Guatemalan university students: Men held more traditional attitudes about gender and the family than did women on all measures; gender differences on all scales were mediated by cynicism and religiosity

Social Axioms Mediate Gender Differences in Gender Ideologies Among Guatemalan University Students. Sandra Elizabeth Luna-Sánchez et al. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, November 5, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221211049543

Abstract: Gender role ideologies are embedded in cultural values and assumptions about life. Women’s greater endorsement of egalitarian beliefs may stem from gender differences in world views as indexed by social axioms. The purpose of this study was to examine potential mediators of gender differences in gender ideologies among university students in Guatemala, a country where traditional views are prevalent. Participants, 2,134 university students from nine campuses in different regions of Guatemala (43% male, 85% emerging adults), completed a Social Axioms Scale, along with three culturally relevant measures of gender ideology: the Historic-Sociocultural Premises Scale (HSCP) and the Machismo Measure that taps both traditional machismo and caballerismo (gentlemanliness). Consistent with previous research in other countries, men held more traditional attitudes about gender and the family than did women on all measures. Gender differences on all scales were mediated by cynicism and religiosity. Fate control mediated the gender differences in traditional machismo and the HSCP. These findings suggest that Guatemalan women and men through socialization, cultural demands, and life experiences develop gender-specific ways of viewing the world, and their attitudes about gender roles are shaped by those worldviews. The achievement of gender equality, a U.N. sustainable development goal, may require attention to the underlying world views of women and men.

Keywords: social axioms, cultural world views, gender differences in gender ideologies, machismo, Guatemala

Negative Emotion Decision-Making Dynamics: Amygdala-Prefrontal Pathways show that, behaviorally, girls exhibit higher response caution & more effective evidence accumulation, boys show more impulsive response

Developmental Sex Differences in Negative Emotion Decision-Making Dynamics: Computational Evidence and Amygdala-Prefrontal Pathways. Jiahua Xu et al. Cerebral Cortex, bhab359, October 13 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhab359

Abstract: Sex differences in human emotion and related decision-making behaviors are recognized, which can be traced back early in development. However, our understanding of their underlying neurodevelopmental mechanisms remains elusive. Using developmental functional magnetic resonance imaging and computational approach, we investigated developmental sex differences in latent decision-making dynamics during negative emotion processing and related neurocognitive pathways in 243 school-aged children and 78 young adults. Behaviorally, girls exhibit higher response caution and more effective evidence accumulation, whereas boys show more impulsive response to negative facial expression stimuli. These effects parallel sex differences in emotion-related brain maturity linking to evidence accumulation, along with age-related decrease in emotional response in the basolateral amygdala and medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) in girls and an increase in the centromedial amygdala (CMA) in boys. Moreover, girls exhibit age-related decreases in BLA–MPFC coupling linked to evidence accumulation, but boys exhibit increases in CMA–insula coupling associated with response caution. Our findings highlight the neurocomputational accounts for developmental sex differences in emotion and emotion-related behaviors and provide important implications into the neurodevelopmental mechanisms of sex differences in latent emotional decision-making dynamics. This informs the emergence of sex differences in typical and atypical neurodevelopment of children’s emotion and related functions.

Keywords: children, development, emotion, sex dimorphism, task fMRI

It was women, not men, who were more likely to report being aroused by aggression, mostly consensual; & were also more likely to report actively seeking for aggression and wanting to see more aggression in mainstream pornography

Who Seeks Aggression in Pornography? Findings from Interviews with Viewers. Eran Shor. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Nov 8 2021. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1

Abstract: Despite the recent proliferation of research on aggression in pornography, we still know relatively little about the preferences and perceptions of viewers themselves. In particular, very little research has examined how women who watch pornography feel when encountering aggression toward women. To explore this question, we conducted interviews with 122 regular pornography viewers (61 women, 60 men, and 1 gender-diverse). Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the data show that the majority of both men and women reported that they did not enjoy aggressive content. However, in contrast to common conceptions among most scholars and pundits, it was women, not men, who were more likely to report being aroused by aggression, mainly consensual aggression toward women, which was perceived as pleasurable. Women were also more likely to report actively seeking for aggression and wanting to see more aggression in mainstream pornography. These findings challenge long-held radical feminist views regarding the preferences of both women and men and offer new insights on the relationship between gender and sexual fantasies.

Interviewees from Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Korea, Lebanon, Mauritius, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Syria, the United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.

Like-minded political discussion are rare, and the readiness to engage in them is more strongly determined by personality than by ideology or the means of communication

The Role of Personality in Political Talk and Like-Minded Discussion. Shelley Boulianne, Karolina Koc-Michalska. The International Journal of Press/Politics, March 17, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161221994096

Abstract: Political discussion is a key mechanism for the development of reasoned opinions and political knowledge, but online political discussion has been characterized as uncivil, intolerant, and/or ideologically homogeneous, which is detrimental to this development. In this paper, we examine the role of personality in various forms of political talk—online and offline—as well as like-minded discussion. Based on a 2017 survey conducted in the United Kingdom, United States, and France, we find that people who are open-minded and extraverted are more likely to engage in political talk but less likely to engage in like-minded discussion. Individuals who are older, less educated, introverted, and conscientious are more likely to find themselves in like-minded discussions, both online and on social media. Like-minded discussion is rare; personality, rather than ideology, predicts whether people engage in this form of political talk in online and offline modes. Our findings challenge the role of social media in the creation of like-minded discussion. Instead, we should look to the role of individual attributes, such as personality traits, which create a disposition that motivates the use of social media (and offline networks) to cultivate like-minded discussion.

Keywords: Big Five personality traits, political discussion, political talk, like-minded discussion, echo chamber

Discussion

This paper examines how personality affects the filtering process related to political discussion. Personality impacts the propensity to discuss politics, use social media, and engage in like-minded discussion on social media. Several steps are required to understand like-minded discussion on social media: (1) consider the biases in who talks politics (81.57 percent of our pooled sample, as per Table 2), (2) consider the filtering of social media adoption (76.82 percent of our pooled sample), (3) consider the subset of people who talk politics on social media (43.99 percent of our pooled sample of social media users), and (4) consider the few people who engage in like-minded discussion (9.41 percent of a pooled sample of social media talkers). Approximately one in ten respondents engages in like-minded discussion; this incidence rate is consistent for offline and online forms. So we ask, what is the role of personality throughout this filtering process? This question is answered with our annotation of Figure 2.

Figure 2. Summary of findings about personality and political discussion.

Note. Diagonal-dashed arrows are filtering arrows and straight arrows depict causal effects among key variables in the analysis. O = openness, C = conscientious, Ex = extraversion, A = agreeable, Es = emotional stability.

Openness impacts whether an individual talks politics online and offline and whether they use social media. The filtering process has three stages. In the first stage, people who are open-minded are more likely to talk politics (any mode). In the second stage, people who are open-minded adopt social media use. In the third stage, people who are open-minded are less likely to engage in like-minded discussion. The coefficient did not reach statistical significance at the p < .05 level. Openness has a stronger and more consistent impact than ideology. The existing literature (Table 1) features ten tests of the relationship between openness and political discussion. Of these, four tests for openness on political discussion are significant, which suggests a relationship but hardly offers conclusive results (Table 1). These other studies from the existing literature do not consider the mode of discussion and few consider personality and like-minded discussion. Yet, we offer consistent findings about the importance of openness using our pooled cross-national sample.

We find that extraversion is also important. As mentioned, the existing research features ten tests of the relationship between extraversion and political discussion of which five are significant (Table 1). Extraversion has mixed support related to political discussion in general; extraversion influences talk on social media, but not offline. However, extraversion is a strong and consistent predictor of like-minded discussion on social media and offline. In terms of understanding like-minded discussion on social media, extraversion seems to be the strongest and most consistent personality trait. We replicate this finding in the country-specific results.

Existing research (Table 1) suggests that agreeableness is important (four of ten tests are significant), yet the findings are not consistently positive or negative but rather highly divergent. In our study, agreeableness matters for social media adoption but does not offer direct effects on the likelihood of talking politics. However, as mentioned, assessing agreeableness poses challenges because this trait is strongly correlated with conscientiousness and extraversion (see prior literature review and Supplementary Information file). Correlation issues with these personality traits may pose a challenge when trying to determine their independent effects. We included all traits in our models to reflect existing research (Table 1).

Our paper distinguishes between offline discussion and online discussion through social media. Openness predicts both modes of discussion, suggesting the two modes might be combined into a single, hybrid discussion measure (Chadwick 2013). However, combining these modes would blur some important findings about social media and the role of personality in filtering social media-based discussion. In particular, extraversion and conscientiousness predict social media use, then social media-based discussion, then like-minded discussion on social media. The effects of these personality traits might disappear if the modes are combined into a single measure of political discussion as these measures do not have the same predictive value in relation to offline discussion (general). Also, age and political ideology predict online but not offline forms of discussion. Combining these modes would hide these ideological and age differences in patterns of participation. Age is a consistent predictor of online political discussion (Brundidge 2010; Evans and Ulbig 2012; Huber et al. 2019; Kim and Baek 2018; Stromer-Galley 2002). Finally, females are more likely to participate in offline political talk, but less likely to talk on social media (also see: Evans and Ulbig 2012; Huber et al. 2019; Stromer-Galley 2002). These gender differences would be missed in a combined measure of political discussion. All of these differences have implications with respect to the quality and representativeness of online discussion. We still have more research to do on this topic, given the low explained variance in our models as well as those models summarized in Table 1.

Like-minded discussion may have both positive and negative impacts. Mondak (2010: 115) explains that “conversations with like-minded others may offer reassurance and support, but such conversations do nothing to broaden the person's perspectives.” Discussions with people of differing viewpoints are expected to increase political tolerance (Nir 2017) and perhaps decrease attitude polarization (Grönlund et al. 2015; Mutz 2006). Personality shapes the propensity to engage in homogeneous discussion networks (Hibbing et al. 2011; Kim et al. 2013; Mondak et al. 2010). We have contributed to scholarship by testing the role of personality in an online discussion. Our findings suggest that like-minded discussion networks cannot be solely attributed to social media use. An individual's personality affects whether they use social media (Correa et al. 2010; Jenkins-Guarnieri et al. 2012; Ryan and Xenos 2011) and how they use social media. People who are introverted, close-minded, and conscientious will use social media to form discussion networks where their ideas will not be challenged. Indeed, when it comes to like-minded discussion, we find that personality matters more than political ideology.

As a final note, our data are limited to self-reports about political discussion—an issue that this field of research has addressed (Wojcieszak and Mutz 2009). We do not know if people truly abstain from political discussion, nor do we have an independently verified approach to measure the frequency of political discussion. Social media trace data would help to validate the estimates about frequency. However, social media data are limited for assessing like-minded discussion, as it is difficult to determine whether two discussion partners agree or disagree with each other's social media posts. For example, on Twitter, there is a “like” button but no “dislike” button. Facebook offers more nuances, albeit the “like” button is still the most popular response and does not suggest agreement so much as acknowledgment. Ideology is sometimes used as a proxy for this disagreement, but even ideological leanings are difficult to decipher in relation to the discussion of complex policy issues, such as immigration or the economy. Surveys are a valuable tool to supplement social media trace data as people can be asked about their agreement or disagreement with the topic. Future research should consider using a mixed-methods approach with a record of political discussion (such as social media trace data) as well as a survey of personality traits, policy positions, and reports about (dis)agreement. Our survey is an important contribution to the field, which has examined self-reports of offline discussion based on surveys or online discussion using social media trace data. We bridge these two modes but come to similar conclusions. Like-minded discussion is rare; personality, rather than ideology, predicts whether people engage in this form of political talk in online and offline modes.

Prior to proposing our research hypothesis and questions, we presented the findings of existing research. Research to date is based largely on American samples, yet international scholars have used the same theoretical claims for tests based on non-U.S. samples. Existing scholarship has not addressed whether we should expect cross-national differences in the relationship between personality and political discussion. As such, we proposed a research question, rather than a hypothesis. We find consistency in the importance of extraversion predicting like-minded discussion. Extraverts are less likely to engage in like-minded discussion. We replicate existing research about cross-national differences in political talk (Nir 2012; Vaccari and Valeriani 2018), but we offer new evidence about the importance of personality and perhaps culture in political discussion.

People told the most lies per social interaction over synchronous, distributed, and recordless media (the phone, video chat),; lying rates were also associated with aversive personality traits, plus antisocial, and relational deception motives

Revisiting the Relationship Between Deception and Design: A Replication and Extension of Hancock et al. David M Markowitz. Human Communication Research, hqab019, November 8 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqab019

Abstract: Evidence published nearly 20 years ago suggested people tell more lies per social interaction via synchronous, distributed, and recordless media (the phone) versus relatively richer (face-to-face communication) and leaner media (email, instant messaging). With nontrivial changes to the size and variety of our media landscape, it is worth re-examining the relationship between deception and technology. Over 7 days, 250 participants reported their social interactions and lies across face-to-face communication, social media, texting, the phone, video chat, and email. Replicating Hancock, Thom-Santelli, and Ritchie (2004), people told the most lies per social interaction over synchronous, distributed, and recordless media (the phone, video chat), though the effects were small and between-person effects explained more variance than between-media effects. Lying rates were also associated with aversive personality traits, plus antisocial, and relational deception motives. Together, while media options have evolved, technological design features often remain stable and indicate deception rates. Theoretical contributions are discussed.

Wrongful convictions' awards: Average is $6.1 million ($1334/day of incarceration); initial incarceration is valued at over $50,000 for the first day; year one is valued at $1.5 million ($4000/day); marginal cost of the 10th year is $350,000 ($950/day)

Pain, suffering, and jury awards: A study of the cost of wrongful convictions. Mark A. Cohen. Criminology & Public Policy, November 8 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12559

Research summary: This paper estimates the cost of wrongful convictions based on analysis of jury awards and settlements for individuals who were wrongfully convicted and incarcerated for crimes they did not commit. Key variables of interest are number of days spent in prison, days on probation, and demographics of wrongfully convicted and their families. The average “cost” of a wrongful conviction is estimated to be $6.1 million, or $1334 per day of incarceration, while the marginal cost decreases over time: initial incarceration is valued at over $50,000 for the first day; year one is valued at $1.5 million ($4000/day), while the marginal cost of the 10th year is estimated to be approximately $350,000 ($950/day).

Policy implications: State mandated compensation for wrongfully convicted individuals who oftentimes spend years in prison for crimes they did not commit is highly variable and in many cases bears little relationship to either the monetary or nonmonetary harms endured. In addition to providing benchmarks for more appropriate compensation, these estimates provide a foundation for future benefit-cost analyses of policies that might reduce wrongful convictions such as increased expenditures for DNA testing or indigent defense counsel.