Modeling Female Sexual Desire

Modeling Female Sexual Desire: An Overview and Commentary. Abigail L. Kohut-Jackson, Johnathan M. Borland and Robert L. Meisel. In Sexual Disorders and Dysfunctions, Ed. Dhastagir Sultan Sheriff, October 25th, 2022. https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/84390

Abstract: Hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in women is a condition of low sexual desire that develops over time. Sexual desire normally diminishes over long-term relationships, but is also negatively affected by a demanding lifestyle, poor self-esteem and body image, and loss of intimacy in a relationship. HSDD elevates to a disorder when it is a concern for the woman, arising from conflict with a partner who is interested in a greater frequency of sexual interaction. Two drugs have been marketed (Addyi and Vyleesi) to treat HSDD. Neither drug was originally developed for this purpose, nor is either drug particularly effective. The lack of rational development of drugs to treat sexual disorders in women is due to the mistaken belief that components of female sexuality, such as sexual desire, cannot be effectively modeled in animals. To the contrary, sexual interest, desire, arousal, and reward are measurable aspects of sexual behavior in female rodents. Going forward, basic research using these pre-clinical models should be the starting point for drug development. At the same time, it is not clear that drug development represents the primary therapeutic approach to the problem, with behavioral therapies providing good options for first line of treatments for HSDD.

Keywords: sexual arousalsexual interestsexual rewardhypoactive sexual desire disorderAddyiVyleesianimal modelsmesolimbic systemnucleus accumbensdopamineglutamatemelanocortin receptors

6. Commentary

Nappi [7] presented an expert opinion on the relative lack of drugs to treat female sexual dysfunction. She highlighted the wide range of causes for sexual dysfunction in women, as opposed to simply erectile dysfunction in men. She noted that we still have an incomplete understanding of a woman’s sexuality, which is a prerequisite to developing treatments. She also pointed out that female sexual dysfunction is not a life-threatening clinical problem, so that it is important to balance the clinical effectiveness of drugs with the drug’s safety for the women taking them. Finally, Nappi [7] was concerned with drugs that needed to be taken chronically (e.g., Addyi), and hoped that on-demand medications (e.g., Vyleesi) could be developed. Nappi’s commentary is still very current and meaningful, and rational drug development (in her view) will only be achieved through the cooperative partnership of sexual experts, pharmaceutical companies and medical agencies [7].

6.1 A rational approach to drug development

In Section 4 we described how Addyi and Vyleesi went to clinical trials with remarkably little preclinical data supporting their effects on sexual behavior in animal models. If developing drugs to treat sexual dysfunction in women is an important endeavor, the starting point has to be investment in basic research in both the public and pharmaceutical sectors. This research should be designed to take advantage of current animal models (and develop new animal models [81]) to identify potential molecular targets for therapeutics. This is how drug development begins for essentially all diseases and is only emphasized here because this message clearly was lost in the development and marketing of drugs for HSDD in women.

6.2 Pathologizing the normal

Basson et al. [9] developed a comprehensive model of female sexuality that emphasized the complexity of a woman’s sexual response. At the same time that this model is a valuable contribution to understanding female sexuality, it also highlights the individual variability in sexual responses among women, making it difficult to define what a normal response pattern is. If we cannot define a normal sexual response, then how do we define sexual dysfunction in women [82, 83, 84]. Basson et al. [82] disagree with DSM criteria that quantify numbers of sexual fantasies or whether a woman initiates sexual activity as determinants of sexual dysfunction. They assert that few or no sexual fantasies are not a pathology, nor is it pathological if a woman does not initiate sexual activity.

Based on earlier arguments, Meixel et al. [84] lay out a historical account of the many examples of the drug industry’s marketing strategy of “condition branding”. With condition branding, the drug company creates a medical condition to support the development of a drug. In the example of Addyi, HSDD was elevated in significance as a treatable source of distress as part of the rebranding of the drug to address the disparity in the treatment of sexual dysfunction in men and women. It is disturbing that drug-company supported continuing medical education (CME) modules were developed to “educate” clinicians about this disorder. Meixel et al. [84] note (p. 860):

“Specific marketing messages that we identified within the CME modules included the following:

Hypoactive sexual desire disorder is very common and underdiagnosed.

Hypoactive sexual desire disorder can have a profound effect on quality of life.

Women may not be aware that they are sick or distressed.

Hypoactive sexual desire disorder and distress can have other names.

Clinicians should initiate conversation with their patients about their sexual health.

Clinicians find it difficult to discuss their patients’ sexual concerns and lack training and confidence in the diagnosis of sexual problems.

Clinicians need tools and resources to help them diagnose hypoactive sexual desire disorder.

Simple tools, including the decreased sexual desire screener (DSDS) and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) can assist clinicians in diagnosing hypoactive sexual desire disorder.

A major barrier to clinicians talking about hypoactive sexual desire disorder/female sexual dysfunction is the lack of medications.

It is problematic that there are medicines available to treat sexual problems for men but not women.”

Key elements in the continuing education modules to be noted here are that the lack (at the time) of medications for HSDD was an impediment for physicians to have discussions about sexual desire with their patients and that women may have HSDD even if they are unaware of it.

6.3 Therapeutic approaches

A starting point for therapy may lie in reassuring women that their sexual feelings are not abnormal and are shared by many other women [82]. This does not alleviate tensions and conflict in a relationship, but can more effectively set the stage for other therapeutic approaches. For example, changing a women’s view of herself can aid in communication with her partner about her sexuality to alleviate interpersonal conflicts [82]. Knowing that her feelings are normal and shared will boost self-esteem and relieve personal insecurities, both of which are barriers to promoting relationship satisfaction and feeling sexually desirable. This is clearly a simplistic approach that in isolation will not be sufficient for most women [85]. Still, this is an important component of any therapeutic plan.

Given that fatigue is a key factor underlying low sexual desire in women, approaches to reduce lifestyle stress and fatigue may be helpful. Mindfulness strategies can be helpful in this regard [86, 87, 88, 89] and have the advantage of being easy to apply and are inexpensive. Presumably other lifestyle approaches may also be beneficial when HSDD results from these types of life events.

Cognitive processes impact HSDD when women view their own behavior, rather than relationship issues, as central to their levels of sexual desire. A rather thorough review [90] supports a role of cognitive behavioral therapies in treating women with HSDD. The goals of these approaches are straightforward, aiming to increasing the rewarding experiences for women and improve relationships through cognitive restructuring and communication. As with mindfulness strategies, cognitive behavioral therapy can be conducted through online training as well as in person.

Drugs should be a last line of treatment [2, 91], and used perhaps in conjunction with behavioral therapies. The worry with drug therapies is that they necessarily carry side effects that vary in severity. This is unavoidable with any compound that affects neurotransmission, as there will be direct and indirect effects on chemical transmission that are spread throughout the central nervous system, beyond the specific circuits targeting the behaviors in question [36].

Today’s Older Adults Are Cognitively Fitter Than Older Adults Were 20 Years Ago, but When and How They Decline Is No Different Than in the Past

Today’s Older Adults Are Cognitively Fitter Than Older Adults Were 20 Years Ago, but When and How They Decline Is No Different Than in the Past. Denis Gerstorf et al. Psychological Science, October 25, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221118541

Abstract: History-graded increases in older adults’ levels of cognitive performance are well documented, but little is known about historical shifts in within-person change: cognitive decline and onset of decline. We combined harmonized perceptual-motor speed data from independent samples recruited in 1990 and 2010 to obtain 2,008 age-matched longitudinal observations (M = 78 years, 50% women) from 228 participants in the Berlin Aging Study (BASE) and 583 participants in the Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II). We used nonlinear growth models that orthogonalized within- and between-person age effects and controlled for retest effects. At age 78, the later-born BASE-II cohort substantially outperformed the earlier-born BASE cohort (d = 1.20; 25 years of age difference). Age trajectories, however, were parallel, and there was no evidence of cohort differences in the amount or rate of decline and the onset of decline. Cognitive functioning has shifted to higher levels, but cognitive decline in old age appears to proceed similarly as it did two decades ago.

Discussion

Our findings indicate that later-born older Berliners tested in the 2010s outperformed their earlier-born age peers tested in the 1990s. Contrary to our hypotheses, results showed that later-born older adults did not exhibit shallower declines on perceptual-motor speed or a later onset of decline. The later born cohort’s cognitive performance was shifted upward from the earlier-born cohort’s, but trajectories of cognitive aging were parallel.

Historical change in cognitive performance

Consistent with the Flynn effect (Pietschnig & Voracek, 2015), results from our carefully matched longitudinal data obtained from same-aged older adults tested two decades apart provide more evidence of historical change in levels of performance. The effect size (d = 1.20) is striking and even larger than that obtained in our earlier time-lagged cross-sectional analysis of a subset of participants (Gerstorf et al., 2015: d = 0.85). This constitutes one more set of evidence that cultural changes over the last 30 years, including better access to individual resources (e.g., quantity and quality of education) and innovations in science and technology (e.g., advances in medicine and nutrition; Drewelies et al., 2019), have contributed to improved cognitive performance in old age. Future work should detail how the many different mechanisms that drive improvements in unique and specific resource constellations can further improve cognitive functioning (and productivity) of older adults.

Are old-age cognitive declines today shallower or postponed to later ages?

Our results parallel those of studies that did not find history-graded improvements in cognitive aging trajectories (e.g., Brailean et al., 2018) but differ from studies that had found such improvements (e.g., Dodge et al., 2014). Beyond similarities in the calendar years participants were born and tested, the discrepant findings may result from country-level differences in health care and differences in the studies’ measurement and analysis procedures.

In the 1990s, studies had documented that elevated blood pressure in midlife (rather than old age) is predictive of steeper cognitive declines in old age (Launer et al., 1995). Since then, widespread prescription and use of effective anti-hypertensive medication may have weakened those links. However, implementation in Germany occurred about a decade later than in the United States and other nations (Wolf-Maier et al., 2003). Consequently, our later-born older Berliners may have already been too old to have benefitted from widespread changes in delivery of health care. Back when this generation of older adults was in midlife, blood pressure treatment had not yet improved (Koenig et al., 2018). Going forward, cross-national studies can be used to test hypotheses about long-latency treatment effects of midlife blood pressure for cognitive decline in old age.

Interestingly, studies that reported cohort differences in rates of cognitive decline either did not include perceptual speed measures (Dodge et al., 2017 and Gerstorf et al., 2011: reasoning, verbal meaning, and memory), did not find cohort effects on perceptual speed measures (but on verbal fluency and working memory; Grasset et al., 2018), or found that cohort differences in perceptual speed measures were smaller than for other measures (executive functions; Dodge et al., 2014). Although measures of perceptual speed capture age-related declines well, they may not be very sensitive to history-graded changes in decline. More systematic charting of how cohort differences manifest across a wider set of aging-sensitive (e.g., memory) and more aging-resilient (e.g., crystallized) abilities is needed.

Our analytic approach also differed from approaches used in other studies. The nonlinear growth-modeling framework allowed us to account for a variety of potential confounds. First, the observation-level age matching between BASE and BASE-II samples drawn from the same underlying population provided a strong foundation for testing differences between same-age observations obtained from different cohorts. Second, we modeled and accounted for retest effects that often emerge with repeated test taking. Third, our model explicitly separated between-person from within-person age effects (age gradients vs. intraindividual change), allowing for more precise testing of hypotheses about history-graded shifts in cognitive aging—a distinctly intraindividual process.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to directly test cohort differences in the age of onset of cognitive decline. Contrary to the cognitive-reserve hypothesis, results showed no evidence for a shift in the onset of decline. However, this finding is consistent with both the preserved-differentiation perspective (Salthouse, 2006), by which level differences established in early life are maintained and carried forward into old age, and recent meta-analyses showing that differences in education have substantial effects on levels of cognitive functioning but null effects on rates of cognitive aging (Lövdén et al., 2020) or brain aging (Nyberg et al., 2021). It seems that history-graded improvements resulting from early-life education, cognitive stimulation, and health care persist into old age, but not because aging processes have been any kinder.

Limitations and future directions

Several limitations in our design and sample must also be noted. A time window of two decades may suffice to identify historical change in levels of perceptual-motor speed but may not be long enough to identify historical change in key features of cognitive aging trajectories. Further, because our assessments were obtained only in old age, we were unable to disentangle late-life processes from those unfolding during early life and mid-life. With the Flynn effect reversing among young men (Bratsberg & Rogeberg, 2018), future research should systematically examine how history-graded changes may proceed differentially throughout life.

Participants were drawn from one geographical region and represent a positively selected population segment. One key question is whether our findings apply to resource-poor population segments. Conceptual perspectives on manufactured survival (Olshansky & Carnes, 2019) suggest that some older adults today carry disease burdens longer than did older adults in the past. Future research should carefully examine whether cohort differences in decline emerge in more diverse samples and are moderated by access to resources.

Partisanship and the trolley problem: Partisan willingness to sacrifice members of the other party

Partisanship and the trolley problem: Partisan willingness to sacrifice members of the other party. Michael Barber and Ryan Davis. Research & Politics, October 28, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680221137143

Abstract: Do partisans view members of the other party as having lower moral status? While research shows that partisans view the out-group quite poorly, we show that affective polarization extends to expressing a willingness to sacrifice an out-partisan’s life. We report the first study to consider partisanship in the classic “trolley problem” in which respondents are asked whether they would sacrifice an individual’s life in order to save the life of five individuals. We explore this issue with a nationally representative survey experiment in the United States, inquiring about politicized variants of the trolley problem case. First, we vary the political affiliations of both the group of five (to be saved by turning the trolley) and the single individual (to be sacrificed by turning the trolley). We find that individuals are less willing to sacrifice a co-partisan for the sake of a group of out-partisans. These findings go beyond earlier work by suggesting that partisans not only hold negative attitudes and judgments toward political out-groups but also they will at least signal approval of differing moral treatment. We take stock of how these results bear on normative questions in democratic theory.

Discussion

Our findings offer evidence that partisan loyalties do extend to moral judgments. Negative partisan attitudes appear reactive—directed toward opposing partisans themselves, rather than merely targeting circumstances of inter-partisan interaction. Finally, these attitudes appear quite serious. People treat out-partisans comparably to other dehumanized and denigrated groups. Partiality to co-partisans cannot explain the comparison between out-partisans and the most extreme outgroups we considered. Congruent with other findings affirming the pervasiveness of negative partisanship, our results appear driven at least in part by negative attitudes toward political opponents. In our case, these negative attitudes include not only affect but also the judgment (at least, the expressed judgment) that out-partisans occupy a lower moral status.

Our result considers the total effect of partisan identity. Because stereotypes about opposing partisans are unreliable (Ahler and Sood, 2018) and negative affect may be partly driven by partisan misperception (Lees and Cikara, 2021), further work would be needed to determine how much the result results from partisanship alone—independent of overlapping identity categories.

Partisan violence is not a new phenomenon in American politics (e.g., Kalmoe (2020)). What, if anything, might justify political violence (or threats of such violence) is, of course, a further normative question. At the outset, we noted a normative aspiration to civic friendship as an ideal of shared citizenship. Our results tend toward pessimism about this normative ideal. There is little indication that partisans invest much positive value in shared citizenship. The idea that co-citizens, even of opposing political tribes, share a common project of ruling together, and further that this common project gives them special obligations to each other, is absent from our picture (Scheffler, 2010; Kolodny, 2014). Insofar as they require that opposing partisans share a valuing relationship (Scheffler, 2005; Rawls, 2005; Viehoff, 2014), normative theories of citizenship look untethered from political reality.

However, other normative theorists affirm a distinctive normative value to partisan attachment. These theorists see partisanship as an expression of a political commitment that makes ongoing political action possible (Ypi, 2016). Our results offer grounds for a more sanguine perspective on this value; however, our findings also offer a cautionary note for proponents of partisan loyalty. Such bonds appear not to be constituted merely by partiality to one’s political allies or ideas. They include, as well, a willingness to compare opponents with disliked and even reviled groups. This may extend to seeing them as less deserving of moral concern. The partisan ideal may be one about which one might be appropriately cautious—and not only when approaching a trolley crossing.

As expected, women denigratory posts derogate women’s sexuality, personality, and mothering qualities, but also found derogations about women’s resource extraction, mate poaching, and substance use

She’s a Gold-Digger, Bad Mom, and Drug-Using Floozy: Women’s Rivalry Gets “Dirty.” Maryanne L. Fisher, Mackenzie Zinck, Jaedan Link, Jessica Savoie & Arianna Conrod. Evolutionary Psychological Science, Oct 28 2022. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-022-00339-8

Abstract: Gossip is an inherent part of human sociality and can be used to manipulate other’s reputations. Women’s reputations in particular are the subject of derogatory gossip, and are more vulnerable, compared to men’s reputations (Hess & Hagen, 2002, 2006; Reynolds et al., 2018). Here, we explore how women’s reputations are presented via anonymous posts on the gossip website, The Dirty. Using a qualitative analysis, trained blind coders performed thematic analysis of 25 posts about women for each of the five most populous cities in Canada and the USA (N = 250). We support our prediction that posts derogate women’s sexuality, personality, and mothering qualities, but also found derogations about women’s resource extraction, mate poaching, and substance use. As well, posts often contained a direct warning about associating with the woman. Sexuality was the most commonly mentioned aspect, followed by personality, and warnings, while resource extraction, mate poaching, and substance use were equally derogated, and mothering qualities least mentioned. We review these findings in light of women’s intrasexual mating competition and the importance of women’s reputations.

The Simbari people & their semen ingestion practices

Simbari people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simbari_people

As of today, the article says:

The Simbari people (also known as the Simbari Anga,^[1] called Sambia by Herdt^[2]) are a tribe of mountain-dwelling, hunting and horticultural people who inhabit the fringes of the Eastern Highlands Province of Papua New Guinea, and are extensively described by the American anthropologist Gilbert Herdt.^[3][4] The Simbari – a pseudonym created by Herdt himself – are known by cultural anthropologists for their acts of "ritualised homosexuality" and semen ingestion practices with pubescent boys. In his studies of the Simbari, Herdt describes the people in light of their sexual culture and how their practices shape the masculinity of adolescent Simbari boys.^[3]

Video: Sambia Tribe of Papua New Guinea in the Pacific's have a weird and strange Initiation of boys to manhood.

But things changed... From the same article above:

Modernisation

In 2006, Gilbert Herdt updated his studies of the Simbari with the publication of The Simbari: Ritual, Sexuality, and Change in Papua New Guinea. He noted that a sexual revolution had overtaken the Simbari in the previous decade. "To go from absolute gender segregation and arranged marriages, with universal ritual initiation that controlled sexual and gender development and imposed the radical practice of boy-insemination, to abandoning initiation, seeing adolescent boys and girls kiss and hold hands in public, arranging their own marriages, and building square houses with one bed for the newlyweds, as the Simbari have done, is revolutionary."^[9]

Personality Traits of Sex Workers: higher scores of conscientiousness, openness, & Machiavellianism; earlier age of first menarche, earlier age of first drug use

Personality Traits of Sex Workers. John E. Edlund, Zachary Carter & Nathaly Cabrera. Sexuality & Culture, Sep 29 2022. https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-022-10021-7

Abstract: Although numerous studies have looked at what lay people think of sex workers, comparatively few studies have directly looked at the sex workers themselves. The current study compared a cohort of predominantly female sex workers with a matched control across several personality constructs (including the Big Five, the Dark Triad, and Life History). Some of the observed differences in personality included higher scores of conscientiousness and higher scores of openness to experience in the sex worker group. The sex worker group also showed higher scores in machiavellianism. A variety of indicators of a faster Life History Strategy were also found in the sex worker cohort including an earlier age of first menarche and age of first drug use.

 

Results revealed negative attitudes toward civil liberties among leftist participants, with left-wing self-identification, radical-cultural feminism and left-wing authoritarianism negatively predicting support for civil liberties

Attitudes Toward Civil Liberties and Rights Among Politically Charged Online Groups. Angelo Fasce and Diego Avendaño. Volume 53, Issue 4, on-line October 27, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000496

Abstract: Civil liberties and rights such as freedom of expression, press, thought, religion, association, lifestyle, and equality against the law are being subjected to controversies in Western countries. We developed two hypotheses aimed at explaining divergent attitudes toward civil liberties among politically charged online communities on each side of the political spectrum. A study using a cross-sectional sample of social media users (N = 902) suggests that, as expected by our hypotheses, support for civil liberties tend to be higher among online groups of rightists – with economic conservatism being the only direct positive predictor and left-wing authoritarianism being a strong negative predictor. These results are discussed in relation to polarization over civil liberties and perceived power imbalances between online groups.

Authors saw "a general preference for products made by women over products made by men"

Made by her vs. him: Gender influences in product preferences and the role of individual action efficacy in restoring social equalities. Benedikt Schnurr,Georgios Halkias. Journal of Consumer Psychology, October 17 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1327

Abstract: In response to the growing standardization and impersonalization of the market—side effects of new technology and business automation—consumers increasingly seek more personized purchase experiences, such as buying products directly from the producer. While extant literature has documented the positive effects of personizing market offerings, there is surprisingly little insight about whether knowing who made a product influences consumers' product preferences. We aim to fill this gap by focusing on the critical role of the producer's gender. In 13 studies, including field and online experiments (ntotal = 2978), we observe a general preference for products made by women over products made by men, with female consumers consistently showing a strong preference for products made by women and male consumers showing no systematic preference for either product. We find that this difference between female and male consumers' product preferences occurs because female consumers, in relation to male consumers, hold stronger action efficacy beliefs—beliefs that their individual purchase choices can contribute to restoring gender equalities in business.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Thirteen experimental studies, employing different sample populations, different stimulus products, and different study designs suggest that the producer's gender plays an important role in shaping consumers' product preferences. Studies 1–5 establish this phenomenon, demonstrating that female consumers prefer products made by women, while male consumers display no preference between products from producers of a different gender. We hypothesized that this relative difference in preference for products made by women (vs. men) occurs because female, in relation to male, consumers hold higher action efficacy beliefs—beliefs that their product choices can meaningfully contribute against gender inequalities in business. Study 6 offers support for this account while Studies 7A to 7C provide further empirical evidence, indicating that buying conditions and/or consumer perceptions that minimize the relevance of individual purchase decisions for restoring gender equalities decrease the influence of the producer's gender on consumers' product preferences. Finally, Studies 8 and 8 S suggest that action efficacy beliefs explain the discrepancy between female and male consumers' preferences for products made by women (vs. men) beyond perceived manufacturing expertise and judgments of consumers' self-congruence with the product choice. In sum, while we acknowledge that, as with many real-life phenomena, the effect of producer gender on female versus male consumers' product preference is likely multiply determined, we find strong and diverse empirical evidence suggesting that female (vs. male) consumers' stronger preference for products made by women can be explained by a systematic asymmetry in action efficacy beliefs.

Theoretical implications

First, our findings are directly relevant to the growing literature on market personization (van Osselaer et al., 2020). While extant literature has been mainly studying the potential benefits of personized market offerings (Fuchs et al., 2021; Kulow et al., 2021), we shift the focus on whether knowing who made the product can influence consumer behavior. In this context, we investigate consumers' preferences for products made by women versus men. Such gender influences are not straightforward, especially considering that female and male consumers may be differentially affected by producers' gender. The direction of the anticipated effects seems rather unclear to determine a priori, as different theoretical lenses seem to suggest different patterns of results. Acknowledging this theoretical pluralism, our studies identify the best fitting theoretical paradigm to understand the phenomenon at hand and, in doing so, reveal that egalitarian sentiments—driving forces against social inequality—affect seemingly trivial and disconnected decisions, such as whether to buy a product made by a woman or a product made by a man.

Second, in explaining the observed differences between female and male consumers' preferences for products made by women (vs. men), we bring forward the notion of action efficacy beliefs which we defined as the belief that engaging in a particular action (such as making a particular product choice) can effectively contribute toward achieving a collective goal. Action efficacy beliefs are conceptually different from previously investigated forms of efficacy which refer to whether individuals or groups are capable of performing actions to achieve certain individual or collective goals (Bandura, 1977; Gibson et al., 2000; Prussia & Kinicki, 1996; van Zomeren et al., 2013; Yaakobi, 2018). Thus, unlike most previous research focusing on individuals' or groups' capabilities in performing actions, action efficacy concerns the belief that individual actions can effectively bring about certain goals; irrespective of people's general motivation to achieve these goals. Our theoretical explanation rests on the idea that perceived action efficacy is elevated when identity threats are more psychologically proximal to the individual. This proposition resonates with recent research indicating that self-relevant threat strongly motivates individuals to counteract (Ward & Broniarczyk, 2011) and also draws from work on altruistic behavior suggesting that people are generally more sensitive to inequalities that disadvantage, as opposed to benefit, themselves (Silk & House, 2011). Thus, given that women represent an underprivileged group in business (England et al., 2020; International Labour Organization, 2019), female, as opposed to male, consumers should weigh the potential contribution of their individual purchase decisions more heavily. In line with this, we find a clear relative difference in that female consumers more strongly believe that buying products made by women (action) can contribute to restoring gender equality in business (goal). Overall, our findings contribute to research on efficacy perceptions by emphasizing the action as the point of reference and suggesting that linking a very specific, individual action to a broader collective goal can motivate behavior.

Third, our research contributes to recent work on how social and economic inequality affects consumer behavior (Hagerty & Barasz, 2020; Ordabayeva & Chandon, 2011; Walasek et al., 2018; Winterich & Zhang, 2014). The findings suggest that recognizing gender discrimination against women in business and being intrinsically motivated to restore gender equality are necessary attributes, yet not sufficient on their own to drive restorative behavior. The extent to which consumers meaningfully link the means (purchase choice) to an end (social change) seems critical in driving behavior accordingly.

Finally, our work contributes to the recent debate about the deductive paradigm that dominates research in consumer behavior (Janiszewski & van Osselaer, 2021). We avoided forcing our investigation into a strictly deductive narrative, and instead adopted a more flexible paradigm, combining exploratory and confirmatory empirical findings, which enabled us to identify several theoretical and methodological nuances pertinent to the phenomenon at hand. Our investigation critically reflected how gender influences in consumers' product choices could unfold under different theoretical lenses. Inductively, we drew on a series of studies and revisited our theorizing in light of the empirical data, identifying egalitarianism as the paradigm best describing the observed effects. Deductively, we then outlined a formal theoretical account which we tested across multiple confirmatory studies. We hope that our approach can motivate other scholars to adopt open and more flexible practices in developing and reporting their research projects.

Practical implications

Our findings suggest that female producers selling their products on electronic platforms, such as Etsy, or other media, may gain relative benefits over their male competitors. Specifically targeting potential female buyers seems to be an overall effective strategy to secure sales against male competitors. To do so, female producers should communicate and emphasize their gender to potential buyers. For example, female producers may use their actual name (in case their name is identifiable as female), a shop name implying that products are made by a woman (e.g., “Sarah's Accessories”), and pictures that identify them as women. Female producers can also highlight their gender in personal communication with prospective buyers or their shop description (e.g., “Hi! This is Sarah. I make these bags.”).

The managers of such electronic platforms and marketplaces can also utilize our findings in boosting sales by promoting products made by women. For instance, managers can encourage prospective customers by reinforcing action efficacy beliefs, especially among male customers, using relevant prompts (e.g., “Promote women in business. Your choice matters!” or “Support women in business. Every penny counts!”). Another way to motivate action efficacy beliefs might also be to highlight stories of successful female producers such as Amy Yee, who started selling refurbished vintage clothes on Etsy in 2012 and now owns several stores in New York (Brucculieri, 2018). Consumers are increasingly looking for ways to make an impact through their consumption choices (Haller et al., 2019). In this context, our findings imply that electronic marketplaces can benefit from leveraging the societal contribution of their business.

Finally, our research provides policymakers with important insights on how to close the gap between consumers' beliefs about social inequality and their corresponding actions. Our findings suggest that even when consumers recognize that women face gender discrimination in business and even when consumers are motivated to change respective gender inequalities, whether or not they align their actions accordingly depends on the perceived efficacy of those actions. Our findings suggest that policymakers should educate consumers about the potential impact of their individual product choices and deflect “drop in the ocean” perceptions. Broadly speaking, policy interventions can promote socially responsible consumption behavior by acknowledging social anomalies and by connecting individual responsibility with the collective good, emphasizing that seemingly trivial actions can meaningfully contribute to social change.

Future research opportunities

Producer characteristics

Our work offers fruitful ground to explore the broader nomological network in which the observed effects are expected to unfold as well as to identify additional mechanisms underlying these influences. For instance, it may be that women producers are perceived as more caring and considerate by female, but not male, buyers and, thus, be differentially preferred. Future studies might test whether such beliefs can explain the documented differences in preferences for products made by women (vs. men) between female and male consumers. Scholars can also extend this work by looking at demographic characteristics other than gender. Would consumers belonging (vs. not belonging) to an ethnic minority prefer products made by producers from ethnic minorities? Or would they opt for products offered by ethnic majorities as part of their acculturation process? Unlike in our study, where essentially two social categories (females and males) are involved, power and status distribution across several disadvantaged groups (i.e., multiple ethnic minorities) might suppress action efficacy beliefs and not sufficiently encourage support for a specific minority group. That said, it may be that such social categorizations (i.e., that involve imbalance across multiple categories) trigger antagonistic feelings against the dominant, high-status group.

Product characteristics

Although we varied product characteristics other than the producer gender in several of our studies (e.g., design, price, star ratings), the relevant variations were counterbalanced across the producer gender conditions. We acknowledge that systematic differences in these characteristics may influence the results and, thus, warrant further investigation. For example, it may be that consumers find themselves in a situation where they need to make a trade-off between a product made by a woman versus a man with the latter being of higher quality. Moreover, while we found that women and men are perceived to be equally skilled in producing the kind of products we used in our studies, some products are stereotypically considered men's products, such as handmade tools and furniture. Would female consumers still prefer the product made by a woman or would they sacrifice the collective good in the face of individual interest? Consistent with prior work on altruistic behavior (Silk & House, 2011), our findings imply that prosocial consumer behavior is more driven by concerns for the welfare of others and less by individualistic concerns and self-interest. However, more research is necessary to explicitly account for the intersection between self-centered and altruistic motives in consumers' product choices.

Consumer characteristics

Future research could also explore whether the observed discrepancy in preferences for products made by women (vs. men) between female and male consumers is explained by differences in self-verification tendencies. One could argue that being a member of a disadvantaged social group leads female consumers to have a stronger desire for seeking self-verifying product options (Chen et al., 2004; Stuppy et al., 2020). Consistent with recent work by Stuppy et al. (2020), researchers could employ verbalization tasks about choices between products made by women (vs. men) and subsequently explore response protocols to identify whether decision making is guided by a desire to confirm their self-views.

Future research should also consider our findings in more idiosyncratic consumer segments. Our work rests on the assumption that egalitarianism, and gender equality, in particular, are shared beliefs among members of society. In this context, we considered individuals' sense of own gender (all studies), gender identification strength (Study 6), female discrimination beliefs (Study 7B), and social change motivation (Study 7C). Importantly, our results show that regardless of any relative differences, both female and male consumers hold rather strong beliefs that women are discriminated against in business (Study 7B) and are rather highly motivated in restoring gender equalities in business (Study 7C). Nonetheless, there might be a specific segment of—both female and male—consumers characterized by a particularly high social dominance orientation (Sidanius et al., 1994). Among those consumers, overall preference for products made by men might increase, with female consumers showing less preference for products made by women and male consumers showing a higher preference for products made by men. Likewise, we cannot exclude the possibility that there may be a specific segment of malevolent women who—possibly driven by feelings of envy—would choose products made by men over products made by women. Although envious and ill-intentioned feelings do not reflect a general behavioral tendency, it may be that in contexts characterized by increased competition for limited resources, anti-social or anti-egalitarian behaviors can be observed. On the other hand, there may be a particular set of male consumers who hold strong enough action efficacy beliefs to prefer products made by women over products made by men. Witnessing discrimination against (close) female coworkers, for example, or having friends tell them about their experiences of gender discrimination may make the issue more psychologically proximal to men, increasing their action efficacy beliefs.

On a broader scale, our investigation is limited to Western (predominantly U.S.) consumers segments and does not apply to cultures, political systems, and religions subscribing to fundamental differences in the role men and women play in human society (Inglehart et al., 2002; Poushter & Fetterolf, 2019). Drawing on Studies 7B and 7C, we would anticipate that the general preference for products made by women is less pronounced, or even reversed, in socio-cultural contexts where gender equality is not desired or even frowned upon.

Market context

Our investigation focused on one-off purchases and did not consider multiple or repeated purchases. It would certainly be interesting to explore behavioral consistency and wear-out effects. Will the observed pattern of results still materialize when considering second, third, and fourth purchase decisions? Under the assumption that repeated purchases do not change the inherent belief that buying decisions meaningfully contribute to restoring gender equalities in business, one would expect the effect to also hold true or even be reinforced. However, it may also be that the effect fades away with multiple purchases, similar to the attenuation effects found in individuals' support for social issues on social media (Kristofferson et al., 2014).

Finally, future research may investigate whether our findings hold beyond the market for handmade products. We chose to focus our investigation on electronic platforms where individuals sell their self-made products because gender cues are displayed prominently along with the products in this market. However, another peculiarity about this context is that the individual producer is the sole beneficiary of the purchase (besides the platform), which maximizes the potential impact of a purchase for the sellers. The belief that a purchase can contribute to gender equality in business may thus be particularly high in this context. Future studies may explore gender effects on product preferences in other contexts in which information about gender may be known to consumers, such as female-run companies. On the one hand, one could argue that buying from a company with a female (vs. male) CEO may further strengthen this company's position in the marketplace and thereby contribute to gender equality. On the other hand, exposure to a female-run company might suppress perceptions of gender inequality. Most importantly, it is unclear whether buying products from a female-run company predominantly supports women, men (who may also work in the company), or both. Ambiguities in terms of who is being supported would thus confound with individuals' efficacy beliefs that their purchase decisions contribute to restoring gender equality in business.

Chivalry norm has pervasive effects on the behavior of men during their disputes with women: Men make less violent threats/engage in less physical attacks when the adversary is female, even after been physically attacked by her

When men fight with women (versus other men): Limited offending during disputes. Richard B. Felson et al. Criminology, Oct 27 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12324

Abstract: What transpires in a dispute, even a violent dispute, is affected by the tendency for adversaries to engage in “limited offending.” We focus on one restraint: the tendency of men to limit their aggression in their disputes with women. Analyses are based on an incident-level survey about interpersonal disputes administered to 503 men who are incarcerated and 220 men who had never been incarcerated. Using multinomial and logistic regression models, we examined the extent to which an adversary's gender predicted dispute-related behaviors. The evidence suggests that the chivalry norm has pervasive effects on the behavior of men during their disputes with women. Men are more likely to engage in remedial actions (e.g., apologies) when their adversary is a woman, as opposed to another man. In addition, men are less likely to make violent threats and engage in physical attacks when their adversary is a woman, even after they have themselves been physically attacked. When men are violent, they are less likely to injure a woman than a man. However, the chivalry norm does not inhibit verbal aggression in these disputes: men are just as likely to engage in verbal attacks and nonviolent threats when the adversary is a woman.

The Oath Keepers' national organization is unusual among groups conducting political violence in that they seem to behave as a business

Klinenberg, Danny, Selling Violent Extremism (October 5, 2022). SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4239242

Abstract: The Oath Keepers' national organization is unusual among groups conducting political violence in that they seem to behave as a business. Using leaked membership data, internal chat forums and publicly available articles posted to their website, I show that, unlike other far-right organizations, such as the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers do not organize as a club. Rather, its behavior is better explained as a firm that adjusts the price of membership over time to maximize profit. I then estimate the Oath Keepers' price elasticity of demand for new membership using five membership sales between 2014 and 2018. I find the organization's demand is highly sensitive to changes in price. These results imply that political violence can be motivated by nonideological entrepreneurs maximizing profits under current legal institutions -- a chilling conclusion.

Keywords: Extremism, Applied microeconomics

JEL A10

In line with previous findings, especially Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness are genetically the most important personality traits for well-being

Unraveling the Relation Between Personality and Well-Being in a Genetically Informative Design. Dirk H. M. Pelt, Lianne P. de Vries, and Meike Bartels. European Journal of Personality, Oct 26 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070221134878

Abstract: In the current study, common and unique genetic and environmental influences on personality and a broad range of well-being measures were investigated. Data on the Big Five, life satisfaction, quality of life, self-rated health, loneliness, and depression from 14,253 twins and their siblings (age M: 31.82, SD: 14.41, range 16–97) from the Netherlands Twin Register were used in multivariate extended twin models. The best-fitting theoretical model indicated that genetic variance in personality and well-being traits can be decomposed into effects due to one general, common factor (Mdn: 60%, range 15%–89%), due to personality-specific (Mdn: 2%, range 0%–78%) and well-being-specific (Mdn: 12%, range 4%–35%) factors, and trait-specific effects (Mdn: 18%, range 0%–65%). Significant amounts of non-additive genetic influences on the traits’ (co)variances were found, while no evidence was found for quantitative or qualitative sex differences. Taken together, our study paints a fine-grained, complex picture of common and unique genetic and environmental effects on personality and well-being. Implications for the interpretation of shared variance, inflated phenotypic correlations between traits and future gene finding studies are discussed.

Discussion

Using a large population sample of twins and siblings, the current study provides detailed insights into the genetic overlap between personality and a broad range of well-being measures. Given our large sample size, the present study was well-powered. Overall, our results are in line with the previous finding that especially Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness are genetically the most important personality traits for well-being (Hahn et al., 2013; Røysamb et al., 2018; Weiss et al., 2008). Furthermore, the heritability of the personality traits of ∼40–55% (Vukasović & Bratko, 2015) and well-being traits of ∼30%–40% (Bartels, 2015; Nes & Røysamb, 2015) are comparable with previous meta-analyses.

Our results indicate that personality traits and well-being traits share considerable amounts of common genetic and environmental influences, yet that they are also influenced by their own domain-specific and trait-specific effects. Additive (vs. non-additive) genetic effects were more shared between personality traits and well-being traits, as no trait-specific additive effects were found after accounting for common effects. Non-additive genetic effects showed a greater variety in effects due to different sources. Below we discuss the results in relation to each of our three research questions in detail.

Genetic and Environmental Overlap Between Personality and Well-Being (RQ1)

Genetic and environmental effects shared between personality and well-being traits varied considerably across traits. Genetic effects due to the general, common factor ranged from 15% (Ag) to 89% (Ne) (Mdn: 60%). Genetic effects on the personality traits due to the personality-specific factor ranged from 0% (Ne) to 78% (Op) (Mdn: 2%). Genetic effects on the well-being traits due to the well-being-specific factor ranged from 4% (DEP) to 35% (SAT) (Mdn: 12%). Finally, trait-specific genetic effects ranged from 0% (SAT) to 65% (Co) (Mdn: 18%). Environmental effects were mostly trait-specific (Mdn: 68%, ranging from 26% for DEP to 91% for Op), and much less common (Mdn: 20%, ranging from 0% for Op to 72% for DEP) or domain-specific (Mdn: 9%, ranging from 2% for Ne, DEP, and LON to 43% for QOL). Of all personality traits, Neuroticism was most strongly related to well-being, and particularly strongly genetically related to depression and loneliness, in line with previous research (Abdellaoui et al., 2019; Fanous et al., 2002; Kendler et al., 2006; Okbay et al., 2016; Schermer & Martin, 2019). Because of its pivotal role, Neuroticism is sometimes included as a well-being trait (Baselmans et al., 2019a, 2019b). On the other hand, Openness, Agreeableness, and self-rated health appeared to mostly be genetically and environmentally distinct from the other traits.

Importantly, the percentages from the previous section are based on common genetic effects on personality and well-being once their respective shared variances have been taken into account. For example, Neuroticism showed the strongest bivariate genetic correlations with well-being traits, but also with the other personality traits. In the best-fitting theoretical model in which shared domain-specific variance was taken into account, it still showed the strongest overlap with well-being. Thus, genetic effects on Neuroticism and well-being were not due to the genetic overlap that Neuroticism shares with other personality traits, or the genetic overlap that well-being traits share with each other. The same was true for Conscientiousness and Extraversion. Earlier claims that these personality traits and well-being are influenced by cross-domain pleiotropic effects (Hahn et al., 2013; Røysamb et al., 2018; Weiss et al., 2008) thus seem to be robust.

Based on our results, it can be concluded that the genetic overlap between personality and well-being is quite large (Mdn: 60%). This is in line with a proposed (genetic) “covitality” factor (Figueredo et al., 2004; Weiss & Luciano, 2015) influencing the variation in both personality and well-being ratings: the recovering of such an overarching factor in our best-fitting model supports this claim. Based on the substantial genetic overlap, it has previously been suggested that “happiness is a personality thing” (Weiss et al., 2008). Yet, without explicit modeling of the direction of causation, personality may be a well-being thing just as well as well-being may be a personality thing (Keyes et al., 2015). At the phenotypic level, both directions of causality may indeed be simultaneously operating (e.g., Soto, 2015; Specht et al., 2013). However, the current study shows that shared genes will act as a confounder for these effects. Additional research on causality in which genetic confounding is taken into account is thus needed (Briley et al., 2018).

When these causal mechanisms become more clear, our results are informative for future intervention studies. Although both are relatively stable over the lifespan, well-being is thought to be more malleable than personality (Anusic & Schimmack, 2016) and several well-being interventions have proven to be successful (van Agteren et al., 2021). Again, genetic effects need to be taken into account, as they play a role in stability and change of both personality and well-being (Nes et al., 2006; Pedersen & Reynolds, 1998). By gaining more insights into what (genetically) separates well-being from personality, it will become easier in the future to target interventions specifically at effects unique to well-being.

Our findings on common, domain-specific, and trait-specific effects have implications for molecular genetic studies. GWASs are designed to identify the genetic variants associated with a trait. Several GWASs on personality (De Moor et al., 2015; Lo et al., 2017; van den Berg et al., 2016; Weiss et al., 2016) and well-being (Baselmans et al., 2019a; Okbay et al., 2016; Turley et al., 2018) have been published in recent years. Recently, multivariate methods have been developed to investigate the (latent) genetic structure underlying traits at a molecular genetic level and use this structure to find new genetic variants for the identified latent factors (Genomic SEM; Grotzinger et al., 2019). Our models can be used as input for such investigations. Ultimately, this should make it possible in the future to arrive at a clear picture of the variants that are uniquely associated with well-being and personality, or with both.

Based on our results, one could alternatively argue that, overall, personality and well-being are quite distinct (100%–60% = 40%). With regards to the overlap and distinction, we largely concur with Keyes and colleagues (2015) who noted that personality reflects how one functions in life, while well-being reflects how well one functions. Being both part of the process of functioning in life they have much in common, but they also differ in their role in this process. These differences and similarities are likely to be reflected in their genetic makeup.

The Influence and Interpretation of Domain-Specific Shared Variance

Although we fitted domain-specific factors mostly to control for domain-specific variance, our results can provide insights for the interpretation of these factors. In the CP models, we found that loadings of Neuroticism (∼ −.85), Extraversion (∼ .55), and Conscientiousness (∼ .46) on the common personality factor were sizeable, while loadings of Agreeableness (∼ .23) and Openness (∼ −.08) were low. We thus did not find strong support for a phenotypic common personality factor (referred to as the General Factor of Personality; van der Linden et al., 2016). At the same time, the domain-specific well-being factor was well-defined by all well-being traits in our CP models, with phenotypic loadings ranging from ∼.40 (self-rated health) to ∼ −.84 (loneliness). In addition, in the IP models, domain-specific effects were more pronounced for well-being compared to personality. These results provide evidence for a broad, general well-being factor underlying different well-being measures (e.g., Longo et al., 2016) and makes it plausible that this factor has a solid genetic basis (Bartels & Boomsma, 2009; Baselmans & Bartels, 2018).

Nevertheless, the superior fit of IP (vs. CP) models implies that these common factors must be interpreted with caution. This finding indicates that they may not be the causal factors influencing their indicators, as the common and unique effects operate at the indicator level, and not at the common factor level (Franić et al., 2013). Yet, the existence of a latent construct cannot be proven or disproven based on the relative fit of IP over CP models alone. For example, IP models tend to fit better than CP models when fitting them to the facets underlying each of the Big Five factors (Franić et al., 2014; Jang et al., 2002). Rather than dismissing the Big Five as constructs altogether, Jang et al. (2002) concluded that they “do not exist as veridical psychological entities per se, but rather they exist as useful heuristic devices that describe pleiotropic effects and the common influence of environmental factors on sets of individual facets.” (p. 99). Similarly, the common factors in the current study may be viewed as an organization of traits on which common genetic and environmental are operate, each of them also having their own unique influences. Ultimately, to answer the question what these common factors represent, multi-trait-multi-method (MTMM) studies based on ratings of personality and well-being (see Schimmack & Kim, 2020) in a genetically informative design are needed to accurately separate trait from method effects (Bartels et al., 2007; Borkenau et al., 2001).

Although not providing clear evidence on its meaning, the current study can parsimoniously explain why controlling for the shared Big Five variance reduces their correlations with well-being (Kallio Strand et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2018; Schimmack & Kim, 2020). In the suboptimal CP models, the genetic and environmental correlations between the latent general well-being and general personality factor were much higher (1.00. .96, and .81, for ADE respectively) than in the IP models (.25, 1.00, and .50, respectively). If then, in the CP models, the common genetic effects on indicators are aggregated to a higher level in an unbalanced way (as is the case for the higher-loading Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness, compared to Openness and Agreeableness), then this will artificially lead to higher genetic correlations between the common factors. These stronger genetic correlations translate to the phenotypic level. Thus, when we control for the shared phenotypic personality variance, then we are haphazardly controlling for the “true” underlying genetic and environmental effects at the indicator level, reducing the correlations between the Big Five and well-being. Again, this hypothesis needs to be tested in the future using genetically informative MTMM studies.

Non-additive Genetic Effects (RQ2)

In line with previous work, significant amounts of non-additive variance were found to influence both personality and well-being, and their overlap (Bartels & Boomsma, 2009; Hahn et al., 2013; Keller et al., 2005). Non-additive genetic effects accounted for between 14% (depressive symptoms) to 95% (Agreeableness) of the total genetic variance in the traits (Table 4). In the Cholesky model, absolute non-additive genetic correlations ranged from .13 to .93 (Mdn: .47). This is important, for example, for future molecular genetic studies trying to identify the genes associated with personality and well-being, since the methods used in such studies often assume additive genetic effects (Visscher et al., 2017). The amount of non-additive variance present in traits is also important for theoretical reasons, as it is assumed to be indicative of the evolutionary pressures that have caused these traits to emerge (Penke et al., 2007; Verweij et al., 2012).

With our current sample size, we had sufficient power to detect non-additive genetic effects (D), but this does not apply to all previous studies on this topic. We found that especially for D, traits differed in the amount of effects due to common, domain-specific, and trait-specific effects. This will obscure results when effects are aggregated to higher trait levels. For example, when one creates a general well-being scale from multiple scales that differ in their common and unique additive and non-additive effects, then the resulting general measure will be a cloudy mix of these different genetic effects. These findings stress the importance of modeling higher order factors (e.g., “general well-being”) as latent variables in twin designs, to uncover the nuances in their underlying genetic effects.

Sex Differences in Genetic and Environmental Effects (RQ3)

In our large sample, we found moderate to small mean sex differences on the Big Five. In line with previous studies (Costa et al., 2001; Schmitt et al., 2008; Weisberg et al., 2011), females scored higher on Neuroticism and Agreeableness, and somewhat higher on Conscientiousness. In contrast to other studies, we found no sex differences in Extraversion, which may be due to our focus on the Big Five factors rather than facets residing below the Big Five. Females tend to score higher on the facet Enthusiasm and males on Assertiveness (Costa et al., 2001; Feingold, 1994; Weisberg et al., 2011). At the aggregate factor level, these differences may have canceled each other out. Sex differences on well-being traits were generally small, with the largest effect found for depression, also replicating previous work (Batz & Tay, 2018; Batz-Barbarich et al., 2018; Eaton et al., 2012).

Given our large sample and similar results from previous studies (Bartels, 2015; Keyes et al., 2010; Røysamb et al., 2018; South et al., 2018; Vukasović & Bratko, 2015), it seems safe to assume that, at the aggregate level, the same genes influence personality and well-being for males and females, and to the same extent. This is important information for theoretical and practical reasons as it suggests that mean differences are probably due to non-shared environmental circumstances. These non-shared environmental exposures reflect idiosyncratic experiences that only a single twin within the same family experiences, making them more different from their siblings. This may include life events, differences in socialization, different opportunities, or specific gender roles (South et al., 2018). Our results further imply that in future gene finding studies, male-specific and female-specific genes for personality and well-being are unlikely to be found.

It is tempting to conclude that the mean sex differences on personality and well-being are completely unrelated to genetic differences. However, genes may still play a role through more subtle processes such as gene-environment interplay. For example, we investigated genetic and environmental influences independent of age effects by regressing them out from the traits. It may be that a sex by age interaction is present, implying that quantitative or qualitative sex differences are only apparent at specific ages (e.g., during adolescence). For instance, puberty seems to coincide with increases in mean levels of internalizing symptoms and with increases in its heritability, particularly in girls (Bergen et al., 2007; Patterson et al., 2018). Future studies investigating genetic and environmental effects as a function of both age and sex are needed to confirm such processes for personality and well-being.

It is also possible that genetic differences exist between males and females, but that these are masked by unmodeled gene by environment interaction (GxE) effects. Traditional twin models assume that GxE is not present, that is, that genetic effects are similar across different environments and/or subgroups. This may not be the case; Nes et al. (2010b), for example, showed that the environmental exposure marriage influenced the heritability estimates of SWB. Importantly, these marriage effects differed across males and females. GxE effects may also explain why gender differences tend to be larger in more prosperous societies: possible genetic differences between males and females may be more easily expressed in developed countries (Schmitt et al., 2008). In our study, we investigated a sample from the Netherlands, a highly developed country with relatively equal opportunities for males and females. Within our egalitarian sample, the smaller amount of variance in opportunities and gender roles between males and females may have attenuated the expression of genetic sex differences. Future studies that explicitly model GxE effects for males and females, preferably across countries with different developmental standards, are thus needed.

Limitations

There are limitations to this study. First, as this study was conducted in a single context, the Netherlands, results may not generalize to other contexts. The heritability estimates of personality traits have been found to differ across cultures (Jang et al., 1998, 2002, 2006). In addition, culture has been found to moderate mean well-being (Deaton, 2008) and mean personality (Schmitt et al., 2007) levels, and their associations (Kim et al., 2012, 2018). Thus, future studies with samples from different countries are needed to investigate whether our results apply to other cultural contexts.

Second, the data used were cross-sectional in nature and we therefore cannot make claims about causal effects or temporal changes in personality and well-being. Nevertheless, our results can still be useful as they indicate that genetic confounding needs to be taken into account in future studies investigating associations between personality and well-being. The growing availability of polygenic scores (i.e., individuals’ genetic risk for a given trait based on the effect sizes from GWAS; Wray et al., 2014) will increasingly allow for this. A third important limitation is that all our trait measures were based on self-reports. It could therefore be the case that the common effects on the personality and well-being traits were partly driven by common method biases (CMB), such as response styles related to item keying, social desirability, or acquiescence, which have been found to be partially heritable (Kam et al., 2013; Melchers et al., 2018). This mechanism is especially relevant for the common variance among personality traits, as it is proposed to mainly reflect CMB (Chang et al., 2012). Although this possibility cannot be completely ruled out, our findings suggest that such effects may be limited. This is because IP models fit better than CP models: if CMB would be driving the associations between variables, then it would probably have led to such strong correlations between the traits that phenotypic common factors would be more pronounced (and lead to improved fit). As mentioned previously, additional genetic research on the overlap between personality and well-being using multiple raters is needed, since such designs can control for rater-specific biases (Bartels et al., 2007; Borkenau et al., 2001).

Fourth, although the (extended) CTD has proven to be a robust method for estimating the heritability of complex traits, it comes with its limitations (Røysamb & Tambs, 2016). First, the CTD only provides an omnibus (upper-limit) test of the total amount of genetic and environmental effects on traits, without identifying specific genes (or environments). Relatedly, in addition to GxE effects, gene-environment correlations (rGE) are assumed to be non-present (Verhulst & Hatemi, 2013). These limitations notwithstanding, the results from extended CTD designs can still be informative for subsequent gene finding studies (e.g., Lo et al., 2017) or investigations of gene-environment interplay (e.g., Krueger et al., 2008). Finally, assortative mating (when people with the same phenotype or genotype tend to mate more than expected at random chance levels) is also not accounted for. However, little assortative mating for personality and well-being is found previously (Luo, 2017).

Finally, in this study, we incorporated a wide range of related traits to cover the broader well-being domain. However, the scope could be expanded by including more traits such as happiness or self-esteem (Bartels & Boomsma, 2009; Diener, 1984; Hufer-Thamm & Riemann, 2021Hufer‐Thamm & Riemann, 2021), which were not available to us. In addition, different conceptualizations and measures of well-being exist, which include (combinations of) hedonic, eudaimonic, emotional, and social aspects (e.g., Keyes et al., 2015). On the personality side, alternatives to the Five-Factor Model exist, such as the HEXACO six-factor model (Ashton & Lee, 2001). These models may cover broader or slightly different aspects of personality and well-being, which in turn may lead to finding different shared and unique effects in relation to well-being. However, because of the large overlap between different conceptualizations of well-being (also genetically; Baselmans & Bartels, 2018), and different personality models (Ludeke et al., 2019), results will likely be highly similar to ours (see Keyes et al., 2015).