Why Do Narcissists Care So Much About Intelligence? Marcin Zajenkowski, Michael Dufner. Current Directions in Psychological Science, June 4, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420917152
Abstract: Grandiose narcissists typically pursue agentic goals, such as social status, competence, and autonomy. We argue that because high intelligence is a key asset for the attainment of such agentic goals, the concept of intelligence should play a prominent role in grandiose narcissists’ self-regulation and social behavior. We review the relevant literature and report evidence in support of this claim. Grandiose narcissists consider intelligence to be an important resource that leads to benefits across life domains, they tend to maintain and defend illusory positive intellectual self-views, and they are extremely motivated to appear intelligent to other people. Thus, even though grandiose narcissism is essentially unrelated to objectively assessed intelligence, intelligence nevertheless plays an important role in the way grandiose narcissists think, feel, and behave. We discuss potential implications for social relationships and point toward avenues for future research.
Keywords: agency, grandiose narcissism, intelligence, narcissism
Friday, June 5, 2020
Men appreciate more aggresive and sexual humor; other differences seem based in roles, not natural differences
Gender differences in humor-related traits, humor appreciation, production, comprehension, (neural) responses, use, and correlates: A systematic review. Jennifer Hofmann, Tracey Platt, Chloé Lau & Jorge Torres-Marín. Current Psychology Jun 4 2020. https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-020-00724-1
Abstract: All available peer-reviewed literature on humor and gender differences (1977–2018) was screened and evaluated according to a priori defined QUALSYST criteria. The 77 papers surpassing a conservative quality criterion generated seven emergent themes around humor and gender differences. In short, men score higher in the aggressive humor style (M > F), while no other gender differences were consistently reported in humor-related traits (M = F). In the prediction of negative outcomes (stress, loneliness, depression), differential effects for humor in both genders are reported, but not consistently (M ≠ F). Gender differences exist for the appreciation of sexual humor (M > F), even in mixed target stimuli, and hostile humor (both genders appreciate opposite gender target stimuli more). Gender differences are absent in nonsense and neutral humor (M = F). For humor production, three samples showed no gender differences (M = F), while three samples suggested men are funnier (M > F) and one that women are funnier (M < F). No studies reporting differences in humor comprehension were identified (M = F). For humor use and communication, gender differences were found across methods (M ≠ F), yet, they depend on the context (e.g., workplace) and may thus resemble gender roles rather than “natural differences”. Moreover, few studies provide hard data on actual humor use and communication in different domains. When exposed to humor stimuli, different neural responses of men and women in prefrontal cortex activations (or selected parts) were found (M ≠ F). Also, self-report data suggest that both genders value a sense of humor in their partner (M = F), yet women typically value the humor production abilities more than humor receptivity, while for men, the woman’s receptivity of their own humor is more important than a woman’s humor production abilities, in line with gender stereotypes (M ≠ F). To conclude, much progress has been achieved in the past 15 years to overcome methodological flaws in early works on humor and gender differences. Importantly, attention should be paid to disentangling actual gender differences from gender role expectations and gender stereotypes. Methodologically, designs need to be checked for potential bias (i.e. self-reports may accentuate roles and stereotypes) and more hard data is needed to substantiate claims from self-report studies.
Abstract: All available peer-reviewed literature on humor and gender differences (1977–2018) was screened and evaluated according to a priori defined QUALSYST criteria. The 77 papers surpassing a conservative quality criterion generated seven emergent themes around humor and gender differences. In short, men score higher in the aggressive humor style (M > F), while no other gender differences were consistently reported in humor-related traits (M = F). In the prediction of negative outcomes (stress, loneliness, depression), differential effects for humor in both genders are reported, but not consistently (M ≠ F). Gender differences exist for the appreciation of sexual humor (M > F), even in mixed target stimuli, and hostile humor (both genders appreciate opposite gender target stimuli more). Gender differences are absent in nonsense and neutral humor (M = F). For humor production, three samples showed no gender differences (M = F), while three samples suggested men are funnier (M > F) and one that women are funnier (M < F). No studies reporting differences in humor comprehension were identified (M = F). For humor use and communication, gender differences were found across methods (M ≠ F), yet, they depend on the context (e.g., workplace) and may thus resemble gender roles rather than “natural differences”. Moreover, few studies provide hard data on actual humor use and communication in different domains. When exposed to humor stimuli, different neural responses of men and women in prefrontal cortex activations (or selected parts) were found (M ≠ F). Also, self-report data suggest that both genders value a sense of humor in their partner (M = F), yet women typically value the humor production abilities more than humor receptivity, while for men, the woman’s receptivity of their own humor is more important than a woman’s humor production abilities, in line with gender stereotypes (M ≠ F). To conclude, much progress has been achieved in the past 15 years to overcome methodological flaws in early works on humor and gender differences. Importantly, attention should be paid to disentangling actual gender differences from gender role expectations and gender stereotypes. Methodologically, designs need to be checked for potential bias (i.e. self-reports may accentuate roles and stereotypes) and more hard data is needed to substantiate claims from self-report studies.
No pain, no gain: Perceived partner mate value mediates the desire-inducing effect of being hard to get
No pain, no gain: Perceived partner mate value mediates the desire-inducing effect of being hard to get during online and face-to-face encounters. Gurit E. Birnbaum, Kobi Zholtack, Harry T. Reis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, June 4, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520927469
Abstract: Playing hard to get is a common strategy used to attract mates. Past research has been unclear about whether and why this strategy facilitates mate pursuit. In three studies, we examined whether perceiving potential partners as hard to get instigated sexual desire and whether perceived partner mate value explained this effect. In doing so, we focused on tactics that give the impression that potential partners are hard to get and may genuinely signal their mate value (being selective in choosing mates, efforts invested in their pursuit). In all studies, participants interacted with an opposite-sex confederate and rated their perceptions of the confederate. In Study 1, participants interacted with confederates whose profile indicated that they were either hard to get or easy to attract. In Study 2, participants exerted (or not) real efforts to attract the confederate. In Study 3, interactions unfolded spontaneously and were coded for efforts made to see the confederate again. Results indicated that the perception of whether a confederate was hard to get was associated with their mate value, which, in turn, predicted greater desire and efforts to see the confederate again, suggesting that being hard to get is an effective strategy that heightens perceptions of partners’ mate value.
Keywords: Attraction, dating, hard to get, sexual desire, relationship initiation
Abstract: Playing hard to get is a common strategy used to attract mates. Past research has been unclear about whether and why this strategy facilitates mate pursuit. In three studies, we examined whether perceiving potential partners as hard to get instigated sexual desire and whether perceived partner mate value explained this effect. In doing so, we focused on tactics that give the impression that potential partners are hard to get and may genuinely signal their mate value (being selective in choosing mates, efforts invested in their pursuit). In all studies, participants interacted with an opposite-sex confederate and rated their perceptions of the confederate. In Study 1, participants interacted with confederates whose profile indicated that they were either hard to get or easy to attract. In Study 2, participants exerted (or not) real efforts to attract the confederate. In Study 3, interactions unfolded spontaneously and were coded for efforts made to see the confederate again. Results indicated that the perception of whether a confederate was hard to get was associated with their mate value, which, in turn, predicted greater desire and efforts to see the confederate again, suggesting that being hard to get is an effective strategy that heightens perceptions of partners’ mate value.
Keywords: Attraction, dating, hard to get, sexual desire, relationship initiation
USA & Denmark: Those scoring higher in narcissism participate more in politics (contacting politicians, signing petitions, joining demonstrations, donating money, & voting in midterm elections)
Narcissism in Political Participation. Zoltán Fazekas, Peter K. Hatemi. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, June 4, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220919212
Abstract: Much attention has focused on the social, institutional, and mobilization factors that influence political participation, with a renewed interest in psychological motivations. One trait that has a deep theoretical connection to participation, but remains underexplored, is narcissism. Relying on three studies in the United States and Denmark, two nationally representative, we find that those scoring higher in narcissism, as measured by the Narcissistic Personality Inventory–40 (NPI-40), participate more in politics, including contacting politicians, signing petitions, joining demonstrations, donating money, and voting in midterm elections. Both agentic and antagonistic components of narcissism were positively and negatively related to different types of political participation when exploring the subfactors independently. Superiority and Authority/Leadership were positively related to participation, while Self Sufficiency was negatively related to participation. In addition, the combined Entitlement/Exploitativeness factor was negatively related to turnout, but only in midterm elections. Overall, the findings support a view of participation that arises in part from instrumental motivations.
Keywords narcissism, political participation, NPI, authority-seeking, superiority
Abstract: Much attention has focused on the social, institutional, and mobilization factors that influence political participation, with a renewed interest in psychological motivations. One trait that has a deep theoretical connection to participation, but remains underexplored, is narcissism. Relying on three studies in the United States and Denmark, two nationally representative, we find that those scoring higher in narcissism, as measured by the Narcissistic Personality Inventory–40 (NPI-40), participate more in politics, including contacting politicians, signing petitions, joining demonstrations, donating money, and voting in midterm elections. Both agentic and antagonistic components of narcissism were positively and negatively related to different types of political participation when exploring the subfactors independently. Superiority and Authority/Leadership were positively related to participation, while Self Sufficiency was negatively related to participation. In addition, the combined Entitlement/Exploitativeness factor was negatively related to turnout, but only in midterm elections. Overall, the findings support a view of participation that arises in part from instrumental motivations.
Keywords narcissism, political participation, NPI, authority-seeking, superiority
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
