Hopster, Jeroen and Klenk, Michael, Evolution and the Objectivity of Moral Judgments (December 9, 2019). SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3500683
Abstract: Can findings from experimental and evolutionary psychology help to adjudicate the debate between moral realism and moral antirealism? In this article we address this question from two angles. First, we present the results of an experiment in moral psychology we have conducted, which shows that there is a positive relation between respondents’ ratings of the ‘personal importance’ and the ‘objectivity’ attributed to moral issues. Second, we discuss these results in the context of a recent hypothesis from evolutionary psychology, according to which objectifying moral issues serves a signaling function: agents present moral issues as objective to flag that they find these issues important. Does this hypothesis, if correct, have any metaethical implications? We acknowledge some of the pitfalls in drawing robust metaethical conclusions from this body of work, but argue that it is metaethically relevant nonetheless: it overturns a key desideratum of metaethical analysis in a realist-unfriendly way.
Keywords: Metaethics, moral psychology, experimental psychology, folk objectivity, evolutionary debunking arguments, social consensus, personal importance, signalling, choosing sides
4. General Discussion: The Psychosocial and Evolutionary Functions of Objectifying Morality
In the previous section we presented experimental evidence which suggests that personal
importance is one of the determinants of regarding moral statements as objective. In this section
we turn to the question of what psychosocial function objectifying moral issues might serve,
and what this function might tell us about morality’s evolutionary origins. Objectifying moral
demands may serve multiple psychosocial functions; here we will highlight some of the
functions that we think are particularly prevalent. While these proposals are not directly
implied by our experimental work, they have a good fit with our experimental findings.
4.1 What Is the Function of Externalizing Moral Demands?
Perhaps the first metaethicist to suggest that objectifying moral judgments serves a
psychosocial function was John Mackie (1977). According to Mackie, it often serves
interpersonal relations well to behave as morality requires: ‘We need morality to regulate
interpersonal relations, to control some of the ways in which people behave towards one
another, often in opposition to contrary inclinations. We therefore want our moral judgments
to be authoritative’ (1977 p. 43). Think of situations which involve a tragedy of the commons:
to coordinate action by referring to common moral values might help to solve social
predicaments.
Why should moral values be regarded as objective to serve this function? Followers of
Mackie, such as Joyce (2006), have argued that objectifying moral demands has a motivational
upshot: feeling an internal sense of moral obligation motivates us to behave as morality
requires. Perhaps this is part of the explanation, but as Stanford (2018) has recently argued, it
cannot be the full story. We are also motivated by subjective experiences, such as the
experience of pain or hunger, which we do not cast in terms of having an external authority.
What additional function is served by supposing moral demands to be objective?
Wright et al. (2013; 2014) have formulated a hypothesis about the psychosocial
function of moral objectivism that may answer this question. Building on experimental findings
which suggest that subjects’ attitudes towards regarding moral issues as objective is quite
flexible and diverse, they suggest that a capacity to modulate the objectivity ascribed to moral
issues helps to coordinate dialogue and action both within and between sociocultural groups
(Wright, McWhite, Grandjean 2014 p. 31):
Viewing a moral issue as objectively grounded removes it from the realm of legitimate
personal/social negotiation (…). Viewing a moral issue as non-objectively grounded,
on the other hand, allows people to acknowledge its moral significance (…), while at
the same time maintaining room for choice, dialogue, and debate.
We think that Wright et al.’s hypothesis is along the right lines: presenting a moral
demand as objective typically signals an unwillingness of the agent making the demand to
easily change her mind about it. But we disagree that objectifying moral issues removes them
from the realm of legitimate negotiation. More plausibly, we think, an ascription of objectivity
serves to signal on which topics agents are willing to stand their ground in moral discussion.
This function, in turn, is at least partly modulated by what issues agents find important, as our
experimental results suggest. Presenting an issue as objective typically signals that agents are
willing to stand their ground in moral debate, often with regard to issues which they judge to
be of specific personal importance.
4.2 Moral Objectification: A Signalling Hypothesis
Our signalling hypothesis contrasts with the view that the function of objectifying moral
judgments serves the function of moral persuasion. As Mercier, Sperber (2017) argue,
discussions typically do not serve to grasp truths but to persuade other parties. We grant that
the same might typically be true for moral discussions, but we do not think that this is the main
function of presenting moral issues as objective. Rather than dialectical effectiveness – i.e. an
ability to efficaciously change other people’s minds – we think that objectifying moral issues
typically serves to signal that agents care about an issue and are not easily prepared to change
their minds about it. In doing so they give others a choice: on this issue you’re either with me,
or against me. Hence, presenting moral issues as objective may be an effective means to form
moral alliances, to enhance in-group cohesion and to demarcate the out-group.
Our signalling hypothesis also contrasts with the view that moral objectification is
mostly due to conformity bias. We do not deny that conformity bias may play a role in moral
decision-making, but hypothesize that when issues are presented as objective, this is typically
not due to an agent seeking conformity. Rather than siding with the majority, presenting a
moral issue as objective serves to signal agents’ personal commitment to the issue and their
willingness to stand their ground, even in the face of contrary moral viewpoints and regardless
of the consensus view. Perhaps signalling this commitment is specifically beneficial if a moral
stance is a minority view: it allows fellow activists to rally support for specific moral issues
irrespective of what the majority says.
4.3 Choosing Sides
Two of the features of moral objectification outlined in the previous subsection – objectifying
moral issues often instigates third parties to choose sides, and often does so on the basis of the
contents of specific issues rather than majority consensus – are congruent with a recent
evolutionary hypothesis by DeScioli, Kurzban (2013), who have argued in detail in support of
the thesis that the main evolutionary function of moral judgment is choosing sides in conflict.
Choosing sides is a strategic interaction problem that involves a perpetrator, a victim and a
third-party condemner. Different solutions are possible, some which involve decision
procedures that would never be advisable in making individual choices, but may be beneficial
in multiplayer interactions.
One possible solution is to choose sides on the basis of pre-existing alliances. However,
this strategy has the downside of escalating conflicts, resulting in greater fighting costs. A
second solution is to choose sides on the basis of power: third parties side with the most
powerful party in the conflict. However, this strategy has the downside of concentrating power
in the hands of high-status individuals and may lead to authoritarianism and exploitation. A
third solution is to choose sides by focusing on the contents of an action. Some actions may be
flagged as never–to-be-done or categorically wrong; this public signal can subsequently
coordinate third-party judgment. This solution is characteristic of moral conflicts, in which
bystanders typically coordinate which side they choose not on the basis of the identities of the
disputants but on the basis of their actions. Indeed, some characteristic features of morality –
its impartiality, non-consequentialist characteristics and the categorical nature of moral
demands – can be explained by this strategic interaction framework.
Our hypothesis fits well with that of DeScioli, Kurzban (2013) and extends it to the
metaethical domain. We think that objectifying moral issues is instrumental to the function of
choosing sides. For parties engaged in conflict, presenting an issue as objective serves as an
effective instrument to force third parties to choose sides in the debate. By objectifying an
issue, members of the party engaged in conflict signal their intention to stand their ground, and
force bystanders to choose: on this issue they are either with them, or against them.
5. A Challenge for Moral Realism from Evolutionary Psychology?
In this article we have highlighted recent experimental findings from moral psychology,
including those of our own, as well hypotheses from moral psychology concerning the
psychosocial and evolutionary functions of moral objectivism. Let’s assume that they are along
the right lines. Do they have any implication for metaethics? More specifically, do they give
rise to a challenge for moral realism, which does not face the same objections as Ruse’s EDA
(subsection 1.2)?
We think they do – not by debunking realism, but by challenging the presumptive
assumption of realism based on the phenomenological claim. Recall that realists typically
support their position by appealing to the seeming objectivity of moral demands (e.g. Brink
1989; Enoch 2015).7 As noted, recent experimental findings do not straightforwardly vindicate
the assumption that moral demands are conceived as objective in the realist’s sense. Moreover,
to the extent that moral demands are conceived as strongly objective, we have provided
evidence that this is plausibly regarded as an artefact of our psychology, and that our tendency
to objectify moral demands can be understood in evolutionary terms. This does not establish
that the objectivity of moral demands is merely an illusion, as Ruse argues, but it does serve to
undercut the presumptive support that our moral phenomenology bestows upon moral realism
– which, as mentioned, is one of the main arguments that realists have traditionally provided
in support of their view.
Differently put, the findings we have presented serve to undercut the validity of the
desideratum that metaethicists should vindicate the ‘objective seemings’ of our moral
experience. To the extent that this objectivist phenomenology is real, debunkers can argue that
our perceived sense of moral objectivity can be explained in evolutionary terms. The upshot is
that, whether or not moral realism is ultimately tenable, it need not be regarded as the default
position in metaethics, as its defenders typically suggest (e.g. Enoch 2015). For those who think
that realism is the ‘view to beat’ in metaethics, our conclusion provides an important change
to the dialectic of the debate.
In closing, let us point out exactly how the relation between scientific findings and their
metaethical implications should be understood, in the context of the case-study we have
presented. Underlying the presumptive assumption of moral realism is an inference to the best
explanation: a realist metaethics provides the best explanation for the ‘datum’ that moral
demands are typically regarded as strongly objective (a datum that was originally assumed
from the armchair, and that has subsequently been partly corroborated by experimental work).
Realists present a metaethical explanation to account for this datum: we think of moral
demands as objective, because we have some intuitive grasp of a stance-independent moral
reality. This is not the only kind of explanation that could be advanced, however. For instance,
the datum could also be explained in scientific terms. Indeed, in this article we have argued
that a convincing explanation for the flexible objectivism found in experimental research
comes from evolutionary psychology: that some (but not all) moral issues are associated with
a strong sense of objectivity has to do with the psychosocial benefits of objectifying them,
specifically those moral issues that are of personal importance to agents.
Our alternative explanation does not establish that the realist’s metaethical explanation
is false. However, given the good fit our alternative explanation has with findings from
experimental metaethics, and given its evolutionary plausibility, we do think that realists lose
their presumptive entitlement to claim that they have the better explanation. As far as our
argument goes, it is an open question which explanation will ultimately be better – but realists
will have to argue for a claim to superiority. An appeal to the apparent objectivity of moral
experience no longer suffices to think that the starting point of moral realism is more intuitive
than the starting point of antirealist positions. This conclusion may have ramifications for the
success of EDAs against moral realism, insofar as some argue that those EDAs can be resisted
if assumptions about the truth of moral realism are granted.
Interestingly, in the foregoing discussion two different kinds of explanation have been
pitted against each other: the psychological explanation favoured by antirealists, versus
the metaethical explanation favoured by realists. We think that not too much weight should be
attached to these classifications, however: in the present context both of them refer to
descriptive explanations, albeit with different metaphysical postulates. It would be a fallacy to
think that one kind of explanation should be favoured over the other in principle. This fallacy
is reminiscent of the flaw of Ruse’s EDA: as noted in section 1.2, Ruse wrongly assumed that
his evolutionary explanation for the characteristics of our moral phenomenology automatically
renders the metaphysical postulates of realism redundant.
Hence, in explaining the nature of our moral phenomenology, it cannot simply
be assumed that either a psychological or a metaethical explanation will be superior.
Nonetheless, to the extent that these are explanations of the same phenomenon, they may
justifiably be regarded as rivalling explanations. Since this condition is met in the case-study
we have presented, and since moral realists previously assumed to be uniquely able to account
for the objectivist features of moral experience, the psychological findings we have discussed
in this article overturn an important argument in support of moral realism. However, they do
not debunk moral realism as such. Even if an explanandum originally explained in terms of a
realist metaethics is actually better explained in psychological terms, there might still be other
grounds for defending moral realism as the preferred metaethical framework. The burden-of-proof, however, has now shifted to realists to demonstrate this.
6. Conclusion
We presented experimental findings which indicate that there is a positive relation between the
personal importance that subjects attribute to a moral issue and the objectivity they bestow on
this issue. Subsequently, we discussed these findings in the context of the psychosocial and
evolutionary functions of moral objectivity, and proposed that presenting moral demands as
objective may be instrumental to the function of choosing sides in moral debate. This
evolutionary account helps to explain the objectivist phenomenology of moral demands, and
its flexibility depending on different moral issues. The ability to provide such an explanation,
in turn, has implications for the metaethical debate: it serves to undercut the presumptive
assumption of moral realism.
Saturday, January 4, 2020
Young people tend to be more liberal than older people; half of the change to conservatism occurs after being 45
Peltzman, Sam, Political Ideology over the Life Course (December 9, 2019). SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3501174
Abstract: Young people tend to be more liberal than older people. This paper goes beyond that generality to describe more precisely how self-described political ideology varies with age. I distinguish period (across people of different ages at a moment in time) from cohort (changes in people as they get older) characterizations of this age-ideology gradient. Data are from General Social Surveys from 1974 through 2018, including synthetic cohorts formed from 5 year subsamples of the data. Ideology is measured on a {-1, 1} scale: liberals (conservatives) are -1 (+1) and moderates are 0. The average of this measure (Libcon) generally increases with age both within every 5-year sub-period and among all available cohorts; the shape of these gradients varies considerably across these sub-periods. However, the longer run central tendency is a very well defined concave gradient that rises over the whole life course. The period and cohort versions of this gradient essentially overlap. The change in mean Libcon from early adulthood (25) to old age (80) is substantial (over. 20 on the -1, 1 scale), and around half of this occurs after age 45. I discuss implications for “purple America” characterizations of political ideology and for the strain of literature emphasizing ideological “persistence.”
Keywords: political ideology, liberal, conservative, age
JEL Classification: D72, D78, Z13
Abstract: Young people tend to be more liberal than older people. This paper goes beyond that generality to describe more precisely how self-described political ideology varies with age. I distinguish period (across people of different ages at a moment in time) from cohort (changes in people as they get older) characterizations of this age-ideology gradient. Data are from General Social Surveys from 1974 through 2018, including synthetic cohorts formed from 5 year subsamples of the data. Ideology is measured on a {-1, 1} scale: liberals (conservatives) are -1 (+1) and moderates are 0. The average of this measure (Libcon) generally increases with age both within every 5-year sub-period and among all available cohorts; the shape of these gradients varies considerably across these sub-periods. However, the longer run central tendency is a very well defined concave gradient that rises over the whole life course. The period and cohort versions of this gradient essentially overlap. The change in mean Libcon from early adulthood (25) to old age (80) is substantial (over. 20 on the -1, 1 scale), and around half of this occurs after age 45. I discuss implications for “purple America” characterizations of political ideology and for the strain of literature emphasizing ideological “persistence.”
Keywords: political ideology, liberal, conservative, age
JEL Classification: D72, D78, Z13
Friday, January 3, 2020
What If Companies Get Big Because They're Better? The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms
The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms. David Autor, David Dorn, Lawrence F. Katz, Christina Patterson, and John Van Reenen. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Forthcoming. Dec 2019. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/lkatz/files/adkpv-superstars-qje-manuscript-accepted-20191028.pdf
Abstract: The fall of labor’s share of GDP in the United States and many other countries in recent decades is well documented but its causes remain uncertain. Existing empirical assessments typically rely on industry or macro data, obscuring heterogeneity among firms. In this paper, we analyze micro panel data from the U.S. Economic Census since 1982 and document empirical patterns to assess a new interpretation of the fall in the labor share based on the rise of “superstar firms.” If globalization or technological changes push sales towards the most productive firms in each industry, product market concentration will rise as industries become increasingly dominated by superstar firms, which have high markups and a low labor share of value-added. We empirically assess seven predictions of this hypothesis: (i) industry sales will increasingly concentrate in a small number of firms; (ii) industries where concentration rises most will have the largest declines in the labor share; (iii) the fall in the labor share will be driven largely by reallocation rather than a fall in the unweighted mean labor share across all firms; (iv) the between-firm reallocation component of the fall in the labor share will be greatest in the sectors with the largest increases in market concentration; (v) the industries that are becoming more concentrated will exhibit faster growth of productivity; (vi) the aggregate markup will rise more than the typical firm’s markup; and (vii) these patterns should be observed not only in U.S. firms, but also internationally. We find support for all of these predictions.
---
What If Companies Get Big Because They're Better? Peter R. Orszag. Bloomberg, December 2, 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-02/antitrust-zealots-beware-big-companies-are-more-productive
New research suggests that industry concentration just reflects the superior productivity of superstar firms. Are you listening, trust-busters?
Fewer U.S. companies are controlling more market share as industrial concentration has settled over the U.S. economy during the past two decades. That trend has provoked fierce debates among economists and politicians over whether the government should do more to break up big companies, especially the dominant technology giants.
But what if industries are concentrating because size confers real benefits to the economy rather than because of lax antitrust enforcement?
That’s where the evidence points in forthcoming research by a team of leading economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, the University of Chicago and the University of Zurich. Their study gives reason to be cautious about the growing enthusiasm for inadequate enforcement as the explanation for increased concentration.
In 2015, the economist Jason Furman of Harvard and I took note of the emergence of growing disparities across U.S. companies, with the leading firms in each sector outpacing others in productivity, return on capital and market share. We highlighted the emergence of superstar firms that were earning high returns, enjoyed high productivity and paid high wages. But we weren’t able to tease out what was causing those trends, and thus were forced to admit that “our only real conclusion is thus that more attention needs to be paid to what is driving firm-level trends in the United States.”
In the years since, the topic has received increasing attention from economists, policymakers and presidential candidates. One view of the facts and causes is laid out in a new book by the New York University economist Thomas Philippon, who puts most of the blame on inadequate antitrust enforcement.
Quicktake
Q&A: Are U.S. Companies Too Big?
Philippon argues that U.S. markets were more competitive than European markets two decades ago, but that policymakers defended competition more rigorously in Europe than America since then (thus the title “The Great Reversal”). As the book summary argues:
Sector after economic sector is more concentrated than it was 20 years ago, dominated by fewer and bigger players who lobby politicians aggressively to protect and expand their profit margins. Across the country, this drives up prices while driving down investment, productivity, growth, and wages, resulting in more inequality. Meanwhile, Europe ― long dismissed for competitive sclerosis and weak antitrust ― is beating America at its own game.
That’s contradicted by the latest research, to be published in the Quarterly Review of Economics by economists David Autor, David Dorn, Larry Katz, Christina Patterson and John Van Reenan. They focus on why the share of labor compensation in national income has been declining, but their exhaustive empirical work winds up clarifying the causes behind the rise of superstar firms. (My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Noah Smith also explored this literature in a column last week, emphasizing the potential role of technology in creating and perpetuating superstar firms.)
Autor and his team find support for a productivity-based explanation of increased market concentration. As they note, “If globalization or technological changes push sales towards the most productive firms in each industry, product market concentration will rise as industries become increasingly dominated by superstar firms.” This more benign view is supported in several ways.
First, the economists found clear upward trends in various concentration measures, with a smaller number of firms accounting for a larger share of U.S. industry sales. That’s consistent with Philippon’s research and with most other commentary on the topic, though there are some industrial-organization economists who agree with the general conclusion but quibble with the measures used to confirm it. Where Philippon and the Autor team diverge, though, is in the causes of those facts.
Second, the productivity-based view, but not the antitrust one, would predict that the industries concentrating fastest would be the ones with the fastest growth in productivity. The economists show that larger firms are more productive than smaller ones, that industries concentrating faster are ones with faster growth in patents, and that industries with bigger gains in labor productivity had larger increases in concentration. How can these observations be reconciled with the overall slowing of aggregate productivity growth? Either the effects aren’t that large, or they have been offset by the growing productivity gap between leading firms and others in each sector.
Finally and most crucially, if rising concentration is caused by the benign productivity explanation as opposed to the more troubling lax-antitrust one, the patterns should be similar across the globe despite varying antitrust laws and enforcement. And that’s precisely what the new research shows. As the economists note: “An alternative interpretation of these patterns is … that weakening U.S. antitrust enforcement has led to an erosion of product-market competition. The broad similarity of the trends in concentration, markups and labor shares across many countries that we document below casts some doubt on the centrality of such U.S.-specific institutional explanations. Indeed … antitrust enforcement has, if anything, strengthened in the European Union — and yet … industry concentration appears to have risen in the European Union despite this countervailing force.”
A productivity-based explanation for rising industry concentration would suggest dramatically different policies than the antitrust one does. The evidence uncovered by Autor and his collaborators buttresses the view that superstar firms are thriving because they are simply more productive than other firms, not because they have been given a special break by regulators.
Abstract: The fall of labor’s share of GDP in the United States and many other countries in recent decades is well documented but its causes remain uncertain. Existing empirical assessments typically rely on industry or macro data, obscuring heterogeneity among firms. In this paper, we analyze micro panel data from the U.S. Economic Census since 1982 and document empirical patterns to assess a new interpretation of the fall in the labor share based on the rise of “superstar firms.” If globalization or technological changes push sales towards the most productive firms in each industry, product market concentration will rise as industries become increasingly dominated by superstar firms, which have high markups and a low labor share of value-added. We empirically assess seven predictions of this hypothesis: (i) industry sales will increasingly concentrate in a small number of firms; (ii) industries where concentration rises most will have the largest declines in the labor share; (iii) the fall in the labor share will be driven largely by reallocation rather than a fall in the unweighted mean labor share across all firms; (iv) the between-firm reallocation component of the fall in the labor share will be greatest in the sectors with the largest increases in market concentration; (v) the industries that are becoming more concentrated will exhibit faster growth of productivity; (vi) the aggregate markup will rise more than the typical firm’s markup; and (vii) these patterns should be observed not only in U.S. firms, but also internationally. We find support for all of these predictions.
---
What If Companies Get Big Because They're Better? Peter R. Orszag. Bloomberg, December 2, 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-02/antitrust-zealots-beware-big-companies-are-more-productive
New research suggests that industry concentration just reflects the superior productivity of superstar firms. Are you listening, trust-busters?
Fewer U.S. companies are controlling more market share as industrial concentration has settled over the U.S. economy during the past two decades. That trend has provoked fierce debates among economists and politicians over whether the government should do more to break up big companies, especially the dominant technology giants.
But what if industries are concentrating because size confers real benefits to the economy rather than because of lax antitrust enforcement?
That’s where the evidence points in forthcoming research by a team of leading economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, the University of Chicago and the University of Zurich. Their study gives reason to be cautious about the growing enthusiasm for inadequate enforcement as the explanation for increased concentration.
In 2015, the economist Jason Furman of Harvard and I took note of the emergence of growing disparities across U.S. companies, with the leading firms in each sector outpacing others in productivity, return on capital and market share. We highlighted the emergence of superstar firms that were earning high returns, enjoyed high productivity and paid high wages. But we weren’t able to tease out what was causing those trends, and thus were forced to admit that “our only real conclusion is thus that more attention needs to be paid to what is driving firm-level trends in the United States.”
In the years since, the topic has received increasing attention from economists, policymakers and presidential candidates. One view of the facts and causes is laid out in a new book by the New York University economist Thomas Philippon, who puts most of the blame on inadequate antitrust enforcement.
Quicktake
Q&A: Are U.S. Companies Too Big?
Philippon argues that U.S. markets were more competitive than European markets two decades ago, but that policymakers defended competition more rigorously in Europe than America since then (thus the title “The Great Reversal”). As the book summary argues:
Sector after economic sector is more concentrated than it was 20 years ago, dominated by fewer and bigger players who lobby politicians aggressively to protect and expand their profit margins. Across the country, this drives up prices while driving down investment, productivity, growth, and wages, resulting in more inequality. Meanwhile, Europe ― long dismissed for competitive sclerosis and weak antitrust ― is beating America at its own game.
That’s contradicted by the latest research, to be published in the Quarterly Review of Economics by economists David Autor, David Dorn, Larry Katz, Christina Patterson and John Van Reenan. They focus on why the share of labor compensation in national income has been declining, but their exhaustive empirical work winds up clarifying the causes behind the rise of superstar firms. (My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Noah Smith also explored this literature in a column last week, emphasizing the potential role of technology in creating and perpetuating superstar firms.)
Autor and his team find support for a productivity-based explanation of increased market concentration. As they note, “If globalization or technological changes push sales towards the most productive firms in each industry, product market concentration will rise as industries become increasingly dominated by superstar firms.” This more benign view is supported in several ways.
First, the economists found clear upward trends in various concentration measures, with a smaller number of firms accounting for a larger share of U.S. industry sales. That’s consistent with Philippon’s research and with most other commentary on the topic, though there are some industrial-organization economists who agree with the general conclusion but quibble with the measures used to confirm it. Where Philippon and the Autor team diverge, though, is in the causes of those facts.
Second, the productivity-based view, but not the antitrust one, would predict that the industries concentrating fastest would be the ones with the fastest growth in productivity. The economists show that larger firms are more productive than smaller ones, that industries concentrating faster are ones with faster growth in patents, and that industries with bigger gains in labor productivity had larger increases in concentration. How can these observations be reconciled with the overall slowing of aggregate productivity growth? Either the effects aren’t that large, or they have been offset by the growing productivity gap between leading firms and others in each sector.
Finally and most crucially, if rising concentration is caused by the benign productivity explanation as opposed to the more troubling lax-antitrust one, the patterns should be similar across the globe despite varying antitrust laws and enforcement. And that’s precisely what the new research shows. As the economists note: “An alternative interpretation of these patterns is … that weakening U.S. antitrust enforcement has led to an erosion of product-market competition. The broad similarity of the trends in concentration, markups and labor shares across many countries that we document below casts some doubt on the centrality of such U.S.-specific institutional explanations. Indeed … antitrust enforcement has, if anything, strengthened in the European Union — and yet … industry concentration appears to have risen in the European Union despite this countervailing force.”
A productivity-based explanation for rising industry concentration would suggest dramatically different policies than the antitrust one does. The evidence uncovered by Autor and his collaborators buttresses the view that superstar firms are thriving because they are simply more productive than other firms, not because they have been given a special break by regulators.
Sleeping With Younger Men: Women’s Accounts of Sexual Interplay in Age-Hypogamous Intimate Relationships
Sleeping With Younger Men: Women’s Accounts of Sexual Interplay in Age-Hypogamous Intimate Relationships. Milaine Alarie. The Journal of Sex Research, Feb 22 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1574704
Abstract: Influenced by cultural representations of “cougars,” society commonly imagines women who date younger men as challenging some of the gendered expectations regarding appropriate sexual desire and behavior. Based on 55 semistructured interviews with women ages 30 to 60 who date younger men, I explore how having younger male partners relates to women’s desire and ability to reproduce/disrupt the traditional cultural script for heterosexual sex. I found that compared to their experiences of sex with men of their own age or older, women perceived age-hypogamous intimate relationships as a context in which they can more easily disrupt some facets of that script, namely those regarding (a) the expression of sexual desire, (b) sexual assertiveness, and/or (c) the importance of female pleasure. However, the participants reproduced certain facets of the cultural sexual script, such as the emphasis on penile–vaginal intercourse. In light of women’s experiences, I show that younger men’s stamina and erectile capacities influenced women’s ability to challenge certain facets of the script. Furthermore, I argue that women’s perceptions of younger men as fantasizing about sexually experienced women altered the gender power dynamics, ultimately facilitating the modification of interpersonal sexual scripts. This study contributes to improving our understanding of the way age, age differences, and gender interact and influence interpersonal sexual scripts.
---
Discussion
In line with some aspects of common cultural representations of cougars (Alarie, 2018; Aoun, 2013; Barrett & Levin, 2014; Collard, 2012; Kaklamanidou, 2012; Montemurro & Siefken, 2014), the women in this study presented themselves as confident, sexually assertive women with strong sex drives. Based on their accounts of sex with younger men, it appears that the sexual dynamic within age-hypogamous intimate relationships departs, to some level, from the traditional cultural script for (heterosexual) sex.
Indeed, age-hypogamous intimate relationships were depicted as a context where women are encouraged to present themselves as highly desiring and sexually assertive, and where they can easily ensure that their pleasure will be attended to.
This study shows that women’s ability to destabilize the traditional cultural script for heterosexual sex was facilitated in part by younger men’s stamina and erectile capacities. Most women talked about younger men’s high sex drive, sexual endurance, and reliable erections as facilitating their efforts to present themselves as highly desiring, to act on their sexual desires, and to ensure that they could reach maximal pleasure. Indeed, many women described being at times uncomfortable with acting on their strong libido when partnered with men their own age or older, as they perceived the risk of being criticized for being highly desiring and/or the risk of hurting a partner’s masculinity to be higher than in age-hypogamous intimate relationships.
Older participants’ discussion of how older men experiencing erectile dysfunction affects their sexual satisfaction resonates with contemporary research on the topic. Indeed, research shows that many women report that their partners’ erectile dysfunction has a negative impact on their sexual satisfaction (Cameron & Tomlin, 2007; Chevret et al., 2004). There is clear evidence that the likelihood of erectile dysfunction among men increases with age (Laumann, Paik, & Rosen, 1999; Rosen et al., 2004). However, one should note that only a minority (roughly 18% to 22%) of middle-aged men suffer from erectile dysfunctions (Laumann et al., 1999; Rosen et al., 2004). It is also worth reiterating that a man’s erectile capacities are not the sole factor contributing to women’s sexual pleasure (Armstrong et al., 2012; Hite, 1976; Koedt, 1973; Richters et al., 2006; Rostosky & Travis, 2000). In fact, studies show that not all women are happy to see penile–vaginal intercourse being reintroduced into their sex lives once their partners start using sexual enhancement drugs (Meika, 2004; Potts, Gavey, Grace, & Vares, 2003; Vares et al., 2007).
Based on women’s discourses, I also suggest that most women felt comfortable to disrupt certain aspects of the traditional script for (heterosexual) sex with younger men in part because they perceived younger men as preferring sexually experienced and assertive women with high sex drives. Indeed, many participants reported that their younger partners had complained about young women’s lack of sexual experience, lack of confidence, and/or passivity in bed. According to the participants, younger men often emphasized how pleasant it was for them to be with women who were confident in their own skins, who knew what they liked in bed and who were not afraid to say it.
Furthermore, a large portion of women felt that younger men were more open-minded with regard to sexuality, which made it easier for them to express their sexual desires and fantasies and to act on them. In comparison, many of the participants felt that men their own age or older were often uncomfortable or judgmental if women presented themselves as highly desiring, as having accumulated much sexual experience, and/or as interested in exploring unconventional sexual practices. With that in mind, most women felt it was easier to express their sexual desires and steer sexual interactions in ways that would increase their pleasure when they were with younger men.
The participants’ interpretations of younger men’s appreciation of sexually assertive women resonate with recent research on young men’s sexual desires and practices. Indeed, based on 32 interviews with young men aged 18 to 24 years old, Dworkin and O’Sullivan (2005) found that although the majority of young men tended to initiate sexual practices with their female partners, only some of them reported preferring male-dominated patterns of initiation. In fact, most young men indicated that their ideal sexual interaction would be one where the two partners shared the responsibility of sexual initiation, and one out of four young men actually preferred a female-dominated pattern of initiation. Other studies show that a large portion of young men wish their partners would take more initiative in signaling what they like in bed, such as asking them to perform clitoral stimulation or touching themselves if they wanted to (Salisbury & Fisher, 2014).
Overall, it appears that many younger men would prefer women to be more assertive in bed. While the dichotomized view of older versus younger women presented by the women in this study is arguably an exaggerated portrait of how aging affects women’s sex performances, the literature on young adults’ sexual practices supports, to a certain extent, these participants’ perceptions of young women. Indeed, research shows that young women are often too shy to ask men to do certain sexual acts that they enjoy (i.e., manual stimulation of the clitoris, cunnilingus) or to take the matter into their own hands and self-stimulate, especially in the context of casual sex (Backstrom et al., 2012; Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). Other research shows that most young women believe that it is men’s responsibility to physically stimulate women until they reach orgasm, and that they therefore often wait for men to provide them with pleasure (Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). Research on young women’s experiences of heterosexual sex also shows that many of them have insecurities about their physical appearance and that these body image issues influence their behavior during sex (Weaver & Byers, 2018). Ultimately, women’s (in)ability to assert themselves during sexual interactions with men has considerable impact on their sexual satisfaction, as communicating their desires and preferences plays an important role in maximizing their own sexual pleasure (Armstrong et al., 2012; Bridges, Lease, & Ellison, 2004; Ménard & Offman, 2009).
The participants’ depiction of younger men as particularly generous lovers also merits discussion. This result is particularly intriguing considering that previous studies depicted a rather disappointing portrait of young adults’ ability to reach an egalitarian dynamic with regard to female/male sexual pleasure. Indeed, many studies show that while young women often perform fellatio on men, it is much less common for young men to perform cunnilingus on their female partners (Armstrong et al., 2015; Backstrom et al., 2012; Lewis & Marston, 2016). There is in fact a well-documented gap between young men’s and young women’s frequency of orgasm during heterosexual sex (Armstrong et al., 2015; Richters et al., 2006). Therefore, one cannot conclude that younger men are inherently attentive and generous lovers in every context. Instead, based on women’s discourses, I argue that women’s perceptions of younger men as fantasizing about older women combined with women’s perceptions of young women as passive sex partners contribute to shifting the gender power dynamics at play during sexual interactions, ultimately facilitating women’s ability to renegotiate interpersonal sexual scripts with younger men. Women’s perceptions of younger men as fantasizing about older women provided women with more confidence in themselves, which then facilitated their ability to assert and enjoy themselves sexually.
It is worth highlighting that women’s appreciations of age-hypogamous sex was also influenced, especially in the case of women over age 40, by the perception of middleaged men as showing little interest in women in their own age bracket, a perception which is supported by empirical evidence (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2009; Buunk et al., 2001; Conway et al., 2015; Pixley et al., 2007; South, 1991). For those who had recently divorced or separated and had felt undesired in the last years of their marriage or cohabitational relationship, the perception of younger men as fantasizing about older women felt particularly empowering.
This study shows that in a culture where aging is depicted as having a much stronger devaluation effect on women than on men (Carpenter, Nathanson, & Kim, 2006; England & McClintock, 2009; Wolf, 1991), younger men’s enthusiasm for older women’s sexual experience, confidence, and high sex drive has a particularly positive effect on older women’s ability/desire to renegotiate the terms of the gendered sexual script.
It is difficult to speculate on whether the participants’ younger partner’s (perceived) appreciation for older women will last as they age. It is unclear whether young men today are less likely to internalize ageist conceptions of women’s worth as intimate partners and therefore less likely than men from previous generations to prefer younger women to women their age once they reach middle age. The current study adds to the conversation by suggesting that younger men’s appreciation of older women is partly influenced by their (disappointing) experiences with women their own age and by their desire to have sexually experienced and confident sex partners. Arguably, as they advance in age and accumulate new experiences, these men’s sexual desires, preferences, and expectations might evolve. This area of inquiry definitely deserves more attention in the future.
One should note that while the women in this study challenged certain aspects of the traditional cultural script for (heterosexual) sex when partnered with younger men, they also reproduced other aspects of the script. For instance, the women in this study placed a great value on men’s erectile capacities, reproducing the idea that penile– vaginal intercourse is the most important part of the sexual interaction (Fahs, 2011; Fishman & Mamo, 2001; GewirtzMeydan et al., 2018; Vares et al., 2007). Furthermore, many women—mostly women in their 40s and 50s—saw the careful filtering of potential younger sex partners as a crucial step they had to go through to find men who would provide them with a respectful and pleasurable experience, one where they would not feel reduced to a sex object of temporary value. This last discourse highlights how gender power dynamics influencing heterosexual sex are not automatically removed because of an age difference between partners, and that women often feel like they must deploy strategies to avoid being potentially “used” by younger men.
It is also important to mention that, during their interview, most participants talked about the stigma associated with being read as a cougar, and that many expressed a certain level of caution with regard to how sexual they wanted to be perceived by others. Navigating the sexist and ageist conceptions of women’s sexuality appeared to be particularly challenging for women in their 40s and 50s, as they often seemed torn between their desire to present themselves as sexually empowered women and their desire to avoid being associated with negative cultural representations of cougars. Arguably, older participants’ fear of stigmatization is influenced not only by the cultural taboo for age-hypogamous intimate relationships but also by the cultural representation of female sexuality as more acceptable for the younger, more physically attractive, or childless woman (Friedman et al., 1998; Montemurro & Siefken, 2012; Travis et al., 2000). That said, it can also reflect generational differences with regard to perceptions of acceptable sexual desire and conduct for women, as there have been significant changes in terms of gendered norms regarding sexuality over the past 60 years (Allyn, 2000; Kamen, 2000; Lévy, 2008; Thornton & YoungDeMarco, 2001).
---
Interview Guide
Motivation for doing the interview:
⦁ Could you tell me what motivated you to participate in this study?
Perceptions of what “younger man” means
⦁ This study focused on women’s experiences with younger men. In your mind, how young does a man have to be for you to think you are dating a “younger man”?
Current love/sexual life
⦁ Could you tell me more about where you are right now with regards to your current love life and sexual life?
Love/sexual history
⦁ In order for me to have a general idea of who you are, could you provide me with a quick overview of the important intimate relationships you’ve had in your life?
Dating at midlife
⦁ How would you describe your experience being on the dating market at midlife?
Dating preferences
⦁ Thinking about the last years of your life as a single woman, what do you usually look for…
⦁ in terms of relationships?
⦁ In terms of personal characteristics in men?
⦁ How does age matter for you, if at all?
⦁ Have your preferences changed over time, and if so, how?
Experience with age-hypogamous intimate relationships- Overview
⦁ Is (NAME- current younger partner) the first younger partner you’ve ever had?
⦁ Who was the first younger partner you’ve ever had?
⦁ If not, how many younger male partners have you had in your life?
⦁ In your lifetime, would you say you’ve chosen mostly younger, same-age or older men?
Experiences with your FIRST younger partner (* if different from current younger partner)
⦁ How did you meet (NAME- first younger partner)?
⦁ (* if needed) Tell me more about the first interactions…
⦁ How did you feel about the age difference at first?
⦁ Has your feeling changed over time? How so?
⦁ At that time, were you looking specifically for a younger man?
⦁ What kind of relationship were you looking for when you met him?
⦁ Did the relationship evolved over time? How so?
Experiences with CURRENT younger man
⦁ How did you meet (NAME- current younger partner)?
⦁ (* if needed) Tell me more about the first interactions…
⦁ How did you feel about the age difference at first?
⦁ Has your feeling changed over time? How so?
⦁ At that time, were you looking specifically for a younger man?
⦁ What kind of relationship were you looking for when you met him?
⦁ Did the relationship evolved over time? How so?
Age preference
⦁ When you think of the kind of partners you could be interested in, do you have a limit with regards to how young/how old a new partner could be?
⦁ Can you explain why you wouldn’t consider a man younger than (MINIMUM AGE) and older than (MAXIMUM AGE)?
⦁ How strict are you about those limits? Are there contexts in which you don’t mind going younger or older, and if so, what contexts?
Perceived benefits, disadvantages and risks associated with age hypogamy
⦁ Do you see any advantages to dating younger men? If so, what are they?
⦁ Do you see any disadvantages to dating younger men? If so, what are they?
Expectations with regards to the future
⦁ What do you expect out of your relationships with (NAME- current younger partner)?
⦁ How does the age difference influence the way you see the future with him?
⦁ If you were to imagine a long-term relationship with (NAME- current younger partner), would there be any risks or benefits that you associate to his age?
Younger men’s interest in older women
⦁ What do you think young men are looking for in older women like you?
Age identity
⦁ In general, do you mention your age when you meet a new partner?
⦁ When? Why/Why not?
⦁ Do you ask how old he is? When? Why/Why not?
⦁ With regards to disclosing your age, do you act differently with men your age/older men compared to younger men? Why (or why not)?
⦁ When on a date with younger men, do you feel like you have to adapt your look or your approach in order to look more youthful? How so?
Power dynamics
⦁ Do you feel like the age difference influence the power dynamics between you and your younger partner(s)? And if so, how?
⦁ How does it differ, if at all, from your experience with men your age/older?
Children
⦁ Do you feel like having children/not having children influences your interactions or relationships with younger men? And if so, how?
⦁ How does it differ, if at all, from your experience with men your age/older?
Money
⦁ Do you feel like money influences your interactions or relationships with younger men? And if so, how?
⦁ How does it differ, if at all, from your experience with men your age/older?
⦁ Do you see any differences with regards to who pays for the bill?
⦁ Do you think your financial resources could be something that attracts younger men? Why/why not?
Sexuality
⦁ Do you see any differences with regards to sex when you compare you experiences with younger men with those with men your age/older?
⦁ How does dating younger (vs. older) men influence the way you feel in bed?
Body image
⦁ How does dating younger (vs. older) men influences the way you feel about your body?
People’s reactions and stigma management
⦁ Have you introduced (current younger partner) to your friends and family?
⦁ Why? Why not?
⦁ What have been their reactions?
⦁ Have you ever encountered reactions (positive or negative) from people outside of your friends and family? Tell me about it.
⦁ Do you have strategies to avoid negative comments or reactions?
⦁ If someone had an issue with you dating younger men, what would you say?
Feelings towards aging
⦁ How do you feel about aging?
Feelings towards cultural representations of older women
⦁ How do you feel about the way older women/older men are presented in the media?
⦁ How does that make you feel?
Feelings towards age hypergamy
⦁ How do you feel about men who date younger women?
“Cougar” and identity choices
⦁ I see you already know the term ‘cougar’ / Do you know the term ‘cougar’?
⦁ What does that term mean to you?
⦁ Do you see yourself as a “cougar”? Why? Why not?
⦁ Has anyone ever referred to you as a “cougar”? How did you react?
Advice for other women
⦁ If a friend of yours came to you, told you she was curious about dating younger men, and asked you for advice, what would you tell her?
Last words
Is there anything you would want the public to know about women’s intimate relationships with younger men? Or is there anything else would like to add before we finish up this interview?
---
Popular press that mentions this paper: Why Older Women (Cougars) Seek Sex With Younger Men (Cubs) https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/all-about-sex/202001/why-older-women-cougars-seek-sex-younger-men-cubs
Abstract: Influenced by cultural representations of “cougars,” society commonly imagines women who date younger men as challenging some of the gendered expectations regarding appropriate sexual desire and behavior. Based on 55 semistructured interviews with women ages 30 to 60 who date younger men, I explore how having younger male partners relates to women’s desire and ability to reproduce/disrupt the traditional cultural script for heterosexual sex. I found that compared to their experiences of sex with men of their own age or older, women perceived age-hypogamous intimate relationships as a context in which they can more easily disrupt some facets of that script, namely those regarding (a) the expression of sexual desire, (b) sexual assertiveness, and/or (c) the importance of female pleasure. However, the participants reproduced certain facets of the cultural sexual script, such as the emphasis on penile–vaginal intercourse. In light of women’s experiences, I show that younger men’s stamina and erectile capacities influenced women’s ability to challenge certain facets of the script. Furthermore, I argue that women’s perceptions of younger men as fantasizing about sexually experienced women altered the gender power dynamics, ultimately facilitating the modification of interpersonal sexual scripts. This study contributes to improving our understanding of the way age, age differences, and gender interact and influence interpersonal sexual scripts.
---
Discussion
In line with some aspects of common cultural representations of cougars (Alarie, 2018; Aoun, 2013; Barrett & Levin, 2014; Collard, 2012; Kaklamanidou, 2012; Montemurro & Siefken, 2014), the women in this study presented themselves as confident, sexually assertive women with strong sex drives. Based on their accounts of sex with younger men, it appears that the sexual dynamic within age-hypogamous intimate relationships departs, to some level, from the traditional cultural script for (heterosexual) sex.
Indeed, age-hypogamous intimate relationships were depicted as a context where women are encouraged to present themselves as highly desiring and sexually assertive, and where they can easily ensure that their pleasure will be attended to.
This study shows that women’s ability to destabilize the traditional cultural script for heterosexual sex was facilitated in part by younger men’s stamina and erectile capacities. Most women talked about younger men’s high sex drive, sexual endurance, and reliable erections as facilitating their efforts to present themselves as highly desiring, to act on their sexual desires, and to ensure that they could reach maximal pleasure. Indeed, many women described being at times uncomfortable with acting on their strong libido when partnered with men their own age or older, as they perceived the risk of being criticized for being highly desiring and/or the risk of hurting a partner’s masculinity to be higher than in age-hypogamous intimate relationships.
Older participants’ discussion of how older men experiencing erectile dysfunction affects their sexual satisfaction resonates with contemporary research on the topic. Indeed, research shows that many women report that their partners’ erectile dysfunction has a negative impact on their sexual satisfaction (Cameron & Tomlin, 2007; Chevret et al., 2004). There is clear evidence that the likelihood of erectile dysfunction among men increases with age (Laumann, Paik, & Rosen, 1999; Rosen et al., 2004). However, one should note that only a minority (roughly 18% to 22%) of middle-aged men suffer from erectile dysfunctions (Laumann et al., 1999; Rosen et al., 2004). It is also worth reiterating that a man’s erectile capacities are not the sole factor contributing to women’s sexual pleasure (Armstrong et al., 2012; Hite, 1976; Koedt, 1973; Richters et al., 2006; Rostosky & Travis, 2000). In fact, studies show that not all women are happy to see penile–vaginal intercourse being reintroduced into their sex lives once their partners start using sexual enhancement drugs (Meika, 2004; Potts, Gavey, Grace, & Vares, 2003; Vares et al., 2007).
Based on women’s discourses, I also suggest that most women felt comfortable to disrupt certain aspects of the traditional script for (heterosexual) sex with younger men in part because they perceived younger men as preferring sexually experienced and assertive women with high sex drives. Indeed, many participants reported that their younger partners had complained about young women’s lack of sexual experience, lack of confidence, and/or passivity in bed. According to the participants, younger men often emphasized how pleasant it was for them to be with women who were confident in their own skins, who knew what they liked in bed and who were not afraid to say it.
Furthermore, a large portion of women felt that younger men were more open-minded with regard to sexuality, which made it easier for them to express their sexual desires and fantasies and to act on them. In comparison, many of the participants felt that men their own age or older were often uncomfortable or judgmental if women presented themselves as highly desiring, as having accumulated much sexual experience, and/or as interested in exploring unconventional sexual practices. With that in mind, most women felt it was easier to express their sexual desires and steer sexual interactions in ways that would increase their pleasure when they were with younger men.
The participants’ interpretations of younger men’s appreciation of sexually assertive women resonate with recent research on young men’s sexual desires and practices. Indeed, based on 32 interviews with young men aged 18 to 24 years old, Dworkin and O’Sullivan (2005) found that although the majority of young men tended to initiate sexual practices with their female partners, only some of them reported preferring male-dominated patterns of initiation. In fact, most young men indicated that their ideal sexual interaction would be one where the two partners shared the responsibility of sexual initiation, and one out of four young men actually preferred a female-dominated pattern of initiation. Other studies show that a large portion of young men wish their partners would take more initiative in signaling what they like in bed, such as asking them to perform clitoral stimulation or touching themselves if they wanted to (Salisbury & Fisher, 2014).
Overall, it appears that many younger men would prefer women to be more assertive in bed. While the dichotomized view of older versus younger women presented by the women in this study is arguably an exaggerated portrait of how aging affects women’s sex performances, the literature on young adults’ sexual practices supports, to a certain extent, these participants’ perceptions of young women. Indeed, research shows that young women are often too shy to ask men to do certain sexual acts that they enjoy (i.e., manual stimulation of the clitoris, cunnilingus) or to take the matter into their own hands and self-stimulate, especially in the context of casual sex (Backstrom et al., 2012; Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). Other research shows that most young women believe that it is men’s responsibility to physically stimulate women until they reach orgasm, and that they therefore often wait for men to provide them with pleasure (Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). Research on young women’s experiences of heterosexual sex also shows that many of them have insecurities about their physical appearance and that these body image issues influence their behavior during sex (Weaver & Byers, 2018). Ultimately, women’s (in)ability to assert themselves during sexual interactions with men has considerable impact on their sexual satisfaction, as communicating their desires and preferences plays an important role in maximizing their own sexual pleasure (Armstrong et al., 2012; Bridges, Lease, & Ellison, 2004; Ménard & Offman, 2009).
The participants’ depiction of younger men as particularly generous lovers also merits discussion. This result is particularly intriguing considering that previous studies depicted a rather disappointing portrait of young adults’ ability to reach an egalitarian dynamic with regard to female/male sexual pleasure. Indeed, many studies show that while young women often perform fellatio on men, it is much less common for young men to perform cunnilingus on their female partners (Armstrong et al., 2015; Backstrom et al., 2012; Lewis & Marston, 2016). There is in fact a well-documented gap between young men’s and young women’s frequency of orgasm during heterosexual sex (Armstrong et al., 2015; Richters et al., 2006). Therefore, one cannot conclude that younger men are inherently attentive and generous lovers in every context. Instead, based on women’s discourses, I argue that women’s perceptions of younger men as fantasizing about older women combined with women’s perceptions of young women as passive sex partners contribute to shifting the gender power dynamics at play during sexual interactions, ultimately facilitating women’s ability to renegotiate interpersonal sexual scripts with younger men. Women’s perceptions of younger men as fantasizing about older women provided women with more confidence in themselves, which then facilitated their ability to assert and enjoy themselves sexually.
It is worth highlighting that women’s appreciations of age-hypogamous sex was also influenced, especially in the case of women over age 40, by the perception of middleaged men as showing little interest in women in their own age bracket, a perception which is supported by empirical evidence (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2009; Buunk et al., 2001; Conway et al., 2015; Pixley et al., 2007; South, 1991). For those who had recently divorced or separated and had felt undesired in the last years of their marriage or cohabitational relationship, the perception of younger men as fantasizing about older women felt particularly empowering.
This study shows that in a culture where aging is depicted as having a much stronger devaluation effect on women than on men (Carpenter, Nathanson, & Kim, 2006; England & McClintock, 2009; Wolf, 1991), younger men’s enthusiasm for older women’s sexual experience, confidence, and high sex drive has a particularly positive effect on older women’s ability/desire to renegotiate the terms of the gendered sexual script.
It is difficult to speculate on whether the participants’ younger partner’s (perceived) appreciation for older women will last as they age. It is unclear whether young men today are less likely to internalize ageist conceptions of women’s worth as intimate partners and therefore less likely than men from previous generations to prefer younger women to women their age once they reach middle age. The current study adds to the conversation by suggesting that younger men’s appreciation of older women is partly influenced by their (disappointing) experiences with women their own age and by their desire to have sexually experienced and confident sex partners. Arguably, as they advance in age and accumulate new experiences, these men’s sexual desires, preferences, and expectations might evolve. This area of inquiry definitely deserves more attention in the future.
One should note that while the women in this study challenged certain aspects of the traditional cultural script for (heterosexual) sex when partnered with younger men, they also reproduced other aspects of the script. For instance, the women in this study placed a great value on men’s erectile capacities, reproducing the idea that penile– vaginal intercourse is the most important part of the sexual interaction (Fahs, 2011; Fishman & Mamo, 2001; GewirtzMeydan et al., 2018; Vares et al., 2007). Furthermore, many women—mostly women in their 40s and 50s—saw the careful filtering of potential younger sex partners as a crucial step they had to go through to find men who would provide them with a respectful and pleasurable experience, one where they would not feel reduced to a sex object of temporary value. This last discourse highlights how gender power dynamics influencing heterosexual sex are not automatically removed because of an age difference between partners, and that women often feel like they must deploy strategies to avoid being potentially “used” by younger men.
It is also important to mention that, during their interview, most participants talked about the stigma associated with being read as a cougar, and that many expressed a certain level of caution with regard to how sexual they wanted to be perceived by others. Navigating the sexist and ageist conceptions of women’s sexuality appeared to be particularly challenging for women in their 40s and 50s, as they often seemed torn between their desire to present themselves as sexually empowered women and their desire to avoid being associated with negative cultural representations of cougars. Arguably, older participants’ fear of stigmatization is influenced not only by the cultural taboo for age-hypogamous intimate relationships but also by the cultural representation of female sexuality as more acceptable for the younger, more physically attractive, or childless woman (Friedman et al., 1998; Montemurro & Siefken, 2012; Travis et al., 2000). That said, it can also reflect generational differences with regard to perceptions of acceptable sexual desire and conduct for women, as there have been significant changes in terms of gendered norms regarding sexuality over the past 60 years (Allyn, 2000; Kamen, 2000; Lévy, 2008; Thornton & YoungDeMarco, 2001).
Interview Guide
Motivation for doing the interview:
⦁ Could you tell me what motivated you to participate in this study?
Perceptions of what “younger man” means
⦁ This study focused on women’s experiences with younger men. In your mind, how young does a man have to be for you to think you are dating a “younger man”?
Current love/sexual life
⦁ Could you tell me more about where you are right now with regards to your current love life and sexual life?
Love/sexual history
⦁ In order for me to have a general idea of who you are, could you provide me with a quick overview of the important intimate relationships you’ve had in your life?
Dating at midlife
⦁ How would you describe your experience being on the dating market at midlife?
Dating preferences
⦁ Thinking about the last years of your life as a single woman, what do you usually look for…
⦁ in terms of relationships?
⦁ In terms of personal characteristics in men?
⦁ How does age matter for you, if at all?
⦁ Have your preferences changed over time, and if so, how?
Experience with age-hypogamous intimate relationships- Overview
⦁ Is (NAME- current younger partner) the first younger partner you’ve ever had?
⦁ Who was the first younger partner you’ve ever had?
⦁ If not, how many younger male partners have you had in your life?
⦁ In your lifetime, would you say you’ve chosen mostly younger, same-age or older men?
Experiences with your FIRST younger partner (* if different from current younger partner)
⦁ How did you meet (NAME- first younger partner)?
⦁ (* if needed) Tell me more about the first interactions…
⦁ How did you feel about the age difference at first?
⦁ Has your feeling changed over time? How so?
⦁ At that time, were you looking specifically for a younger man?
⦁ What kind of relationship were you looking for when you met him?
⦁ Did the relationship evolved over time? How so?
Experiences with CURRENT younger man
⦁ How did you meet (NAME- current younger partner)?
⦁ (* if needed) Tell me more about the first interactions…
⦁ How did you feel about the age difference at first?
⦁ Has your feeling changed over time? How so?
⦁ At that time, were you looking specifically for a younger man?
⦁ What kind of relationship were you looking for when you met him?
⦁ Did the relationship evolved over time? How so?
Age preference
⦁ When you think of the kind of partners you could be interested in, do you have a limit with regards to how young/how old a new partner could be?
⦁ Can you explain why you wouldn’t consider a man younger than (MINIMUM AGE) and older than (MAXIMUM AGE)?
⦁ How strict are you about those limits? Are there contexts in which you don’t mind going younger or older, and if so, what contexts?
Perceived benefits, disadvantages and risks associated with age hypogamy
⦁ Do you see any advantages to dating younger men? If so, what are they?
⦁ Do you see any disadvantages to dating younger men? If so, what are they?
Expectations with regards to the future
⦁ What do you expect out of your relationships with (NAME- current younger partner)?
⦁ How does the age difference influence the way you see the future with him?
⦁ If you were to imagine a long-term relationship with (NAME- current younger partner), would there be any risks or benefits that you associate to his age?
Younger men’s interest in older women
⦁ What do you think young men are looking for in older women like you?
Age identity
⦁ In general, do you mention your age when you meet a new partner?
⦁ When? Why/Why not?
⦁ Do you ask how old he is? When? Why/Why not?
⦁ With regards to disclosing your age, do you act differently with men your age/older men compared to younger men? Why (or why not)?
⦁ When on a date with younger men, do you feel like you have to adapt your look or your approach in order to look more youthful? How so?
Power dynamics
⦁ Do you feel like the age difference influence the power dynamics between you and your younger partner(s)? And if so, how?
⦁ How does it differ, if at all, from your experience with men your age/older?
Children
⦁ Do you feel like having children/not having children influences your interactions or relationships with younger men? And if so, how?
⦁ How does it differ, if at all, from your experience with men your age/older?
Money
⦁ Do you feel like money influences your interactions or relationships with younger men? And if so, how?
⦁ How does it differ, if at all, from your experience with men your age/older?
⦁ Do you see any differences with regards to who pays for the bill?
⦁ Do you think your financial resources could be something that attracts younger men? Why/why not?
Sexuality
⦁ Do you see any differences with regards to sex when you compare you experiences with younger men with those with men your age/older?
⦁ How does dating younger (vs. older) men influence the way you feel in bed?
Body image
⦁ How does dating younger (vs. older) men influences the way you feel about your body?
People’s reactions and stigma management
⦁ Have you introduced (current younger partner) to your friends and family?
⦁ Why? Why not?
⦁ What have been their reactions?
⦁ Have you ever encountered reactions (positive or negative) from people outside of your friends and family? Tell me about it.
⦁ Do you have strategies to avoid negative comments or reactions?
⦁ If someone had an issue with you dating younger men, what would you say?
Feelings towards aging
⦁ How do you feel about aging?
Feelings towards cultural representations of older women
⦁ How do you feel about the way older women/older men are presented in the media?
⦁ How does that make you feel?
Feelings towards age hypergamy
⦁ How do you feel about men who date younger women?
“Cougar” and identity choices
⦁ I see you already know the term ‘cougar’ / Do you know the term ‘cougar’?
⦁ What does that term mean to you?
⦁ Do you see yourself as a “cougar”? Why? Why not?
⦁ Has anyone ever referred to you as a “cougar”? How did you react?
Advice for other women
⦁ If a friend of yours came to you, told you she was curious about dating younger men, and asked you for advice, what would you tell her?
Last words
Is there anything you would want the public to know about women’s intimate relationships with younger men? Or is there anything else would like to add before we finish up this interview?
---
Popular press that mentions this paper: Why Older Women (Cougars) Seek Sex With Younger Men (Cubs) https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/all-about-sex/202001/why-older-women-cougars-seek-sex-younger-men-cubs
No Evidence for Social Genetic Effects or Genetic Similarity Among Friends Beyond that Due to Population Stratification: A Reappraisal of Domingue et al (2018)
No Evidence for Social Genetic Effects or Genetic Similarity Among Friends Beyond that Due to Population Stratification: A Reappraisal of Domingue et al (2018). Loic Yengo et al. Behavior Genetics, January 2020, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 67–71. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-019-09979-2
Abstract: Using data from 5500 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, Domingue et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci 25:256., 2018) claimed to show that friends are genetically more similar to one another than randomly selected peers, beyond the confounding effects of population stratification by ancestry. The authors also claimed to show ‘social-genetic’ effects, whereby individuals’ educational attainment (EA) is influenced by their friends’ genes. We argue that neither claim is justified by the data. Mathematically we show that (1) the genetic similarity reported between friends is far larger than theoretically possible if it was caused by phenotypic assortment as the authors claim; uncontrolled population stratification is a likely reason for the genetic similarity they observed, and (2) significant association between individuals’ EA and their friends’ polygenic scores for EA is a necessary consequence of EA similarity among friends, and does not provide evidence for social-genetic effects. Going forward, we urge caution in the analysis and interpretation of data at the intersection of human genetics and the social sciences.
Keywords: Genomic similarity Social-genetic effects Confound Kinship
---
The availability of large samples of individuals with genomewide genetic data in combination with behavioural phenotypes and social outcomes has led to a resurgence in research
that addresses questions at the interface of genetics and the
social sciences. Some of that research is hypothesis driven,
while much of it is data-driven and hypothesis-generating.
The genetics and statistical analysis of human traits has a
solid underpinning theory in quantitative and population
genetics (Lynch and Walsh 1998; Walsh and Lynch 2018),
and rigorous benchmarking against these underpinnings is
essential—especially when novel or unexpected results in
human behaviour are reported. In this paper, we highlight
one example (and list others) where novel results and claims
are not justifed by the data presented and instead have alternative and more parsimonious explanations.
Using data from 5500 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, Domingue
et al. (2018) claimed to show that friends are genetically
more similar to one another than randomly selected peers,
beyond the confounding efects of population stratifcation
by ancestry. The authors also claimed to fnd evidence of
‘social-genetic’ efects, whereby individuals’ educational
attainment (EA) is infuenced by their friends’ genes. Here
we argue that neither claim is justifed by the data.
Abstract: Using data from 5500 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, Domingue et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci 25:256., 2018) claimed to show that friends are genetically more similar to one another than randomly selected peers, beyond the confounding effects of population stratification by ancestry. The authors also claimed to show ‘social-genetic’ effects, whereby individuals’ educational attainment (EA) is influenced by their friends’ genes. We argue that neither claim is justified by the data. Mathematically we show that (1) the genetic similarity reported between friends is far larger than theoretically possible if it was caused by phenotypic assortment as the authors claim; uncontrolled population stratification is a likely reason for the genetic similarity they observed, and (2) significant association between individuals’ EA and their friends’ polygenic scores for EA is a necessary consequence of EA similarity among friends, and does not provide evidence for social-genetic effects. Going forward, we urge caution in the analysis and interpretation of data at the intersection of human genetics and the social sciences.
Keywords: Genomic similarity Social-genetic effects Confound Kinship
---
The availability of large samples of individuals with genomewide genetic data in combination with behavioural phenotypes and social outcomes has led to a resurgence in research
that addresses questions at the interface of genetics and the
social sciences. Some of that research is hypothesis driven,
while much of it is data-driven and hypothesis-generating.
The genetics and statistical analysis of human traits has a
solid underpinning theory in quantitative and population
genetics (Lynch and Walsh 1998; Walsh and Lynch 2018),
and rigorous benchmarking against these underpinnings is
essential—especially when novel or unexpected results in
human behaviour are reported. In this paper, we highlight
one example (and list others) where novel results and claims
are not justifed by the data presented and instead have alternative and more parsimonious explanations.
Using data from 5500 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, Domingue
et al. (2018) claimed to show that friends are genetically
more similar to one another than randomly selected peers,
beyond the confounding efects of population stratifcation
by ancestry. The authors also claimed to fnd evidence of
‘social-genetic’ efects, whereby individuals’ educational
attainment (EA) is infuenced by their friends’ genes. Here
we argue that neither claim is justifed by the data.
A Novel Model to Explain Extreme Feather Pecking Behavior in Laying Hens: New trait has a medium heritability of 0.35 & is positively correlated with the fear traits
A Novel Model to Explain Extreme Feather Pecking Behavior in Laying Hens. H. Iffland et al. Behavior Genetics, January 2020, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 41–50. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-019-09971-w
Abstract: Feather pecking (FP) is a serious economic and welfare problem in the domestic fowl. It has recently been shown that the distribution of FP bouts within groups is heterogeneous and contains a sub-population of extreme feather peckers (EFP). The present study proposed a novel model to detect EFP hens. A mixture of two negative binomial distributions was fitted to FP data of a F2 cross of about 960 hens, and, based on the results, a calculation of the posterior probability for each hen belonging to the EFP subgroup (pEFP) was done. The fit of the mixture distribution revealed that the EFP subgroup made up a proportion of one third of the F2 cross. The EFP birds came more frequently into pecking mood and showed higher pecking intensities compared to the remaining birds. Tonic immobility and emerge box tests were conducted at juvenile and adult age of the hens to relate fearfulness to EFP. After dichotomization, all traits were analyzed in a multivariate threshold model and a genomewide association study was performed. The new trait pEFP has a medium heritability of 0.35 and is positively correlated with the fear traits. Breeding for this new trait could be an interesting option to reduce the proportion of extreme feather peckers. An index of fear related traits might serve as a proxy to breed indirectly for pEFP. GWAS revealed that all traits are typical quantitative traits with many genes and small effects contributing to the genetic variance.
Keywords: Laying hen Extreme feather pecking Fearfulness Genetic architecture Mixture distributions
Abstract: Feather pecking (FP) is a serious economic and welfare problem in the domestic fowl. It has recently been shown that the distribution of FP bouts within groups is heterogeneous and contains a sub-population of extreme feather peckers (EFP). The present study proposed a novel model to detect EFP hens. A mixture of two negative binomial distributions was fitted to FP data of a F2 cross of about 960 hens, and, based on the results, a calculation of the posterior probability for each hen belonging to the EFP subgroup (pEFP) was done. The fit of the mixture distribution revealed that the EFP subgroup made up a proportion of one third of the F2 cross. The EFP birds came more frequently into pecking mood and showed higher pecking intensities compared to the remaining birds. Tonic immobility and emerge box tests were conducted at juvenile and adult age of the hens to relate fearfulness to EFP. After dichotomization, all traits were analyzed in a multivariate threshold model and a genomewide association study was performed. The new trait pEFP has a medium heritability of 0.35 and is positively correlated with the fear traits. Breeding for this new trait could be an interesting option to reduce the proportion of extreme feather peckers. An index of fear related traits might serve as a proxy to breed indirectly for pEFP. GWAS revealed that all traits are typical quantitative traits with many genes and small effects contributing to the genetic variance.
Keywords: Laying hen Extreme feather pecking Fearfulness Genetic architecture Mixture distributions
Estimated heritability of coffee intake ranges from 0.36 to 0.58; factors that distinguish heavier vs. lighter drinkers (smoking, male sex) will likely manifest differences in estimated heritability
Quantile-Specific Heritability may Account for Gene–Environment Interactions Involving Coffee Consumption. Paul T. Williams. Behavior Genetics, Jan 3 2020. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-019-09989-0
Abstract: Estimated heritability of coffee intake ranges from 0.36 to 0.58, however, these point estimates assume that inherited effects are the same throughout the distribution of coffee intake, i.e., whether consumption is high or low relative to intake in the population. Quantile regression of 4788 child–parent pairs and 2380 siblings showed that offspring–parent and sibling concordance became progressively greater with increasing quantiles of coffee intake. Each cup/day increase in the parents’ coffee intake was associated with an offspring increase of 0.020 ± 0.013 cup/day at the 10th percentile of the offsprings’ coffee intake (slope ± SE, NS), 0.137 ± 0.034 cup/day at their 25th percentile (P = 5.2 × 10–5), 0.159 ± 0.029 cup/day at the 50th percentile (P = 5.8 × 10–8), 0.233 ± 0.049 cup/day at the 75th percentile (P = 1.8 × 10–6), and 0.284 ± 0.054 cup/day at the 90th percentile (P = 1.2 × 10–7). This quantile-specific heritability suggests that factors that distinguish heavier vs. lighter drinkers (smoking, male sex) will likely manifest differences in estimated heritability, as reported.
Abstract: Estimated heritability of coffee intake ranges from 0.36 to 0.58, however, these point estimates assume that inherited effects are the same throughout the distribution of coffee intake, i.e., whether consumption is high or low relative to intake in the population. Quantile regression of 4788 child–parent pairs and 2380 siblings showed that offspring–parent and sibling concordance became progressively greater with increasing quantiles of coffee intake. Each cup/day increase in the parents’ coffee intake was associated with an offspring increase of 0.020 ± 0.013 cup/day at the 10th percentile of the offsprings’ coffee intake (slope ± SE, NS), 0.137 ± 0.034 cup/day at their 25th percentile (P = 5.2 × 10–5), 0.159 ± 0.029 cup/day at the 50th percentile (P = 5.8 × 10–8), 0.233 ± 0.049 cup/day at the 75th percentile (P = 1.8 × 10–6), and 0.284 ± 0.054 cup/day at the 90th percentile (P = 1.2 × 10–7). This quantile-specific heritability suggests that factors that distinguish heavier vs. lighter drinkers (smoking, male sex) will likely manifest differences in estimated heritability, as reported.
Youth submissive behavior exerted a significant indirect effect on cyber bullying via cyber victimization and moral disengagement
Eraslan-Çapan, B. and Bakioğlu, F., 2020. Submissive Behavior and Cyber Bullying: A Study on the Mediator Roles of Cyber Victimization and Moral Disengagement. Psychologica Belgica, 60(1), pp.18–32. http://doi.org/10.5334/pb.509
Abstract: In order to prevent cyberbullying and cyber-victim behaviors that are very common among adolescents, it is important to investigate the factors that underlie these behaviors. The purpose of the present study was to examine the mediator roles of cyber victimization and moral disengagement in the relationship between submissive behavior and cyber bullying. The participants involved 370 Turkish adolescent (female: 47%; male, 53%). The age of participants ranged between 12 and 19 years (M = 15.92, SD = 1.87). Data were collected using the Submissive Behavior Scale, the Cyber Bullying Scale, the Cyber Victimization Scale, and the Moral Disengagement Scale. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. A bootstrapping analysis was conducted in order to determine any indirect effects. Structural equation modeling results provided evidence of indirect effects of submissive behavior on cyber bullying mediated by cyber victimization and moral disengagement. Bootstrapping showed that submissive behavior exerted a significant indirect effect on cyber bullying via cyber victimization and moral disengagement. The findings emphasized the role of youth cyber victimization and moral disengagement in explaining the relationship between submissive behavior and cyber bullying. The results of the study were discussed based on relevant literature, and suggestions for future studies were made.
Keywords: Submissive behavior, Cyber bullying, Cyber victimization, Moral disengagement, Adolescents
Studies are in parallel with the research findings. In studies on adolescents, it has been found that submissive behaviors were an important predictor and risk factor of cyber victimization and cyber bullying. (Atik, Özmen, & Kemer, 2012; Kowalski et al., 2014; Ogurlu & Sarıçam, 2018; Özkan & Özen, 2008; Peker, Eroğlu, & Çitemel, 2012). It has been found that adolescents who were unable to protect their own rights and behave according to others’ wills were kept on being exposed to negative behaviors by remaining passive rather than blocking individuals who were bullying themselves or taking necessary intervention and help behaviors (Peker, Eroğlu, & Çitemel, 2012). Moreover, it was asserted that these individuals had low self-esteem and more prone to become cyber victims (Brewer, & Kerslake, 2015). As it is seen, the finding that submissive behaviors leading cyber victimization were supported in our study.
The other finding of the study was the relationship among the moral disengagement strategies of adolescents, cyber victimization, and cyber bullying behaviors. The literature shows that high moral disengagement increased the relationship between cyber victimization and cyber bullying (Hood & Duffy, 2018, Johnson, 2015). This finding is supported by other studies concluding that individuals who became cyber victims started to think that the cyberbullies deserved aggression or cyberbullying behaviors were not that bad (Johnson, 2015). It is indicated that cyber victims might use moral disengagement strategies since they feel disappointment, sorrow (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007), anger (Beran & Li, 2005), suicidal feelings (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009), revenge feelings (Bauman, Toomey & Walker, 2013; Dioguardi & Theodore, 2006; Yaman & Peker, 2012), and thoughts that others deserve hostile behaviors (Diguardi & Theodore, 2006, Johnson, 2015). It was also found that cyber victims felt shame and revenge more (Dilber, 2013) and 72% of cyber bullies demonstrate harmful behaviors for revenge or retaliation (Mark & Ratliffe, 2011), which supported the findings of the current study. In their study, Mishna et al., (2012) found that some students were shy people who could not bullies or demonstrate aggression in real life, and that they committed cyber bullying behaviors to avenge what they experienced in real life by making use of the opportunity to disguise their identity in the virtual world, which also supported the findings of the current study. In short, adolescents who were victims of cyber bullying due to their passive and submissive personality traits commit cyber bullying behaviors in order to avenge the bullying they were exposed to and use moral disengagement strategies to justify their bullying behaviors.
As a result of the bootstrapping analysis, it was found that the relationships among all variables were significant. Firstly, the effect size obtained in submissive behavior predicted moral disengagement was found to be low (Cohen, 1988, Sawilowsky, 2003). Moreover, the value of effect size obtained from the cyberbullying predictions of moral disengagement was found to be low. These results showed that submissive behavior alone is not sufficient to explain moral disengagement behavior, and moral disengagement also explains low levels of cyber bullying. The upper limit of the magnitude of effect size, which is explained by the submissive behavior of moral disengagement and cyber bullying of moral disengagement, was found to be moderate. Cyber victimization of submissive behaviors, moral disengagement of cyber victimization and cyber bullying of cyber victimization were seen to have high effect size values (Cohen, 1988). Therefore, it can be stated for bigger samples that submissive behaviors predicted cyber victimization and moral disengagement, cyber victimization predicted moral disengagement and cyberbullying, and moral disengagement predicted cyberbullying directly. Moreover, it was found that the results of this study were confirmed in bigger samples, and moral disengagement and cyber victimization played a mediator role in the relationship between submissive behaviors and cyberbullying.
Abstract: In order to prevent cyberbullying and cyber-victim behaviors that are very common among adolescents, it is important to investigate the factors that underlie these behaviors. The purpose of the present study was to examine the mediator roles of cyber victimization and moral disengagement in the relationship between submissive behavior and cyber bullying. The participants involved 370 Turkish adolescent (female: 47%; male, 53%). The age of participants ranged between 12 and 19 years (M = 15.92, SD = 1.87). Data were collected using the Submissive Behavior Scale, the Cyber Bullying Scale, the Cyber Victimization Scale, and the Moral Disengagement Scale. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. A bootstrapping analysis was conducted in order to determine any indirect effects. Structural equation modeling results provided evidence of indirect effects of submissive behavior on cyber bullying mediated by cyber victimization and moral disengagement. Bootstrapping showed that submissive behavior exerted a significant indirect effect on cyber bullying via cyber victimization and moral disengagement. The findings emphasized the role of youth cyber victimization and moral disengagement in explaining the relationship between submissive behavior and cyber bullying. The results of the study were discussed based on relevant literature, and suggestions for future studies were made.
Keywords: Submissive behavior, Cyber bullying, Cyber victimization, Moral disengagement, Adolescents
Discussion
With widespread and active use of the Internet, cyber bullying and cyber victimization have been a major problem in the world. Therefore, it will be helpful to reveal protective and risk factors of cyber bullying and cyber victimization. In this study, the mediator role of cyber victimization and moral disengagement in the relationship between submissive behavior and cyber bullying of Turkish adolescents was investigated. As expected, the results show that the cyber victimization and moral disengagement plays a mediator role in the relationship between submissive behavior and cyber bullying. Accordingly, moral disengagement was positively correlated with submissive behavior and cyber victimization, and submissive behavior positively predicted cyber victim. In short, it can be expressed that as the adolescents’ submissive behavior level increased, their moral disengagement, cyber victimization, and cyber bullying behaviors increased as well.Studies are in parallel with the research findings. In studies on adolescents, it has been found that submissive behaviors were an important predictor and risk factor of cyber victimization and cyber bullying. (Atik, Özmen, & Kemer, 2012; Kowalski et al., 2014; Ogurlu & Sarıçam, 2018; Özkan & Özen, 2008; Peker, Eroğlu, & Çitemel, 2012). It has been found that adolescents who were unable to protect their own rights and behave according to others’ wills were kept on being exposed to negative behaviors by remaining passive rather than blocking individuals who were bullying themselves or taking necessary intervention and help behaviors (Peker, Eroğlu, & Çitemel, 2012). Moreover, it was asserted that these individuals had low self-esteem and more prone to become cyber victims (Brewer, & Kerslake, 2015). As it is seen, the finding that submissive behaviors leading cyber victimization were supported in our study.
The other finding of the study was the relationship among the moral disengagement strategies of adolescents, cyber victimization, and cyber bullying behaviors. The literature shows that high moral disengagement increased the relationship between cyber victimization and cyber bullying (Hood & Duffy, 2018, Johnson, 2015). This finding is supported by other studies concluding that individuals who became cyber victims started to think that the cyberbullies deserved aggression or cyberbullying behaviors were not that bad (Johnson, 2015). It is indicated that cyber victims might use moral disengagement strategies since they feel disappointment, sorrow (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007), anger (Beran & Li, 2005), suicidal feelings (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009), revenge feelings (Bauman, Toomey & Walker, 2013; Dioguardi & Theodore, 2006; Yaman & Peker, 2012), and thoughts that others deserve hostile behaviors (Diguardi & Theodore, 2006, Johnson, 2015). It was also found that cyber victims felt shame and revenge more (Dilber, 2013) and 72% of cyber bullies demonstrate harmful behaviors for revenge or retaliation (Mark & Ratliffe, 2011), which supported the findings of the current study. In their study, Mishna et al., (2012) found that some students were shy people who could not bullies or demonstrate aggression in real life, and that they committed cyber bullying behaviors to avenge what they experienced in real life by making use of the opportunity to disguise their identity in the virtual world, which also supported the findings of the current study. In short, adolescents who were victims of cyber bullying due to their passive and submissive personality traits commit cyber bullying behaviors in order to avenge the bullying they were exposed to and use moral disengagement strategies to justify their bullying behaviors.
As a result of the bootstrapping analysis, it was found that the relationships among all variables were significant. Firstly, the effect size obtained in submissive behavior predicted moral disengagement was found to be low (Cohen, 1988, Sawilowsky, 2003). Moreover, the value of effect size obtained from the cyberbullying predictions of moral disengagement was found to be low. These results showed that submissive behavior alone is not sufficient to explain moral disengagement behavior, and moral disengagement also explains low levels of cyber bullying. The upper limit of the magnitude of effect size, which is explained by the submissive behavior of moral disengagement and cyber bullying of moral disengagement, was found to be moderate. Cyber victimization of submissive behaviors, moral disengagement of cyber victimization and cyber bullying of cyber victimization were seen to have high effect size values (Cohen, 1988). Therefore, it can be stated for bigger samples that submissive behaviors predicted cyber victimization and moral disengagement, cyber victimization predicted moral disengagement and cyberbullying, and moral disengagement predicted cyberbullying directly. Moreover, it was found that the results of this study were confirmed in bigger samples, and moral disengagement and cyber victimization played a mediator role in the relationship between submissive behaviors and cyberbullying.
Neurobehavioral traits & intelligence are differentially associated with university-level grades, depending on the major; but mixed-handedness may prove to be a better general predictor of academic performance across disciplines
Differential associations of neurobehavioral traits and cognitive ability to academic achievement in higher education. Graham Pluck et al. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, Volume 18, March 2020, 100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2019.100124
Abstract
Background People vary between each other on several neurobehavioral traits, which may have implications for understanding academic achievement.
Methods University-level Psychology or Engineering students were assessed for neurobehavioral traits, intelligence, and current psychological distress. Scores were compared with their grade point average (GPA) data.
Results Factors associated with higher GPA differed markedly between groups. For Engineers, intelligence, but not neurobehavioral traits or psychological distress, was a strong correlate of grades. For Psychologists, grades were not correlated with intelligence but they were with the neurobehavioral traits of executive dysfunction, disinhibition, apathy, and positive schizotypy. However, only the latter two were associated independently of psychological distress. Additionally, higher mixed-handedness was associated with higher GPA in the combined sample.
Conclusions Neurological factors (i.e., neurobehavioral traits and intelligence), are differentially associated with university-level grades, depending on the major studied. However, mixed-handedness may prove to be a better general predictor of academic performance across disciplines.
Abstract
Background People vary between each other on several neurobehavioral traits, which may have implications for understanding academic achievement.
Methods University-level Psychology or Engineering students were assessed for neurobehavioral traits, intelligence, and current psychological distress. Scores were compared with their grade point average (GPA) data.
Results Factors associated with higher GPA differed markedly between groups. For Engineers, intelligence, but not neurobehavioral traits or psychological distress, was a strong correlate of grades. For Psychologists, grades were not correlated with intelligence but they were with the neurobehavioral traits of executive dysfunction, disinhibition, apathy, and positive schizotypy. However, only the latter two were associated independently of psychological distress. Additionally, higher mixed-handedness was associated with higher GPA in the combined sample.
Conclusions Neurological factors (i.e., neurobehavioral traits and intelligence), are differentially associated with university-level grades, depending on the major studied. However, mixed-handedness may prove to be a better general predictor of academic performance across disciplines.
The sexually antagonistic gene hypothesis states that genes associated with male androphilia reduce reproduction when present in males but increase reproduction when present in their female relatives; study of the Istmo Zapotec
Offspring Production Among the Relatives of Istmo Zapotec Men and Muxes. Francisco R. Gómez Jiménez, Scott W. Semenyna & Paul L. Vasey. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Jan 2 2020. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01611-y
Abstract: Male androphilia (i.e., sexual attraction toward adult males) is influenced by biological factors, reliably occurs across diverse cultures, and has persisted over evolutionary time despite the fact that it reduces reproduction. One possible solution to this evolutionary paradox is the sexually antagonistic gene hypothesis (SAGH), which states that genes associated with male androphilia reduce reproduction when present in males but increase reproduction when present in their female relatives. The present study tested the SAGH among the Istmo Zapotec—a non-Euro-American culture in Oaxaca, Mexico, where transgender and cisgender androphilic males are known as muxe gunaa and muxe nguiiu, respectively. To test the SAGH, we compared offspring production by the biological relatives of muxe gunaa (n = 115), muxe nguiiu (n = 112), and gynephilic men (i.e., cisgender males who are sexually attracted to adult females; n = 171). The mothers and paternal aunts of muxe gunaa had higher offspring production than those of muxe nguiiu. Additionally, the relatives of muxe gunaa had more offspring than those of gynephilic men, whereas no such differences were found between the families of gynephilic men and muxe nguiiu. Elevated reproduction by the mothers and, particularly the aunts, of muxe gunaa is consistent with the SAGH. However, the absence of group differences between gynephilic men and muxe nguiiu, and the group differences between the two types of muxes are not predicted by the SAGH. This is the first study to demonstrate reproductive differences between kin of transgender and cisgender androphilic males within the same non-Euro-American culture.
Abstract: Male androphilia (i.e., sexual attraction toward adult males) is influenced by biological factors, reliably occurs across diverse cultures, and has persisted over evolutionary time despite the fact that it reduces reproduction. One possible solution to this evolutionary paradox is the sexually antagonistic gene hypothesis (SAGH), which states that genes associated with male androphilia reduce reproduction when present in males but increase reproduction when present in their female relatives. The present study tested the SAGH among the Istmo Zapotec—a non-Euro-American culture in Oaxaca, Mexico, where transgender and cisgender androphilic males are known as muxe gunaa and muxe nguiiu, respectively. To test the SAGH, we compared offspring production by the biological relatives of muxe gunaa (n = 115), muxe nguiiu (n = 112), and gynephilic men (i.e., cisgender males who are sexually attracted to adult females; n = 171). The mothers and paternal aunts of muxe gunaa had higher offspring production than those of muxe nguiiu. Additionally, the relatives of muxe gunaa had more offspring than those of gynephilic men, whereas no such differences were found between the families of gynephilic men and muxe nguiiu. Elevated reproduction by the mothers and, particularly the aunts, of muxe gunaa is consistent with the SAGH. However, the absence of group differences between gynephilic men and muxe nguiiu, and the group differences between the two types of muxes are not predicted by the SAGH. This is the first study to demonstrate reproductive differences between kin of transgender and cisgender androphilic males within the same non-Euro-American culture.
Thursday, January 2, 2020
For married and unmarried Americans alike, pornography use was either unassociated or negatively associated with nearly all relationship outcomes; pornography use was not positively associated with relationship quality
Pornography and Relationship Quality: Establishing the Dominant Pattern by Examining Pornography Use and 31 Measures of Relationship Quality in 30 National Surveys. Samuel L. Perry. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Jan 2 2020. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01616-7
Abstract: Numerous studies have examined the association between pornography use and various measures of relationship quality. Yet scholars have also pointed out the limitations of many such studies, including inconsistent findings for men and women, non-representative samples, and negatively biased measures that could result in misleading findings. The purpose of this study was to establish a dominant pattern in the association between pornography use and relationship quality in a way that mitigated these issues. Data were taken from 30 nationally representative surveys, which together included 31 measures of relationship quality: 1973–2018 General Social Surveys (1 repeated measure); 2006 Portraits of American Life Study (13 measures); 2012 New Family Structures Study (12 measures); and 2014 Relationships in America Survey (5 measures). This allowed for 57 independent tests examining the association between pornography use and relationship outcomes for married Americans and 29 independent tests for unmarried Americans. Along with bivariate associations, full regression models were estimated with sociodemographic controls and interaction terms for gender. For married and unmarried Americans alike, pornography use was either unassociated or negatively associated with nearly all relationship outcomes. Significant associations were mostly small in magnitude. Conversely, except for one unclear exception, pornography use was never positively associated with relationship quality. Associations were only occasionally moderated by gender, but in inconsistent directions. While this study makes no claims about causality, findings clearly affirmed that, in instances where viewing pornography is associated with relationship quality at all, it is nearly always a signal of poorer relationship quality, for men and women.
Discussion
Despite the numerous studies conducted on the association
between pornography use and committed romantic relationships,
there remains some disagreement among scholars as to
whether there are clear trends. Part of the challenge has been
that data were often taken from small, non-representative populations,
using measures or designs that could be negatively
biased, and findings could often be curiously different for men
and women. Using 31 measures of relationship quality across
30 nationally representative surveys, the current study sought
to mitigate these issues in order to establish a dominant trend in
the association between pornography use and relationship quality
for representative samples of unmarried and married men
and women. That dominant trend seems to be that pornography
use in the general population—either at all or in higher frequencies—
is either unassociated with romantic relationship quality
or is weakly associated with poorer relationship quality. This
was true for married and unmarried Americans alike as well as
for men and women. Conversely, more frequent pornography
use was almost never associated with better relationship quality,
at least on average. Moreover, consistent with Wright et al.
(2017), these patterns held across different measures of pornography
use, including dichotomous measures (GSS), those
asking about general frequency (PALS, NFSS), and those asking
about most recent use (RIA).
To be sure, this study has made no claim as to the direction
of the association between pornography use and relationship
quality nor could it do so with these data. While other studies
using the panel component of PALS (e.g., Perry, 2017a,
2018; Perry & Davis, 2017) or the GSS (e.g., Perry & Schleifer,
2018; Wright et al., 2014) have sought to establish a directional
“effect” between pornography use and relationship outcomes,
the goals of this study were to establish a dominant pattern in
associations across a maximum number of relationship outcomes
and surveys. Since this study cannot determine directionality,
it could very well be that any observed association
between pornography viewing and poorer relationship quality
can be explained by self-selection (i.e., Americans in struggling
relationships seek out pornography as an escape or alternative),
just as it could be that frequent pornography use is contributing
to the relationship struggles. As suggested by Muusses et al.
(2015), it could also be both.
Beyond the fact that all these data were cross-sectional, they
are also only of individual Americans rather than dyads. Thus,
the study was unable to address one of the primary critiques of
the previous research on pornography use and relationship quality
(see Campbell & Kohut, 2017; Newstrom & Harris, 2016),
in that it cannot examine the relationship quality of someone
whose partner is viewing pornography nor is it able to examine
relationship outcomes of couples who view pornography
together. Some of the confusion about findings linking pornography
use with relationship outcomes stems from these two
limitations. In their recent narrative review and meta-analysis
of literature examining heterosexual men’s pornography use
and their female partner’s response, Wright and Tokunaga
(2018) demonstrated the general trend that women who perceived
their male partner as pornography consumers tended
to be less relationally or sexually satisfied, and tended to be
more insecure about their own bodies. Moreover, because such
Americans who use pornography together with their partner
(and thus might experience positive returns to their pornography
use) would also be included in these samples, the findings
presented here suggest that these are a minority among pornography
users. That is, whether or not coupled pornography
use might be beneficial for some couples, the stronger pattern
among a larger percentage of Americans is that pornography
consumption happens more frequently in relationships that are
not doing well comparatively.
Interestingly, the tests for interactions also showed that in
the vast majority of instances, gender did not significantly moderate
the association between pornography use and relationship
outcomes. And the relatively few situations where these
interactions were significant painted rather inconsistent results.
Sometimes, it seemed that the quality of men’s romantic relationships
was more closely tied to pornography use, while other
times it seemed that the association was stronger for women.
At the very least, the consistent lack of a moderating effect for
gender would challenge assumptions that women’s pornography
use tends to be associated with better relationship quality,
while men’s is associated with poorer relationship quality
due to different use patterns. Rather, for both men and women,
married and unmarried, pornography use tended to be either
unassociated with relationship quality or associated with poorer
relationship quality.
There also seemed to be little discernable difference between
those in marriage relationships verses unmarried romantic relationship
in terms of the association between pornography use
and relationship outcomes. Despite research suggesting that
pornography use might be viewed as more of a violation in marriage
relationships perhaps due to more expansive and stringent
expectations for sexual “fidelity” (Bridges et al., 2003; Olmstead
et al., 2013; Schneider, 2000), there were relatively few
instances where associations in the 2006 PALS, 2012 NFSS,
or 2014 RIA survey were statistically significant for married
Americans and were not significant for unmarried Americans,
despite some potentially large differences in sample size.
Despite the broader trend that pornography use tended to
be an indicator of poorer relationship quality in the majority
of significant associations, the exception (in the 2012 NFSS;
Table 4) must be considered as an important qualifier. On the
face of it, the finding that married persons who viewed pornography
more often were less likely to talk to their spouse about
separating would contradict the idea that pornography use is
associated with poorer relationship outcomes. Unfortunately,
the interpretation of this association is not so clear. It could also
be that persons who view pornography more often are simply
less likely to talk to their spouse at all, not just about separating.
Moreover, given that 9 of the other 12 outcomes for married
participants in the NFSS all point to the conclusion that viewing
pornography more often is linked with poorer marital quality,
this finding is anomalous and perhaps an outlier. However, to
the extent that this association is capturing a real relationship,
it requires that scholars provide appropriate qualification when
drawing conclusions about pornography’s association with
relationship outcomes. To the extent that the two are related
at all (and in many instances they were not), pornography use
tends to be an indicator of poorer relationship quality, though
not always.
Abstract: Numerous studies have examined the association between pornography use and various measures of relationship quality. Yet scholars have also pointed out the limitations of many such studies, including inconsistent findings for men and women, non-representative samples, and negatively biased measures that could result in misleading findings. The purpose of this study was to establish a dominant pattern in the association between pornography use and relationship quality in a way that mitigated these issues. Data were taken from 30 nationally representative surveys, which together included 31 measures of relationship quality: 1973–2018 General Social Surveys (1 repeated measure); 2006 Portraits of American Life Study (13 measures); 2012 New Family Structures Study (12 measures); and 2014 Relationships in America Survey (5 measures). This allowed for 57 independent tests examining the association between pornography use and relationship outcomes for married Americans and 29 independent tests for unmarried Americans. Along with bivariate associations, full regression models were estimated with sociodemographic controls and interaction terms for gender. For married and unmarried Americans alike, pornography use was either unassociated or negatively associated with nearly all relationship outcomes. Significant associations were mostly small in magnitude. Conversely, except for one unclear exception, pornography use was never positively associated with relationship quality. Associations were only occasionally moderated by gender, but in inconsistent directions. While this study makes no claims about causality, findings clearly affirmed that, in instances where viewing pornography is associated with relationship quality at all, it is nearly always a signal of poorer relationship quality, for men and women.
Discussion
Despite the numerous studies conducted on the association
between pornography use and committed romantic relationships,
there remains some disagreement among scholars as to
whether there are clear trends. Part of the challenge has been
that data were often taken from small, non-representative populations,
using measures or designs that could be negatively
biased, and findings could often be curiously different for men
and women. Using 31 measures of relationship quality across
30 nationally representative surveys, the current study sought
to mitigate these issues in order to establish a dominant trend in
the association between pornography use and relationship quality
for representative samples of unmarried and married men
and women. That dominant trend seems to be that pornography
use in the general population—either at all or in higher frequencies—
is either unassociated with romantic relationship quality
or is weakly associated with poorer relationship quality. This
was true for married and unmarried Americans alike as well as
for men and women. Conversely, more frequent pornography
use was almost never associated with better relationship quality,
at least on average. Moreover, consistent with Wright et al.
(2017), these patterns held across different measures of pornography
use, including dichotomous measures (GSS), those
asking about general frequency (PALS, NFSS), and those asking
about most recent use (RIA).
To be sure, this study has made no claim as to the direction
of the association between pornography use and relationship
quality nor could it do so with these data. While other studies
using the panel component of PALS (e.g., Perry, 2017a,
2018; Perry & Davis, 2017) or the GSS (e.g., Perry & Schleifer,
2018; Wright et al., 2014) have sought to establish a directional
“effect” between pornography use and relationship outcomes,
the goals of this study were to establish a dominant pattern in
associations across a maximum number of relationship outcomes
and surveys. Since this study cannot determine directionality,
it could very well be that any observed association
between pornography viewing and poorer relationship quality
can be explained by self-selection (i.e., Americans in struggling
relationships seek out pornography as an escape or alternative),
just as it could be that frequent pornography use is contributing
to the relationship struggles. As suggested by Muusses et al.
(2015), it could also be both.
Beyond the fact that all these data were cross-sectional, they
are also only of individual Americans rather than dyads. Thus,
the study was unable to address one of the primary critiques of
the previous research on pornography use and relationship quality
(see Campbell & Kohut, 2017; Newstrom & Harris, 2016),
in that it cannot examine the relationship quality of someone
whose partner is viewing pornography nor is it able to examine
relationship outcomes of couples who view pornography
together. Some of the confusion about findings linking pornography
use with relationship outcomes stems from these two
limitations. In their recent narrative review and meta-analysis
of literature examining heterosexual men’s pornography use
and their female partner’s response, Wright and Tokunaga
(2018) demonstrated the general trend that women who perceived
their male partner as pornography consumers tended
to be less relationally or sexually satisfied, and tended to be
more insecure about their own bodies. Moreover, because such
Americans who use pornography together with their partner
(and thus might experience positive returns to their pornography
use) would also be included in these samples, the findings
presented here suggest that these are a minority among pornography
users. That is, whether or not coupled pornography
use might be beneficial for some couples, the stronger pattern
among a larger percentage of Americans is that pornography
consumption happens more frequently in relationships that are
not doing well comparatively.
Interestingly, the tests for interactions also showed that in
the vast majority of instances, gender did not significantly moderate
the association between pornography use and relationship
outcomes. And the relatively few situations where these
interactions were significant painted rather inconsistent results.
Sometimes, it seemed that the quality of men’s romantic relationships
was more closely tied to pornography use, while other
times it seemed that the association was stronger for women.
At the very least, the consistent lack of a moderating effect for
gender would challenge assumptions that women’s pornography
use tends to be associated with better relationship quality,
while men’s is associated with poorer relationship quality
due to different use patterns. Rather, for both men and women,
married and unmarried, pornography use tended to be either
unassociated with relationship quality or associated with poorer
relationship quality.
There also seemed to be little discernable difference between
those in marriage relationships verses unmarried romantic relationship
in terms of the association between pornography use
and relationship outcomes. Despite research suggesting that
pornography use might be viewed as more of a violation in marriage
relationships perhaps due to more expansive and stringent
expectations for sexual “fidelity” (Bridges et al., 2003; Olmstead
et al., 2013; Schneider, 2000), there were relatively few
instances where associations in the 2006 PALS, 2012 NFSS,
or 2014 RIA survey were statistically significant for married
Americans and were not significant for unmarried Americans,
despite some potentially large differences in sample size.
Despite the broader trend that pornography use tended to
be an indicator of poorer relationship quality in the majority
of significant associations, the exception (in the 2012 NFSS;
Table 4) must be considered as an important qualifier. On the
face of it, the finding that married persons who viewed pornography
more often were less likely to talk to their spouse about
separating would contradict the idea that pornography use is
associated with poorer relationship outcomes. Unfortunately,
the interpretation of this association is not so clear. It could also
be that persons who view pornography more often are simply
less likely to talk to their spouse at all, not just about separating.
Moreover, given that 9 of the other 12 outcomes for married
participants in the NFSS all point to the conclusion that viewing
pornography more often is linked with poorer marital quality,
this finding is anomalous and perhaps an outlier. However, to
the extent that this association is capturing a real relationship,
it requires that scholars provide appropriate qualification when
drawing conclusions about pornography’s association with
relationship outcomes. To the extent that the two are related
at all (and in many instances they were not), pornography use
tends to be an indicator of poorer relationship quality, though
not always.
Why Older Women (Cougars) Seek Sex With Younger Men (Cubs)
Why Older Women (Cougars) Seek Sex With Younger Men (Cubs). Micheal Castleman. Psychgology Today, Jan 02, 2020. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/all-about-sex/202001/why-older-women-cougars-seek-sex-younger-men-cubs
Excerpts:
There have always been couples comprised of older women (cougars) and significantly younger men (cubs), but these relationships went mainstream in 2009 with the premiere of the TV show “Cougar Town.” Then in 2017 Emmanuel Macron was elected president of France, and the media feasted on the fact that his wife, his former high school Latin teacher, was 24 years older. Not surprisingly, sexologists have recently delved into the cougar-cub phenomenon.
"Script-Defying" Sex
A French researcher conducted in-depth interviews with 55 women, age 30 to 60, who'd been involved with significantly younger men. Their choice of mates involved several factors independent of their age differences: appearance, intelligence, kindness, family background, and sense of humor. But the younger men also gave their older partners a welcome gift—“script-defying” sex.
“Script” refers to sexual scripts, the sexological term for culturally accepted generalizations about lovemaking, what most people consider conventional and normal. Prevalent sexual scripts include:
. Men lust. Women want to feel desired.
. “Sex” equals fellatio and intercourse, with perhaps a bit of cunnilingus.
. Men should orchestrate sex. Women should follow their lead.
. Women come during intercourse.
These scripts may be widely accepted, but they are seriously mistaken:
. Yes, the large majority of women want to feel desired. In addition, some—an estimated 5 to 10 percent—also experience lifelong male-style lust. Many cougars said they’d been denigrated by friends and previous close-in-age lovers for having lusty libidos.
. Sex equals fellatio and intercourse with a little cunnilingus in one key realm—pornography. Porn shows almost constant penis worship, but comparatively little (if any) cunnilingus. This seriously deludes men about women and lovemaking. Gentle, extended clitoral caressing—particularly cunnilingus—is key to most women’s orgasms and erotic satisfaction. Many cougars said they’d tried unsuccessfully to persuade similar-aged lovers to provide oral. They found cubs more open to instruction and much less resistant to providing extended cunnilingus every time. As a result, the women were more consistently orgasmic than many had been with age-matched lovers, and reported greater sexual satisfaction.
. When men orchestrate partner sex, they work up to orgasms around 95 percent of the time. But depending on the study, women’s rate of partner-sex orgasms is only 50 to 70 percent, no matter how long it lasts or how large the erection. As just mentioned, in cougar-cub relationships, the women insist on extended cunnilingus, which helps them climax. And most cubs appreciate having experienced teachers who clue them into the fine points of pleasuring women and helping them come.
. When TV and movies depict intercourse, after a few thrusts, both lovers come. Actually, only around 25 percent of women are consistently orgasmic from intercourse alone. The other 75 percent need kissing, cuddling, whole-body massage, genital hand massage, and especially cunnilingus. Compared with men their own age or older, cougars say cubs are more teachable, and therefore, preferable partners.
Excerpts:
There have always been couples comprised of older women (cougars) and significantly younger men (cubs), but these relationships went mainstream in 2009 with the premiere of the TV show “Cougar Town.” Then in 2017 Emmanuel Macron was elected president of France, and the media feasted on the fact that his wife, his former high school Latin teacher, was 24 years older. Not surprisingly, sexologists have recently delved into the cougar-cub phenomenon.
"Script-Defying" Sex
A French researcher conducted in-depth interviews with 55 women, age 30 to 60, who'd been involved with significantly younger men. Their choice of mates involved several factors independent of their age differences: appearance, intelligence, kindness, family background, and sense of humor. But the younger men also gave their older partners a welcome gift—“script-defying” sex.
“Script” refers to sexual scripts, the sexological term for culturally accepted generalizations about lovemaking, what most people consider conventional and normal. Prevalent sexual scripts include:
. Men lust. Women want to feel desired.
. “Sex” equals fellatio and intercourse, with perhaps a bit of cunnilingus.
. Men should orchestrate sex. Women should follow their lead.
. Women come during intercourse.
These scripts may be widely accepted, but they are seriously mistaken:
. Yes, the large majority of women want to feel desired. In addition, some—an estimated 5 to 10 percent—also experience lifelong male-style lust. Many cougars said they’d been denigrated by friends and previous close-in-age lovers for having lusty libidos.
. Sex equals fellatio and intercourse with a little cunnilingus in one key realm—pornography. Porn shows almost constant penis worship, but comparatively little (if any) cunnilingus. This seriously deludes men about women and lovemaking. Gentle, extended clitoral caressing—particularly cunnilingus—is key to most women’s orgasms and erotic satisfaction. Many cougars said they’d tried unsuccessfully to persuade similar-aged lovers to provide oral. They found cubs more open to instruction and much less resistant to providing extended cunnilingus every time. As a result, the women were more consistently orgasmic than many had been with age-matched lovers, and reported greater sexual satisfaction.
. When men orchestrate partner sex, they work up to orgasms around 95 percent of the time. But depending on the study, women’s rate of partner-sex orgasms is only 50 to 70 percent, no matter how long it lasts or how large the erection. As just mentioned, in cougar-cub relationships, the women insist on extended cunnilingus, which helps them climax. And most cubs appreciate having experienced teachers who clue them into the fine points of pleasuring women and helping them come.
. When TV and movies depict intercourse, after a few thrusts, both lovers come. Actually, only around 25 percent of women are consistently orgasmic from intercourse alone. The other 75 percent need kissing, cuddling, whole-body massage, genital hand massage, and especially cunnilingus. Compared with men their own age or older, cougars say cubs are more teachable, and therefore, preferable partners.
Measurement and Theory in Disgust Sensitivity
Tybur, Joshua M., and Annika Karinen. 2019. “Measurement and Theory in Disgust Sensitivity.” PsyArXiv. October 29. doi:10.31234/osf.io/64fvp
Abstract: This chapter covers the 20+ year history of disgust sensitivity research by summarizing and contrasting different disgust sensitivity instruments and discussing how these instruments are used and interpreted.
---
Behavioral Validations of DS
As its name implies, pathogen disgust is associated with motivations that appear tailored
to keeping pathogens at bay. Consider the canonical disgust face, which is characterized by (1) a
closing of the eyes and, a lowering of the eyebrows, both of which reduce the exposed surface
area of the eyes, (2) a wrinkling of the nose, which reduces air intake, and (3) a lowering of the
lips, which reduces the probability of objects entering the mouth (or, alternatively, if something
is already in the mouth, a protruding tongue, which expels the contents of the mouth; Susskind et
al., 2008). Each of these actions partially seals off an entryway through which pathogens can
enter the body. Behaviors apart from facial expression also appear specialized for neutralizing
pathogens. Disgust is associated with motivations to avoid physical contact with the disgust
elicitor – physical contact that would allow pathogens to be transmitted from disgust elicitor to
human (Hertenstein et al., 2006; Roseman et al., 1994). Does pathogen DS, as assessed by selfreport instruments, relate to these types of pathogen-neutralizing behaviors?
Multiple studies employing behavioral avoidance tasks (BAT) suggest that it does. In
BATs, researchers record whether participants are willing to physically contact an object, and
what degree of contact they will engage in. For example, in one study, participants were
presented with a cookie on the floor and were asked to (a) hold the cookie, (b) touch the cookie
with their lips, and (c) eat the cookie (Deacon and Olatunji, 2007). Similar progressions were
used for a used hair comb and a bedpan filled with toilet water. Pathogen DS (negatively)
predicted the number of steps completed in the tasks, even when controlling for participant sex,
anxiety, and depression. Similar results have been obtained for BATs in which participants were
asked to touch tissues used by someone who had the common cold (Fan and Olatunji, 2013);
touch a sterilized cockroach (Rozin et al., 1999); touch a colonoscopy bag (Reynolds et al.,
2014); and touch moldy fruit (Olatunji, Lohr et al., 2007). In contrast, pathogen DS does not
predict avoidance of watching or committing socio-moral violations (Van Overveld et al., 2010),
and sexual DS and moral DS do not predict avoidance of contact with sinks, trash cans, and
toilets in a public restroom (Olatunji et al., 2012). Similarly, pathogen DS – but not sexual DS or
moral DS – relates to galvanic skin response to images of pathogen cues (Olatunji et al., 2012).
Only a few studies have tested whether DS relates to facial responses to disgust-eliciting
stimuli. In one study of 47 participants, facial electromyography (EMG) indicated that pathogen
DS was unrelated to the degree of levator labii (a key muscle in the disgust facial response)
activation in response to disgust-eliciting images (Stark et al., 2005). In another study of 60
participants, EMG again indicated that pathogen DS was unrelated to levator labii activation in
response to a disgust-eliciting film clip (De Jong et al., 2011). Of course, these studies are not
well powered to detect small relations between DS and facial responses – they only had 28% and
34% power to detect a correlation of r = 0.25. Nevertheless, they hint at two interesting
possibilities. First, they could suggest that variability in some anti-pathogen responses, including
subjective feelings of disgust and physical avoidance, is distinct from variability in other anti-
pathogen responses, such as reducing the degree to which the eyes, nose, and mouth are exposed
to pathogens. Second (and, perhaps, alternatively), they could suggest that variability in facial
response to disgust elicitors reflects variability in motivations to communicate the presence of
pathogens to others (see Fridlund, 1991). Once again, further research is needed to adjudicate
between these possibilities.
The majority of studies testing how DS relates to behavior have presented participants
with cues to pathogens. One exception examined how DS relates to aggression. Reasoning that
disgust motivates avoidance – and that aggression involves approach-oriented motivations
(Harmon-Jones and Peterson, 2008) – Pond and colleagues (2012) suggested that DS should
relate negatively to aggression. They found that participants higher in moral DS and in sexual DS
– but not pathogen DS – delivered fewer high intensity noise-blasts in a behavioral aggression
paradigm (notably, though, this study did not report unique effects of moral DS vs. sexual DS,
and it did not control for participant sex – a variable strongly related to both aggression and
sexual DS). That said, we are unaware of any studies that have examined how sexual DS relates
to behavioral responses to unwanted sexual advances or how moral DS relates to behavioral
responses to individuals who have committed moral transgressions. Naturally, such studies
present ethical challenges that surpass asking participants to touch tissues or sterilized
cockroaches. Nevertheless, they would greatly improve our interpretation of sexual DS and
moral DS.
In sum, findings gleaned from a variety of methods – including self-report instruments,
behavioral avoidance tasks, and physiological measures – provide the groundwork for how we
should interpret DS. However, a theoretical framework is required to integrate these empirical
findings and transform this groundwork into a firm foundation. In the next section, we will extend
a theoretical framework for understanding the experience of disgust (Tybur et al., 2013) to
understanding variability in DS.
Abstract: This chapter covers the 20+ year history of disgust sensitivity research by summarizing and contrasting different disgust sensitivity instruments and discussing how these instruments are used and interpreted.
---
Behavioral Validations of DS
As its name implies, pathogen disgust is associated with motivations that appear tailored
to keeping pathogens at bay. Consider the canonical disgust face, which is characterized by (1) a
closing of the eyes and, a lowering of the eyebrows, both of which reduce the exposed surface
area of the eyes, (2) a wrinkling of the nose, which reduces air intake, and (3) a lowering of the
lips, which reduces the probability of objects entering the mouth (or, alternatively, if something
is already in the mouth, a protruding tongue, which expels the contents of the mouth; Susskind et
al., 2008). Each of these actions partially seals off an entryway through which pathogens can
enter the body. Behaviors apart from facial expression also appear specialized for neutralizing
pathogens. Disgust is associated with motivations to avoid physical contact with the disgust
elicitor – physical contact that would allow pathogens to be transmitted from disgust elicitor to
human (Hertenstein et al., 2006; Roseman et al., 1994). Does pathogen DS, as assessed by selfreport instruments, relate to these types of pathogen-neutralizing behaviors?
Multiple studies employing behavioral avoidance tasks (BAT) suggest that it does. In
BATs, researchers record whether participants are willing to physically contact an object, and
what degree of contact they will engage in. For example, in one study, participants were
presented with a cookie on the floor and were asked to (a) hold the cookie, (b) touch the cookie
with their lips, and (c) eat the cookie (Deacon and Olatunji, 2007). Similar progressions were
used for a used hair comb and a bedpan filled with toilet water. Pathogen DS (negatively)
predicted the number of steps completed in the tasks, even when controlling for participant sex,
anxiety, and depression. Similar results have been obtained for BATs in which participants were
asked to touch tissues used by someone who had the common cold (Fan and Olatunji, 2013);
touch a sterilized cockroach (Rozin et al., 1999); touch a colonoscopy bag (Reynolds et al.,
2014); and touch moldy fruit (Olatunji, Lohr et al., 2007). In contrast, pathogen DS does not
predict avoidance of watching or committing socio-moral violations (Van Overveld et al., 2010),
and sexual DS and moral DS do not predict avoidance of contact with sinks, trash cans, and
toilets in a public restroom (Olatunji et al., 2012). Similarly, pathogen DS – but not sexual DS or
moral DS – relates to galvanic skin response to images of pathogen cues (Olatunji et al., 2012).
Only a few studies have tested whether DS relates to facial responses to disgust-eliciting
stimuli. In one study of 47 participants, facial electromyography (EMG) indicated that pathogen
DS was unrelated to the degree of levator labii (a key muscle in the disgust facial response)
activation in response to disgust-eliciting images (Stark et al., 2005). In another study of 60
participants, EMG again indicated that pathogen DS was unrelated to levator labii activation in
response to a disgust-eliciting film clip (De Jong et al., 2011). Of course, these studies are not
well powered to detect small relations between DS and facial responses – they only had 28% and
34% power to detect a correlation of r = 0.25. Nevertheless, they hint at two interesting
possibilities. First, they could suggest that variability in some anti-pathogen responses, including
subjective feelings of disgust and physical avoidance, is distinct from variability in other anti-
pathogen responses, such as reducing the degree to which the eyes, nose, and mouth are exposed
to pathogens. Second (and, perhaps, alternatively), they could suggest that variability in facial
response to disgust elicitors reflects variability in motivations to communicate the presence of
pathogens to others (see Fridlund, 1991). Once again, further research is needed to adjudicate
between these possibilities.
The majority of studies testing how DS relates to behavior have presented participants
with cues to pathogens. One exception examined how DS relates to aggression. Reasoning that
disgust motivates avoidance – and that aggression involves approach-oriented motivations
(Harmon-Jones and Peterson, 2008) – Pond and colleagues (2012) suggested that DS should
relate negatively to aggression. They found that participants higher in moral DS and in sexual DS
– but not pathogen DS – delivered fewer high intensity noise-blasts in a behavioral aggression
paradigm (notably, though, this study did not report unique effects of moral DS vs. sexual DS,
and it did not control for participant sex – a variable strongly related to both aggression and
sexual DS). That said, we are unaware of any studies that have examined how sexual DS relates
to behavioral responses to unwanted sexual advances or how moral DS relates to behavioral
responses to individuals who have committed moral transgressions. Naturally, such studies
present ethical challenges that surpass asking participants to touch tissues or sterilized
cockroaches. Nevertheless, they would greatly improve our interpretation of sexual DS and
moral DS.
In sum, findings gleaned from a variety of methods – including self-report instruments,
behavioral avoidance tasks, and physiological measures – provide the groundwork for how we
should interpret DS. However, a theoretical framework is required to integrate these empirical
findings and transform this groundwork into a firm foundation. In the next section, we will extend
a theoretical framework for understanding the experience of disgust (Tybur et al., 2013) to
understanding variability in DS.
Relationship trajectories of winning & losing candidates for mayor & parliamentarian: A promotion to one of these jobs doubles the baseline probability of divorce for women, but not for men
All the Single Ladies: Job Promotions and the Durability of Marriage. Olle Folke and Johanna Rickne. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. Jan 2020, Vol. 12, No. 1: Pages 260-287. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/app.20180435
Abstract: We study how promotions to top jobs affect the probability of divorce. We compare the relationship trajectories of winning and losing candidates for mayor and parliamentarian and find that a promotion to one of these jobs doubles the baseline probability of divorce for women, but not for men. We also find a widening gender gap in divorce rates for men and women after being promoted to CEO. An analysis of possible mechanisms shows that divorces are concentrated in more gender-traditional couples, while women in more gender-equal couples are unaffected.
JEL J12, J16, M12, M51
Abstract: We study how promotions to top jobs affect the probability of divorce. We compare the relationship trajectories of winning and losing candidates for mayor and parliamentarian and find that a promotion to one of these jobs doubles the baseline probability of divorce for women, but not for men. We also find a widening gender gap in divorce rates for men and women after being promoted to CEO. An analysis of possible mechanisms shows that divorces are concentrated in more gender-traditional couples, while women in more gender-equal couples are unaffected.
JEL J12, J16, M12, M51
Diversity Promotes Collective Intelligence in Large Groups but Harms Small Ones
Pescetelli, Niccolo, Alexis Rutherford, and Iyad Rahwan. 2020. “Diversity Promotes Collective Intelligence in Large Groups but Harms Small Ones.” PsyArXiv. January 2. doi:10.31234/osf.io/b8q2c
Abstract: Diverse groups are often said to be less susceptible to decision errors resulting from herding and polarization. Thus, the fact that many modern interactions happen in a digital world, where filter bubbles and homophily bring people together, is an alarming yet poorly understood phenomenon. But online interactions are also characterized by unprecedented scale, where thousands of individuals can exchange ideas simultaneously. Evidence in collective intelligence however suggests that small (rather than large) groups tend to do better in complex information environments. Here, we adopt the well-established framework of social learning theory (from the fields of ecology and cultural evolution) to explore the causal link between diversity and performance as a function of group size. In this pre-registered study, we experimentally manipulate both group diversity and group size, and measure individual and group performance in realistic geo-political judgements. We find that diversity hinders the performance of individuals in small groups, but improves it in large groups. Furthermore, aggregating opinions of modular crowds composed of small independent but homogeneous groups achieves better results than using non-modular diverse ones. The results are explained by greater conflict of opinion in diverse groups, which negatively impacts small (but not large) groups. The present work sheds light on the causal mechanisms underlying the success (or lack thereof) of diverse groups in digital environments, and suggests that diversity research can benefit from adopting a wider social learning perspective.
Full text downloadable at https://psyarxiv.com/b8q2c/download (PDF)
Abstract: Diverse groups are often said to be less susceptible to decision errors resulting from herding and polarization. Thus, the fact that many modern interactions happen in a digital world, where filter bubbles and homophily bring people together, is an alarming yet poorly understood phenomenon. But online interactions are also characterized by unprecedented scale, where thousands of individuals can exchange ideas simultaneously. Evidence in collective intelligence however suggests that small (rather than large) groups tend to do better in complex information environments. Here, we adopt the well-established framework of social learning theory (from the fields of ecology and cultural evolution) to explore the causal link between diversity and performance as a function of group size. In this pre-registered study, we experimentally manipulate both group diversity and group size, and measure individual and group performance in realistic geo-political judgements. We find that diversity hinders the performance of individuals in small groups, but improves it in large groups. Furthermore, aggregating opinions of modular crowds composed of small independent but homogeneous groups achieves better results than using non-modular diverse ones. The results are explained by greater conflict of opinion in diverse groups, which negatively impacts small (but not large) groups. The present work sheds light on the causal mechanisms underlying the success (or lack thereof) of diverse groups in digital environments, and suggests that diversity research can benefit from adopting a wider social learning perspective.
Full text downloadable at https://psyarxiv.com/b8q2c/download (PDF)
Women: Beliefs in one’s sexual power lead both to negative (via self‐objectification, eating less) and positive (via sexual subjectivity, more sexual desire and pleasure) consequences for mental health
Sex is power belief and women’s mental health: The mediating roles of self‐objectification and sexual subjectivity. Matthias De Wilde, Annalisa Casini, Robin Wollast, Stéphanie Demoulin. European Journal of Social Psychology, November 12 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2643
Abstract: Sex is power belief (SIPB) positively relates to self‐objectification. This research aims at expanding this finding. We propose that SIPB involves an instrumental view of one’s own body (i.e., self‐objectification) that leads women to experience the negative consequences classically associated with self‐objectification. We further suggest that SIPB positively relates to sexual subjectivity—multidimensional sexual self‐perceptions and positive sexual experiences—and that such relation counterbalances some of the negative effects of SIPB. We examine the effect of SIPB on women’s negative eating attitudes and sexual satisfaction, and test the mediating roles of self‐objectification and sexual subjectivity in three studies (N1 = 121, N2 = 296, N3 = 320). Results supported our predictions that beliefs in one’s sexual power lead both to negative (via self‐objectification) and positive (via sexual subjectivity) consequences for women’s mental health. The discussion focuses on the potential consequences of SIPB at both individual and collective levels.
General Discussion
The overall aim of the present research was to provide a more complete and nuanced
picture of the relationship between SIPB and SO. More precisely, across three studies, we
aimed to examine the consequences of SIPB on women’s health (i.e., negative eating
attitudes and sexual satisfaction) and to assess two possible underlying mechanisms of these
relationships (i.e., SO and sexual subjectivity).
Results of studies 1, 2 and 3, indicated that SIPB was positively related to SO.
Women who perceive that their body is a source of power are more prone to focus on the
observable part of themselves and to consider it as important for their self-concept (i.e., selfobjectify).
These results are in line with the idea that some women consider that matching
beauty and thinness standards is a stairway to power over men (Erchull & Liss, 2013b, 2014).
Indeed, media in contemporary occidental society teach women from an early age that
sexualized behaviors are rewarded (Murnen & Smolak, 2012) and that they can – or even
should – feel empowered when expressing and displaying their sexuality (Erchull & Liss,
2013ab; Tolman, 2012). In this sense, these results replicated prior findings from Erchull and
Liss (2013a) which reported a positive correlation between SIPB and SO. In addition, our
results are in line with prior studies that reported a positive relationship between variables
conceptually close to SIPB (e.g., beauty as currency and enjoyment of sexualization) and SO
(Calogero, et al., 2017; Erchull & Liss, 2014).
Moreover, in line with the literature on SO (Moradi & Huang, 2008; Roberts et al.,
2018), results of studies 1, 2, and 3 showed that the positive relationship between SIPB and
SO is related to deleterious consequences for women’s health, such as increasing women’s
negative eating attitudes and decreasing women’s sexual satisfaction (considered as a health
indicator; Higgins, Mullinax, Trussell, Davidson, & Moore, 2011). This result legitimates the
concern of scholars about the illusory nature of feeling a sense of power using their body
(Calogero & Siegel, 2018; Gill, 2008, 2012; Liss et al., 2010; Anderson, 2014). Accordingly,
our results indicate that SIPB is related to women’s attempt to comply with men’s
expectations (e.g., negative eating attitudes). Further, some scholars claimed that women who
experience a sense of power through the use of their body have actually internalized
extremely deeply the objectifying perspective of society (e.g., Gill, 2012) and that this source
of power is implicitly reserved to women who best fit men’s expectations (Gill, 2008). Our
findings support scholars’ concerns with the fact that women’s desire, pleasure, and
subjectivity could be devalued by the message that their sense of power is, in fact, a “false
consciousness marketed to them by a sexualized advertising culture” (Lamb & Peterson,
2012, p. 705). Taken together, these results converge with the idea that, subjectively
empowering or not, SO remains deleterious for women’s health and sexual functioning.
In addition, on top of the deleterious consequences SIPB has via SO, results of
Studies 2 and 3 also indicated that SIPB positively relates to sexual satisfaction via an
increase in sexual subjectivity. Consistent with Peterson’s claim (2010), our results show that
beliefs in one’s sexual power increase women sense of empowerment, their subjective right
to feel attractive and sexually desirable (Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2006), their perception
of efficacy and entitlement to sexual desire and pleasure (Tolman, 2002, 2012), and their
sexual self-reflection (Zimmer-Gembeck & French, 2016). Because increased sexual
subjectivity relates positively to one’s sexual satisfaction (Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2006;
Zimmer-Gembeck & French, 2016), this translates into a positive relationship between SIPB
and sexual satisfaction and an overriding of the deleterious consequences SIPB has on sexual
satisfaction via an increase in SO. Interestingly, additional analyses reported in studies 2 and
3 seem to underline the important driving role of two sub-components of the sexual
subjectivity construct in the relationship between SIPB and sexual satisfaction, i.e., sexual
body esteem and perceived sexual efficacy. Future research should be conducted to further
replicate this unexpected results, and to provide a better understanding of these relationships.
Abstract: Sex is power belief (SIPB) positively relates to self‐objectification. This research aims at expanding this finding. We propose that SIPB involves an instrumental view of one’s own body (i.e., self‐objectification) that leads women to experience the negative consequences classically associated with self‐objectification. We further suggest that SIPB positively relates to sexual subjectivity—multidimensional sexual self‐perceptions and positive sexual experiences—and that such relation counterbalances some of the negative effects of SIPB. We examine the effect of SIPB on women’s negative eating attitudes and sexual satisfaction, and test the mediating roles of self‐objectification and sexual subjectivity in three studies (N1 = 121, N2 = 296, N3 = 320). Results supported our predictions that beliefs in one’s sexual power lead both to negative (via self‐objectification) and positive (via sexual subjectivity) consequences for women’s mental health. The discussion focuses on the potential consequences of SIPB at both individual and collective levels.
General Discussion
The overall aim of the present research was to provide a more complete and nuanced
picture of the relationship between SIPB and SO. More precisely, across three studies, we
aimed to examine the consequences of SIPB on women’s health (i.e., negative eating
attitudes and sexual satisfaction) and to assess two possible underlying mechanisms of these
relationships (i.e., SO and sexual subjectivity).
Results of studies 1, 2 and 3, indicated that SIPB was positively related to SO.
Women who perceive that their body is a source of power are more prone to focus on the
observable part of themselves and to consider it as important for their self-concept (i.e., selfobjectify).
These results are in line with the idea that some women consider that matching
beauty and thinness standards is a stairway to power over men (Erchull & Liss, 2013b, 2014).
Indeed, media in contemporary occidental society teach women from an early age that
sexualized behaviors are rewarded (Murnen & Smolak, 2012) and that they can – or even
should – feel empowered when expressing and displaying their sexuality (Erchull & Liss,
2013ab; Tolman, 2012). In this sense, these results replicated prior findings from Erchull and
Liss (2013a) which reported a positive correlation between SIPB and SO. In addition, our
results are in line with prior studies that reported a positive relationship between variables
conceptually close to SIPB (e.g., beauty as currency and enjoyment of sexualization) and SO
(Calogero, et al., 2017; Erchull & Liss, 2014).
Moreover, in line with the literature on SO (Moradi & Huang, 2008; Roberts et al.,
2018), results of studies 1, 2, and 3 showed that the positive relationship between SIPB and
SO is related to deleterious consequences for women’s health, such as increasing women’s
negative eating attitudes and decreasing women’s sexual satisfaction (considered as a health
indicator; Higgins, Mullinax, Trussell, Davidson, & Moore, 2011). This result legitimates the
concern of scholars about the illusory nature of feeling a sense of power using their body
(Calogero & Siegel, 2018; Gill, 2008, 2012; Liss et al., 2010; Anderson, 2014). Accordingly,
our results indicate that SIPB is related to women’s attempt to comply with men’s
expectations (e.g., negative eating attitudes). Further, some scholars claimed that women who
experience a sense of power through the use of their body have actually internalized
extremely deeply the objectifying perspective of society (e.g., Gill, 2012) and that this source
of power is implicitly reserved to women who best fit men’s expectations (Gill, 2008). Our
findings support scholars’ concerns with the fact that women’s desire, pleasure, and
subjectivity could be devalued by the message that their sense of power is, in fact, a “false
consciousness marketed to them by a sexualized advertising culture” (Lamb & Peterson,
2012, p. 705). Taken together, these results converge with the idea that, subjectively
empowering or not, SO remains deleterious for women’s health and sexual functioning.
In addition, on top of the deleterious consequences SIPB has via SO, results of
Studies 2 and 3 also indicated that SIPB positively relates to sexual satisfaction via an
increase in sexual subjectivity. Consistent with Peterson’s claim (2010), our results show that
beliefs in one’s sexual power increase women sense of empowerment, their subjective right
to feel attractive and sexually desirable (Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2006), their perception
of efficacy and entitlement to sexual desire and pleasure (Tolman, 2002, 2012), and their
sexual self-reflection (Zimmer-Gembeck & French, 2016). Because increased sexual
subjectivity relates positively to one’s sexual satisfaction (Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2006;
Zimmer-Gembeck & French, 2016), this translates into a positive relationship between SIPB
and sexual satisfaction and an overriding of the deleterious consequences SIPB has on sexual
satisfaction via an increase in SO. Interestingly, additional analyses reported in studies 2 and
3 seem to underline the important driving role of two sub-components of the sexual
subjectivity construct in the relationship between SIPB and sexual satisfaction, i.e., sexual
body esteem and perceived sexual efficacy. Future research should be conducted to further
replicate this unexpected results, and to provide a better understanding of these relationships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
