Rolf Degen summarizing... There is a fine line between neuroticism and high sensitivity, and the self-diagnosis of high sensitivity brings considerable redemption

On the feeling of being different–an interview study with people who define themselves as highly sensitive. Marcus Roth ,Danièle A. Gubler,Tobias Janelt,Banous Kolioutsis,Stefan J. Troche. PLoS March 17, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283311

Abstract: The construct of “sensory processing sensitivity” has become an extremely popular concept outside the scientific literature under the term “high sensitivity” (HS), reflected in a variety of self-help guides and media reports. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate this phenomenon by examining in-depth individuals who consider the label HS essential to their self-definition. In semi-structured interviews, 38 individuals described their understanding of HS and its perceived manifestations and impact on their lives (among other topics). Subsequently, the data were content-analytically evaluated, i.e., categorized and quantified. One key finding was that HS individuals feel relief following self-attribution or self-diagnosis. Moreover, this self-attribution replaced the feeling of being somehow different from the others, which almost all interviewees mentioned, with positive attributes. The main negative features of HS mentioned were feeling overwhelmed by sensory and emotional stimuli. The results are discussed with regard to the significance of the label HS for this group on the one hand, and with regard to alternative approaches for future research on the other hand.

Discussion

As described in the introduction, the construct known variously as sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) or high sensitivity (HS) has gained enormous importance in everyday psychology, going far beyond the construct’s scientific foundation. As the abundance of popular scientific literature and self-help guides shows, many people identify with and feel that they fall under the category of SPS. Therefore, the present study sought to find out how these people define HS, what manifestations they perceive, and what impact HS has on their lives. For this purpose, we conducted interviews with individuals who strongly define themselves as highly sensitive. Of course, it can be assumed that the definition of HSP and the self-perception of individuals is strongly influenced by social media and popular scientific works. Therefore, it is not surprising that the definitional elements we found are very much reflective of the popular scientific literature [see e.g., 7, 32, 40].

Summarizing the interview statements, the following picture emerges: People see the main characteristic of HS as increased and more intensive perception of emotional and sensory stimuli as well as longer processing of these stimuli. In addition, many subjects describe that they have stronger emotional empathy and are better able to recognize the perspectives of others. This is seen as positive by many, whereas the resulting feeling of exhaustibility and overstimulation is evaluated as negative by most. These data correspond with previous empirical findings that showed that HS is associated with global symptom load [18, 19], stress, [41, 42], and anxiety [43]. Overall, as stated also in the scientific literature cited above, the feeling of being overwhelmed is essential to defining HS [e.g., 5, 17].

Despite these sometimes stressful experiences, almost all of the participants interviewed reported predominantly positive feelings when they first heard about HS. For many, this amounted to an attestation of “being normal”. Many saw themselves as part of a larger community and no longer as outsiders. The feeling of being somehow different from others, which almost all interviewees mentioned, was replaced with positive attributes. Thus, identification with HS can be described as "liberation" from the feeling of being deficient for most participants in this study. Correspondingly, a majority reported greater self-acceptance, especially since many explicitly described HS as a special ability. One participant summarized this connection in a particularly impressive way: “So, if you have always this stamp on your forehead that you are different, then it is very nice to hear that there is a cause for it–that it is not a disorder, but actually a special ability.”

At this point, we would like to make a first attempt to relate this pattern of results to the lack of separability between HS and neuroticism [e.g., 6, 18, 31]: Neuroticism is commonly evaluated negatively, as seen when individuals are asked to report their personality traits under “faking good” instructions [e.g., 44, 45]. This is likely reinforced by terms such as "emotional lability". Here, only the negative side of high neuroticism is considered, while positive features related to increased emotionality are not included—neither in the description of this personality trait nor in the items measuring it. In contrast to traits like “neurotic” or “introverted”, the term “highly sensitive” appears to be positively connotated. Furthermore, this term not only describes deficits, but also includes strengths of high neuroticism. In this way, the concept of HS might be a (quite desirable) way to free neuroticism from its purely deficit-based characterization. As shown by our results, HS people described suffering as a result of the pathologization of their emotionality and therefore experienced the label “highly sensitive” as liberating. In principle, a neutral label for a basic personality trait seems necessary. However, the problem with HS could be that the same mistake, namely judgmental labelling, is now made in the reverse direction: HS is posited as a positive trait by the flower metaphor [1, 29, 46], for example, according to which people are divided into “dandelions” (i.e. low sensitivity), “tulips” (medium sensitivity), and “orchids” (i.e. high sensitivity). Here, it seems useful to find a middle ground in terminology–something between “disturbed neurotics” and “the elected few of the human race”(to put it in rather pointed terms).

Interestingly, a recent study was able to demonstrate links between SPS and both vulnerable and grandiose narcissism [47].

In addition to highlighting people’s need to receive a neutral or positive description of their personality in order to be able to accept themselves, the present study can also advance scientific research. Of course, it remains possible that SPS actually exists as a trait but has so far been insufficiently conceptualized and measured. As mentioned above, it is currently difficult to distinguish HS from neuroticism, introversion and openness. Undoubtedly, one reason for this is the HSPS, which contains a large number of items measuring neuroticism, extraversion, and openness. However, this should not be surprising given how the HSPS items were generated. To extract the basic characteristics of HS people, Aron and Aron [5] asked students from university psychology classes to interview “‘highly sensitive people’—that is, those who are ‘either highly introverted (for example, preferring the company of one or two people) or easily overwhelmed by stimulation (such as noisy places or evocative or shocking entertainment)”. When manifestations of introversion and neuroticism are used as inclusion criteria, it is not surprising that items measuring introversion and neuroticism emerge as a result. It is possible that the “wrong people” were interviewed through this procedure. In contrast, the present study takes a more neutral approach and could serve as a start point for the development of an alternative scale with items that do not measure neuroticism and introversion, but refer primarily to what is specific to HSP.

Nevertheless, the biased sample characteristics can be viewed as limitations of the present study: The vast majority of participants were female and highly educated. These tendencies may not be uncommon in psychological studies, but were especially strong in the current study. However, this is not really surprising due to the recruitment procedure. Furthermore, although N = 38 is considerable for a qualitative sample, this sample size lacks representativeness and therefore must be viewed critically when it comes to generalizability. However, the consistent pattern of our results allows us to assume that the present study’s findings do allow a certain degree of generalization. Of course, such a generalization can only be valid for the German cultural area. Since this is the first study that explores people who define themselves as highly sensitive, information on cultural differences is unfortunately not available. However, the specific ways in which HS manifests “as a blessing and a burden” [47] in different cultures should be an interesting question for future research.

Adult men view criminal records as less of a hindrance to partner selection than adult women

She’s Not That into You: Speed Dating with a Criminal Record. Douglas N. Evans & Noreen Ali. Corrections, Mar 13 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2023.2190550

Abstract: Prosocial relationships are beneficial to post-conviction reintegration, but criminal stigma may limit romantic relationship access. This study implements an experimental audit of speed dating, which allows people to meet several potential partners in a brief time, to explore how conviction disclosure, offense type, and attractiveness and personality ratings affect dating interest. Three women and three men confederates of different races/ethnicities were randomly assigned to a control or one of three offense conditions before interacting one-on-one with 64 participants in 4-minute Zoom Q&A speed dating sessions. Following each interaction, participants rated one another on attractiveness, personality dimensions, and interest in dating. Findings indicate that disclosure of property offense conviction significantly reduced women’s willingness to date men confederates while assault and drug convictions did not negatively affect women’s dating interest. Women confederate disclosures of convictions did not affect men’s interest in dating them. Researching the effects of prior convictions on romantic relationship interest is challenging but important in revealing how criminal stigma varies by offense type to affect relationship capital.

Keywords: Speed datingcriminal history disclosureraceattractivenessstigma

Worth the Risk? Greater Acceptance of Instrumental Harm Befalling Men than Women

Worth the Risk? Greater Acceptance of Instrumental Harm Befalling Men than Women. Maja Graso, Tania Reynolds & Karl Aquino. Archives of Sexual Behavior, March 17 2023. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02571-0

Abstract: Scientific and organizational interventions often involve trade-offs whereby they benefit some but entail costs to others (i.e., instrumental harm; IH). We hypothesized that the gender of the persons incurring those costs would influence intervention endorsement, such that people would more readily support interventions inflicting IH onto men than onto women. We also hypothesized that women would exhibit greater asymmetries in their acceptance of IH to men versus women. Three experimental studies (two pre-registered) tested these hypotheses. Studies 1 and 2 granted support for these predictions using a variety of interventions and contexts. Study 3 tested a possible boundary condition of these asymmetries using contexts in which women have traditionally been expected to sacrifice more than men: caring for infants, children, the elderly, and the ill. Even in these traditionally female contexts, participants still more readily accepted IH to men than women. Findings indicate people (especially women) are less willing to accept instrumental harm befalling women (vs. men). We discuss the theoretical and practical implications and limitations of our findings.

General Discussion

The current investigation sought to examine whether people were more willing to endorse interventions when IH was borne by men than women. Our first two studies supported this premise. Importantly, however, our results showed that this asymmetry was driven primarily by women, but not men, being more likely to accept IH to men than to women across a variety of contexts (i.e., supporting Hypothesis 2). Study 3 tested a boundary condition to this gender bias in harm tolerance: stereotypically female caregiving contexts. When instrumental harm benefitted vulnerable individuals (e.g., infants, young children, sick, or the elderly), both men and women exhibited a bias in their willingness to accept IH to men versus women (i.e., supporting Hypothesis 1; not supporting Hypothesis 3). That is, contrary to what might be expected by historical gender roles (Eagly & Wood, 1999), people believed men ought to bear greater costs, even in traditionally female sacrificial domains.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Our findings offer four contributions. First, we extended the literature on gender and harm endorsement, which has primarily emphasized high-conflict sacrificial dilemmas involving questions of life or death (e.g., FeldmanHall et al., 2016; Skulmowski et al., 2014). The current findings revealed this gender bias persists in highly consequential, yet understudied domains: assessments of beneficial interventions carrying negative externalities across a variety of contexts: medical, psychological, educational, sexual, and caregiving. Second, we demonstrated that when evaluating interventions, female participants were more likely than male participants to accept IH borne by men than women. This pattern lends further support to the well-documented finding that women have a stronger in-group bias than men (e.g., Glick et al., 2004; Rudman & Goodwin, 2004) and are more likely to perceive one another as victims than perpetrators (Reynolds et al., 2020). This disparity suggests women may prioritize one another’s welfare over men’s in the construction or approval of social, educational, medical, and occupational interventions. If so, female policymakers might be especially wary of advancing policies or initiatives risking harm to other women, but less so when they risk harming men.

Third, we tested a boundary condition to this gender bias by investigating contexts previously unstudied in sacrificial dilemmas: stereotypically female caregiving roles. Although consideration of gender stereotypes and role congruence (Eagly & Wood, 1999) might predict a greater tolerance for female sacrifice in such contexts, men and women alike were more tolerant of IH incurred by men (versus women). These patterns suggest that although women traditionally fill and sacrifice in these roles, people may not necessarily endorse that ought to be the case. Rather, our results align with emerging evidence documenting diminished concern for men’s suffering due to a greater tendency to stereotype men as perpetrators rather than victims (Reynolds et al., 2020).

Fourth, our findings identified individual-level factors that contribute to asymmetries in harm tolerance. Namely, Studies 2 and 3 revealed that individuals more strongly endorsing egalitarian, feminist, or liberal ideologies exhibited greater disparities in their acceptance of instrumental harm, such that they more readily tolerated instrumental harm borne by men. These patterns suggest those most concerned about rectify- ing historical injustices might most ardently oppose explora- tory interventions potentially providing long-term benefits to women.

Limitations, Emerging Questions, and Future Directions

Although the current investigation has its strengths (e.g., consistent results across varied contexts, within and between-person designs, diverse beneficiaries, pre-registrations), it is not without limitations. First, future investigations might profit, for example, from examining contexts that explicitly signal one’s willingness to sacrifice on behalf of others (e.g., voluntary military service or blood donation) to determine the generalizability of these patterns. Second, our conclusions are limited by our reliance on American MTurk and CloudResearch users. Thus, our results might not generalize to other contexts and cultures. Indeed, changes in stereotypes over time (Charlesworth & Banaji, 2022), and cultural differences in norms surrounding masculinity and femininity might shift beliefs about the value of IH incurred by men versus women (see Glick et al., 2004 for a cross-cultural comparison of attitudes toward men and women). Examining whether the reluctance to expose women to instrumental harm emerges across cultures remains an open avenue for future work. Moreover, our data were collected during the earlier days of COVID-19, which could have influenced the composition or motivations of our samples (Arechar & Rand, 2021). Thus, replication is warranted before strong conclusions can be inferred.

Fourth, although the results of Studies 1 and 2 consistently revealed women’s gender bias in instrumental harm acceptance, their methods could not disentangle whether the bias more strongly emerged from an aversion toward harming women or a desire to benefit women. That is, because both studies pit harm to one sex against the benefit to the other, it is unclear which more strongly contributed to these findings. That Study 3’s female participants (along with male) more readily tolerated men’s (versus women’s) suffering in contexts benefitting vulnerable individuals (rather than women) suggests the possibility Studies 1 and 2’s results reflected women’s greater aversion to harming fellow women, rather than a motivation to benefit them per se. Nonetheless, future research might examine interventions whereby only one sex is benefitted or harmed to adjudicate the relative contribution of these two factors.

Altogether, our findings point to potentially consequential implications for laypeople’s perceptions of exploratory interventions and programs. The asymmetry we documented may place disparate pressures on researchers and policymakers to intervene experimentally on men’s versus women’s afflictions in ways that minimize instrumental harm to women. The biases uncovered here suggest the possibility that women were excluded historically from exploratory research due to an aversion toward inflicting instrumental harm onto women, such as in medicine (Holdcroft, 2007). This ultimately proved costly to women, as men’s overrepresentation in medical research yielded treatments more effective among men than women (Holdcroft, 2007). Thus, although such an aversion may have benefitted women in the short term because women were spared incidental harm imposed by risky experiments, in the long run, experimentation on men unearthed medical and safety advancements better suited for male bodies. Experimental examinations and interventions carry both costs and benefits. If, as our results suggest, people are less willing to accept instrumental harm befalling women, women might lose out on the long-term benefits of such experimental endeavors.

Throughout history, countless male lives have been sacrificed on the battlefield, ostensibly to promote the greater good (Baumeister, 2010). Our findings suggest that these sentiments persist beyond the field of combat. For many people, accepting instrumental harm to men is perceived as worth the cost to advance other social aims. We invite researchers to further investigate how individuals appraise the value of suffering and whether those appraisals differ across target characteristics. A deeper understanding of the biases embedded in such calculations may minimize the unforeseen and unintended consequences of those preferences, thereby reducing harm to men and women alike.

We found a significant increase in pseudo-event coverage, expressing a more positive tone than genuine event coverage; moreover, political pseudo-event coverage shows quadrennial cycles with peaks in each presidential election year

Pseudo-events: Tracking mediatization with machine learning over 40 years. Mengyao Xu, Lingshu Hu, Amanda Hinnant. Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 144, July 2023, 107735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107735

Abstract: Using automated content analysis, this research explores the phenomenon of pseudo-events coverage in The New York Times (N = 70,370 articles) from 1980 to 2019. By clarifying the operationalization of pseudo-events, this study introduces pseudo-events as a valuable tool to index how different social subsystems perpetuate mediatization (which is when institutions absorb and abide by media logic). Machine-learning classifiers were constructed to measure pseudo-events, which provides historicity, specificity, and measurability — three tasks set forth for new mediatization research. We found a significant increase in pseudo-event coverage, expressing a more positive tone than genuine event coverage. Moreover, political pseudo-event coverage shows quadrennial cycles with peaks in each presidential election year. Our findings reveal the expansion of mediatization since 1980 and show how media logic has been internalized in different ways by the social subsystems of politics, culture, and economics. Institutions and their social actors need efficient tools to abide by media logic in seeking publicity and commanding authority, and pseudo-events have matured into one of the most dominant tools, especially for political actors. This study offers an innovative approach to capture complex phenomena and shows promises of broader application of machine learning to empirically quantify and identify patterns using theoretical concepts.

Acquiring knowledge by Googling gives people a greater illusion of understanding than passively reading the same information, especially when the search results feature snippets

Understanding Why Searching the Internet Inflates Confidence in Explanatory Ability. Emmaline Drew Eliseev, Elizabeth J. Marsh. Applied Cognitive Psychology, March 11 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4058

Abstract: People rely on the internet for easy access to information, setting up potential confusion about the boundaries between an individual's knowledge and the information they find online. Across four experiments, we replicated and extended past work showing that online searching inflates people's confidence in their knowledge. Participants who searched the internet for explanations rated their explanatory ability higher than participants who read but did not search for the same explanations. Two experiments showed that extraneous web page content (pictures) does not drive this effect. The last experiment modeled how search engines yield results; participants saw (but did not search for) a list of hits, which included “snippets” that previewed web page content, before reading the explanations. Participants in this condition were as confident as participants who searched online. Previewing hits primes to-be-read content, in a modern-day equivalent of Titchener's (1921) example of a brief glance eliciting false feelings of familiarity.

Despite the wide educational use of Milgram’s studies to increase people’s awareness of the risks inherent to blind obedience, it may be that this knowledge only serves to evaluate other’s behaviors, and not oneself

The blind obedience of others: a better than average effect in a Milgram-like experiment. Laurent Bègue & Kevin Vezirian. Ethics & Behavior, Mar 15 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2023.2191322

Abstract: In two highly powered studies (total N = 1617), we showed that individuals estimated that they would stop earlier than others in a Milgram-like biomedical task leading to the death of an animal, confirming the relevance of the Better than Average Effect (BTAE) in a new research setting. However, this effect was not magnified among participants displaying high self-esteem. We also showed that participants who already knew obedience studies expected that others would be more obedient and would administer more damaging treatment to the target. However, knowledge of Milgram’s studies was unrelated to a higher estimate of their own behavior (study 1), and was even linked to the prediction that they would stop earlier (study 2, preregistered). Despite the wide educational use of Milgram’s studies to increase people’s awareness of the risks inherent to blind obedience, it may be that this knowledge only serves to evaluate other’s behaviors, and not oneself.

The worn-out idea of "stereotype threat" suffers another defeat in a failed replication, playing no role in women's lower level of political knowledge

Does Stereotype Threat Contribute to the Political Knowledge Gender Gap? A Preregistered Replication Study of Ihme and Tausendpfund (2018). Flavio Azevedo, Leticia Micheli, Deliah Sarah Bolesta. Journal of Experimental Political Science, March 16 2023. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2022.35

Abstract: The gender gap in political knowledge is a well-established finding in Political Science. One explanation for gender differences in political knowledge is the activation of negative stereotypes about women. As part of the Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence (SCORE) program, we conducted a two-stage preregistered and high-powered direct replication of Study 2 of Ihme and Tausendpfund (2018). While we successfully replicated the gender gap in political knowledge – such that male participants performed better than female participants – both the first (N = 671) and second stage (N = 831) of the replication of the stereotype activation effect were unsuccessful. Taken together (pooled N = 1,502), results indicate evidence of absence of the effect of stereotype activation on gender differences in political knowledge. We discuss potential explanations for these findings and put forward evidence that the gender gap in political knowledge might be an artifact of how knowledge is measured.

Discussion

Ihme and Tausendpfund (Reference Ihme and Tausendpfund2018) have proposed that the activation of negative gender stereotypes accounts for the variance of the political knowledge gender gap. In our independent and well-powered direct replication, we find no evidence that activation of gender stereotypes affects participants’ performance in a political knowledge test. Indeed, we find evidence of absence of this effect.

We note that some elements of our study design diverged from the original study and could have contributed to the observed non-replication. Our study was conducted with American students and working adults, whereas the original study included German students. As the United States has achieved relatively lower gender parity than Germany in political empowerment (World Economic Forum 2021), one could argue that negative stereotypes about women might be more salient for Americans than Germans, undermining women’s cognitive performance even in the absence of stereotype activation (e.g., in the control condition). Although we cannot rule out that some populations might be more vulnerable to gender stereotyping than others, we have reduced cultural biases as much as possible by devising a political knowledge test that was – at the same time – similar to the one used in the original study regarding the level of difficulty, as our data suggest, and relevant to the American political context. A comparison of the effect of stereotype threat on gender differences in political knowledge across countries with varying levels of gender equality would be beneficial for a better understanding of potential cultural differences in stereotype threat. Second, as a direct consequence of including working adults in our sample, it was necessary to adapt the measure of field of study to encompass the field of work. We argue, however, that this should not have contributed to the unsuccessful replication. If our measure of field of study/work would inadvertently make participants aware of their affiliation with a Politics or Non-Politics group, the effects of gender stereotype activation on performance would presumably become more salient. Instead, our results show that the field of study/work did not influence the results (Tables S16–S17). An argument can be made, however, that the extensive list of topics in our study reduced participants’ self-identity with Politics. Nevertheless, adding participants’ attributed importance of Politics to their study/work as a covariate in the analyses did not change results (Tables S18–S19). We have also conducted further tests restricting our sample to young and educated adults to achieve a sample more similar in composition to the respondents in the original study, but we could still not replicate the effect of stereotype activation on the gender gap in political knowledge (Table S20).

We note that our failure to replicate the effect of stereotype threat on gender differences in political knowledge is consistent with recent research efforts challenging the effect of stereotype threat on academic performance more broadly. Stoet and Geary (Reference Stoet and Geary2012) showed that only 30% of efforts aiming to replicate the gender gap in mathematical performance do succeed. In addition, a meta-analysis investigating the effect of gender stereotype threats on the performance of schoolgirls in stereotyped subjects (e.g., science, math) indicated several signs of publication bias within this literature (Flore and Wicherts Reference Flore and Wicherts2015). Given these results, it is plausible that the effect of gender stereotype activation might be small in magnitude and/or might be decreasing over time (Lewis and Michalak Reference Lewis and Michalak2019).

Furthermore, we find robust evidence of a gender gap in political knowledge even after controlling for political interest. Our results validate previous accounts that the gender gap on political knowledge may be an artifact of how knowledge is conceptualized and measured and of different gender attitudes toward standard tests. In line with previous research stating that the political knowledge gap might be artificially inflated by a disproportionate amount of men who are willing to guess rather than chose the “don’t know” option – even if that might lead to an incorrect answer (Mondak and Anderson Reference Mondak and Anderson2004) – we find that female participants attempted to answer less questions and used the “don’t know” response option in the political knowledge test more frequently than their male counterparts whereas men guessed their answers more frequently than women, resulting in a larger amount of incorrect answers (Tables S8–S14). This suggests factors other than knowledge might contribute to the gender gap in political knowledge (Mondak Reference Mondak1999). For example, gender differences in risk taking and competitiveness (Lizotte and Sidman Reference Lizotte and Sidman2009) as well as in self-confidence (Wolak Reference Wolak2020) and self-efficacy (Preece Reference Preece2016) may lead women to second-guess themselves and be less prone to attempt answering the questions of which they are unsure. Meanwhile, higher competitiveness and confidence in males might lead them to guess and “gain the advantage from a scoring system that does not penalize wrong answers and rewards right ones” (Kenski and Jamieson Reference Kenski, Jamieson and Jamieson2000, 84). Measurement non-invariance, too, appears to detrimentally affect the interpretation and validity of political knowledge scales across several sociodemographics. For example, Lizotte and Sidman (Reference Lizotte and Sidman2009) and Mondak and Anderson (Reference Mondak and Anderson2004) have shown political knowledge instruments violate the equivalence assumption for gender, while Abrajano (Reference Abrajano2015) and Pietryka and MacIntosh (Reference Pietryka and MacIntosh2013) found non-invariance across age, income, race, and education. In our own replication attempt, we also found evidence of measurement non-invariance using item response theory and showed that the magnitude of the gender systematic bias appears to be contingent on respondents’ knowledge levels such that lack of equivalence by gender is stronger at average scores and weaker at the extremes of the political knowledge continuum (see Table S21 and Figure S1).

As Politics has been essentially a male-dominated field since its creation, it should not come as a surprise that current measures of political knowledge tend to favor what men typically know. Previous studies have shown that the mere inclusion of gendered items on scales of political knowledge lessens the gender gap (Barabas, Jerit, Pollock, and Rainey Reference Barabas, Jerit, Pollock and Rainey2014; Dolan Reference Dolan2011). The investigation and validation of measures of political knowledge that capitalize on the fact that men and women might not only know different things but also may react in different ways to standard tests is paramount for a more accurate understanding of the gender gap in political knowledge and its bias.

Finally, we note that measurement issues are not unique to political knowledge and in fact are pervasive in Political Science with consequences for how we measure populism (Van Hauwaert, Schimpf, and Azevedo Reference Van Hauwaert, Schimpf and Azevedo2018, Reference Van Hauwaert, Schimpf and Azevedo2020; Wuttke, Schimpf, and Schoen Reference Wuttke, Schimpf and Schoen2020), operational ideology (Azevedo and Bolesta Reference Azevedo and Bolesta2022; Azevedo, Jost, Rothmund, and Sterling Reference Azevedo, Jost, Rothmund and Sterling2019; Kalmoe Reference Kalmoe2020), and political psychological constructs such as authoritarianism, racial resentment, personality traits, and moral traditionalism (Azevedo and Jost Reference Azevedo and Jost2021; Bromme, Rothmund, and Azevedo Reference Bromme, Rothmund and Azevedo2022; Pérez and Hetherington Reference Pérez and Hetherington2014; Pietryka and MacIntosh Reference Pietryka and MacIntosh2022). If the basic measurement properties of widely used constructs are flawed, it is likely that insights from research will be biased. Valid, invariant, and theoretically derived instruments are urgently needed for the reliable accumulation of knowledge in Political Science.

Both left and right agree that it's the bad, divisive stuff that goes viral on social media that least deserves it, while the good stuff is not amplified as it should be

Rathje, Steve, Claire Robertson, William J. Brady, and Jay J. Van Bavel. 2022. “People Think That Social Media Platforms Do (but Should Not) Amplify Divisive Content.” PsyArXiv. October 11. doi:10.31234/osf.io/gmun4

Abstract: There is widespread debate about how to improve or regulate social media algorithms. We review the type of content that is most likely to spread widely, or go “viral” on social media, and describe how people’s perceptions of what goes viral does not match their preference about what should go viral. We recruited a nationally representative sample of US participants and surveyed them about their perceptions of social media virality (n = 511). In line with prior research, people believe that divisive content, moral outrage, negative content, high-arousal content, and misinformation are all likely to go viral online. However, people reported that this type of content should not go viral on social media. Instead, people reported that many forms of positive content – such as accurate content, nuanced content, and educational content – are not likely to go viral, even though they think this content should go viral. Importantly, these perceptions were widely shared, and were only weakly related to political orientation, social media usage, and demographic variables. In sum, there is broad consensus around the type of content people think social media platforms should and should not amplify, which can help inform solutions for improving social media.

Married women with children experience greater intrasexual competition than their male counterparts

Married women with children experience greater intrasexual competition than their male counterparts. Joyce F. Benenson & Henry Markovits. Scientific Reports volume 13, Article number: 4498. Mar 18 2023. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31816-0

Abstract: Human males are considered to be more competitive than females. However, females must also compete for resources necessary for their own and their offsprings’ survival. Since females use more indirect forms of competition than males, comparing observable forms of competition may be misleading. One critical driver of competition is resource asymmetry. Since competition occurs primarily within sex, reactions to resource asymmetry with same-sex peers should provide an important measure of competitiveness. We asked 596 married participants, 25–45 years of age with at least one child from three different countries to evaluate how same-sex individuals they know would react to a target individual who had a valuable resource that the same-sex individuals did not have. Half the participants evaluated reactions to same-sex targets, while the other half evaluated reactions to other-sex targets. Participants reported that women would react more negatively than men to resource asymmetry with same-sex targets, but not other-sex targets. These results suggest that women may be even more competitive than men in contexts when important resources related to reproductive success are at stake.

Discussion

Are men more competitive than women? Answering this question is complicated by the fact that men and women pursue differing goals and employ different competitive strategies. In this study, we examined reported reactions to married women and men with children who vary in specific resources. Results of the present study show that participant-observers from three nations reported that based on their experiences, the women that they knew would respond more negatively to a same-sex target with a valuable characteristic than would men in the same situation. In other words, women react more negatively to resource asymmetry among same-sex peers than men do, but not to resource asymmetry with other-sex peers. In fact, participant-observers report that women are actually less negative than men are towards other-sex peers. Thus, it is not the case that women are more distressed than men by resource asymmetry in general, rather this difference is only present with same-sex peers. These results suggest that the motivation for competition over resources is greater in 25–45-year-old married women with children than in their male counterparts. This extends findings from previous studies that have found few self-reported sex differences in tendencies to compete over mates28,29 or observational studies suggesting when payoffs are high women may compete more than men32,34 to include women and men who are married with children and know others who differ in their physical and social assets.

The implications of the results for understanding human society are important in that they indicate that while women and men employ different competitive strategies and often pursue different goals, women may have an even greater motivation to compete with same-sex peers than men. Thus, it seems reasonable that women may be more envious than men of same-sex peers who are better able to care for their children. This is particularly pertinent when resources involved in competition directly impact same-sex individuals’ and their offspring’s survival. In contrast male-male competition is more likely to impact only sporadic mating behaviors14,94. Further study of competition between mothers seems warranted, as others have recommended95,96. Importantly, these results also demonstrate that women are more positive than men with respect to resource differentials in the other sex. Thus, from a man’s perspective, women are less competitive with men than men are, which might provide a further explanation for the often-cited conclusion that women are the less competitive sex. Although the more negative reactions to resource asymmetry could be interpreted as a form of inequity aversion, this would not change their role as a motivator of competition97. Nonetheless, it would be unlikely that inequity aversion would apply more towards one sex than the other.

Both women and men reported that resource differentials in characteristics that benefitted men would produce more negative reactions compared to characteristics that benefitted women. Although we did not predict this, it is possible that male advantageous characteristics are more consistent with classic measures of group status such as dominance and prestige69 or socioeconomic status98, which have been shown to be desired by and benefit both women and men in terms of survival99. Further, these group status characteristics that may be associated more with men than women may also provoke more negative reactions because universally men hold higher status than women100. More research is needed that focuses on characteristics that may be particularly beneficial to women9.

Limitations of our study include that we had participants from only three countries, and other countries may produce different results. Likewise, all of our participant-observers had access to computers which clearly is not representative of simple societies. A more diverse and larger sample would further buttress the validity of the findings. We also did not include participants or targets who did not identify as women or men, so we cannot generalize these results to non-binary individuals.

Finally, in this study we used a very simple definition of resource differential: possession of a single positive characteristic that has been shown to be beneficial and hence should be desired by others. Although more complex definitions abound, we feel that this nonetheless captures the essential component of competitiveness. Thus, to the extent that intolerance of resource differentials is a major driver of competitiveness, one that is independent of whatever strategy might be employed to attain the resource, our results suggest that at the least between 25 and 45 years of age, married women with children may be more competitive than their male counterparts. While this conclusion requires confirmation using different measures, these results provide a further challenge to the validity of traditional sexual selection theory in which human males are considered more competitive than females.