Saturday, February 2, 2019

Gossipers who express concern for their targets can preserve their own social desirability while simultaneously transmitting information that harms their target’s reputation

Bless Her Heart! Does apparent concern help women in reputational competition? Tania A. Reynolds. PhD Thesis, Florida State Univ, 2018.

Abstract: Research on women’s competition, indirect aggression, and gossip has uncovered a perplexing pattern: women deny their own competitiveness and gossip, but openly acknowledge that of other women. The current investigation proposed one solution to this paradox: women’s unawareness of their competitive and malicious motivations grants a competitive advantage in female intrasexual reputation competition. Gossipers who express concern for their targets can preserve their own social desirability while simultaneously transmitting information that harms their target’s reputation. Two online studies tested this theory by examining the prevalence and efficacy of concern motivations within gossip. Study 1 tested the prediction that women would assert greater concern relative to malicious motivations for gossiping by comparing male and female participants’ perceptions of their own and others’ social conversation motivations. Indeed, compared to men, women endorsed stronger concern motivations and lower reputation-harming motivations when gossiping. Moreover, women were especially likely to assert benevolent intentions when discussing same-sex peers compared to men, suggesting these motivations characterize women’s gossip about same-sex rivals. Study 2 tested the competitive efficacy of ostensible concern motivations. Male and female participants evaluated female gossipers and their targets across three hypothetical gossip scenarios. The framing of the gossiper’s statement was experimentally manipulated such that she delivered her information with concern, with malice, or neutrally. Consistent with predictions, gossip delivered with concern enhanced perceptions of the gossiper’s trustworthiness, interpersonal desirability, and romantic desirability compared to gossip delivered neutrally or maliciously. Taken together, these findings suggest women’s belief in their prosocial motivations for gossiping is a socially advantageous strategy for female intrasexual reputation competition.

Sexual Harassment in the Field of Sexuality Research: Our field has a problem with sexual harassment, and we need to talk about it

Sexual Harassment in the Field of Sexuality Research. Debby Herbenick, Sari M. van Anders et al. Archives of Sexual Behavior,


Our field has a problem with sexual harassment, and we need to talk about it. Though sexual harassment is currently at the forefront of discussions taking place within major social movements, professional societies, and disciplines (see, for example, Clancy, Nelson, Rutherford, & Hinde, 2014; Dzau & Johnson, 2018; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018), the discipline of sexuality research has—to this point—been largely absent from these discussions. There are some exceptions, however, with a few sexuality researchers in sociology, psychology, and gender studies among those who have faced or made public accusations or formal reports alleging sexual misconduct or harassment (e.g., Flaherty, 2018; Grollman, 2018; Mondon, 2018). With this Guest Editorial, we aim to begin that discussion, articulating that #TimesUp too in sexuality research, and present a collective united front against sexual harassment in our field and workplaces.

Our goal in this Guest Editorial is to articulate: (1) the scope of the problem of sexual harassment within our fields, especially sexuality research, including its consequences; (2) the gendered basis of sexual harassment; (3) the exacerbation of these experiences for people of color and those in lower positions of power, including students and/or other minoritized social locations; and (4) suggestions toward stopping sexual harassment within sexuality professions, including sexuality research. While sexual harassment can occur between professionals and their clients, patients, and research participants, we will focus here on sexual harassment within research, academic, and professional spaces. In doing so, we draw on our own experiences and those of colleagues who have shared their experiences with us as well (either anonymized/grouped or with their permission). As we all live and (mostly) work in North America, we note the cultural limitations of our perspectives.

Why does decreased likeability not deter adolescent bullying perpetrators? They prefer power and they believe they hardly have any likeability to lose

Why does decreased likeability not deter adolescent bullying perpetrators? Claire F. Garandeau, Tessa A. M. Lansu. Aggresive Behavior, Feb 01 2019,

Abstract: This study examines why the lower likeability of bullying perpetrators does not deter them from engaging in bullying behavior, by testing three hypotheses: (a) bullying perpetrators are unaware that they are disliked, (b) they value popularity more than they value likeability, (c) they think that they have nothing to lose in terms of likeability, as they believe that their targets and other classmates would dislike them anyway, regardless of their behavior. The first two hypotheses were examined in Study 1 (1,035 Dutch adolescents, M age = 14.15) and the third hypothesis was examined in Study 2 (601 Dutch adolescents, M age = 12.92). Results from regression analyses showed that those higher in bullying were not more likely to overestimate their likeability. However, they were more likely than others to find being popular more important than being liked. Moreover, those higher in bullying were more likely to endorse the belief that the victimized student or the other classmates would have disliked a bullying protagonist (in vignettes of hypothetical bullying incidents) before any bullying started. These findings suggest that adolescent bullying perpetrators may not be deterred by the costs of bullying in terms of likeability, possibly because they do not value likeability that much (Hypothesis 2), and because they believe they hardly have any likeability to lose (Hypothesis 3).

Are highly automated vehicles as useful as dishwashers? Highly automated vehicles have an impact on drivers’ cognitive processes & these should be considered carefully before introducing automation

Jordan Navarro | Marco Hubert (Reviewing editor:) (2019) Are highly automated vehicles as useful as dishwashers?, Cogent Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/23311908.2019.1575655

Abstract: Due to technological improvements, the vehicle of the future is expected to be autonomous. However, vehicle automation is a matter not only of technology but also of the human behind the wheel. Highly automated vehicles have an impact on drivers’ cognitive processes and these should be considered carefully before introducing automation. It is argued here that automation should not be implemented based solely on what is technologically possible. Instead, human-machine cooperation should be considered and automation adapted accordingly.

Keywords: vehicle automation, human-machine cooperation, autonomous vehicle, function delegation, human supervision, driving assistances

3.2. Specific insights regarding vehicle automation

The growing interest shown in highly automated vehicles has given rise to a number of experiments conducted to examine human and ergonomic factors, in particular after 2010. A special issue of Human Factors devoted to “Human Factors and Automation in Vehicles” was published in 2012. This contained ten articles intended to contribute to the design of “Highly Automated Vehicles With the Driver in Mind”. The specific findings were consistent with the general psychological insights presented above. Highly automated vehicles tend to slow down drivers' responses and cause difficulties when they are required to take over control from automation (Merat & Lee, 2012). This led to the conduct of several other experiments focusing on the transition between highly automated and manual driving. The difficulties faced by drivers when required to take over control from automation have been confirmed and explained in terms of changes in drivers’ visual exploration of the driving environment (e.g. Merat, Jamson, Lai, Daly, & Carsten, 2014; Navarro, Fran├žois, & Mars, 2016). These difficulties can be related to vigilance, complacency, automation bias and out-of-the-loop phenomena as described above.

In sum, from the human perspective, monitoring a highly-automated vehicle is a different task from driving manually. The experimental data collected in the specific context of vehicle automation are consistent with the general psychological insights. While an increase in the level of automation translates into improved performances, it does not directly result in a simplification of drivers' tasks. Thus, from a human perspective, it can be said that using a highly automated vehicle is a more complicated task than using a dishwasher. Of course, driving is in itself a more complicated task than washing dishes. However, in its current state, and unlike the case of a dishwasher, vehicle automation requires drivers to undertake an automation supervision task they are not always ideally equipped to perform.

4. Heading toward new research directions

Extensive literature exists on a range of psychological difficulties faced by humans when they have to monitor and/or take over from automation (see Lu, Happee, Cabrall, Kyriakidis, & de Winter, 2016; Navarro, 2018 for a recent reviews of vehicle automation experiments). Given these psychological observations, the whole concept of delegating functions to automation under human supervision is an awkward one. After all, would you be enthusiastic if you had to monitor your dishwasher and/or take over cleaning duties in the case of a malfunction? Would you even think of designing an automation solution of this type? We believe that this imperfect approach to the way functions are delegated to automation is related to a common misunderstanding of all the tools with which we interact (Osiurak, 2014). Even sophisticated tools, such as vehicle automation, tend to be considered for what there are. This approach is flawed because all tool use is dependent on user-specific, limited and temporary needs. Consequently, any automation solution can be diverted from its intended use to better match the user's needs. It is not r, that the imperfect delegation of functions to automation puts humans in difficult situations that give rise to significant problems and safety issues.

Consequently, research into human-machine cooperation should be oriented toward other, lower levels of automation (e.g. warnings, haptic shared control) or higher levels of automation that do not require any human supervision. More generally, vehicle automation should be conceived of and designed with its possible consequences for the driver in mind. In other words, technology (associated with the machine) and psychology (associated with the driver) should be accorded equal importance during the entire automation design process. This type of systemic (human-machine) approach could prevent some of the ironies of automation (Bainbridge, 1983).

The advent of autonomous vehicles also raises new questions. If humans and tools are considered to interfere with one another in a bidirectional way (Gould, 1987), then it is clear that tools shape us, just as we shape them (Hancock, 2007). Consequently, the way humans are defined should also be reconsidered when we consider completely autonomous tools.

People tend to overestimate their romantic partner's intelligence even more than their own, by approx 7 IQ points

People tend to overestimate their romantic partner's intelligence even more than their own. Gilles E.Gignac, MarcinZajenkowski. Intelligence, Volume 73, March–April 2019, Pages 41-51.

•    Males and females overestimated the IQ of their partners by ≈ 7 IQ points more than the overestimation of their own IQ.
•    Both females (r = 0.30) and males (r = 0.19) predicted their partner's IQ with some degree of accuracy.
•    Degree of IQ compatibility failed to relate to relationship satisfaction significantly.

Abstract: People can estimate their own and their romantic partner's intelligence (IQ) with some level of accuracy, which may facilitate the observation of assortative mating for IQ. However, the degree to which people may overestimate their own (IQ), as well as overestimate their romantic partner's IQ, is less well established. In the current study, we investigated four outstanding issues in this area. First, in a sample of 218 couples, we examined the degree to which people overestimate their own and their partner's IQ, on the basis of comparisons between self-estimated intelligence (SEI) and objectively measured IQ (Advanced Progressive Matrices). Secondly, we evaluated whether assortative mating for intelligence was driven principally by women (the males-compete/females choose model of sexual selection) or both women and men (the mutual mate model of sexual selection). Thirdly, we tested the hypothesis that assortative mating for intelligence may occur for both SEI and objective IQ. Finally, the possibility that degree of intellectual compatibility may relate positively to relationship satisfaction was examined. We found that people overestimated their own IQ (women and men ≈ 30 IQ points) and their partner's IQ (women = 38 IQ points; men = 36 IQ points). Furthermore, both women and men predicted their partner's IQ with some degree of accuracy (women: r = 0.30; men: r = 0.19). However, the numerical difference in the correlations was not found to be significant statistically. Finally, the degree of intellectual compatibility (objectively and subjectively assessed) failed to correlate significantly with relationship satisfaction for both sexes. It would appear that women and men participate in the process of mate selection, with respect to evaluating IQ, consistent with the mutual mate model of sexual selection. However, the personal benefits of intellectual compatibility seem less obvious.

We identify the most likely to be vulnerable to the different but related risks of fake news, echo chambers, or filter bubbles; only a small proportion of Internet users are likely to be at risk across the 7 countries

Dutton, William H. and Fernandez, Laleah, How Susceptible Are Internet Users? (January 16, 2019). Intermedia, Vol 46 No 4 December/January 2019.

Abstract: Major concerns have been raised over the impact of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles. But how pervasive are these problems? What proportion of Internet users are susceptible to such sources of disinformation? Based on a seven nation comparative survey of Internet users, we identify those most likely to be vulnerable to the different but related risks of fake news, echo chambers, or filter bubbles. Counter to widespread expectations, we find only a small proportion of Internet users are likely to be at risk across these countries. In seeking to identify those Internet users who are vulnerable, statistical tendencies conform with general expectations of older users with less education, and lower incomes being among those most susceptible. However, there is also evidence suggesting that some individuals in nearly all demographic groups can be among the vulnerable – figuratively falling through the cracks. Finding the vulnerable to be limited in scale, but scattered across major demographic categories, we argue against an aggressive awareness campaign targeting the most vulnerable, in favor of nudging all Internet users to be aware of these vulnerabilities and how to avoid them. This article is based on the Quello Search Project based at the Quello Center, Michigan State University, which was supported by a grant from the Google Inc., entitled “The Part Played by Search in Shaping Political Opinion”, which is described online at quello center.

A report of the project findings is available at