Rolf Degen summarizing... There was no connection between the attractiveness of the face and the voice, again casting doubt on the "good genes" theory of physical attractiveness

Attractiveness and distinctiveness between speakers' voices in naturalistic speech and their faces are uncorrelated. Romi Zäske, Verena Gabriele Skuk and Stefan R. Schweinberger. Royal Society Open Science, December 9 2020. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201244

Rolf Degen's take: https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1336606172384735233

Abstract: Facial attractiveness has been linked to the averageness (or typicality) of a face and, more tentatively, to a speaker's vocal attractiveness, via the ‘honest signal’ hypothesis, holding that attractiveness signals good genes. In four experiments, we assessed ratings for attractiveness and two common measures of distinctiveness (‘distinctiveness-in-the-crowd’, DITC and ‘deviation-based distinctiveness', DEV) for faces and voices (simple vowels, or more naturalistic sentences) from 64 young adult speakers (32 female). Consistent and substantial negative correlations between attractiveness and DEV generally supported the averageness account of attractiveness, for both voices and faces. By contrast, and indicating that both measures of distinctiveness reflect different constructs, correlations between attractiveness and DITC were numerically positive for faces (though small and non-significant), and significant for voices in sentence stimuli. Between faces and voices, distinctiveness ratings were uncorrelated. Remarkably, and at variance with the honest signal hypothesis, vocal and facial attractiveness were also uncorrelated in all analyses involving naturalistic, i.e. sentence-based, speech. This result pattern was confirmed using a new set of stimuli and raters (experiment 5). Overall, while our findings strongly support an averageness account of attractiveness for both domains, they provide no evidence for an honest signal account of facial and vocal attractiveness in complex naturalistic speech.

4. General discussion

4.1. Relationships between attractiveness and distinctiveness

The present study is to our knowledge, the first to demonstrate a systematic relationship between perceived attractiveness and distinctiveness in human voices. Here, we found strong negative correlations between attractiveness and deviation-based distinctiveness (DEV) for voices when based both on vowels (ρ = −0.85) and on sentences (ρ =−0.87). This pattern was analogous to and, if anything, even stronger than the previously described negative correlation between attractiveness and DEV for faces (experiment 2: ρ = −0.64; experiment 4: ρ = −0.74). Overall, this pattern of findings provides strong support for an averageness account of attractiveness for both faces and voices [3,7] when distinctiveness is assessed in a deviation-based manner. Note, that the negative relationship between attractiveness and DEV was not merely an artefact of imitating a model speaker during voice recordings: in experiment 5 using new speakers, we replicated our results for voices recorded with the model, but also found significant, though smaller, negative correlations for voices recorded without model speaker (vowels: ρ = −0.46, and sentences: ρ = −0.59). While this indicates that the presence of a model partially preserves idiosynchratic variability in voices which drives the relationship between attractiveness and DEV in terms of stable ‘voice traits’, speaking after a model enhances the strength of this relationship, perhaps owing to a change of natural voice variation affecting either attractiveness, DEV or both. Based on correlations across recording modes, which were substantial and positive for attractiveness, but tended to be relatively smaller for DEV ratings (at least for vowels), we tentatively suggest that the presence of a model speaker may change natural variation of DEV more than variation of attractiveness. Note, however, that mean F0 was remarkably similar across the recording modes. The notion that the relationship between attractiveness and DEV is systematic and substantial, independent of recording mode, is further supported by strong and positive cross-sentence correlations throughout for attractiveness ratings (0.64 ≤ ρ ≤ 0.77) as well as for DEV ratings (0.63 ≤ ρ ≤ 0.79), with no significant difference between recording modes.

The present findings are important because they were obtained in the context of ratings for real stimuli, rather than for averaged ‘composite’ stimuli. Note that averaging towards composites causes artefacts per se, such as smooth and symmetric visual patterns for faces, or increased harmonics-to-noise ratios for voices. (It should also be noted, however, that voice morphing is a comparatively new and elaborate technique which only a few laboratories master, and this may also explain why there are relatively few studies investigating the averageness account of vocal attractiveness.) We propose that, because such ‘non-average’ features of digitally created composites have been shown to consistently contribute to perceived attractiveness [7,14], studies with natural individual stimuli that vary in perceived prototypicality or averageness are important to cross-validate findings obtained with composite stimuli.

Compared to these consistent findings of negative correlations between attractiveness and deviation-based distinctiveness, the relationship with rated attractiveness was much less consistent for ‘in-the-crowd’-based distinctiveness ratings. Specifically, while there was also a moderate negative correlation between attractiveness and ‘in-the-crowd’-based distinctiveness (VITC) for voices when based on vowels (experiment 1), this correlation was positive when based on sentences (experiment 3). For faces, a marginally non-significant positive correlation between attractiveness and FITC was found in experiment 1 (numerically similar to the significant positive correlation with more stimuli as reported in [34]), and while this pattern was not seen in experiment 3 using the same stimuli and task, the relationships between rated attractiveness and DITC ratings were inconsistent when compared to DEV ratings. Taken together, our findings confirm that common deviation-based and ‘in-the-crowd’-based measures of distinctiveness (VITC and FITC) measure at least partially different constructs [34], and extend those findings by showing that this is the case both for faces and for voices. For voices, the specific relationship between attractiveness and distinctiveness appears to depend on the type of utterance. Specifically, while simple vowel stimuli were rated as less attractive with increasing VITC distinctiveness (experiment 1), in line with an averageness account, sentence stimuli (experiment 3) were rated as more attractive with increasing VITC distinctiveness.

These differences between different types of utterances may generally be related to differences in duration and/or number of different phonemes [6,59]. Whereas sentences carry much richer cues to attractiveness and distinctiveness, vowels are simple periodic utterances which are mainly influenced by ‘static’ biophysical characteristics of individual speakers. VITC ratings for vowels could also differ from those for sentences owing to a certain oddity of imagining someone saying a prolonged vowel sound in a crowd. Possibly related to this notion, an earlier study reported that perceived voice attractiveness and acoustic distance to mean (in terms of F0, F1) were correlated for a vowel (/a/), but not for a word or sentence [6]. Overall, ratings of attractiveness and VITC distinctiveness are probably based on partially different sets of acoustic cues, depending on their salience in a given utterance. The positive correlation between voice attractiveness and VITC distinctiveness is reminiscient of analogous findings for faces in previous research [34] where it has been argued that DITC measures of distinctiveness may be distorted by cognitive heuristics. Accordingly, raters might be biased to think that they would surely spot a highly attractive person in the crowd, even when this might not be the case. Such an effect seems to generalize to voices in the present study, at least when ratings are based on sentence stimuli. Note that such a putative heuristic, as suggested here, does not imply that attractive voices would, in fact, stand out of a crowd if put to test. (In fact, other more salient bottom-up acoustic characteristics such as intensity [60] probably play a more prominent role here which we had controlled in our stimuli by RMS normalization.) While we are at present unaware of studies addressing the specific issue of whether attractive voices stick out from a noisy environment, a recent study on the ‘cocktail-party effect’ [61] could provide tentative and indirect evidence in favour of this assumption. Specifically, interference from a non-target speaker can be reduced both when the target is familiar and the interfering voice is unfamiliar and, critically, also when the target is unfamiliar and the interfering voice is familiar [62]. Although the link to attractiveness is indirect, voice familiarity, just like voice averaging (and, by implication, attractiveness), could promote positive evaluation via a fluency mechanism as seen in the mere exposure effect.

In contrast to ‘in-the-crowd-based’ measures of distinctiveness, correlations for deviation-based distinctiveness and attractiveness were highly consistent, and consistently negative across modalities and utterance types in the present study. This supports the notion that both faces and voices become increasingly attractive the more typical, i.e. the more average, they are perceived relative to prior personal experience [3,7]. At variance with this experience-based account of typicality, it has been argued recently that typicality ratings rather reflect stereotypes of what constitutes attractive and typical voices [9]. In our view, this may be the case for tasks that do not further specify what typicality/distinctiveness is. However, it should be noted that our task explicitly invoked a memory component by asking participants to judge distinctiveness relative to the faces and voices they know. Given the different patterns of results for two types of distinctiveness measures, we believe that it is extremely important for future studies to specify exactly how typicality/distinctiveness was assessed.

Overall, while deviation-based measures gave rise to a highly consistent pattern of negative correlations with attractiveness across stimulus modalities and domains, inconsistent correlations were seen for attractiveness and DITC measures which may be distorted by subjective heuristics. This may indicate that DEV ratings are preferable over ‘in-the-crowd’-based measures to assess distinctiveness in an unbiased manner.

4.2. Relationships between ratings for faces and voices of the same speakers

The second aim of the present study was to provide a systematic assessment of relationships between ratings of attractiveness and distinctiveness for faces and voices from the same speakers. Positive correlations between independent ratings of faces and voices might be expected to the extent that (i) facial and vocal features are determined by the same underlying basis (e.g. genetic or hormonal), and (ii) those features systematically influence perceptions under investigation (e.g. of attractiveness or distinctiveness). A common basis of vocal and facial attractiveness has been postulated by several studies (e.g. [35,41,43]). While we are unaware of research directly linking attractiveness and hormonal status via distinctiveness, there is evidence that certain vocal parameters (e.g. F0, vocal tract length estimates, shimmer, jitter, harmonics-to-noise ratio, as determined from sustained vowel recordings only) are linked to speakers' body size measurements (e.g. height, weight and waist-to-hip ratios), as probably mediated by hormonal mechanisms [63]. The present findings, however, consistently indicate that correlations between vocal and facial attractiveness are remarkably absent in the majority of the studied conditions, and small at best in one exception which we discuss below (figure 2). It could be argued that the standardization of the present stimuli in terms of neutral emotional expression and speaking style according to a model speaker, may have compromised to some degree the natural variation between voices relevant for perceived attractiveness, such as vocal pitch.

However, experiment 5 addresses this concern, and its results are clear in showing that correlations between facial and vocal attractiveness in sentences were also absent for voices recorded naturally and without a model speaker, as predicted [55] based on our findings from experiment 4. Although we had no predictions regarding the small positive correlation (ρ = 0.30) between facial and vocal attractiveness for simple vowels we had observed in experiment 1, it may be noted that this was not replicated in experiment 5. Rather, we found a numerically negative, though non-significant correlation (ρ = −0.30) in the condition with model speaker, and a numerically negative non-significant correlation (ρ = −0.18) in the new condition without a model speaker. Overall, the pattern of results across five experiments would seem to indicate that, for a range of conditions tested in this series of experiments, any correlation between facial and vocal attractiveness is small at best, and is potentially non-existent.

Together, the present findings challenge the ‘honest signal account’ of facial and vocal attractiveness [14]. On one hand, we appreciate that the only exception to this pattern, a small but significant positive correlation between facial and vocal attractiveness in experiment 1, when simple vowels were used as voice samples, could potentially resolve discrepancies between our data and previous findings in which evidence for a correlation between facial and vocal attractiveness was reported using similarly simple vocalizations [41,43]. On the other hand, our failure to replicate this finding with a new set of speakers emphasizes the importance for researchers both to critically consider the nature of the stimuli used to assess these relationships, and to assess the replicability of critical findings across a range of conditions and situations.

In that respect, prerequisites to find evidence for or against the honest signal hypothesis include that face and voice stimuli should be honest and undistorted representations of their owners' genetic quality. We selected our face stimuli to be devoid of attractiveness-enhancing features such as make-up or jewellery. However, it may be more difficult to remove or standardize socio-cultural norms of attractiveness that are reflected in acquired speech patterns in the voice [9]. In that sense, the present voice ratings to more naturalistic sentence stimuli may in part reflect cultural norms, rather than purely biophysically determined voice qualities. Accordingly, one explanation for the results found with simple vowels could be that these are relatively devoid of such socio-cultural cues, and thus may reflect genetic factors more ‘honestly’ compared to more naturalistic and complex vocalizations. While this interesting possibility should be addressed in more detail in future research, we can conclude that correlations between vocal and facial attractiveness appear to be remarkably absent, at least when voices are presented in the more naturalistic context of sentences (as opposed to vowels) akin to everyday communication.

Although acoustic analyses on vowel pitch and sentence duration did not indicate different degrees of acoustic variability for samples recorded with, versus without, the model speaker, electronic supplementary material, table S19 suggest approximately 10% longer average durations of the same sentences when produced with compared to without a model speaker. We tentatively attribute this difference to the larger effort to imitate neutral emotion and speaking style of a model.

With respect to distinctiveness, facial and vocal ratings were uncorrelated for both types of distinctiveness ratings, suggesting no common basis for perceived distinctiveness. An interesting question for future research is how various measures of vocal distinctiveness could be related to one another. For instance, it would be instructive to assess in more detail how DITC and DEV are related with the actual recognizability of voices (for relevant research on faces, see [34,64,65]), and to determine the acoustic stimulus parameters which underlie different aspects of perceived vocal distinctiveness (for relevant methods, see [66]).

4.3. Limitations

As a possible limitation for both the present study and earlier research in this field [35,40,41,43], we assessed attractiveness and distinctiveness for static faces, and thus did not consider a possible role of dynamic facial information. To the extent that static and dynamic faces may be judged by different standards [67], it remains possible that cross-domain correlations between facial and vocal attractiveness could be found for dynamic facial stimuli. In fact, one previous study emphasized the role of dynamic information for correlations between vocal and visual attractiveness, although this was not found consistently across different conditions [68]. Recent theoretical accounts of person perception increasingly address the role of dynamic information [69], and this issue warrants further investigation.

As a second step towards understanding impression formation in every-day social interaction, it may be of interest how faces and voices combine to shape our evaluation of a person's attractiveness. Clearly, simultaneous presentation of face-voice stimuli would be unsuited to study the honest-signal account of attractiveness which requires independent ratings of (unimodal) voices and faces, owing to possible multimodal interactions. Interestingly, such interactions present a promising research field in their own right, as they can reveal important insights into the relative contribution of facial and vocal information to social evaluations beyond attractiveness (see [70,71]).

People differ in how much they prioritize immediate rewards, including sociosexual opportunities, vs long-term goals; individual differences in sleep behaviors, and attitudes toward sleep, correspond with such differing priorities

Live Fast, Die Young, and Sleep Later: Life History Strategy and Human Sleep Behavior. Vahe Dishakjian, Daniel M T Fessler, Adam Maxwell Sparks. Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health, eoaa048, December 2 2020, https://doi.org/10.1093/emph/eoaa048

Abstract

Background and objectives: Life History Theory (LHT) describes trade-offs that organisms make with regard to three investment pathways: growth, maintenance, and reproduction. In light of the reparative functions of sleep, we examine sleep behaviors and corresponding attitudes as proximate manifestations of an individual’s underlying relative prioritization of short-term reproduction versus long-term maintenance.

Methodology: We collected survey data from 568 participants across two online studies having different participant pools. We use a mixture of segmented and hierarchical regression models, structural equation modeling, and machine learning to infer relationships between sleep duration/quality, attitudes about sleep, and biodemographic/psychometric measures of life history strategy (LHS).

Results: An age-mediated U- or V-shaped relationship appears when LHS is plotted against habitual sleep duration, with the fastest strategies occupying the sections of the curve with the highest mortality risk: < 6.5 hours (short sleep) and > 8.5 hours (long sleep). LH “fastness” is associated with increased sleepiness and worse overall sleep quality: delayed sleep onset latency, more wakefulness after sleep onset, higher sleep-wake instability, and greater sleep duration variability. Hedonic valuations of sleep may mediate the effects of LHS on certain sleep parameters.

Conclusions and implications: The costs of deprioritizing maintenance can be parameterized in the domain of sleep, where “life history fastness” corresponds with sleep patterns associated with greater senescence and mortality. Individual differences in sleep having significant health implications can thus be understood as components of lifelong trajectories likely stemming from calibration to developmental circumstances. Relatedly, hedonic valuations of sleep may constitute useful avenues for non-pharmacological management of chronic sleep disorders.

Lay Summary: Sleep is essential because it allows the body to repair and maintain itself. But time spent sleeping is time that cannot be spent doing other things. People differ in how much they prioritize immediate rewards, including sociosexual opportunities, versus long-term goals. In this research, we show that individual differences in sleep behaviors, and attitudes toward sleep, correspond with psychological and behavioral differences reflecting such differing priorities. Orientation toward sleep can thus be understood as part of the overall lifetime strategies that people pursue.

Keywords; sleep, hedonic, Life History Theory, somatic maintenance, evolutionary medicine

The strongest predictors of antihero affinities were aggression, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy

Greenwood, D., Ribieras, A., & Clifton, A. (2020). The dark side of antiheroes: Antisocial tendencies and affinity for morally ambiguous characters. Psychology of Popular Media, Dec 2020. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000334

Rolf Degen's take: https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1336560616232935426

Abstract: Antiheroes—protagonists who are often depicted as Machiavellian, narcissistic, or psychopathic (Dark Triad traits)—have garnered recent empirical attention. Research has typically focused on the mass appeal of the characters and genre rather than on individual differences that predict such appeal. The present survey study (N = 162) extends this work by examining viewers’ antisocial tendencies (Dark Triad traits, aggression, and moral disengagement) in conjunction with an affinity for antihero genres and favorite antihero characters (similarity, wishful identification, and parasocial interaction). Results show that aggression, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy were the strongest predictors of antihero affinities. Male antiheroes vastly outnumbered female antiheroes as favorite character choices, although this skew was significantly greater among male participants than female ones. No differences in antihero character affinity emerged as a function of participant gender. Finally, the degree of perceived character villainy and IMDB ratings of violence were inversely related to wishful identification and parasocial interaction with a favorite character. Findings underscore the complex ways in which viewers engage with antihero characters and genres.

How Many People Have Ever Had a Threesome?

How Many People Have Ever Had a Threesome? Justin J. Lehmiller. Psychology Today, De 8 2020. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/202012/how-many-people-have-ever-had-threesome

Rolf Degen's take: https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1336557791360782338

It’s important to note that neither of our samples was representative of the population, which means that caution is warranted in generalizing the findings broadly. Also, they don’t tell us how many people have ever had a threesome in which all participants are of the same gender. That said, there are a few important takeaways here.

First, if we want to understand attitudes toward and experiences with threesomes, we can’t just look at what college students are doing. Young adults are less interested in and experienced with threesomes, so if we want to understand who’s engaging in this behavior, why, and what their experiences are like, it is important to recruit samples that are more diverse with respect to age. 

Second, attitudes toward and experiences with MGTs (mixed-gender threesomes) appears to vary substantially according to sexual identity, with bisexual-identified persons appearing most likely to have had an MGT before. 

Finally, these findings also suggest that MGTs are not a rare or uncommon sexual practice and that sex scientists would do well to devote more attention to this understudied topic.

Check also Mixed-gender threesomes: Sexual minority individuals reported more positive outcomes than did heterosexual individuals; there is a lot of interaction with sexual minority individuals in MGTs

Exploring Variations in North American Adults’ Attitudes, Interest, Experience, and Outcomes Related to Mixed-Gender Threesomes: A Replication and Extension. Ashley E. Thompson, Allison E. Cipriano, Kimberley M. Kirkeby, Delaney Wilder & Justin J. Lehmiller. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Nov 11 2020. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2020/11/mixed-gender-threesomes-mgts-sexual.html

Complicated relationship between Machiavellianism and social-cognitive skill because Machiavellianism encompasses features that blend deficiency, proficiency, and average levels of social-cognitive skills

Hart, W., Breeden, C. J., & Kinrade, C. (2020). Re-conceptualizing Machiavellianism and social-cognitive skills: Machiavellianism blends deficient, proficient, and average social-cognitive skills. Journal of Individual Differences, Dec 2020. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000340

Abstract: Machiavellianism is presumed to encompass advanced social-cognitive skill, but research has generally suggested that Machiavellian individuals are rather deficient in social-cognitive skill. However, previous research on the matter has been limited to measures of (a) Machiavellianism that are unidimensional and saturated with both antagonism and disinhibition and measures (b) only one type of social-cognitive skill. Using a large college sample (N = 461), we examined how various dimensions of Machiavellianism relate to two types of social-cognitive skill: person-perception skill and general social prediction skill. Consistent with some prior theorizing, the planful dimension of Machiavellianism was positively related to both person-perception and general social prediction skills; antagonistic dimensions of Machiavellianism were negatively related to both skills; either agentic or cynical dimensions of Machiavellianism were generally unrelated to both skills. Overall, the current evidence suggests a complicated relationship between Machiavellianism and social-cognitive skill because Machiavellianism encompasses features that blend deficiency, proficiency, and average levels of social-cognitive skills. 

Loosening the GRIP (Gender Roles Inhibiting Prosociality) to Promote Gender Equality

Loosening the GRIP (Gender Roles Inhibiting Prosociality) to Promote Gender Equality. Alyssa Croft. Personality and Social Psychology Review, December 1, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320964615

Abstract: Prosociality is an ideal context to begin shifting traditional gender role stereotypes and promoting equality. Men and women both help others frequently, but assistance often follows traditional gender role expectations, which further reinforces restrictive gender stereotypes in other domains. We propose an integrative process model of gender roles inhibiting prosociality (GRIP) to explain why and how this occurs. We argue that prosociality provides a unique entry point for change because it is (a) immediately rewarding (which cultivates positive attitude formation), (b) less likely to threaten the gender status hierarchy, and therefore less susceptible to social backlash (which translates into less restrictive social norms), and (c) a skill that can be learned (which leads to stronger beliefs in one’s own ability to help). Using the GRIP model, we derive a series of hypothesized interventions to interrupt the self-reinforcing cycle of gender role stereotyping and facilitate progress toward broader gender equality.

Keywords: gender roles, gender stereotypes, gender equality, prosocial behavior, helping

We show that family background matters significantly for children’s accumulation of wealth and investor behavior as adults, even when removing the genetic connection between children and the parents raising them

Why do wealthy parents have wealthy children? Andreas Fagereng, Magne Mogstad, and Marte Rønning. Journal of Political Economy, Jun 2020. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/712446

Abstract: We show that family background matters significantly for children’s accumulation of wealth and investor behavior as adults, even when removing the genetic connection between children and the parents raising them. The analysis is made possible by linking Korean-born children who were adopted at infancy by Norwegian parents to a population panel data set with detailed information on wealth and socio-economic characteristics. The mechanism by which these Korean-Norwegian adoptees were assigned to adoptive families is known and effectively random. This mechanism allows us to estimate the causal effects from an adoptee being raised in one type of family versus another.

Reward valuation in social contexts is made relatively in reference to others; socially relative reward valuation triggers various ‘other-regarding’ emotions

Socially relative reward valuation in the primate brain. Masaki Isoda. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, Volume 68, June 2021, Pages 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2020.11.008

Rolf Degen's take: https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1336322948244762624

Highlights

• Reward valuation in social contexts is made relatively in reference to others.

• Socially relative reward valuation triggers various ‘other-regarding’ emotions.

• Socially relative reward valuation is mediated by social and reward neural networks.

• Medial prefrontal cortex and dopamine-related subcortical areas are mainly involved.

• Shared neural networks mediate this valuation in humans and nonhuman primates.

Abstract: Reward valuation in social contexts is by nature relative rather than absolute; it is made in reference to others. This socially relative reward valuation is based on our propensity to conduct comparisons and competitions between self and other. Exploring its neural substrate has been an active area of research in human neuroimaging. More recently, electrophysiological investigation of the macaque brain has enabled us to understand neural mechanisms underlying this valuation process at single-neuron and network levels. Here I show that shared neural networks centered at the medial prefrontal cortex and dopamine-related subcortical regions are involved in this process in humans and nonhuman primates. Thus, socially relative reward valuation is mediated by cortico-subcortically coordinated activity linking social and reward brain networks.

Conclusion

In social contexts, valuation of one's own reward is often made in reference to others’ rewards. This form of reward valuation readily invokes complex other-regarding emotions depending on the context at hand, ranging from those that can hinder interpersonal relations, such as envy and schadenfreude, to those that can promote productive social exchanges, such as empathy, reciprocity, and vicarious happiness. Although socially relative reward valuation is mediated by multiple brain regions, core components are centered in social and reward neural networks. These findings invite an interesting hypothesis that it is not a single brain region, but the combination of regions within the distributed neural networks and their coherent interaction that determine the type of other-regarding emotions and subsequent social decisions. Thus, a critical next step is to better understand fine-grained mechanisms underlying social rewards and emotions at the pathway level via electrophysiological decoding and pathway-selective intervention using well-controlled social task paradigms, the strategy of which has been developed in macaque monkeys [60]. Currently, the domain of comparisons between self and other is confined to rewards in monkey studies. However, other domains, such as the status and performance ability, would also be testable given that monkeys are sensitive to hierarchical relationships [61] and are equipped with metacognitive capability [62, 63, 64]. 

Considerate altruists were perceived to be more intelligent, easy going, creative, cooperative, sympathetic, wealthy and thought to be better parents

Norman, Ian (2020) Distinguishing between altruistic behaviours: the desirability of considerate and heroic altruism and their relationship to empathic concern. Doctoral thesis, University of East Anglia. Dec 2 2020. https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/77870/

Abstract: Debate exists within the fields of evolutionary and social psychology around the concept of Altruism. From an evolutionary perspective, this relates to how a behaviour that is costly to the fitness of the altruist but beneficial to the recipient has evolved, particularly when the recipient is a stranger. From a psychological perspective the debate surrounds whether the motivations for altruism are instrumental to helping the altruist achieve a selfish goal (egoism) or whether motivations can be ultimate goals, with the purpose of improving the wellbeing of the recipient (altruism). Altruism within both of these perspectives has been operationalised in numerous ways but without consideration that different behaviours that fit the respective definitions of altruism could impact upon the ultimate evolutionary function of altruism or the psychological mechanisms that motivate altruism. Study 1, a qualitative content analysis of altruistic behaviour within newspaper articles examined the extent to which different altruistic behaviours are presented distinctly. The findings demonstrated that there are three broad categories of altruism; considerate, heroic and philanthropic. Study 2 examines whether participants display intra-individual variation in their altruistic intentions as determined by the operationalisation of altruism. A principal components analysis of participant responses to an altruistic intentions questionnaire demonstrated that there were two stable altruistic components that reflected considerate altruism and heroic altruism. The altruistic intentions questionnaire was validated in studies 3 and 4, to show that intentions do correlate with behaviours for each component. Within study 2, predictor models were also created through regression analyses, which demonstrated that whilst communal orientation and prior altruistic behaviour were predictive of both considerate and heroic altruistic intentions, disinhibition, social dominance and emotional reactivity were uniquely predictive of considerate altruistic intentions and agreeableness and openness were uniquely predictive of heroic altruistic intentions. The finding that emotional reactivity, a factor of the Empathy Quotient, was predictive of considerate but not heroic altruistic intentions was examined further in study 5, using a laboratory experiment. It was found that empathic concern was predictive of considerate altruistic behaviour but not heroic altruistic behaviour. Study 5 also found that agreeableness was not predictive of heroic altruistic behaviour, unlike study 2; this suggests that considerate helping behaviours may be more likely to be motivated by altruistic ultimate goals. Studies 6 through 10 explore the desirability of considerate and heroic altruists, as costly signalling theory suggests that altruism acts as a costly signal of a desirable underlying quality which increases opportunities to form cooperative and reproductive relationships, which offset the cost to the altruist. The findings were mixed, providing no clear evidence that considerate or heroic altruists are more desirable. However, study 10 demonstrated that whilst considerate and heroic altruists had similar desirability ratings, participants associated different underlying qualities to each type of altruist. Considerate altruists were perceived to be more intelligent, easy going, creative, cooperative, sympathetic, wealthy and thought to be better parents. Heroic altruists were perceived to be kinder, healthier, more understanding, more competitive, more physically attractive and have more exciting personalities. Overall, the evidence suggests that critical consideration of how altruism is operationalised is required to facilitate cross study comparisons so that researchers can construct a better understanding of what altruism signals and what the underlying motivations of altruism are.

The participants evaluated smiling faces as older in direct evaluations, regardless of the facial stimuli culture or their nationality, although they believed that smiling makes people look younger

Yoshimura, Naoto, Koichi Morimoto, Mariko Murai, Yusaku Kihara, Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos, Veit Kubik, and Yuki Yamada. 2020. “Age of Smile: A Cross-cultural Replication Report of Ganel and Goodale (2018).” PsyArXiv. December 4. doi:10.31234/osf.io/dtx6j

Rolf Degen's take: https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1336236855386365952

Abstract: Smiling is believed to make people look younger. Ganel and Goodale (2018) proposed that this belief is a misconception rooted in popular media, based on their findings that people actually perceive smiling faces as older. However, they did not clarify whether this misconception can be generalized across cultures. We tested the cross-cultural validity of Ganel and Goodale’s findings by collecting data from Japanese and Swedish participants. Specifically, we aimed to replicate Ganel and Goodale’s study using segregated sets of Japanese and Swedish facial stimuli, and including Japanese and Swedish participants in groups asked to estimate the age of either Japanese or Swedish faces (two groups of participants × two groups of stimuli; four groups total). Our multiverse analytical approach consistently showed that the participants evaluated smiling faces as older in direct evaluations, regardless of the facial stimuli culture or their nationality, although they believed that smiling makes people look younger. Further, we hypothesized that the effect of wrinkles around the eyes on the estimation of age would vary with the stimulus culture, based on previous studies. However, we found no differences in age estimates by stimulus culture in the present study. Our results showed that we successfully replicated Ganel and Goodale (2018) in a cross-cultural context. Our study thus clarified that the belief that smiling makes people look younger is a common cultural misconception.

Compliance with gender roles in risky behavior may be exacerbated in Western countries, where the level of road safety is higher and the need for compliance with traditional social roles is less emphasized

Effect of Culture on Gender Differences in Risky Driver Behavior through Comparative Analysis of 32 Countries. Marie-Axelle Granié et al. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. December 1, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120970525

Abstract: This study examines the effect of culture on gender differences in road user risky behaviors. With the hypothesis that gender differences are not solely because of biological factors, and that the existence and magnitude of differences between gender groups vary according to cultural context, because of differentiated social expectations in relation to gender roles, a secondary analysis was made of the E-Survey of Road Users’ Attitudes (ESRA) 2018 database, comprising 25,459 car drivers (53% male) surveyed by an online questionnaire in 32 countries distributed in eight cultural clusters. The interactions between gender and culture in reported behavior, and personal and social acceptability of four violations were analyzed: drinking and driving, speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, and the use of a cellphone while driving. The results show significant gender differences on risky behaviors and attitudes and complex interactions between gender and culture, with men valuing crash-risk behaviors more than women do in all cultural clusters observed. Interactions between gender and culture are more frequent on declared behaviors and personal acceptability than on perceived social acceptability, and on drinking and driving, and not wearing a seatbelt, more than on speeding and the use of a cellphone while driving. In addition, gender differences are greater in Western countries than in the Global South. These gender differences in road user behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions as results of an interaction between biological and evolutionary factors and cultural and social factors are discussed. These results could be useful to better tailor road safety campaigns and education.

While men and women are both susceptible to motivated reasoning in general, men find it particularly attractive to believe that they outperformed others and distort information processing to favor their performance

Gender Differences in Motivated Reasoning. Michael Thaler. arXiv Dec 2 2020, https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.01538

Men and women systematically differ in their beliefs about their performance relative to others; in particular, men tend to be more overconfident. This paper provides support for one explanation for gender differences in overconfidence, performance-motivated reasoning, in which people distort how they process new information in ways that make them believe they outperformed others. Using a large online experiment, I find that male subjects distort information processing to favor their performance, while female subjects do not systematically distort information processing in either direction. These statistically-significant gender differences in performance-motivated reasoning mimic gender differences in overconfidence; beliefs of male subjects are systematically overconfident, while beliefs of female subjects are well-calibrated on average. The experiment also includes political questions, and finds that politically-motivated reasoning is similar for both men and women. These results suggest that, while men and women are both susceptible to motivated reasoning in general, men find it particularly attractive to believe that they outperformed others.

Those worried about getting ill in the epidemic made harsher moral judgments than those who were not worried, effect not restricted to transgressions involving purity, but also to those involving harm, fairness, authority, & loyalty

Henderson, Robert K., and Simone Schnall. 2020. “Disease and Disapproval: COVID-19 Concern Is Related to Greater Moral Condemnation.” PsyArXiv. December 7. doi:10.31234/osf.io/7szaw. Evolutionary Psychology, June 10, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049211021524

Abstract: Prior research has indicated that disgust, a manifestation of the behavioral immune system, is associated with harsher moral condemnation. However, the link between physical disgust—an evolved signal of risks to one’s health—and morality has been contentious. We investigated the role of a specific health concern, namely the spread of the coronavirus, and associated COVID-19 disease, on moral condemnation. We hypothesized that individuals who report greater subjective worry about COVID-19 would be more sensitive to moral transgressions. Across 3 studies (N = 913), conducted March-May 2020 as the pandemic started to unfold in the United States, we found that individuals who were worried about contracting the infectious disease made harsher moral judgments than those who were not worried. This effect was not restricted to transgressions involving purity, but extended to transgressions involving harm, fairness, authority, and loyalty, and remained when controlling for political orientation. We furthermore observed suggestive evidence that even relatively unconcerned individuals became more judgmental as the epidemic wore on. These findings add to the growing literature that concrete threats to health can play a role in abstract moral considerations, supporting the notion that judgments of wrongdoing are not based on rational thought alone.

General Discussion

This research tested the role of situational concerns about an infectious disease on judgments of wrongdoing. Across three studies we consistently found that people who were worried about COVID-19 condemned moral wrongdoers more harshly than those who were less worried. This finding adds to emerging work on the role of disease threat on moral judgment. In Studies 1 and 2 controlling for individual differences in contamination disgust left the effect of coronavirus worry and moral judgment intact. In contrast, in Study 3, we found that this relationship was no longer significant after accounting for contamination disgust, indicating that fear of contamination was responsible for the effect. We interpret this finding to be the result of a generally heightened concern about the virus at the time. Indeed, contamination disgust has been described as bearing a “striking similarity” to disease avoidance (Olatunji et al., 2009). An intriguing possibility is, therefore, that variables that are typically considered to reflect stable individual differences, such as disgust sensitivity, may change as a function of coronavirus concerns that became relatively universal across the world. Indeed, recent theorizing has suggested that topics within the field of of psychology, and the scientific approaches to study them, may change in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (Rosenfeld et al., in press). Given the current findings, apart from contamination and disease concerns, other relevant traits such as neuroticism or conscientiousness may also have changed over the course of the pandemic as a function of constantly having been engaged in disease-prevention behavior to alleviate related worries. Future research would be needed to explore this possibility.

Our findings align with a growing body of research demonstrating that individual differences in the propensity to experience disgust are linked to moral considerations (Chapman & Anderson, 2014; Karinen & Chapman, 2019; Liuzza et al., 2019; Murray et al., 2019; Robinson et al., 2019; Wagemans et al., 2018). Furthermore, the results are consistent with recent work showing a positive association between germ aversion and moral condemnation across the moral foundations (Murray et al., 2019). Our findings contribute to this line of research by demonstrating that subjective worry about a real-world contagious disease is associated with harsher moral judgments, and, moreover, that this relationship held even after accounting for differences in political orientation. Thus, converging evidence supports Haidt’s (2001) suggestion that morality is shaped by various emotions and intuitions, of which concerns about health and safety are prominent.

There are limitations within these findings. Though we obtained large samples with consistent results across all three studies, we used a single item to measure “worry,” which may have reduced sensitivity in capturing participants’ level of concern about COVID-19. Another qualification to these results is the difference in the relationships between the trait-like measures of COVID-19 worry and moral judgments, and the effects of the experimental manipulation in Study 1. That is, although dispositional worry about contracting the illness was consistently related to moral condemnation, experimentally manipulating the salience of COVID-19 had no effect on moral judgment, relative to a neutral condition. One possibility for why is by the time of Study 1 on March 17, news about COVID-19 was already highly salient, and thus the experimental manipulation did not have the intended effect. The dispositional association, however, might be explained by a generalized overreaction to potential harm. It is possible that those who are prone to chronic worry about contracting an infectious illness are also more sensitive to moral violations in disease-relevant domains as well as other moral infractions. That is, fear of disease may overlap with an overgeneralized reaction of increased sensitivity to potential harm, including moral wrongdoers who commit not only purity violations, but other unfavorable acts as well. Indeed, worried participants produced harsher judgments than less worried participants, and there was no moderating effect of moral foundation. This is consistent with previous research, indicating that disease threat concerns are associated with conformity to moral proscriptions that are not specific to disease (e.g., Murray et al., 2011; Tybur et al., 2016; Wu & Chang, 2012). Lack of moderation by foundation type is likewise consistent with error management, such that the more costly error is to be under-vigilant about moral violations that are not disease relevant than to be over-vigilant solely for disease-relevant violations (Haselton et al., 2015; Murray et al., 2019). Further research is needed to more carefully explore these dispositional versus experimental differences.

Additionally, we did not test whether other variables, such as personality, might have played a role in our results. Disease avoidance has been associated with both neuroticism and conscientiousness (Oosterhoff et al., 2018), while openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness have been associated with sensitivity to moral violations (Hirsh et al., 2010; Smillie et al., 2020). Thus, considering the overlap between disease avoidance, moral judgments, and conscientiousness, this personality trait may account for some of the variance between worry about a highly salient communicable disease and assessments of moral wrongdoing.

Our research raises the possibility that during a period of widespread concern about infectious disease, people may become more judgmental overall. In other words, people’s actions and intentions might be under more scrutiny, and when ambiguous, may be interpreted uncharitably, potentially resulting in misunderstandings, or interpersonal conflicts. Indeed, in the early days of the unfolding COVID-19 crisis, there were media accounts of mistrust in public officials, the press, and health organizations. The current findings suggest that we may see further instances of uncharitable evaluations as people are especially concerned for their physical health. Thus, the ongoing pandemic presented an ecologically relevant way of examining the role of disease prevalence on an issue of critical applied importance.

Teachers with some factual knowledge of the brain were more easily believers of neuromyths; those who endorsed neuromyths were generally more confident in their answers than those who identified the myths

Why do teachers believe educational neuromyths? Brenda Hughes, Karen A. Sullivan, Linda Gilmore. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, Volume 21, December 2020, 100145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2020.100145

Rolf Degen's take: https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1335927859332984833

Abstract

Background: It is not well understood whether qualified teachers believe neuromyths, and whether this affects their practice and learner outcomes.

Method: A standardised survey was administered to practising teachers (N = 228) to determine whether or not they believe fictional (neuromyth) or factual statements about the brain, the confidence in those beliefs, and their application.

Results: Although factual knowledge was high, seven neuromyths were believed by >50% of the sample. Participants who endorsed neuromyths were generally more confident in their answers than those who identified the myths. Key neuromyths appear to be incorporated into classrooms.

Conclusion: Australian teachers, like their overseas counterparts, have some neuroscience awareness but are susceptible to neuromyths. A stronger partnership with neuroscientists would addresss the complex problem of disentangling brain facts from fictions, and provide better support for teachers. This study uncovered psychometric weaknesses in the commonly used neuromyth measure that future research should address.

Keywords: NeuroscienceEducationTeachingLearningStudentsBrainNeuromyths

Higher income is more consistently linked to how frequently individuals experience happiness than how intensely happy each episode is; in part because lower-income individuals spend more time engaged in passive leisure activities, reducing the frequency of positive affect

Income More Reliably Predicts Frequent Than Intense Happiness. Jon M. Jachimowicz et al. Social Psychological and Personality Science, December 7, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620972548

Abstract: There is widespread consensus that income and subjective well-being are linked, but when and why they are connected is subject to ongoing debate. We draw on prior research that distinguishes between the frequency and intensity of happiness to suggest that higher income is more consistently linked to how frequently individuals experience happiness than how intensely happy each episode is. This occurs in part because lower-income individuals spend more time engaged in passive leisure activities, reducing the frequency but not the intensity of positive affect. Notably, we demonstrate that only happiness frequency underlies the relationship between income and life satisfaction. Data from an experience sampling study (N = 394 participants, 34,958 daily responses), a preregistered cross-sectional study (N = 1,553), and a day reconstruction study (N = 13,437) provide empirical evidence for these ideas. Together, this research provides conceptual and empirical clarity into how income is related to happiness.

Keywords: money, income, happiness, life satisfaction, time use

Recent research involving birds, ‘enculturated’ chimpanzees, and humans suggests that the cognitive mechanisms that make imitation possible are constructed during development through social interaction

Heyes, Cecilia. 2020. “Imitation Primer.” PsyArXiv. December 7. doi:10.31234/osf.io/tn34f

Abstract: In this Primer, Cecilia Heyes explains why imitation is thought to be a mark of cognitive complexity and an inheritance mechanism for cumulative culture. Recent research involving birds, ‘enculturated’ chimpanzees, and humans suggests that the cognitive mechanisms that make imitation possible are constructed during development through social interaction.

Many conservatives reject both gender equality & evolution of sex differences, embracing instead “naturally occurring” gender differences; many liberals reject evolved gender differences & naturally occurring gender differences, while nonetheless strongly endorsing evolution

Lewandowsky, S., Woike, J. K., & Oberauer, K. (2020). Genesis or Evolution of Gender Differences? Worldview-Based Dilemmas in The Processing of Scientific Information. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 9, Apr 30 2020. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.99

Rolf Degen's take: https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1335878463190790145

Abstract: Some issues that have been settled by the scientific community, such as evolution, the effectiveness of vaccinations, and the role of CO2 emissions in climate change, continue to be rejected by segments of the public. This rejection is typically driven by people’s worldviews, and to date most research has found that conservatives are uniformly more likely to reject scientific findings than liberals across a number of domains. We report a large (N > 1,000) preregistered study that addresses two questions: First, can we find science denial on the left? Endorsement of pseudoscientific complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) has been anecdotally cited as being more consonant with liberals than conservatives. Against this claim, we found more support for CAM among conservatives than liberals. Second, we asked how liberals and conservatives resolve dilemmas in which an issue triggers two opposing facets of their worldviews. We probed attitudes on gender equality and the evolution of sex differences—two constructs that may create conflicts for liberals (who endorse evolution but also equality) and conservatives (who endorse gender differences but are sceptical of evolution). We find that many conservatives reject both gender equality and evolution of sex differences, and instead embrace “naturally occurring” gender differences. Many liberals, by contrast, reject evolved gender differences, as well as naturally occurring gender differences, while nonetheless strongly endorsing evolution.

Keywords: Emotion and cognition, Social cognition, Reasoning

Discussion

Relationship to previous results

Our results coordinate well with multiple precedents in the literature, which we take up for each of the constructs examined. Considering first religiosity, we replicated the substantial association between stronger religious beliefs and conservatism in the American population (Malka et al., 2012; Schlenker, Chambers, & Le, 2012). In our study this association generalized across a broadly-defined socio-political conservatism construct as well as a specific construct targeting endorsement of laissez-faire free-market economics. We also replicated the long-standing strong negative association between religiosity and acceptance of evolution (e.g., Ecklund, Scheitle, Peifer, & Bolger, 2017; Tom, 2018) and the modest negative association between religiosity and analytic thinking (i.e., CRT performance) reported previously (Jack, Friedman, Boyatzis, & Taylor, 2016; Shenhav, Rand, & Greene, 2012; Stagnaro, Ross, Pennycook, & Rand, 2019). Likewise, the correlations between religiosity and the gender constructs (e.g., Table 5) are consistent with previous reports that religiosity predicts sexism (Van Assche et al., 2019). Our results go beyond previous findings because our scales did not probe discriminatory sexism but the origin of presumed gender differences. We find that religiosity makes it less likely that people believe that gender differences have evolved.

The negative association between religiosity and CAM rejection is also unsurprising in light of previous research that has shown acceptance of CAM to be driven by intuitive thinking, paranormal beliefs, and ontological confusions (Lindeman, 2011). At least one of those variables (intuitive thinking) is also known to be a predictor of religiosity (e.g., Shenhav et al., 2012). The positive correlation between CAM rejection and acceptance of vaccinations replicates much previous research (e.g., Attwell, Ward, Meyer, Rokkas, & Leask, 2018; Browne, Thomson, Rockloff, & Pennycook, 2015; Bryden, Browne, Rockloff, & Unsworth, 2018; Ernst, 2002).

However, our findings concerning religiosity also deviate from aspects of other recent research (Rutjens, Sutton, & van der Lee, 2018). Unlike Rutjens et al., we found no evidence of a link between religiosity and rejection of vaccinations. Given that Rutjens et at. observed this link only in some of their studies and only for some measures of religiosity (mainly measures of religious orthodoxy), we are not concerned about this apparent departure from previous results. Indeed, in another recent as-yet unpublished study involving identical constructs, we did observe a negative association between vaccination and religiosity, suggesting that this relationship may well be real but is only observable in certain circumstances.

Turning to the associations involving CRT performance, the observed modest but significant negative correlation with religiosity replicates previous results (Gervais & Norenzayan, 2012; Shenhav et al., 2012; Stagnaro et al., 2019). Jost (2017) reported a meta analysis of 13 studies that related CRT performance to political views. The vast majority of those studies showed that liberals exhibited more cognitive reflection than conservatives. In the present data, this is echoed by the modest negative correlation with free market, although it was not reflected in the socio-political conservatism measure. The positive associations of the CRT with endorsement of all three scientific constructs, vaccination, CAM rejection, and evolution replicate similar previous findings (Shtulman & McCallum, 2014; Wagner-Egger et al., 2018). The association also coordinates well with recent findings that analytical thinking is associated with better differentiation between “fake news” and valid information (Pennycook & Rand, 2018).

Rejection of science on the political left?

Our findings provide little or no evidence that people on the political left reject vaccinations. On the contrary, to the extent that worldviews determined vaccination attitudes, it was free-market endorsement that predicted rejection. This result parallels a similar association observed by Hornsey, Harris, and Fielding (2018), albeit using a different instrument to measure Libertarian attidudes (hierarchical-individualism as opposed to free-market endorsement). The result is also consonant with the notion that libertarians object to the government intrusion arising from mandatory vaccination programs (Kahan et al., 2010). It also meshes well with the pattern observed by Lewandowsky, Gignac, and Oberauer (2013), who showed that when socio-political conservatism was removed from a model, free-market endorsement on its own predicted rejection of vaccinations (whereas the converse was not true). Overall, our results thus converge with other recent findings that have found an association between right-wing politics and rejection of vaccinations (Baumgaertner, Carlisle, & Justwan, 2018; Kahan et al., 2010; Rabinowitz et al., 2016). In a recent cross-sectional analysis of voting behavior and vaccination rates across European countries, Kennedy (2019) found a strong relationship between the vote share for populist parties and vaccine hesitancy.

Similarly, contrary to reports that CAM use and left-wing ideas have a natural affinity for each other (see, e.g., Keshet, 2009), we found that CAM rejection was negatively, but modestly, associated with the All conservatism factor that subsumed all three of our worldview constructs; namely, religiosity, free market endorsement, and socio-political conservatism. Moreover, in our data, none of the gender constructs were associated with CAM attitudes. This runs counter to the idea that CAM use is “feminist” (Scott, 1998). To our knowledge, our results constitute the first empirical examination of the links between political views and CAM attitudes. Our results that conservatives are more likely to embrace CAM is consonant with historical analyses that have found strong links between right-wing organizations, such as the John Birch Society in the U.S., and endorsement of “alternative” cancer treatments (Markle, Petersen, & Wagenfeld, 1978). The present result adds to the list of failed attempts to discover science denial on the political left (e.g., Hamilton, 2011, 2015; Hamilton, Hartter, & Saito, 2015; Hamilton, Hartter, Lemcke-Stampone, et al., 2015; Kahan et al., 2010; Lewandowsky, Gignac, & Oberauer, 2013; Tom, 2018).

Attitudes towards gender differences

We observed an intriguing interplay of the attitudes towards general Darwinian evolution, gender differences, and how those gender differences might have arisen. At a coarse level of analysis, we observed three unsurprising associations: The idea that men and women differ naturally was highly correlated with the idea that they evolved differently, but was negatively correlated with the construct that proclaimed gender equality. The equality construct was also negatively correlated with the idea that men and women evolved differently, although that correlation was smaller than for natural differences.

At a more detailed level of analysis, several intriguing associations emerged. First, acceptance of general Darwinian evolution was positively associated with two seemingly conflicting constructs; namely, that men and women evolved differently and that they are the same. Moreover, evolution was negatively correlated with the idea that men and women are naturally different, even though evolution is one way in which such “natural” differences might have emerged. A similarly nuanced pattern obtained when the worldview constructs were used to predict gender attitudes. Although the over-arching All conservatism factor functioned as expected, with negative weights for gender equality and positive weights for the two constructs insisting on gender differences, there was an additional selective effect of religiosity on the rejection of evolved gender differences.

Further analysis revealed that the involvement of evolution, either on its own or in explaining gender differences, served as a “wedge issue” that disrupted otherwise straightforward associations between right-wing politics and opposition to gender equality (and, vice versa, rejection of gender differences and left-wing politics) and—as foreshadowed in Figure 1—created dilemmas for participants of all political persuasions. As noted in connection with Figure 6, conservatives who strongly rejected Darwinian evolution resolved their dilemma by endorsing “natural” gender differences while rejecting evolved gender differences. Those participants were thus willing to forego endorsement of gender differences to maintain consistency with their opposition to evolution. Conversely, liberals who are strongly committed to gender equality tended to reject the idea of evolved gender differences, even though those participants were demonstrably committed to accepting evolution. Those participants were thus willing to forego endorsement of a specific manifestation of evolution to maintain consistency with their commitment to equality. Thus, partisans of either stripe can agree in their rejection of the idea that men and women evolved differently, but they do so for entirely different reasons. Conservatives do so when they are committed to reject evolution, and liberals do so when they are committed to gender equality. Both groups therefore resolve the dilemmas posed by our gender constructs by “sacrificing” endorsement of evolved gender differences.

Conclusion

Our results contribute to two seemingly conflicting streams of outcomes in the literature on how worldviews moderate people’s responses to scientific issues. On the one hand, there is much evidence for pervasive attitudinal asymmetry, at least in the United States, with conservatives being more likely to reject well-established scientific propositions than liberals. To date, little or no evidence for left-wing science denial has been reported. We add to this stream by showing that, contrary to previous largely anecdotal reports, liberals are more likely to reject complementary and alternative medicines, in line with the scientific evidence, than conservatives.

On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that liberals and conservatives process scientific data in a symmetrical fashion. That is, liberals and conservatives alike resort to the same cognitive shortcuts when data conform to their biases, giving rise to a symmetric set of errors (Kahan, Peters, Dawson, & Slovic, 2017; Washburn & Skitka, 2018). We also add to this stream of research by showing that, when confronted by worldview-triggered dilemmas, both liberals and conservatives resolve those dilemmas in an equally “rational” fashion, by selectively “sacrificing” endorsement of a specific construct about gender differences. Liberals, who generally endorse evolution, believe that for some reason it did not affect differences between the sexes; this could be rationalized perhaps by assuming that evolution causes differences only between but not within species. Conservatives, who frequently reject evolution, believe that men and women differ naturally without having evolved differently; this could be rationalized by assuming, for instance, that those natural differences were the result of divine intervention.

A final contribution of our study is that it points to the advantages of a more nuanced analysis of political worldviews, beyond a convenient but simplistic classification of people into left and right, or liberals and conservatives. While this classification is sufficient to explain some scientific attitudes—for example, it matters little how one measures political worldviews to explain rejection of climate science (e.g., Hornsey, Harris, Bain, & Fielding, 2016; Kahan, 2015)—there are other circumstances in which a more nuanced differentiation between different aspects of worldviews provides considerably greater explanatory power.