What narrative strategies durably reduce prejudice? Omitting analogic perspective-taking and vicarious perspective-giving does not diminish effects; conversations employing only perspective-getting narratives work

Kalla, Joshua, and David Broockman. 2020. “Which Narrative Strategies Durably Reduce Prejudice? Evidence from Field and Survey Experiments Supporting the Efficacy of Perspective-getting.” OSF Preprints. December 28. doi:10.31219/osf.io/z2awt

Abstract: Exclusionary attitudes contribute to social and political challenges worldwide. Previous field experiments have found that interpersonal conversations which employ multiple theoretically-informed narrative strategies can durably reduce exclusionary attitudes. However, studies of these interventions have always assigned three narrative strategies together in a compound treatment: narratives which promote analogic perspective-taking, vicarious perspective-giving, and perspective-getting. This leaves open important theoretical and empirical questions about to what extent each is effective. We present results from two field experiments, a difference-in-differences analysis, and a survey experiment that individually manipulate their presence. Across the field experiments, we find that omitting analogic perspective-taking and vicarious perspective-giving does not diminish effects; conversations employing only perspective-getting narratives durably reduce exclusionary attitudes. We also present results from within-subject analyses and survey experiments that show that perspective-getting consistently reduces exclusionary attitudes and activates multiple mechanisms, whereas the other approaches have less reliable effects. These results support a focus on facilitating perspective-getting in interpersonal conversations that aim to durably reduce exclusionary attitudes.

Psychopathy & personality disorder were not found to be associated with membership in the mafia for either gender; seems more of a mentality characterized by beliefs & practices determined by a deviant culture rather than psychopathology

Women and men of mafia between traditional cultural contexts and new social roles. Felice Carabellese, Alan R. Felthous, Harry G. Kennedy, Domenico Montalbò, Donatell La Tegola, Anna Coluccia, Fabio Ferretti, Fulvio Carabellese, Roberto Catanesi. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, August 19 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2533

Abstract: The Italian mafia organizations represent a subculture with values, beliefs, and goals that are antithetical to and undermining of the predominant society. The conduct of individual members includes such extreme violence for material gain, it may at least superficially suggest a severe personality disorder. Since the first edition of the DSM and into the 21st century, various terms have been used, sometimes interchangeably, but over time inconsistently, to designate the mentality and practices of mafia members. Only recently has the psychology of mafia members become a focus of serious scientific study. For the first time, investigators for the present study applied instruments, including the PCL-R, to examine for character psychopathology and specifically degrees of psychopathy in male and female mafia members, 20 female and 21 male members. Results showed some gender difference with the women having a higher score on Factor 1, in contrast to men who showed a lower score. Psychopathy and personality disorder were not found to be associated with membership in the mafia for either gender. Some psychopathic traits and gender differences warrant further research. Meanwhile these findings are consistent with a mentality characterized by beliefs and practices determined by a deviant culture rather than psychopathology.

Does testosterone affect men’s willingness to compete, confidence, and risk-taking—dimensions of economic behavior that are theoretically linked to the Challenge Hypothesis? Effects are small and inconsistent

Nave, Gideon, Amos Nadler, Colin Camerer, and Matthias Wibral. 2021. “Does Testosterone Administration Increase Competitiveness, Confidence and Financial Risk-taking in Men?.” PsyArXiv. August 20. doi:10.31234/osf.io/62af7

Abstract: The sex steroid hormone testosterone regulates male-typical behaviors such as aggression and displays of dominance in non-human animals. According to the Challenge Hypothesis, these effects arise from context-sensitive testosterone increases that facilitate inter-male competitions over resources, status, and mates. A growing literature documents similar effects of testosterone on economic behaviors related to competition and risk-taking in humans, though findings to date have been mixed. Here, we report two randomized double-blind placebo-controlled testosterone administration experiments, whose combined sample (N = 334) is substantially larger than any previous investigation of the topic (N1 = 91, N2 = 243). The studies were designed independently by research groups in Europe and the US, and both investigated testosterone’s effects on men’s willingness to compete, confidence, and risk-taking—dimensions of economic behavior that are theoretically linked to the Challenge Hypothesis, show robust sex differences, and predict important real-life outcomes such as career choice. We find no evidence for effects of testosterone on any of the behavioral tasks studied across the two experiments, with effect point estimates that are small and inconsistent. The studies had 90% statistical power to detect effects that are larger than d = 0.68 and d = 0.42 respectively, and equivalence tests confidently reject effects that are greater than these magnitudes. Our findings cast doubt on the proposition that testosterone is a meaningful causal driver of the stereotypically “masculine” dimensions of economic behavior studied, and suggest that even if true effects existed, detecting them experimentally would be challenging.

Does testosterone affect men’s willingness to compete, confidence, and risk-taking—dimensions of economic behavior that are theoretically linked to the Challenge Hypothesis? Small and inconsistent effects

Following the 2020 presidential race, many pundits and academics were quick to claim that the pandemic might have altered the outcome of the election; these authors disagree

Did exposure to COVID-19 affect vote choice in the 2020 presidential election? Marco Mendoza Aviña, Semra Sevi. Research & Politics, August 18, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211041505

Abstract: An important body of literature shows that citizens evaluate elected officials based on their past performance. In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, the conventional wisdom in both media and academic discourse was that Donald Trump would have been a two-term president absent an unprecedented, global force majeure. In this research note, we address a simple question: did exposure to COVID-19 impact vote choice in the 2020 presidential election? Using data from the Cooperative Election Study, we find that Trump’s vote share decreased because of COVID-19. However, there is no evidence suggesting that Joe Biden loses the election when no voter reports exposure to coronavirus cases and deaths. These negligible effects are found at both the national and state levels, and are robust to an exhaustive set of confounders across model specifications.

Keywords: 2020 US presidential election, COVID-19, Biden, Trump, vote choice

Conclusion

Following the 2020 presidential race, many pundits and academics were quick to claim that the pandemic might have altered the outcome of the election. While limited to a single instance of COVID-19’s electoral impact (i.e. self-reported exposure to the virus), our findings do not support the claim that the pandemic cost Trump his re-election. There is no doubt that COVID-19 negatively affected Trump’s electoral performance; yet our counterfactual analysis shows that the presidential two-party vote is virtually unchanged when no voter contracts the disease.⁸ The null finding for those who were personally diagnosed is consistent with previous analyses having found that support for Trump increased in some of the areas that were hardest hit by COVID-19 (McMinn and Stein, 2020). Our results are also consistent with the fact that Trump’s approval ratings were remarkably stable throughout his presidency (FiveThirtyEight, 2021). In early 2020, fewer than 45% of American adults approved of Trump’s job as president. This percentage fluctuated somewhat over the year but remained in the mid-forties until January 2021. This suggests, as our results do, that the extraordinary circumstances that arose during that election year did little to change the electorate’s crystalized – and overall unfavorable – views of the 45th president.