
Psychologists have long recognized the importance of categorization in social judgments. We are much kinder to someone categorized as a member of our “in-group” than to someone categorized as part of an “out-group” even if these people are indistinguishable from each other (Tajfel, 1970; Tajfel et al., 1971). For example, when strangers are split into two groups based on random coin-flips or the color of their nametag, people evaluate those in their own group more positively (and give them more money) compared with those in the other group (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Jackson et al., 2018).
In daily life, features such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and nationality provide markers with which we can assign in-group and out-group identities. However, events can sometimes prompt social “recategorizations” that override these salient markers, making someone from a different race or nationality seem like part of one’s in-group (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Gaertner et al., 1989; Gaertner et al., 1993). Allport (1954) first noted that a person’s ingroups can vary hierarchically, ranging from one’s family and friends, to one’s country or race, to one’s status as human. Allport proposed that increasing the salience of common superordinate memberships can lead people to be more inclusive in terms of who they identify with and who they will cooperate with. Someone of a different race will be viewed less favorably when identity is classified in terms of one’s race, but more favorably when the perceiver adopts a broader panhuman identity, in which all humans are viewed as part of the in-group.
This perspective is now termed the Common In-Group Identity (CII) model (Gaertner et al. 1993), and it can be an effective way of reducing intergroup prejudice. For example, leading people to replace subordinate categories (“us and them”) with superordinate categories (“we”) can decrease prejudice and discrimination (Dovidio et al., 1997; Gaertner et al. 1989; Guerra et al., 2010; Riek et al., 2006), and inter-ethnicity roommates who defined themselves as part of a common human identity were more likely to develop friendships than roommates who defined themselves as part of their ethnic identity (West et al., 2009). Other research has shown that people’s tendency to identify with humanity as a whole (rather than subordinate groups such as one’s community or race) predicts less ethnocentrism and more out-group prosociality and concern with global humanitarian issues (McFarland, Brown, & Webb, 2013; McFarland, Webb, & Brown, 2012). These studies each suggest that prompting people to adopt a panhuman identity can decrease prejudice and discrimination towards out-groups.
We suggest that the salience of robot workers may increase panhumanism and reduce prejudice by highlighting the existence of a group (robots) that is not human. The large differences between humans and robots may make the differences between humans seem smaller than they normally appear. Christians and Muslims have different beliefs, but at least both are made from flesh and blood; Latinos and Asians may eat different foods, but at least they actually eat food. We therefore predict that, to the extent that the salience of robot workers increases people’s panhumanism, it may decrease prejudice and discrimination against human out-groups.
Psychologists have long recognized the importance of categorization in social judgments. We are much kinder to someone categorized as a member of our “in-group” than to someone categorized as part of an “out-group” even if these people are indistinguishable from each other (Tajfel, 1970; Tajfel et al., 1971). For example, when strangers are split into two groups based on random coin-flips or the color of their nametag, people evaluate those in their own group more positively (and give them more money) compared with those in the other group (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Jackson et al., 2018).
In daily life, features such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and nationality provide markers with which we can assign in-group and out-group identities. However, events can sometimes prompt social “recategorizations” that override these salient markers, making someone from a different race or nationality seem like part of one’s in-group (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Gaertner et al., 1989; Gaertner et al., 1993). Allport (1954) first noted that a person’s ingroups can vary hierarchically, ranging from one’s family and friends, to one’s country or race, to one’s status as human. Allport proposed that increasing the salience of common superordinate memberships can lead people to be more inclusive in terms of who they identify with and who they will cooperate with. Someone of a different race will be viewed less favorably when identity is classified in terms of one’s race, but more favorably when the perceiver adopts a broader panhuman identity, in which all humans are viewed as part of the in-group.
This perspective is now termed the Common In-Group Identity (CII) model (Gaertner et al. 1993), and it can be an effective way of reducing intergroup prejudice. For example, leading people to replace subordinate categories (“us and them”) with superordinate categories (“we”) can decrease prejudice and discrimination (Dovidio et al., 1997; Gaertner et al. 1989; Guerra et al., 2010; Riek et al., 2006), and inter-ethnicity roommates who defined themselves as part of a common human identity were more likely to develop friendships than roommates who defined themselves as part of their ethnic identity (West et al., 2009). Other research has shown that people’s tendency to identify with humanity as a whole (rather than subordinate groups such as one’s community or race) predicts less ethnocentrism and more out-group prosociality and concern with global humanitarian issues (McFarland, Brown, & Webb, 2013; McFarland, Webb, & Brown, 2012). These studies each suggest that prompting people to adopt a panhuman identity can decrease prejudice and discrimination towards out-groups.
We suggest that the salience of robot workers may increase panhumanism and reduce prejudice by highlighting the existence of a group (robots) that is not human. The large differences between humans and robots may make the differences between humans seem smaller than they normally appear. Christians and Muslims have different beliefs, but at least both are made from flesh and blood; Latinos and Asians may eat different foods, but at least they actually eat food. We therefore predict that, to the extent that the salience of robot workers increases people’s panhumanism, it may decrease prejudice and discrimination against human out-groups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
