Tech in Fin before FinTech: Blessing or Curse for Financial Stability? Nicola Pierri; Yannick Timmer. IMF Working Paper No. 20/14, January 17, 2020. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2020/01/17/Tech-in-Fin-before-FinTech-Blessing-or-Curse-for-Financial-Stability-48797
Summary: Motivated by the world-wide surge of FinTech lending, we analyze the implications of lenders’ information technology adoption for financial stability. We estimate bank-level intensity of IT adoption before the global financial crisis using a novel dataset that provides information on hardware used in US commercial bank branches after mapping them to their parent bank. We find that higher intensity of IT-adoption led to significantly lower non-performing loans when the crisis hit: banks with a one standard deviation higher IT-adoption experienced 10% lower non-performing loans. High-IT-adoption banks were not less exposed to the crisis through their geographical footprint, business model, funding sources, or other observable characteristics. Loan-level analysis indicates that high-IT-adoption banks originated mortgages with better performance and did not offload low-quality loans. We apply a simple text-analysis algorithm to the biographies of top executives and find that banks led by more “tech-oriented” managers adopted IT more intensively and experienced lower non-performing loans during the crisis. Our results suggest that technology adoption in lending can enhance financial stability through the production of more resilient loans.
Friday, January 17, 2020
Victims, perpetrators, or both? The vicious cycle of disrespect and cynical beliefs about human nature
Stavrova, O., Ehlebracht, D., & Vohs, K. D. (2020). Victims, perpetrators, or both? The vicious cycle of disrespect and cynical beliefs about human nature. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Jan 2020. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000738
Abstract: We tested how cynicism emerges and what maintains it. Cynicism is the tendency to believe that people are morally bankrupt and behave treacherously to maximize self-interest. Drawing on literatures on norms of respectful treatment, we proposed that being the target of disrespect gives rise to cynical views, which predisposes people to further disrespect. The end result is a vicious cycle: cynicism and disrespect fuel one another. Study 1’s nationally representative survey showed that disrespect and cynicism are positively related to each other in 28 of 29 countries studied, and that cynicism’s associations with disrespect were independent of (and stronger than) associations with lacking social support. Study 2 used a nationally representative longitudinal dataset, spanning 4 years. In line with the vicious cycle hypothesis, feeling disrespected and holding cynical views gave rise to each other over time. Five preregistered experiments (including 2 in the online supplemental materials) provided causal evidence. Study 3 showed that bringing to mind previous experiences of being disrespected heightened cynical beliefs subsequently. Studies 4 and 5 showed that to the extent that people endorsed cynical beliefs, others were inclined to treat them disrespectfully. Study 6’s weeklong daily diary study replicated the vicious cycle pattern. Everyday experiences of disrespect elevated cynical beliefs and vice versa. Moreover, cynical individuals tended to treat others with disrespect, which in turn predicted more disrespectful treatment by others. In short, experiencing disrespect gives rise to cynicism and cynicism elicits disrespect from others, thereby reinforcing the worldview that caused these negative reactions in the first place.
Abstract: We tested how cynicism emerges and what maintains it. Cynicism is the tendency to believe that people are morally bankrupt and behave treacherously to maximize self-interest. Drawing on literatures on norms of respectful treatment, we proposed that being the target of disrespect gives rise to cynical views, which predisposes people to further disrespect. The end result is a vicious cycle: cynicism and disrespect fuel one another. Study 1’s nationally representative survey showed that disrespect and cynicism are positively related to each other in 28 of 29 countries studied, and that cynicism’s associations with disrespect were independent of (and stronger than) associations with lacking social support. Study 2 used a nationally representative longitudinal dataset, spanning 4 years. In line with the vicious cycle hypothesis, feeling disrespected and holding cynical views gave rise to each other over time. Five preregistered experiments (including 2 in the online supplemental materials) provided causal evidence. Study 3 showed that bringing to mind previous experiences of being disrespected heightened cynical beliefs subsequently. Studies 4 and 5 showed that to the extent that people endorsed cynical beliefs, others were inclined to treat them disrespectfully. Study 6’s weeklong daily diary study replicated the vicious cycle pattern. Everyday experiences of disrespect elevated cynical beliefs and vice versa. Moreover, cynical individuals tended to treat others with disrespect, which in turn predicted more disrespectful treatment by others. In short, experiencing disrespect gives rise to cynicism and cynicism elicits disrespect from others, thereby reinforcing the worldview that caused these negative reactions in the first place.
Check also Competent individuals endorsed cynicism only if it was warranted in a given sociocultural environment; less competent individuals embraced cynicism unconditionally, maybe an adaptive default strategy to avoid the potential costs of falling prey to others’ cunning:
The Cynical Genius Illusion: Exploring and Debunking Lay Beliefs About Cynicism and Competence. Olga Stavrova, Daniel Ehlebracht. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Jul 2018. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2018/07/competent-individuals-endorsed-cynicism.html
Male individuals are more willing to forgive all forms of infidelity to a greater extent than female individuals; attachment insecurity moderated this relationship
Understanding Infidelity Forgiveness: An Application of Implicit Theories of Relationships. Ashley E. Thompson, Dallas Capesius, Danica Kulibert and Randi A. DoyleJournal of Relationships Research, Volume 112020, e2, Jan 17 2020. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2019.21
Abstract: Two studies were conducted to identify variables associated with hypothetical infidelity forgiveness and promote forgiveness by manipulating implicit theories of relationships (ITRs; destiny/growth beliefs). Study 1 assessed the relationship between the type of behaviour, sex of the forgiver, ITRs and infidelity forgiveness. Study 2 investigated the causal relationship between ITRs and infidelity forgiveness (including attachment insecurity as a moderator). Results revealed that male participants forgave a partner's infidelity to a greater extent than female participants and that solitary behaviours were rated as most forgivable, followed by emotional/affectionate and technology/online behaviours, and sexual/explicit behaviours as least forgivable. Male participants (not female participants) induced to endorse growth beliefs forgave a partner's emotional/affectionate and solitary infidelity to a greater extent than those induced to endorse destiny beliefs; attachment insecurity moderated this relationship. These results have important implications for researchers and practitioners working with couples in distress.
Abstract: Two studies were conducted to identify variables associated with hypothetical infidelity forgiveness and promote forgiveness by manipulating implicit theories of relationships (ITRs; destiny/growth beliefs). Study 1 assessed the relationship between the type of behaviour, sex of the forgiver, ITRs and infidelity forgiveness. Study 2 investigated the causal relationship between ITRs and infidelity forgiveness (including attachment insecurity as a moderator). Results revealed that male participants forgave a partner's infidelity to a greater extent than female participants and that solitary behaviours were rated as most forgivable, followed by emotional/affectionate and technology/online behaviours, and sexual/explicit behaviours as least forgivable. Male participants (not female participants) induced to endorse growth beliefs forgave a partner's emotional/affectionate and solitary infidelity to a greater extent than those induced to endorse destiny beliefs; attachment insecurity moderated this relationship. These results have important implications for researchers and practitioners working with couples in distress.
Becoming sexy: Contrapposto pose increases attractiveness ratings and modulates observers’ brain activity
Becoming sexy: Contrapposto pose increases attractiveness ratings and modulates observers’ brain activity. Farid Pazhoohi et al. Biological Psychology, January 17 2020, 107842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107842
Highlights
• contrapposto pose is considered more attractive than neutral standing pose
• body posture modulates the visual information in early and late components
• middle temporal and angular gyri respond to body posture
Abstract: Previous neurophysiological studies have revealed the neural correlates of human body form perception, as well as those related to the perception of attractive body sizes. In the current study we aimed to extend the neurophysiological studies regarding body perception by investigating the perception of human body posture to provide insights into the cognitive mechanisms responsive to bodily form, and the processing of its attractiveness. To achieve these aims, we used the contrapposto posture which creates an exaggeration of low waist to hip ratio (WHR), an indicator of women's attractiveness. Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals were recorded while participants completed both (i) an oddball task presenting female body forms differing in pose (contrapposto vs. standing) and viewing angle (anterior vs. posterior), and (ii) a subsequent active attractiveness judgement task. Behavioral results showed that a contrapposto pose is considered more attractive than a neutral standing pose. Result at the neural level showed that body posture modulates the visual information processing in early ERP components, indicating attentional variations depending on human body posture; as well as in late components, indicating further differences in attention and attractiveness judgement of stimuli varying in body pose. Furthermore, the LORETA results identified the middle temporal gyrus as well as angular gyrus as the key brain regions activated in association with the perception and attractiveness judgment of females’ bodies with different body poses. Overall, the current paper suggests the evolutionary adaptive preference for lower WHRs as in the contrapposto pose activating brain regions associated with visual perception and attractiveness judgement.
Keywords: body postureattractivenesssupernormal stimuliEEGERP
Check also Men looking at women: The contrapposto pose was perceived as more attractive than the standing pose
Highlights
• contrapposto pose is considered more attractive than neutral standing pose
• body posture modulates the visual information in early and late components
• middle temporal and angular gyri respond to body posture
Abstract: Previous neurophysiological studies have revealed the neural correlates of human body form perception, as well as those related to the perception of attractive body sizes. In the current study we aimed to extend the neurophysiological studies regarding body perception by investigating the perception of human body posture to provide insights into the cognitive mechanisms responsive to bodily form, and the processing of its attractiveness. To achieve these aims, we used the contrapposto posture which creates an exaggeration of low waist to hip ratio (WHR), an indicator of women's attractiveness. Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals were recorded while participants completed both (i) an oddball task presenting female body forms differing in pose (contrapposto vs. standing) and viewing angle (anterior vs. posterior), and (ii) a subsequent active attractiveness judgement task. Behavioral results showed that a contrapposto pose is considered more attractive than a neutral standing pose. Result at the neural level showed that body posture modulates the visual information processing in early ERP components, indicating attentional variations depending on human body posture; as well as in late components, indicating further differences in attention and attractiveness judgement of stimuli varying in body pose. Furthermore, the LORETA results identified the middle temporal gyrus as well as angular gyrus as the key brain regions activated in association with the perception and attractiveness judgment of females’ bodies with different body poses. Overall, the current paper suggests the evolutionary adaptive preference for lower WHRs as in the contrapposto pose activating brain regions associated with visual perception and attractiveness judgement.
Keywords: body postureattractivenesssupernormal stimuliEEGERP
Check also Men looking at women: The contrapposto pose was perceived as more attractive than the standing pose
Waist-to-Hip Ratio as Supernormal Stimuli: Effect of Contrapposto Pose and Viewing Angle. Farid Pazhoohi. Archives of Sexual Behavior, June 18 2019. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2019/06/men-looking-at-women-contrapposto-pose.html
Perceived versus actual autism knowledge: Participants least knowledgeable about ASD overestimated their own knowledge; those most knowledgeable underestimated it
Perceived versus actual autism knowledge in the general population. Camilla M. McMahon, Brianna Stoll, Meghan Linthicum. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, Volume 71, March 2020, 101499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2019.101499
Highlights
• Participants’ perceived ASD knowledge was not related to their actual ASD knowledge.
• Participants least knowledgeable about ASD overestimated their own knowledge.
• Participants most knowledgeable about ASD underestimated their own knowledge.
Abstract
Background In recent years, there has been a growing interest in assessing the general public’s knowledge and awareness of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). A variety of methods have been used to measure participants’ ASD knowledge, including self-report of ASD knowledge and objective assessment of ASD knowledge. The goals of the current study are twofold: (1) To determine whether there is a relationship between participants’ self-reported, perceived ASD knowledge and objectively-measured, actual ASD knowledge and (2) to examine the degree to which participants are aware of and can accurately monitor their own ASD knowledge.
Method Participants in the general population completed a subjective, self-report questionnaire on their perceived knowledge of ASD and an objective assessment measuring their actual knowledge of ASD. After completing the objective assessment, they estimated their raw score and percentile performance on the assessment.
Results Participants’ perceived knowledge of ASD was not related to their actual knowledge of ASD. Participants least knowledgeable about ASD overestimated their performance, and participants most knowledgeable about ASD underestimated their performance.
Conclusions These results suggest that perceived and actual ASD knowledge are theoretically distinct constructs, such that self-reported ASD knowledge cannot serve as a proxy variable for actual ASD knowledge. Furthermore, individuals with low ASD knowledge are often not aware of their own ignorance, such that it is unlikely that they will independently seek additional knowledge or training in this area.
Keywords: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)Autism knowledgeOverconfidenceDunning-Kruger effectUnskilled and unawareMetacognitive monitoring
Check also Participants with the lowest assessed weather knowledge do overestimate their weather knowledge, a result consistent with previous psychological studies:
And In self-judgment, the "best option illusion" leads to Dunning-Kruger (failure to recognize our own incompetence). In social judgment, it leads to the Cassandra quandary (failure to identify when another person’s competence exceeds our own):
Highlights
• Participants’ perceived ASD knowledge was not related to their actual ASD knowledge.
• Participants least knowledgeable about ASD overestimated their own knowledge.
• Participants most knowledgeable about ASD underestimated their own knowledge.
Abstract
Background In recent years, there has been a growing interest in assessing the general public’s knowledge and awareness of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). A variety of methods have been used to measure participants’ ASD knowledge, including self-report of ASD knowledge and objective assessment of ASD knowledge. The goals of the current study are twofold: (1) To determine whether there is a relationship between participants’ self-reported, perceived ASD knowledge and objectively-measured, actual ASD knowledge and (2) to examine the degree to which participants are aware of and can accurately monitor their own ASD knowledge.
Method Participants in the general population completed a subjective, self-report questionnaire on their perceived knowledge of ASD and an objective assessment measuring their actual knowledge of ASD. After completing the objective assessment, they estimated their raw score and percentile performance on the assessment.
Results Participants’ perceived knowledge of ASD was not related to their actual knowledge of ASD. Participants least knowledgeable about ASD overestimated their performance, and participants most knowledgeable about ASD underestimated their performance.
Conclusions These results suggest that perceived and actual ASD knowledge are theoretically distinct constructs, such that self-reported ASD knowledge cannot serve as a proxy variable for actual ASD knowledge. Furthermore, individuals with low ASD knowledge are often not aware of their own ignorance, such that it is unlikely that they will independently seek additional knowledge or training in this area.
Keywords: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)Autism knowledgeOverconfidenceDunning-Kruger effectUnskilled and unawareMetacognitive monitoring
Check also Participants with the lowest assessed weather knowledge do overestimate their weather knowledge, a result consistent with previous psychological studies:
What People Know About the Weather. Christopher Nunley, Kathleen Sherman-Morris. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Jan 2020. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2020/01/participants-with-lowest-assessed.html
And In self-judgment, the "best option illusion" leads to Dunning-Kruger (failure to recognize our own incompetence). In social judgment, it leads to the Cassandra quandary (failure to identify when another person’s competence exceeds our own):
The best option illusion in self and social assessment. David Dunning. Self and Identity, Apr 2018. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2018/04/in-self-judgment-best-option-illusion.html
Black Americans, relative to White Americans, generate images of police officers’ faces that are more negative, less positive, & more dominant
Good Cop, Bad Cop: Race-Based Differences in Mental Representations of Police. E. Paige Lloyd et al. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, January 16, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219898562
Abstract: The current work investigates race-based biases in conceptualization of the facial appearance of police. We employ a reverse correlation procedure to demonstrate that Black Americans, relative to White Americans, conceptualize police officers’ faces as more negative, less positive, and more dominant. We further find that these differential representations have implications for interactions with police. When naïve participants (of various races) viewed images of police officers generated by Black Americans (relative to those generated by White Americans), they responded with greater anticipated anxiety and reported more fight-or-flight behavioral intentions. Across four studies, findings suggest Black and White Americans conceptualize police and police–citizen interactions fundamentally differently. These findings have important theoretical (e.g., using reverse correlation to document the mental representations held by minority group members) and practical implications (e.g., identifying race-based differences in representations of police that may affect community–police relations).
Keywords: person perception, intergroup relations, prejudice/stereotyping, social cognition
From Good Cop Bad Cop Methodology https://osf.io/hyfnk/
Study 1
Face rating dimensions:
“Please rate the person picture above on the following dimensions:”
Traits: (presented in random order)
How friendly does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How warm does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How empathetic does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How fearful does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How hostile does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How dominant does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How dominant does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How authoritative does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How powerful does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
Study 2
Face rating instructions:
“Thank You for participating in today's experiment!
In this study, we are interested in people's perceptions of different groups. You will be presented with
blurry face images and you will be asked to rate those images on a variety of traits.
Although these faces may seem similar, they are not identical. There are subtle differences. Please judge
each face independent of the previous. Past research indicates that even in these blurry faces people are
quite accurate in identifying characteristics and qualities about the person.
Please click continue.”
Face rating dimensions:
“Please rate the person picture above on the following dimensions:”
Traits: (presented in random order)
How friendly does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How warm does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How empathetic does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How fearful does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How hostile does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How dominant does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How dominant does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How authoritative does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How powerful does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
Group membership: (presented in order shown below)
How Eurocentric (White) does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How Afrocentric (Black) does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How feminine does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How masculine does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
Study 3
Face rating instructions:
“In this study, we are interested in people's perceptions of different individuals. You will be presented
with one blurry face and a scenario. The face you see will be randomly selected. Pay close attention to
cues in the face, imagine yourself in the scenario, and then respond to the questions.
Please click continue.”
Imagined scenario instructions:
“Look carefully at the face above and imagine the following scenario:
You're walking home alone at night when the person pictured above says to stop walking. They are a
police officer. They are armed. They begin to approach you. To your knowledge you are doing nothing
wrong and are breaking no laws.
Feelings of anxiety measure: (presented in random order)
How tense would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How frightened would feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How anxious would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How scared would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How worried would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How safe would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How at ease would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How relaxed would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How protected would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How comfortable would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
Fight-and-flight behavioral intentions measure: (presented in random order)
“Again look carefully at the face above and continue to imagine the scenario.”
To what extent would you be preparing to physically defend yourself, in case it became
necessary? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
To what extent would you be preparing to run away, in case it became necessary? (1=Not at all,
9=Extremely)
Quantity and quality of contact with police questionnaire:
5.
How much contact have you had with police officers? (1=None, 7=A great deal)
6.
How positive has your contact with police been? (1=Not at all positive, 7=Extremely positive)
7.
How many police officers do you know? (1=None, 7=Know a lot)
8.
How well do you know those police officers (1=Do not know those officers well, 7=Know those
officers very well)
Attitudes toward police questionnaire:
7.
To what extent do you feel police officers listen to community members and understand the
issues that affect your community? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
8.
To what extent are polices officers effective at fighting crime? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
9.
To what extent do you feel police officers listen to community members and understand the
issues that affect your community? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
10.
To what extent do you feel police officers try to treat people fairly regardless of who they are?
(1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
11.
To what extent do you feel police officers can be relied on to be there when you need them?
(1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
12.
To what extent do you trust police officers to make decisions that are good for everyone in your
community? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
Study 4
Face rating instructions:
“In this study, we are interested in people's perceptions of different groups. You will be presented with 2
images of blurry faces and you will be asked to rate those images on a variety of traits.
Although these faces may seem similar, they are not identical. There are subtle differences. Please judge
each face independent of the previous. Past research indicates that even in these blurry faces people are
quite accurate in identifying characteristics and qualities about the person.
Please click continue.”
Face rating dimensions:
“Please rate the person picture above on the following dimensions:”
Traits: (presented in random order)
How friendly does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How warm does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How empathetic does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How fearful does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How hostile does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How dominant does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How dominant does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How authoritative does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How powerful does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
Imagined scenario instructions:
“Look carefully at the face above and imagine the following scenario:
You're walking home alone at night when the person pictured above says to stop walking. They are a
police officer. They are armed. They begin to approach you. To your knowledge you are doing nothing
wrong and are breaking no laws.
Feelings of anxiety measure: (presented in random order)
How tense would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How frightened would feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How anxious would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How scared would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How worried would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How safe would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How at ease would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How relaxed would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How protected would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How comfortable would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
Fight-and-flight behavioral intentions measure: (presented in random order)
“Again look carefully at the face above and again imagine the scenario.
You're walking home alone at night when the person pictured above says to stop walking. They
are a police officer. They are armed. They begin to approach you. To your knowledge you are
doing nothing wrong and are breaking no laws.”
To what extent would you be preparing to physically defend yourself, in case it became
necessary? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
To what extent would you be preparing to run away, in case it became necessary? (1=Not at all,
9=Extremely)
Quantity and quality of contact with police questionnaire:
9.
How much contact have you had with police officers? (1=None, 7=A great deal)
10.
How positive has your contact with police been? (1=Not at all positive, 7=Extremely positive)
11.
How many police officers do you know? (1=None, 7=Know a lot)
12.
How well do you know those police officers (1=Do not know those officers well, 7=Know those
officers very well)
Attitudes toward police questionnaire:
13.
To what extent do you feel police officers listen to community members and understand the
issues that affect your community? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
14.
To what extent are polices officers effective at fighting crime? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
15.
To what extent do you feel police officers listen to community members and understand the
issues that affect your community? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
16.
To what extent do you feel police officers try to treat people fairly regardless of who they are?
(1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
17.
To what extent do you feel police officers can be relied on to be there when you need them?
(1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
18.
To what extent do you trust police officers to make decisions that are good for everyone in your
community? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
Abstract: The current work investigates race-based biases in conceptualization of the facial appearance of police. We employ a reverse correlation procedure to demonstrate that Black Americans, relative to White Americans, conceptualize police officers’ faces as more negative, less positive, and more dominant. We further find that these differential representations have implications for interactions with police. When naïve participants (of various races) viewed images of police officers generated by Black Americans (relative to those generated by White Americans), they responded with greater anticipated anxiety and reported more fight-or-flight behavioral intentions. Across four studies, findings suggest Black and White Americans conceptualize police and police–citizen interactions fundamentally differently. These findings have important theoretical (e.g., using reverse correlation to document the mental representations held by minority group members) and practical implications (e.g., identifying race-based differences in representations of police that may affect community–police relations).
Keywords: person perception, intergroup relations, prejudice/stereotyping, social cognition
From Good Cop Bad Cop Methodology https://osf.io/hyfnk/
Study 1
Face rating dimensions:
“Please rate the person picture above on the following dimensions:”
Traits: (presented in random order)
How friendly does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How warm does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How empathetic does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How fearful does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How hostile does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How dominant does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How dominant does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How authoritative does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How powerful does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
Study 2
Face rating instructions:
“Thank You for participating in today's experiment!
In this study, we are interested in people's perceptions of different groups. You will be presented with
blurry face images and you will be asked to rate those images on a variety of traits.
Although these faces may seem similar, they are not identical. There are subtle differences. Please judge
each face independent of the previous. Past research indicates that even in these blurry faces people are
quite accurate in identifying characteristics and qualities about the person.
Please click continue.”
Face rating dimensions:
“Please rate the person picture above on the following dimensions:”
Traits: (presented in random order)
How friendly does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How warm does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How empathetic does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How fearful does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How hostile does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How dominant does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How dominant does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How authoritative does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How powerful does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
Group membership: (presented in order shown below)
How Eurocentric (White) does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How Afrocentric (Black) does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How feminine does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How masculine does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
Study 3
Face rating instructions:
“In this study, we are interested in people's perceptions of different individuals. You will be presented
with one blurry face and a scenario. The face you see will be randomly selected. Pay close attention to
cues in the face, imagine yourself in the scenario, and then respond to the questions.
Please click continue.”
Imagined scenario instructions:
“Look carefully at the face above and imagine the following scenario:
You're walking home alone at night when the person pictured above says to stop walking. They are a
police officer. They are armed. They begin to approach you. To your knowledge you are doing nothing
wrong and are breaking no laws.
Feelings of anxiety measure: (presented in random order)
How tense would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How frightened would feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How anxious would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How scared would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How worried would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How safe would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How at ease would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How relaxed would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How protected would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How comfortable would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
Fight-and-flight behavioral intentions measure: (presented in random order)
“Again look carefully at the face above and continue to imagine the scenario.”
To what extent would you be preparing to physically defend yourself, in case it became
necessary? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
To what extent would you be preparing to run away, in case it became necessary? (1=Not at all,
9=Extremely)
Quantity and quality of contact with police questionnaire:
5.
How much contact have you had with police officers? (1=None, 7=A great deal)
6.
How positive has your contact with police been? (1=Not at all positive, 7=Extremely positive)
7.
How many police officers do you know? (1=None, 7=Know a lot)
8.
How well do you know those police officers (1=Do not know those officers well, 7=Know those
officers very well)
Attitudes toward police questionnaire:
7.
To what extent do you feel police officers listen to community members and understand the
issues that affect your community? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
8.
To what extent are polices officers effective at fighting crime? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
9.
To what extent do you feel police officers listen to community members and understand the
issues that affect your community? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
10.
To what extent do you feel police officers try to treat people fairly regardless of who they are?
(1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
11.
To what extent do you feel police officers can be relied on to be there when you need them?
(1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
12.
To what extent do you trust police officers to make decisions that are good for everyone in your
community? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
Study 4
Face rating instructions:
“In this study, we are interested in people's perceptions of different groups. You will be presented with 2
images of blurry faces and you will be asked to rate those images on a variety of traits.
Although these faces may seem similar, they are not identical. There are subtle differences. Please judge
each face independent of the previous. Past research indicates that even in these blurry faces people are
quite accurate in identifying characteristics and qualities about the person.
Please click continue.”
Face rating dimensions:
“Please rate the person picture above on the following dimensions:”
Traits: (presented in random order)
How friendly does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How warm does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How empathetic does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How fearful does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How hostile does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How dominant does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How dominant does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How authoritative does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How powerful does this person appear? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
Imagined scenario instructions:
“Look carefully at the face above and imagine the following scenario:
You're walking home alone at night when the person pictured above says to stop walking. They are a
police officer. They are armed. They begin to approach you. To your knowledge you are doing nothing
wrong and are breaking no laws.
Feelings of anxiety measure: (presented in random order)
How tense would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How frightened would feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How anxious would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How scared would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How worried would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How safe would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How at ease would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How relaxed would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How protected would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
How comfortable would you feel? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
Fight-and-flight behavioral intentions measure: (presented in random order)
“Again look carefully at the face above and again imagine the scenario.
You're walking home alone at night when the person pictured above says to stop walking. They
are a police officer. They are armed. They begin to approach you. To your knowledge you are
doing nothing wrong and are breaking no laws.”
To what extent would you be preparing to physically defend yourself, in case it became
necessary? (1=Not at all, 9=Extremely)
To what extent would you be preparing to run away, in case it became necessary? (1=Not at all,
9=Extremely)
Quantity and quality of contact with police questionnaire:
9.
How much contact have you had with police officers? (1=None, 7=A great deal)
10.
How positive has your contact with police been? (1=Not at all positive, 7=Extremely positive)
11.
How many police officers do you know? (1=None, 7=Know a lot)
12.
How well do you know those police officers (1=Do not know those officers well, 7=Know those
officers very well)
Attitudes toward police questionnaire:
13.
To what extent do you feel police officers listen to community members and understand the
issues that affect your community? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
14.
To what extent are polices officers effective at fighting crime? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
15.
To what extent do you feel police officers listen to community members and understand the
issues that affect your community? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
16.
To what extent do you feel police officers try to treat people fairly regardless of who they are?
(1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
17.
To what extent do you feel police officers can be relied on to be there when you need them?
(1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
18.
To what extent do you trust police officers to make decisions that are good for everyone in your
community? (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely)
In total, our results are consistent with the likelihood of considerable genetic variation in the expression of male gender nonconformity, and possibly even in its causes
Familiality of Gender Nonconformity Among Homosexual Men. J. Michael Bailey. Archives of Sexual Behavior, January 16 2020. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01626-w
Abstract: We examined whether recalled childhood gender nonconformity and self-reported adult gender nonconformity is familial, using data from 1154 families selected for having at least two homosexual brothers. Specifically, we examined the extent to which homosexual men’s variation in gender nonconformity runs in families by examining pairs of genetic brothers who were both homosexual (N = 672–697 full sibling concordant pairs). We also examined similarity between homosexual and heterosexual brothers (N = 79–82 full sibling discordant pairs). Consistent with past studies, concordant pairs yielded modest positive correlations consistent with moderate genetic and/or familial environmental effects on gender nonconformity. Unlike results of smaller past studies, discordant pairs also yielded modest positive, though nonsignificant, correlations. Our results support the feasibility of supplementing genetic studies of male sexual orientation with analyses of gender nonconformity variation.
Keywords: Sexual orientation Homosexuality Gender nonconformity Familiality Genetics
Abstract: We examined whether recalled childhood gender nonconformity and self-reported adult gender nonconformity is familial, using data from 1154 families selected for having at least two homosexual brothers. Specifically, we examined the extent to which homosexual men’s variation in gender nonconformity runs in families by examining pairs of genetic brothers who were both homosexual (N = 672–697 full sibling concordant pairs). We also examined similarity between homosexual and heterosexual brothers (N = 79–82 full sibling discordant pairs). Consistent with past studies, concordant pairs yielded modest positive correlations consistent with moderate genetic and/or familial environmental effects on gender nonconformity. Unlike results of smaller past studies, discordant pairs also yielded modest positive, though nonsignificant, correlations. Our results support the feasibility of supplementing genetic studies of male sexual orientation with analyses of gender nonconformity variation.
Keywords: Sexual orientation Homosexuality Gender nonconformity Familiality Genetics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
