Men are more likely to seek help with their relationships online, are more expressive of their emotions (e.g., discussing the topic of “heartache”), & show language patterns generally consistent with more secure attachment

Dirty laundry: The nature and substance of seeking relationship help from strangers online. Charlotte Entwistle et al. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, October 23, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211046635

Abstract: Interpersonal relationships are vital to our well-being. In recent years, it has become increasingly common to seek relationship help through anonymous online platforms. Accordingly, we conducted a large-scale analysis of real-world relationship help-seeking to create a descriptive overview of the nature and substance of online relationship help-seeking. By analyzing the demographic characteristics and language of relationship help-seekers on Reddit (N = 184,631), we establish the first-ever big data analysis of relationship help-seeking and relationship problems in situ among the general population. Our analyses highlight real-world relationship struggles found in the general population, extending beyond past work that is typically limited to counseling/intervention settings. We find that relationship problem estimates from our sample are closer to those found in the general population, providing a more generalized insight into the distribution and prevalence of relationship problems as compared with past work. Further, we find several meaningful associations between relationship help-seeking behavior, gender, and attachment. Notably, numerous gender differences in help-seeking and romantic attachment emerged. Our findings suggest that, contrary to more traditional contexts, men are more likely to seek help with their relationships online, are more expressive of their emotions (e.g., discussing the topic of “heartache”), and show language patterns generally consistent with more secure attachment. Our analyses highlight pathways for further exploration, providing even deeper insights into the timing, lifecycle, and moderating factors that influence who, what, why, and how people seek help for their interpersonal relationships.

Keywords: Relationship help-seeking, natural language analysis, relationship problems, attachment, social media

Discussion

In the present study, we provide novel insights into the nature and substance of relationship problems—based on a sample of Reddit users—using natural language analysis methods. To our knowledge, this is the first study that has provided a large-scale, high-resolution, naturalistic view of relationship problems and relationship help-seeking in situ within the general population.

The first aim of the present study was to describe the demographic composition of online relationship help-seekers relative to those who typically seek help in more traditional/professional contexts. We examined the age and gender of individuals seeking relationship help online via the r/relationships subreddit, finding a greater percentage of men soliciting relationship help than women. Interestingly, this differs from traditional, professional contexts, where women are typically more willing and active in seeking help for their relationship problems compared to male partners (Stewart et al., 2016). This discrepancy in findings supports our notion that men may find anonymous, online relationship help settings preferable to in-person contexts, likely due to stigma attached to help-seeking behavior in men (Hammer et al., 2013; Vogel et al., 2011). As mentioned above, these results could also be interpreted as an over-representation of help-seeking by female users relative to the baseline demographic composition of our sample (Duggan & Smith, 2013). Given that we do not have access to the demographics of passive users who do not post to the subreddit, we suggest that our conclusions on the contribution of gender toward the propensity to seek relationship help online be interpreted tentatively.

Those posting to the r/relationships platform were found to be considerably younger (average age 24 years) than people who typically seek relationship help in more traditional contexts (average age range 38–41 years; Duncan et al., 2020; Schofield et al., 2015), with the majority of r/relationships users falling in the 18–24 age bracket. This finding suggests that the anonymous, convenient, and broadly accessible nature of the online help-seeking space enables those who traditionally under-represented or less likely to seek help (e.g., young men) by overcoming barriers related to stigma or resource availability. These results complement the wider support-seeking literature highlighting that online spaces provide greater opportunities for support-seeking through the erosion of barriers associated with traditional contexts (DeAndrea, 2015; Vitak & Ellison, 2013). Notably, given that online relationship help-seeking is particularly common among younger age groups, it could be inferred that the informality of the online help-seeking environment is providing means for people to seek help and advice for more casual and early-stage relationships (e.g., at the “dating stage”) compared to the stage at which people more commonly seek professional relationship help (i.e., after several years of marriage).

Our topic modeling approach revealed 25 themes that help to illuminate the topography of relationship problems in the general public. Analysis of the distribution of themes revealed that the most commonly discussed topic on the r/relationships platform was “heartache,” supporting the notion that romantic dissolution and breakups are particularly distressing life events (LeFebvre et al., 2015). Moreover, the frequent discussion of feeling heartache is interesting given that this is not a specific relationship problem being discussed. Rather, people appear to simply be using the online platform to express their distress and seek general emotional support from others, suggesting that the emotional pain experienced following relationship problems or dissolution is perhaps the strongest motivator of reaching out for social support—more so than seeking to resolve any particular problem in and of itself.

What is particularly revealing from our analyses is that the main motivators identified for relationship help-seeking in the digital space were generally consistent with the main reasons for seeking relationships help identified from previous research in more traditional, professional contexts. Specifically, in line with previous research highlighting communication difficulty as the most common motivator for seeking professional relationship help (Doss et al., 2004; Duncan et al., 2020; Roddy et al., 2019), as well as being the leading cause for romantic breakups (Morris et al., 2015), communication was also found to be the most-discussed relationship problem within our sample (discounting the general topic of heartache). Other core themes captured from the r/relationships discussions are also consistent with the main reasons for professional relationship help-seeking, such as issues relating to intimacy, trust, finances, and housework. This consistency in relationship help-seeking motivators between anonymous, online contexts and more traditional, professional contexts strengthens the idea that many relationship problems are common and ubiquitous.

Critically, we find that in many cases, our results reflect more realistic real-world prevalences of relationship problems outside of therapeutic contexts. For example, the WHO reports that around 13% of surveyed women report some form of intimate partner abuse in the previous 12 months (World Health Organization, 2021); our analyses found that 12.14% of submissions contained a non-negligible reference to the “abuse” MEM theme, strongly contrasting with only 1.3% in intervention contexts (Roddy et al., 2019). Similarly, other relationship problems, such as communication difficulties and conflict, may be over-represented in traditional contexts (e.g., 27.2% in Roddy et al., 2019; our sample: 18%). Other themes showed strong convergence with past work. For example, we found highly similar rates of family/parenting problems being raised as reported in past work (7.12% in our sample; 6.6% in Roddy et al., 2019).

Our analysis of relationship problems revealed small, consistent gender differences. Among the more pronounced gender differences, men more commonly discussed themes of school (the largest gender difference), heartache, dating, partying, personal qualities, and language; women more commonly discussed themes related to finances, abuse, physical distance, and housework. Notably, the fact that the heartache theme was more commonly discussed by men emphasizes how men are at least as equally as affected by relationship problems as women and feel comfortable to express and seek support for their distress in online, anonymous settings. We therefore re-emphasize that existing gender differences identified within traditional contexts may at least partially be a result of stigmatization and pressure to conform to stereotypes. However, our finding that women discussed things like abuse, finances, and housework more than men instead indicates some continuation of gender norms “spilling over” into the online platform. Rather than eliminating or reversing gender norms, the anonymous online platform instead appears to provide a space where gender norms and stereotypes are relaxed, particularly those that carry strong stigma (e.g., expression of emotional distress by men).

Last, we explored the use of online relationship help-seeking as a digital trace for generating novel insights into the relationship between gender and romantic attachment. We examined gender differences in romantic attachment through the analysis of pre-selected linguistic markers of attachment states-of-mind, building on limited previous work in this domain. Overall, the general patterns of language used by men and women discussing their relationships on the r/relationships platform appears to suggest that women may be more prone to preoccupied attachment states, whereas men may be more inclined toward secure attachment states. These findings align, in part, with those from previous research suggesting that women are more prone to preoccupied attachment (Haydon et al., 2014)—and, importantly, extends them into everyday life in the real world. However, our findings run counter to previous research indicating that men are more prone to dismissive attachment (Haydon et al., 2014). While several explanations for such patterns are possible, we suggest that modern, online help-seeking platforms may allow men to behave in ways that contradict the dismissive stereotype, again highlighting the powerful role of stereotypes in in-person relationship help-seeking behavior (as similarly shown when considering cross-cultural differences; (Schmitt, 2003). Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that we did not possess established measures of attachment style in our study. Moreover, we do not know the extent to which various attachment styles self-selected into the r/relationships platform, potentially skewing the representativeness of our sample.

Limitations and future directions

While the current study comprises a large, real-world sample, it is not a globally representative sample. Given that our data were collected from a single website—albeit one of the most visited websites in the world (Alexa, 2020)—our sample may be biased in ways consistent with its user base, both demographically (e.g., younger, male, American) and psychosocially. It is therefore possible, for example, that the skew toward men and younger people within our sample could simply be a product of the demographic composition of Reddit. Despite such limitations, our sample is large, diverse, and highly international, creating a strong starting and comparison point for future research in this domain.

We also note the tentative nature of our findings pending further exploration in samples with more varied measures. For instance, within our sample, we cannot say whether gender differences were confounded with the current “stage” of relationship problems people were experiencing. Indeed, the choice to seek help online versus professionally is likely shaped by complex interactions between characteristics of the individual, such as gender and age, and characteristics of the relationships, including specific relationship problems and stage of relationship, and the language that partners use to convey and make sense of those problems. While such intricacies are beyond the scope of the current study, future research should aspire to disentangle such complexities.

Regarding our findings involving various gender differences, it is possible that women are more likely to seek relationship help once their relationship problems are at a more severe stage (see, e.g., Ansara & Hindin, 2010), whereas men may be more likely to seek relationship help at a much earlier, less severe stage, for example. Indeed, gender differences in the themes discussed do seem to suggest that men may in fact be seeking support for relatively more casual, early-stage relationship problems compared to women. For example, men more commonly discussed lighter topics stereotypically associated with youth and greater immaturity, such as dating and partying, whereas women spent more time discussing more serious topics, such as abuse and finances. Were there gender differences in the stage of relationship problems for which people were soliciting help, it is possible that this may have at least partially driven our associations found between gender and attachment state. We are unable to determine the presence or absence of such effects within our current sample.

Last, although the present findings provide novel insights into relationship help-seeking in online anonymous contexts, the quality of the help and advice given within these contexts remains unaddressed. Although the anonymous and effortless nature of the online space indeed provides numerous benefits to help-seekers, we do not know whether the advice provided in such settings is of sufficient quality to facilitate healthier relationships. If the advice provided is of poor quality, relationship problems may be exacerbated, contributing to further interpersonal problems. We anticipate further analyses of anonymous, online relationship discussion platforms to determine the quality and subsequent implications of such advice.

Administrative Simplification and the Potential for Saving a Quarter-Trillion Dollars in Health Care

Administrative Simplification and the Potential for Saving a Quarter-Trillion Dollars in Health Care. Nikhil R. Sahni et al. JAMAOctober 20, 2021. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.17315

Nearly every industry in the US has experienced substantial improvements in productivity over the last 50 years, with 1 major exception: health care. In 2019, the US spent an estimated $3.8 trillion on health care, including an estimated $950 billion on nonclinical, administrative functions, and that number has increased despite major technological enhancements.1,2 This Viewpoint considers several specific steps that can be taken to simplify administration in health care and boost overall productivity in the economy.

To run any organization, a base of administration is necessary. A typical US services industry (for example, legal services, education, and securities and commodities) has approximately 0.85 administrative workers for each person in a specialized role (lawyers, teachers, and financial agents). In US health care, however, there are twice as many administrative staff as physicians and nurses, with an estimated 5.4 million administrative employees in 2017, including more than 1 million who have been added since 2001.3

The administrative complexity of health care is profound. There are multiple transaction nodes, including more than 6000 hospitals, 11 000 nonemployed physician groups (defined as hospital-affiliated and independent practices with 5 or more physicians),4 and 900 private payers; regulatory complexity (compliance requirements such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and regulated markets such as Medicare Advantage); and contrasting incentives, for example, market-driven checks and balances, such as prior authorization.4 The sheer complexity associated with so many entities makes administrative simplification difficult.

A new report provides an extensive evaluation of administrative spending to determine which parts are necessary and which could be simplified.2 The analysis dissected profit and loss statements of individual health care organizations, estimated spending on specific processes, and compared administrative spending in health care with that of other industries. The conclusion of the report is that an estimated $265 billion, or approximately 28% of annual administrative spending, could be saved without compromising quality or access by implementing about 30 interventions that could be carried out in the next 3 years.2 This set of interventions works within the structure of today’s US health care system in order to preserve its market nature (eg, multipayer, multiclinician, multi–health care center) and the associated benefits (eg, world-leading innovation in care delivery).

The starting point is 5 functional areas that account for approximately 94% of administrative spending (see eTable in the Supplement). The largest of these is industry-agnostic corporate functions: general administration, human resources, nonclinical information technology, general sales and marketing, and finance. This functional area accounts for an estimated $375 billion of spending annually. The second-largest category is the financial transactions ecosystem, which includes claims processing, revenue cycle management, and prior authorization, accounting for an estimated $200 billion annually. The rest is made up of industry-specific operational functions, such as insurance underwriting (an estimated $135 billion annually), administrative clinical support operations such as case management (an estimated $105 billion annually), and customer and patient services such as call centers (an estimated $80 billion annually).

For each of these functional focus areas, known interventions that could reduce spending without harming patient care were considered. This meant using a financial and operational perspective for the analysis, but also acknowledging that these interventions could and likely will have broader benefits on other outcomes, such as access, quality, patient experience, physician satisfaction, and equity.

“Within” and “Between” Interventions at the Organizational Level

The individual organization level was used as the starting point, by looking at “within” interventions, those that can be controlled and implemented by individual organizations, and “between” interventions, those that require agreement to act between organizations but not broader, industry-wide change. This spending is amenable to interventions that address highly manual, inefficient workflows, such as patient admission and discharge planning in case management; poor data management and lack of standardization, such as nonstandardized submission processes for prior authorization forms; and disconnected tools and systems, for example, the lack of interoperability between the claims systems of payers and hospitals.

Organizations could potentially save an estimated $210 billion annually by addressing these issues.2 The majority of those savings reside in industry-agnostic corporate functions such as finance or human resources. Interventions that affect these functions include automating repetitive work such as generation of standard invoices and financial reports; using analytical tools for human resources departments to better predict and address temporary labor shortages; integrating a suite of tools and solutions to coordinate staffing for nurse managers; and building strategic communications platforms between payers and hospitals to send unified messages. These interventions have been adopted in the marketplace by some payers, hospitals, and physician groups, with a positive return on investment using current technology and nominal investment (that is, once the interventions are fully rolled out, the cost of implementation is generally paid off in about a year by the recurring savings). Research has shown that organizations that aggressively pursue industry-leading productivity programs are twice as likely to be in the top quintile of their peers as measured by economic profit.5

Since many of these interventions are relatively standard, the question that arises is why they have not been implemented to date. A common set of barriers to implementation currently exists, including high levels of complexity and overlapping compliance rules such as privacy guidelines and requirements on how and where data can be stored; the need to manage labor displacement in an industry that is a driver of workforce growth; contrasting incentives for payers, hospitals, and physician groups in a primarily fee-for-service reimbursement model; and lack of prioritization from industry leaders on administrative simplification. Successful organizations often have common lessons for implementation including prioritizing administrative simplification as a top strategic initiative; committing to transformational change vs incremental steps; engaging the broader partnership ecosystem for the right capabilities and investments; and disproportionally investing in the underlying drivers of productivity, such as technology and talent.

“Seismic” Interventions at the Industry Level

Some of the inertia at the organizational level reflects market failures that require industry-level intervention, including the necessary decision-makers and influencers from both the public and private sectors for a given intervention. For example, individual organizations alone cannot change the systemic lack of interoperability in the US health care system. A set of “seismic” interventions were identified that require broad, structural collaboration across the health care industry.2 These include new technology platforms such as the use of a centralized, automated claims clearinghouse; operational alignment such as standardizing medical policies across payers, for example, requiring the same set of diagnostics and clinical data before agreeing to cover a more complicated procedure or drug therapy; and payment design such as globally capitated payment models for segments of the care delivery system. These are meant to be examples of what is possible and are based on analogs from other industries that have undergone this type of change. If currently identified seismic interventions were undertaken, an estimated $105 billion of savings could occur annually.2 These savings would largely occur in the financial transactions ecosystem and industry-specific operational functions such as clinician credentialing and medical records management.

Launching these seismic interventions could be considerably more difficult than the within and between interventions. A framework that focuses on how to promote innovation in the public sector was applied to isolate the mechanism required to enable action for each seismic intervention.6 For example, individual organizations do not experience the financial pressure today that would bring them together to create a centralized automated clearinghouse (which is what happened in banking). Financial incentives could help overcome this inertia.

A set of common actions is necessary to galvanize this change. These actions include using interoperability frameworks to support high-value use cases such as the assembly of longitudinal patient records; creating public-private partnerships such as piloting a complete Health Information Exchange in 1 or more states; and selecting third parties, such as foundations, to research facts to galvanize movement (for example, a foundation-backed randomized trial of administrative interventions to validate the conditions for success).

Why Now?

Across the 3 types of interventions, the analyses suggest that simplifying administration could save the US health care system an estimated $265 billion annually after accounting for $50 billion of overlap between organizational and industry-level interventions.2 These savings, if realized, would be more than 3 times the combined 2019 budgets of the National Institutes of Health ($39 billion), the Health Resources and Services Administration ($12 billion), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration ($6 billion), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ($12 billon).7 In per capita terms, $265 billion is approximately $1300 for each adult in the US.

Economic downturn often leads to health system change. With COVID-19 creating enormous disruption to the health care system, a known opportunity to capture more than a quarter-trillion dollars in the next few years without compromising the US health care system’s ability to deliver care could be quite attractive. The sooner health care administration is simplified, the easier it will be for all to engage the US health care system.

2. Sahni  NR, Mishra  P, Carrus  B, Cutler  DM. Administrative Simplification: How to Save a Quarter-Trillion Dollars in US Healthcare. McKinsey & Company. October 20, 2021. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare-systems-and-services/our-insights/administrative-simplification-how-to-save-a-quarter-trillion-dollars-in-US-healthcare

3. Sahni  NR, Kumar  P, Levine  E, Singhal  S. The Productivity Imperative for Healthcare Delivery in the United States. McKinsey & Company. February 27, 2019. Accessed September 17, 2021. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare-systems-and-services/our-insights/the-productivity-imperative-for-healthcare-delivery-in-the-united-states

Arranged marriage... Parents and offspring overwhelmingly choose different partners: Parents and offspring disagreed over fitness-relevant traits of the potential spouse, and both parties sometimes used extreme methods to influence outcomes

Arranged Marriage Often Subverts Offspring Mate Choice: An HRAF-Based Study. Elizabeth Agey, Addison Morris, Maya Chandy, Steven J. C. Gaulin. American Anthropologist, October 18 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13656

Abstract: In many species, females and males form long-term mating bonds, but marriage—and especially arranged marriage—are uniquely human traits. While marriage practices impact many cultural phenomena, they also can have evolutionary (i.e., fitness) consequences. Strongly felt but not necessarily conscious mating preferences presumably evolved because they provide fitness benefits compared to random mating, and this prediction has been supported by experimental animal studies. Arranged marriage might similarly reduce fitness in humans, but only if parents regularly choose different mates for their offspring than offspring would choose for themselves. Here we report a broad ethnographic survey exploring whether parents and offspring disagree over partner choice in arranged marriages. Using the Human Relations Area Files, we reviewed 543 ethnographies to assess the relative frequencies of parent–offspring agreement and disagreement over partner choice, the reasons for disagreement, and the outcomes of disagreement. In all world areas, parents and offspring overwhelmingly choose different partners. Parents and offspring disagreed over fitness-relevant traits of the potential spouse, and both parties sometimes used extreme methods to influence outcomes. These findings suggest that arranged marriages may be useful for studying the effects of mate choice in humans and for assessing the unique dynamics of human mating systems.

Keywords: parent–offspring conflict, mate choice, cross-cultural

Option to cooperate increases women's competitiveness and closes the gender gap

Option to cooperate increases women's competitiveness and closes the gender gap. Alessandra Cassar, Mary L. Rigdon. Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 42, Issue 6, November 2021, Pages 556-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.06.001

Highlights

• The hypothesis that women have a lower desire to compete than men is investigated through an evolutionary framework.

• Idea embraced as an explanation for why women are a minority in high-ranking economic and political positions.

• Different sexes evolved to pursue different competitive strategies, females focusing competitiveness for offspring benefit.

• Experiment (N = 438 Mturk adults) supports hypothesis that women compete as much as men with prosocial option.

• Result suggests important implications for designing policies to promote gender equality: change the system not the women.

Abstract: We advance the hypothesis that women are as competitive as men once the incentive for winning includes factors that matter to women. Allowing winners an opportunity to share some of their winnings with the low performers has gendered consequences for competitive behavior. We ground our work in an evolutionary framework in which winning competitions brings asymmetric benefits and costs to men and women. In the new environment, the potential to share some of the rewards from competition with others may afford women the benefit of reaping competitive gains without incurring some of its potential costs. An experiment (N = 438 in an online convenience sample of U.S. adults) supports our hypothesis: a 26% gender gap in performance vanishes once a sharing option is included to an otherwise identical winner-take-all incentive scheme. Besides providing a novel experiment that challenges the paradigm that women are not as motivated to compete as men, our work proposes some suggestions for policy: including socially-oriented rewards to contracts may offer a novel tool to close the persistent labor market gender gap.

Keywords: CompetitionTournamentGender differencesSocial rewardDictator game

Measured intelligence did not predict increased mate appeal in either study, whereas perceived intelligence and funniness did; intelligence is not important for initial attraction

Intelligence can be detected but is not found attractive in videos and live interactions. Julie C. Driebe et al. Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 42, Issue 6, November 2021, Pages 507-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.05.002

Abstract: Self-reported mate preferences suggest intelligence is valued across cultures, consistent with the idea that human intelligence evolved as a sexually selected trait. The validity of self-reports has been questioned though, so it remains unclear whether objectively assessed intelligence is indeed attractive. In Study 1, 88 target men had their intelligence measured and based on short video clips were rated on intelligence, funniness, physical attractiveness and mate appeal by 179 women. In Study 2 (N = 763), participants took part in 2 to 5 speed-dating sessions in which their intelligence was measured and they rated each other's intelligence, funniness, and mate appeal. Measured intelligence did not predict increased mate appeal in either study, whereas perceived intelligence and funniness did. More intelligent people were perceived as more intelligent, but not as funnier. Results suggest that intelligence is not important for initial attraction, which raises doubts concerning the sexual selection theory of intelligence.

Keywords: IntelligenceMate choiceSexual selection

Crushes are uncommunicated, often unilateral, attractions to an individual; research suggests that these experiences might be common among adults (as they are in the young), including among those in committed relationships

Loving you from afar: Attraction to others (“crushes”) among adults in exclusive relationships, communication, perceived outcomes, and expectations of future intimate involvement. Lucia F. O’Sullivan, Charlene F. Belu, Justin R. Garcia. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, August 24, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211038612

Abstract: Crushes are uncommunicated, often unilateral, attractions to an individual, generally viewed as a state of unfulfilled longing. They are typically attributed to young people, but recent research suggests that these experiences might be common among adults as well, including among those in committed relationships. Combining findings from three studies across four datasets, this mixed-methods research explores crushes experienced by individuals in committed intimate relationships. Study 1 explored types of crushes, preferences and nature of exchanges among adults in committed relationships and compares their reports to a sample of single individuals. Study 2 examined perceived outcomes of crushes as a way to assess needs or goals served by crushes. Study 3 investigated expectations about whether and how the crush relationship might evolve into a more intimate relationship. A total of 3,585 participants (22–45 years, 53.1% women) completed anonymous online surveys addressing crush experiences and related dynamics. Those in committed relationships typically did not intend to communicate their attraction to the target, unlike single individuals. Associated outcomes were primarily positive, including excitement, increased esteem, and fantasy/escape. The vast majority reported no expectations that these crushes would evolve into more intimate relationships, replacing their current relationship. This work adds to our understanding of attraction outside of traditional human courtship processes, with implications for the study of intimate relationship development and maintenance.

Keywords: Attraction, committed, crush, intimate, romantic, sexual, single

General discussion

This series of exploratory studies on crushes was designed to provide some early insights into the nature of exchanges with attractive others for those in committed relationships, outcomes associated with having these attractions, and expectations of future involvement with the target of one’s attraction. Moving us beyond a focus on attraction to others as an indicator of poor relationship quality or a precursor to infidelity, the current series of studies established that these attractions most often seemed instrumental in gaining fairly positive psychosocial outcomes, such as diversion, fun, or excitement.

Overall, few individuals in ostensibly exclusive relationships reported plans to advance the crush relationship further. By comparison to singles, those in relationships were more inclined to keep their attraction covert and were more satisfied to simply flirt with someone for whom they experienced attraction rather than communicate their interest directly.

These findings raise the obvious question of why humans might exhibit and entertain feelings of crushes in the first place, if they are expected to go unfulfilled—that is, unlike in other models of attraction, an individual does not seek out the object of the crush. On the surface, this would seem to be a poor use of an individual’s time and effort, resources meant to be adaptively leveraged in mating contexts. It is possible that these crush attractions are simply inevitable, that we cannot turn off the psychological system that helps us orient toward potential partners when we enter an established relationship. The Instrumentality Principle would indicate that these behaviors meet a motivational priority, moving an individual toward a valuable goal. However, these attractions might reassure individuals that there are other options should the primary relationship falter (i.e., mate switching; Buss et al., 2017). Similarly, many young adults report maintaining “back burner” relationships, that is, a connection with someone who they might someday connect with romantically or sexually (Dibble & Drouin, 2014; Dibble et al., 2015). Crushes might comprise a means of gauging or testing one’s commitment and interest in preserving a primary relationship.

We did not assess relationship quality of one’s primary relationship. Although participants’ self-reports suggest that crushes are relatively benign experiences, further research is needed to examine under which conditions a crush might undermine relationship quality. Intensity of one’s attraction, especially if it increases over time, mutuality of the attraction and the response of the crush target should they want to pursue a relationship are likely important moderators, as is quality of the primary relationship in terms of satisfaction and commitment. Primary relationships of lower quality are likely more vulnerable to one or both partners becoming distracted by another. We also should examine more closely the impact of the secrecy involved with crushes and indeed how much is concealed from a primary partner. Secret attraction when linked with fear of its being exposed might amplify attraction through misattribution of arousal (“excitement transfer” Marin et al., 2017; Meston & Frohlich, 2003) or frustration attraction (Fisher, 2005).

Study limitations

There are other limitations that need to be acknowledged. Our use of cross-sectional data rather than longitudinal data renders any speculation about links to relationship outcomes unwarranted. A longer trajectory, ideally using prospective methods, would allow researchers to better capture outcomes associated with attractions to others. This is a limitation of the study designs, and short of tracking individuals from the onset of their relationship, one that cannot be easily overcome. In addition, it is important to bear in mind that self-reports about sensitive topics, such as attractions to others, are often subject to issues of presentation biases. However, in every case, we ensured that participants were fully informed of the anonymous nature of their reports, which we believe offset some of the biases these concerns might introduce.

Although we were able to study gender differences to some extent, we were only able to explore differences in terms of sexual identity in the first of our three studies. Those who identified as sexual minorities (gay, lesbian, or bisexual) reported more types of crushes than did those who identified as heterosexual. This finding might reflect pressure among sexual minority individuals to keep same-sex attractions hidden. Exploring these attractions in larger and/or more diverse populations will help us determine how a mechanism that evolved to guide individuals toward a viable romantic and sexual partner with whom we intend to bond and mate (Berscheid, & Reis, 1998; Fisher, 1998; Sprecher & Hatfield, 1985) operates in contexts in which an intimate relationship is ostensibly not the goal.

Moderate heritability (30%–40%) for concern for nature, environmental movement activism, and personal conservation behavior and high genetic correlations between them (.6–.7), suggesting a partially shared genetic basis

Genetic Contribution to Concern for Nature and Proenvironmental Behavior. Chia-chen Chang, Thi Phuong Le Nghiem, Qiao Fan, Claudia L Y Tan, Rachel Rui Ying Oh, Brenda B Lin, Danielle F Shanahan, Richard A Fuller, Kevin J Gaston, L Roman Carrasco. BioScience, biab103, October 20 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab103

Abstract: Earth is undergoing a devastating extinction crisis caused by human impacts on nature, but only a fraction of society is strongly concerned and acting on the crisis. Understanding what determines people's concern for nature, environmental movement activism, and personal conservation behavior is fundamental if sustainability is to be achieved. Despite its potential importance, the study of the genetic contribution to concern for nature and proenvironmental behaviors has been neglected. Using a twin data set (N = 2312), we show moderate heritability (30%–40%) for concern for nature, environmental movement activism, and personal conservation behavior and high genetic correlations between them (.6–.7), suggesting a partially shared genetic basis. Our results shed light on the individual variation in sustainable behaviors, highlighting the importance of understanding both the environmental and genetic components in the pursuit of sustainability.

Heritability of concern for nature and proenvironmental behavior

The heritability of concern for nature and proenvironmental behavior was similar to an average heritability of human personality traits (such as the big five personality traits, which have heritability of about 30%–40%; Vukasović and Bratko 2015). Concern for nature and proenvironmental behavior have also been found to be associated with several human behavioral and personality traits, such as altruism and agreeableness (Pavalache-Ilie and Cazan 2018, Gifford and Nilsson 2014, Lades et al. 2021). The genetic components of these traits (e.g., dopamine-related genes for altruism and agreeableness; Reuter et al. 2011, Kim et al. 2013) may be linked with concern for nature and proenvironmental behavior. In addition, we expect the genetic influences may be mediated through individual differences in emotional or cognitive processes, such as future discounting, social discounting, or risk aversion (Lorenzoni et al. 2007, Gifford 2011, Weber 2017), which may be also linked to personality.

The genetic influences we found might have roots in evolutionary history. Cooperation is fundamental to sustaining natural common-pool resources; all individuals must limit their short-term self-interest for the long-term collective interest, including that of future generations (Gordon 1954, Hardin 1968, Chermak and Krause 2002). Kin selection, direct reciprocity, and reputation mechanisms have been proposed to drive the evolution of cooperative behavior (Apicella and Silk 2019). For example, kin selection favors individuals with sustainable behavior because the short-term loss will benefit their offspring, provided that the offspring are likely to continue to use the resource (Lehmann 2007, Palomo-Vélez et al. 2020). It has also been shown that parents are more likely to donate for climate change mitigation when their decisions are observed by their children as a reminder of genetic relatedness with future generations (Fornwagner and Hauser 2020). The fitness consequences for cooperators may be dependent on the context. For example, proenvironmental behavior will be less beneficial or costly when many people share the same pool of resource (Suzuki and Akiyama 2005, Chang et al. 2021). Context-dependent fitness trade-offs may allow for the coexistence of different resource use behaviors.

Heritability captures how much individual variation in a phenotype can be explained by individual differences in genes and describes the existing variations in a specific study population with its environment. The heritability estimated in this study can therefore not be directly transferred to other study populations. In addition, heritability may change with age (Visscher et al. 2008). In our age moderation analyses (supplemental note 1), genetic influences for concern for nature and personal conservation behavior slightly increased with age. This could be because people may actively choose their environments on the basis of their genetic predisposition (e.g., actively learn about climate change or spend time with people with similar interests), reinforcing their concern for nature and personal conservation behavior as they age (Rutter and Silberg 2002, Plomin and Deary 2015). As unique environmental influences also increased with age, heritability was stable across age groups.

High heritability does not suggest the insignificance of environments. Suitable educational policies have been found to mitigate the health problems arising from genetic background (e.g., obesity; Barcellos et al. 2018). Environmental interventions, such as policies, may influence heritability. For instance, a high-quality teaching environment, which reduces the variance associated with environmental factors, improves students’ educational achievements and increases the heritability of educational achievement (Taylor et al. 2010). In countries with higher social class mobility, heritability of educational attainment is higher because of lower environmental variance (Engzell and Tropf 2019). Future studies with access to twin data sets from other populations could expand the understanding of genetic and environmental influences in other cultural or demographic contexts. We hypothesize that, all other things being equal, heritability of proenvironmental behavior will increase if the environmental barriers are lower for most people in a population.

Limitations and future research

There are several limitations in our study. First, twin analysis assumes that MZ twins do not have stronger environmental similarity than DZ twins for shared environmental factors (Horwitz et al. 2003). However, this assumption may be violated if, for example, MZ twins are more likely to have the same school activities or be treated more similarly by their parents than DZ twins. If this assumption is violated, heritability may be overestimated. Second, the scale used to measure one's concern for nature only shows a marginally acceptable level of internal consistency (DeVellis 2012). Future studies could use other scales with higher internal consistency. Similarly, unique environmental influences also include measurement error, and future studies could conduct repeated measures to address this issue (Ge et al. 2017). Third, our study population is biased toward females. Although we adjusted for this in our analyses, future studies using a more gender-balanced population would be beneficial and could test whether there is a sex difference in the genetic and environmental influences of these phenotypes. Fourth, our population is predominantly older individuals. How genetic and environmental influences change across age should be further investigated. With long-term repeated measurements (e.g., from child to adult stage) in the future, understanding of the development of a person's concern for nature and proenvironmental behavior could be improved.

Rolf Degen summarizing... People like copartisan political-perspective seekers, who attempt to hear from the other side, but less so if they venture too far into enemy ideological territory

Seek and Ye Shall Be Fine: Attitudes Toward Political-Perspective Seekers. Gordon Heltzel, Kristin Laurin. Psychological Science, October 22, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211011969

Abstract: Six preregistered studies (N = 2,421) examined how people respond to copartisan political-perspective seekers: political allies who attempt to hear from shared opponents and better understand their views. We found that North American adults and students generally like copartisan seekers (meta-analytic Cohen’s d = 0.83 across 4,231 participants, representing all available data points). People like copartisan perspective seekers because they seem tolerant, cooperative, and rational, but this liking is diminished because seekers seem to validate—and may even adopt—opponents’ illegitimate views. Participants liked copartisan seekers across a range of different motivations guiding these seekers’ actions but, consistent with our theorizing, their liking decreased (though rarely disappeared entirely) when seekers lacked partisan commitments or when they sought especially illegitimate beliefs. Despite evidence of rising political intolerance in recent decades, these findings suggest that people nonetheless celebrate political allies who tolerate and seriously consider their opponents’ views.

Keywords: political intolerance, intergroup relations, ideology, polarization, perspective seeking, open data, open materials, preregistered

---

People like co-partisan seekers because they seem tolerant, cooperative, and rational, but this liking is diminished because seekers seem to validate—and may even adopt—opponents’ illegitimate views

---

General Discussion

People generally like political allies who seek to understand, rather than avoid, shared opponents’ beliefs. These findings suggest that Sarah Silverman’s show might have been canceled despite her willingness to hear opposing views, not because of it. More importantly, they align with recent evidence that people prefer copartisans who tolerate and respect their opponents (Druckman et al., 2019; Frimer & Skitka, 2018; see Heltzel & Laurin, 2020). Yet they clash with other work suggesting that people do not tolerate their political opponents (Haidt et al., 2003), dislike copartisan politicians who compromise with opponents (Ryan, 2017), and reject people who empathize with proponents of illegitimate views (Wang & Todd, 2020).

Our findings reframe this contradiction, suggesting that both tendencies coexist: Seekers are both admirable and alarming but to different degrees. People like them because they seem tolerant, cooperative, and rational, yet they simultaneously (and to a lesser degree) dislike them for validating illegitimate beliefs and potentially changing their minds. Accordingly, people like seekers less when they lack partisan commitments and seek especially illegitimate viewpoints.

Theoretical implications

Our findings contribute to a new literature extending political intolerance from its intergroup origins to intragroup contexts. In so doing, we highlight a paradox: People refuse to tolerate political out-groups (Finkel et al., 2020; Haidt et al., 2003; Kalmoe & Mason, 2019), yet value tolerance and praise tolerant in-group members (W. Brown, 2009; Druckman et al., 2019; Frimer & Skitka, 2018), even those willing to compromise with the enemy (Study 2). However, people do not praise in-group leaders who could actually enact compromise (Ryan, 2017). More research is needed to understand these contours of people’s political tolerances (and intolerances) and how people reconcile their paradoxical reactions in their own minds (Guan et al., in press).

Our findings also speak to ongoing debates about whether conservatives, extremists, or moralizers are most guilty of political intolerance (Crawford, 2014; Ganzach & Schul, 2021; Skitka, 2010). Our findings best support the intolerant-extremist view, while also highlighting commonalities across levels of ideology and moralization.

When might people prefer avoiders?

Despite focusing on contentious, morally laden issues (e.g., abortion, gun control, immigration; Koleva et al., 2012), we never observed a case in which participants preferred avoiders over seekers. Our mechanisms nonetheless allow for such cases. For example, our participants were North Americans, but other societies value tolerance and rationality less and therefore might like seekers less. Additionally, there should be a point at which beliefs seem so illegitimate that people prefer others who avoid rather than seek them. Perhaps the beliefs featured in our studies never reached this point: Even the extreme views from Study 4 were rated far from maximally illegitimate (5.29 on a 7-point scale).

That said, many people expect their political opponents to hold precisely these sorts of abhorrent views (Ahler & Sood, 2018). When perspective seekers aim to understand their opponents in general, their allies’ minds may naturally conjure the worst of these opponents’ views and take great offense. For instance, liberals may interpret copartisans’ seeking to understand conservatives as trying to understand White supremacists, and conservatives may interpret copartisans’ seeking to understand liberals as trying to understand flag-burning Communists. For this reason, seekers might be most liked when seeking opponents’ views on specific policy debates. Indeed, Studies 1b and S7 revealed a remarkably weaker preference for targets who sought to understand their ideological opponents generally rather than their specific policy beliefs (see Table 1).

Intuitions about perspective seeking’s social desirability

For many—ourselves included—these findings may seem counterintuitive. Outrage pervades political discourse on social media and in the news (Brady et al., 2020; Pew Research Center, 2019), fueling intuitions that people’s hate for opponents would extend to allies seeking those opponents’ views. Our results suggest that this intuition is incorrect, but even incorrect intuitions can powerfully shape behavior (Prentice & Miller, 1993). For instance, if people mistakenly believe that others discourage political-perspective seeking, they may abstain from it out of fear of social punishment, thereby perpetuating polarization.

Conservatives (vs. liberals) are more satisfied with the products & services they consume; they are more likely to believe in free will (i.e., that people have agency over their decisions) & therefore to trust their decisions

How Political Identity Shapes Customer Satisfaction. Daniel Fernandes et al. Journal of Marketing, October 19, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429211057508

Abstract: This article examines the effect of political identity on customers’ satisfaction with the products and services they consume. Recent work suggests that conservatives are less likely to complain than liberals. Building on that work, the present research examines how political identity shapes customer satisfaction which has broad implications for customers and firms. Nine studies combine different methodologies, primary and secondary data, real and hypothetical behavior, different product categories, and diverse participant populations to show that conservatives (vs. liberals) are more satisfied with the products and services they consume. This happens because conservatives (vs. liberals) are more likely to believe in free will (i.e., that people have agency over their decisions) and therefore to trust their decisions. We document the broad and tangible downstream consequences of this effect for customers’ repurchase and recommendation intentions and firms’ sales. The association of political identity and customer satisfaction is attenuated when belief in free will is externally weakened, choice is limited, or the consumption experience is overwhelmingly positive.

Keywords: political identity, belief in free will, customer satisfaction, repurchase intention, sales, political ideology

Considering how often people gossip about each other, they also underestimate how often others gossip about them—and probably don't even want to know; a recording of all the gossip about us would be dreadful

Cooney, G., Boothby, E. J., & Lee, M. (2021). The thought gap after conversation: Underestimating the frequency of others’ thoughts about us. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, . https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001134

Abstract: After conversations, people continue to think about their conversation partners. They remember their stories, revisit their advice, and replay their criticisms. But do people realize that their conversation partners are doing the same? In eight studies, we explored the possibility that people would systematically underestimate how much their conversation partners think about them following interactions. We found evidence for this thought gap in a variety of contexts, including field conversations in a dining hall (Study 1), “getting acquainted” conversations in the lab (Study 2), intimate conversations among friends (Study 3), and arguments between romantic partners (Study 4). Several additional studies investigated a possible explanation for the thought gap: the asymmetric availability of one’s own thoughts compared with others' thoughts. Accordingly, the thought gap increased when conversations became more salient (Study 4) and as people’s thoughts had more time to accumulate after a conversation (Study 6); conversely, the thought gap decreased when people were prompted to reflect on their conversation partners’ thoughts (Study 5). Consistent with our proposed mechanism, we also found that the thought gap was moderated by trait rumination, or the extent to which people’s thoughts come easily and repetitively to mind (Study 7). In a final study, we explored the consequences of the thought gap by comparing the effects of thought frequency to thought valence on the likelihood of reconciliation after an argument (Study 8). Collectively, these studies demonstrate that people remain on their conversation partners’ minds more than they know.

Members of rival ideological camps in Israel perceived the Israeli attorney general & the Israeli police to be biased against their side; both Democrats and Republicans perceived the social network Facebook to be biased against their side

The Hostile Mediator Phenomenon: When Threatened, Rival Partisans Perceive Various Mediators as Biased Against Their Group. Omer Yair. Public Opinion Quarterly, nfab035, October 18 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfab035

Abstract: Rival partisans tend to perceive ostensibly balanced news coverage as biased against their respective sides; this is known as the “hostile media phenomenon” (HMP). Yet complaints of hostile bias are common in contexts besides the media (e.g., law enforcement and academia). Does a process similar to the HMP occur outside the context of news coverage? And do perceptions of political bias in different contexts share certain similarities? This paper proposes that the HMP is a specific case of a more general hostile mediator phenomenon, where rival partisans perceive various public institutions and organizations that are expected to be neutral as biased against their respective sides. The paper starts by presenting a theoretical framework according to which partisans’ bias perceptions are affected by the threat to the power and status of their ingroup posed by a mediator’s actions. Evidence from three studies (total N = 4,164) shows that members of rival ideological camps in Israel perceived the Israeli attorney general and the Israeli police to be biased against their respective camps. An additional study (N = 2,172) shows that both Democrats and Republicans perceived the social network Facebook to be biased against their side. Moreover, an embedded, pre-registered survey experiment buttresses the causal claim that ingroup-threatening information increases perceptions of hostile bias. The implications of these findings for our understanding of people’s bias perceptions, as well as for citizens’ trust in public institutions and democratic stability more generally, are discussed.

No evidence was found to support the hypothesis that beards are honest (or dishonest) signals of the beard owners’ testosterone levels and dominance

Are Beards Honest Signals of Male Dominance and Testosterone? Marta Kowal, Piotr Sorokowski, Agnieszka Żelaźniewicz, Judyta Nowak, Sylwester Orzechowski, Grzegorz Żurek, Alina Żurek & Magdalena Nawrat. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Oct 21 2021. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02012-w

Abstract: The male beard is one of the most visually salient and sexually dimorphic traits and a hypothesized potential marker of other traits, such as dominance, masculinity, social status, and self-confidence. However, as men can easily alter their facial hair, beards may provide unreliable information about the beard owner’s characteristics. Here, we examined whether beards are honest signals of biological (testosterone levels) and psychological (self-reported dominance) traits. Young (M = 21.29, SD = 1.54) and healthy men (N = 97) participated in the study. Their beards were measured directly (using digital calipers) and by self-report. Participants provided saliva samples before and after acute exercise (to assess their testosterone and cortisol levels) and reported their dominance on a 5-item scale. The results showed that beard length (directly measured and self-reported) was not related to testosterone levels or dominance; thus, no evidence was found to support the hypothesis that beards are honest (or dishonest) signals of the beard owners’ testosterone levels and dominance.