Wednesday, November 3, 2021

Whereas conscientiousness was more strongly associated with academic than job performance, extraversion & neuroticism were less strongly associated with academic performance

Big five personality traits and performance: A quantitative synthesis of 50+ meta-analyses. Ethan Zell,Tara L. Lesick. Journal of Personality, October 23 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12683

Abstract

Objective: The connection between personality traits and performance has fascinated scholars in a variety of disciplines for over a century. The present research synthesizes results from 54 meta-analyses (k = 2028, N = 554,778) to examine the association of Big Five traits with overall performance.

Method: Quantitative aggregation procedures were used to assess the association of Big Five traits with performance, both overall and in specific performance categories.

Results: Whereas conscientiousness yielded the strongest effect (ρ = 0.19), the remaining Big Five traits yielded comparable effects (ρ = 0.10, 0.10, −0.12, and 0.13 for extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness). These associations varied dramatically by performance category. Whereas conscientiousness was more strongly associated with academic than job performance (0.28 vs 0.20), extraversion (−0.01 vs 0.14) and neuroticism (−0.03 vs −0.15) were less strongly associated with academic performance. Finally, associations of personality with specific performance outcomes largely replicated across independent meta-analyses.

Conclusions: Our comprehensive synthesis demonstrates that Big Five traits have robust associations with performance and documents how these associations fluctuate across personality and performance dimensions.


Sexual desire functions as a mechanism encouraging investment in partners who are perceived to be worth pursuing and retaining

Sexual Desire Mediates the Relationship-Promoting Effects of Perceived Partner Mate Value. Gurit E. Birnbaum, Yaniv Kanat-Maymon, Erica B. Slotter & Laura B. Luchies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Nov 2 2021. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02060-2

Abstract: Although sexual desire for one's partner is theorized to serve as a gut-level indicator of partner mate value that motivates investment in valued partners, there is scant empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. Five studies addressed this possibility, examining whether experiencing sexual desire encouraged the enactment of relationship-promoting behaviors and whether perceptions of partner mate value motivated this proposed process. In a pilot study and Study 1, participants relived an activity they experienced with their partner, which was either sexual or non-sexual. Then, participants rated their desire to engage in sex and other non-sexual relationship-promoting activities with their partner (pilot study) and their partner's responsiveness to personal disclosures. Participants’ enacted responsiveness was also evaluated by judges (Study 1). Results showed that experiences of desire enhanced relationship-promoting tendencies. Using experimental, daily experiences, and longitudinal methods, Studies 2–4 extended these findings, indicating that both manipulated and perceived partner mate value predicted desire, which, in turn, was associated with engagement in relationship-promoting behaviors. These findings demonstrate that sexual desire functions as a mechanism encouraging investment in partners who are perceived to be worth pursuing and retaining.


Blacks and Hispanics are significantly less likely than whites to describe themselves as “anti-racist,” and only the “very liberal” are more likely than other political orientations to identify with the label

Who Identifies as Anti-Racist? Racial Identity, Color-Blindness, and Generic Liberalism. Samuel L. Perry, Kenneth E. Frantz, Joshua B. Grubbs. Socius, November 2, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211052945

Abstract: Although decades old, the terms “anti-racism/antiracism” and “anti-racist/antiracist” have grown in usage by scholars, authors, and activists to convey the necessity of active opposition to racial injustice. But as the terms have become more mainstream, researchers have yet to examine the social and ideological correlates of actually describing oneself as “anti-racist.” Drawing on nationally representative survey data fielded at the height of national interest in “antiracist/anti-racist” language, the authors find that Blacks and Hispanics are significantly less likely than whites to describe themselves as “anti-racist,” and only the “very liberal” are more likely than other political orientations to identify with the label. Considering ideological correlates, progressive racial ideology is the strongest predictor of identifying as “anti-racist.” However, the second strongest correlate is describing oneself as “color-blind.” Analyses of quadratic terms suggests that this correlation is curvilinear for nonwhites but more linear for whites. Although originally conveying more radical and subversive ideals, those currently most likely to self-describe as “anti-racist” are white progressives with what we call “generically liberal” racial views.

Keywords: antiracist, antiracism, whiteness, color-blindness, liberals

Although the past decade has witnessed a traceable explosion of interest in “anti-racism/antiracism” or “anti-racist/antiracist” language coinciding with the proliferation of anti-racist books, campaigns, and curricula, social scientists had yet to examine the social and ideological correlates and antecedents of actually identifying with the label “anti-racist.” Using nationally representative data fielded at the height of interest in anti-racist/anti-racism terms, we find that whites are the group most likely to identify with the label, as opposed to Blacks or Hispanics. Moreover, only the “very liberal” were more likely than other Americans to identify with the term. But although progressive racial views are strongly associated with self-describing as “anti-racist,” among the strongest predictors was also identifying as “‘colorblind’ when it comes to race.” In fact, color-blindness was an even stronger predictor of identifying as “anti-racist” than willingness to confront a racist friend or a rejection of old-fashioned racism. When we analyzed nonlinearity with quadratic terms, we found that the association between color-blindness and identifying as “anti-racist” was curvilinear for nonwhites (those who strongly reject or strongly affirm color-blindness are more likely to self-describe as “anti-racist”) yet still largely linear and positive for whites. Our findings thus paint a picture of progressive whites (not minorities) self-describing as “anti-racist,” particularly those characterized by a more “generic liberalism” on racial issues (i.e., a liberalism that affirms any racial attitudes that seem liberal, rather than explicitly race critical or radical).

Findings from this study extend our understanding of the current racial landscape in the United States in several key ways. First, they fill an important gap in showing that as “anti-racism” and “anti-racist” language has proliferated in the past decade (see Figures 1 and 2), there is evidence that white Americans (the targets of anti-racist books, campaigns, and curricula) are indeed the ones heeding the call. However, there is less evidence that such efforts are either influencing critically engaged whites or attracting them. Rather the whites who self-describe as “anti-racist” may be more likely to self-identify as “very liberal,” but their liberalism is of a more generic variety. They support progressive racial policies (on surveys), oppose old-fashioned racism, and would confront a friend who told a racist joke. Yet they are also strongly more likely than other Americans to identify with color-blindness, suggesting that such Americans, characterized by what we call “generic liberalism,” simply affirm any views that sound racially progressive. Although color-blindness is most often contrasted with anti-racist ideals and praxis as antagonists (e.g., Bonilla-Silva 2018Mueller 2020), white Americans who affirm an “anti-racist” identity may simply see color-blindness as an ideal they wish to affirm rather than a construct that critical race or whiteness scholars identify as problematic and insufficient to address racial injustice.

Another key finding that became apparent when trends were plotted out is that Americans on the whole—even those who rejected progressive racial views, would not confront a racist friend, or held old-fashioned racist views—would describe themselves as “anti-racist.” Perhaps even more than the connection with color-blindness, this suggests that most Americans, even those who hold racist views, want to reject identification with overt racism or explicit racists. Thus, the term “anti-racist” may ultimately lend itself to being co-opted by whites who simply wish to maintain a view of themselves as decent people. To be sure, it may be possible that respondents were reading “anti-racist” as simply someone who is against racism. (In that case, who would not be against racists or racism in general?) Yet the fact that Black and Hispanic respondents, who would almost certainly be against racists or racism, were less likely than whites to describe themselves as “anti-racist” suggests that the terminology did in fact resonate in ways that we would predict if respondents were somewhat aware of how the language has been deployed in popular culture, books, campaigns, and curricula.

Unlike Croll’s (2007) analysis, which demonstrated that white racial identity was associated with more conservative and more progressive racial attitudes in a U-shaped fashion, we found that nonwhites who either strongly rejected or strongly affirmed color-blind identity were more likely to identify as “anti-racist.” This pattern suggests that the survey is capturing different ways of relating to “anti-racist” identity for nonwhites. There are some who fully embrace the more race-critical and subversive implications of anti-racist identity and thus reject color-blindness as insufficient and antithetical to racial justice. And there are others who (like whites) affirm color-blindness as they also affirm anti-racist identity, reflecting a more generically liberal interpretation of the latter. Future studies should further explore this dynamic with large enough sample sizes of nonwhites to sufficiently disaggregate racial categories to discern different patterns for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and perhaps other nonwhite racial groups as well.

On the topic of future studies, several limitations of this study are worth addressing to chart a path for future research. First, as acknowledged earlier, concepts such as “anti-racist” and “color-blind” can be vague depending on each respondent’s level of familiarity with thinking and literature on racial issues. Future studies would ideally incorporate qualitative interview data that would allow research participants to unpack such concepts in their own words and analyze patterns of meaning both within and across racial and ethnic groups.

Second, though the survey placed “anti-racist” in quotation marks to indicate an identity or label rather than a general disposition (someone who dislikes racists), and authors still frequently use the hyphenated term “anti-racist” (e.g., Jewell 2020Oluo 2019), Figure 1 shows that the term that has grown the most in usage over the past decade is “antiracist” without the hyphen. This may more aptly convey the idea of a formal identity (see Bonilla-Silva 2018 or Kendi 2019). Future surveys on this topic should thus use the unhyphenated version to test for a difference.

Third, the survey did not ask about respondents’ level of exposure to anti-racist books, campaigns, or curricula where they would learn how the language of “anti-racism” or “color-blindness” is often used in such circles. Although we did take educational attainment into account, future studies would ideally include more pointed measures inquiring about Americans’ relative exposure to race literature.

Finally, one potential limitation has to do with the unique timing of the survey, just before a presidential election and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Racial rhetoric and attitudes were already intensified following George Floyd’s murder in May 2020 (Williams 2021), and these tensions could have potentially been exacerbated or uniquely shaped because of a racially polarizing election and collective anxiety over the pandemic, which studies have also shown was interpreted through a racial lens (Perry 2022Perry et al. 2021). Thus, future studies in years ahead may uncover somewhat different effects simply by the timing.

In this same vein, it is worth speculating about the future of “anti-racist/antiracist” language and identity as the growth of such writing, campaigns, and curricula continues. On one hand, studies have shown that there has been some white backlash to anti-racist movements such as Black Lives Matter since the summer of 2020 (Williams 2021), suggesting that the initial momentum that compelled liberal whites to embrace anti-racist ideals and praxis may have either faded in response to Joe Biden’s election or because even liberal whites began to feel uncomfortable with the slogans of “abolish the police” or “reparations” (Crabtree 2020Johnson 2020Pew Research Center 2020). Thus, data that might track identification with anti-racism/antiracism over time might find a peak in 2020, followed by an ebb like we document in Figure 2. Another possibility is that the term “anti-racist/antiracist” simply takes on the color-blind liberalism of white Americans and essentially becomes the same as being “nonracist” (Bonilla-Silva 2018:15). Ultimately, data tracking such trends are necessary to map identification with these terms onto current events over time.

Individuals can purposely change their vocal behaviour in attempt to sound more attractive and to facilitate courtship success; women do better at this

Vocal modulation in human mating and competition. Susan M. Hughes and David A. Puts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. November 1 2021. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0388

Abstract: The human voice is dynamic, and people modulate their voices across different social interactions. This article presents a review of the literature examining natural vocal modulation in social contexts relevant to human mating and intrasexual competition. Altering acoustic parameters during speech, particularly pitch, in response to mating and competitive contexts can influence social perception and indicate certain qualities of the speaker. For instance, a lowered voice pitch is often used to exert dominance, display status and compete with rivals. Changes in voice can also serve as a salient medium for signalling a person's attraction to another, and there is evidence to support the notion that attraction and/or romantic interest can be distinguished through vocal tones alone. Individuals can purposely change their vocal behaviour in attempt to sound more attractive and to facilitate courtship success. Several findings also point to the effectiveness of vocal change as a mechanism for communicating relationship status. As future studies continue to explore vocal modulation in the arena of human mating, we will gain a better understanding of how and why vocal modulation varies across social contexts and its impact on receiver psychology.


Conscientious individuals were more likely to maintain social distance and less likely to contract COVID-19; Agreeable individuals were more likely to comply with social distancing requirements yet more likely to contract COVID-19

Personality and early susceptibility to COVID-19 in the United Kingdom, Satoshi Kanazawa. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, October 27 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2578

Abstract: This paper takes advantage of a unique dataset with a prospectively longitudinal, nationally representative sample (n = 5,178) that began in 1958 and has information on COVID-19 health status in 2020 to examine the effect of Big Five personality traits on compliance with social distancing requirements and contraction of COVID-19. The results show some consistency with epidemiological recommendations (Conscientious individuals were more likely to maintain social distance and less likely to contract COVID-19; men were less likely to comply and more likely to contract) but more inconsistency (Agreeable individuals were more likely to comply with social distancing requirements yet more likely to contract COVID-19; Open and Neurotic individuals were no less likely to comply yet more likely to contract COVID-19). The results highlight the importance of Big Five personality factors for behaviour in the global pandemic and may call into question the universal effectiveness of social distancing requirements for all individuals. However, the small number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 during the early months of the pandemic requires caution in interpretation of the results. 

3 DISCUSSION

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first study to examine the effect of Big Five personality factors on the actual contraction of COVID-19, rather than compliance with various government mandates (social distancing, handwashing, etc.) or attitudes towards COVID-19. It is also the first study of personality and COVID-19 conducted in the United Kingdom. Taking advantage of an ongoing, prospectively longitudinal study with a large, nationally representative sample in the United Kingdom, with information on the respondents for their entire lives (62 years), I examined the association between Big Five personality factors (measured 11 years prior) and compliance with the government mandate on social distancing as well as actual COVID-19 health status and symptoms.

The analyses of the National Child Development Study (NCDS) data replicated earlier findings on the positive effect of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness on compliance (Abdelrahman, in press; Blagov, 2021; de F Carvalho et al., 2020; Götz et al., 2021; Zajenkowski et al., 2020), but did not replicate the earlier findings of a positive effect of Neuroticism (Abdelrahman, in press; Blagov, 2021; Götz et al., 2021) or a negative effect of Extraversion (de F Carvalho et al., 2020; Götz et al., 2021). In fact, Extraversion was the only Big Five factor that was not significantly associated with any of the dependent measures examined here.

Just as any study that uses a longitudinal cohort dataset, sample attrition and selection bias are potential problems in the current study. For example, NCDS respondents who participated in the May 2020 COVID-19 survey were healthier at Sweep 9 in 2013 than those who did not. On self-perceived health (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = excellent), 4.4% of those who participated in the 2020 survey rated themselves “excellent” compared with 3.6% of those who did not, and .9% of those who participated in the 2020 survey rated themselves as “poor” compared with 2.9% of those who did not. The mean self-perceived health was significantly higher among the 2020 participants than non-participants (3.51 vs. 3.16, t = −15.848, p < .001). Thus, it is possible that some of the Sweep 9 participants who did not participate in the COVID-19 survey may have suffered (or even died) from COVID-19. However, this particular problem is not specific to the COVID-19 survey. NCDS respondents who participated in Sweep 9 survey in 2013 were healthier at Sweep 8 in 2009 than those who did not, and the difference was greater in 2013, when there was no global pandemic; 18.4% of those who participated in Sweep 9 rated their health “excellent” compared with 1.0% of those who did not, and the mean self-perceived health was significantly higher among the Sweep 9 participants than non-participants (3.53 vs. 3.16, t = −11.537, p < .001). So non-random sample attrition by health appears to be constant and not specific to the times of global pandemics. However, the fact that the NCDS sample consists entirely of a single age group (age 62 in 2020) may potentially limit the generalizability of my findings to younger or older populations.

Perhaps the most striking finding in the analyses presented above was that many of them were seemingly inconsistent with the public health recommendations from epidemiologists and the legal requirements imposed by the government throughout the world (including the United Kingdom). Citizens in all nations were and still are required to maintain social distance in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus and reduce the risk of infection. Some of the results above were consistent with this recommendation and requirement. More Conscientious individuals were more likely to comply with the requirement to maintain social distance, and they were less likely to contract COVID-19 and suffer from fewer COVID-19 symptoms. Similarly, men were significantly less likely to comply and significantly more likely to contract (albeit with no more symptoms). In sharp contrast, however, more Agreeable individuals were more likely to comply with social distancing requirements yet at the same time more likely to contract COVID-19 and suffer from a larger number of COVID-19 symptoms. In addition, more Open and more Neurotic individuals were no less likely to comply with the social distancing requirements, yet they were more likely to contract COVID-19 and suffer from a larger number of COVID-19 symptoms. The results suggested that the public health recommendations may not be universally effective for all individuals at all times and may instead need to be tailored for different individuals of varied personality types.

However, the very small number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the NCDS data (n = 19; .4%) during the early months of the pandemic in May 2020 (although the total of “confirmed” and “medically advised” cases was much larger; n = 296, 5.7%) requires caution in interpreting the results of the current analyses. More research and attempts at replication are clearly necessary to examine the effect of personality factors on COVID-19 contraction further, particularly in later months of the pandemic, to capture a larger number of confirmed cases in a nationally representative sample. Towards this end, CLS began Wave 2 of the COVID-19 survey in September 2020, and Wave 3 in January 2021.

Compared to heterosexuals, lesbians were more likely to report having sex 0–1 times per month & were less likely to report having sex greater than once per month; the authors reject the label “lesbian bed death”

Debunking Lesbian Bed Death: Using Coarsened Exact Matching to Compare Sexual Practices and Satisfaction of Lesbian and Heterosexual Women. David A. Frederick, Brian Joseph Gillespie, Janet Lever, Vincent Berardi & Justin R. Garcia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Nov 1 2021. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02096-4

Abstract: The current study examined the prevalence and correlates of over 50 sexual practices in a national survey of heterosexual and lesbian women in relationships. Coarsened exact matching was used to create comparable samples of heterosexual (n = 2510) and lesbian (n = 283) women on six demographic factors, including relationship length. Heterosexual and lesbian women were equally likely to be sexually satisfied (66% heterosexual women vs. 68% lesbian women). Compared to heterosexuals, lesbians were more likely to report having sex 0–1 times per month (11% vs. 23%) and were less likely to report having sex greater than once per month (89% vs. 77%). Among women who had been in relationships for longer than 5 years, heterosexual women were less likely than lesbian women to report having sex 0–1 times per month (15%; 42%). This steeper drop in sexual frequency among lesbian women than heterosexual women has pejoratively been labeled lesbian bed death. Rather than accept the label “lesbian bed death” as characterizing these sexual relationships, we turn our attention to what we call lesbian bed intimacies: the myriad ways that lesbian women incorporate behaviors promoting emotional connection, romance, and mood setting, as well as relying on a wide variety of specific sexual acts (e.g., use of sex toys) and sexual communication. Compared to heterosexual women, lesbian women were more likely to usually to always receive oral sex during sex in the past month (28%; 47%) and to use sex toys in the past year (40%; 62%). In their last sexual encounter, lesbian women were more likely to say “I love you” (67%; 80%), have sex longer than 30 min (48%; 72%), and engage in gentle kissing (80%; 92%). These intimacies likely help explain why sexual satisfaction was similar in these groups despite notable differences in sexual frequency.