Saturday, May 14, 2022

Beauty is associated with lower support for redistribution and with a higher likelihood of believing that economic success depends more on individual effort rather than external circumstances

Attractiveness and Preferences for Redistribution. Andrea Fazio. Economics & Human Biology, May 11 2022, 101145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2022.101145


Highlights

• We show that beauty is associated with lower support for redistribution and with a higher likelihood of believing that economic success depends more on individual effort rather than external circumstances.

• We also find that attractiveness correlates with voting for the Free Democratic Party (FDP), which historically advocates a low level of taxation.

• The beauty premium in the labor market does not fully explain our results.

• The relationship between beauty and preferences for redistribution might depend on how attractive individuals rationalize the advantages they get thanks to their beauty.


Abstract: Using unique German survey data, we show that beauty is associated with lower support for redistribution and that attractive individuals are more likely to believe that economic success depends more on individual effort rather than external circumstances. These results are consistent with voting behavior, as we find that beauty correlates with voting for the Free Democratic Party (FDP), which historically advocates a low level of taxation. These associations do not differ by gender and remain also if household income and employment status are controlled for, suggesting that the relationship between attractiveness and political preferences is not fully explained by the beauty premium in the labor market. We test alternative channels that might drive our results, but the correlation between attractiveness and preferences for redistribution always persists. We suggest that our results might be explained by the way in which attractive individuals rationalize the advantages they get thanks to their beauty.


JEL: D63D69D72Z1

Keywords: BeautyPolitical PreferencesPreferences for Redistribution




Interpersonal distancing is attentionally demanding and hence vulnerable to unintentional lapses due to inattention: 97pct of all participants reported unintentional lapses due to hyperfocus and spontaneous mind-wandering, inter alia

Brown, Chris R. H., Dr, and Sophie Forster. 2022. “Lapses in the Person Radar: Attentional Traits Predict Difficulty in Interpersonal Distancing.” PsyArXiv. May 11. doi:10.31234/osf.io/2yrfj

Abstract: Within the psychological literature and during the COVID-19 pandemic, the regulation of interpersonal distance has typically been viewed as a voluntary choice, with implications for public health interventions. Here we highlight that lapses in interpersonal distancing can also occur unintentionally. Using a novel measure across 3 undergraduate samples (total N = 1225) we found that almost all (>97%) participants reported unintentional lapses in maintaining interpersonal distance, with 16% experiencing such lapses frequently. Thirty percent of the variance in these reports was accounted for by attentional traits: Inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive ADHD symptoms jointly predicted difficulties with interpersonal distancing, with the former relationship fully mediated by hyperfocus and spontaneous mind-wandering. The results are consistent with a view of interpersonal distancing as attentionally demanding and hence vulnerable to unintentional lapses due to inattention. We discuss the implications for epidemiology, social cognition and functioning, and design of social spaces.


Sex-differentiated components of sexual morality: Women expressed more moral condemnation of short-term sex, and especially transactional sex-for-money exchanges; sexual infidelity more morally condemned by women than by men

Asao, K., Crosby, C. L., & Buss, D. M. (2022). Sexual morality: Multidimensionality and sex differences. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, May 2022. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000297

Abstract: Despite the increase in the scientific study of morality over the past decade, one important domain remains relatively underexplored—sexual morality. The current article begins to fill this gap by exploring its multidimensionality and testing several evolution-based hypotheses about sex differences in moralizing distinct components of sexual morality, including incest, sexual coercion, sexual infidelity, and short-term mating. Study 1 (N = 920) and Study 2 (N = 543) tested predictions derived from evolutionary psychological hypotheses and used factor analysis to identify seven core factors of sexual morality separately for male and female actors: infidelity, short-term sex, sexual coercion, outgroup sex, long-term mating, same-sex sexuality, and paraphilic sex. Study 3 (N = 380) provided an independent test of the evolution-based hypotheses and factor structure. Results strongly support sex-differentiated predictions about short-term sex, but not sexual coercion or incest (possibly owing to ceiling effects). Discussion centers around sexual morality as a complex domain not readily explained by more domain-general theories of morality and the necessity of comprehensive theories of morality to include sex-differentiated components in their formulations.


---

Small differences, but women are also more opposed to incest, sexual coercion, paraphilic sex; more approving of outgroup sex and less disapproving of homosexual sex.




“Meating halfway”: Exploring the attitudes of meat eaters, veg*ns, and occasional meat eaters toward those who eat meat and those who do not eat meat

“Meating halfway”: Exploring the attitudes of meat eaters, veg*ns, and occasional meat eaters toward those who eat meat and those who do not eat meat. Sara Pabian et al. The Journal of Social Psychology, May 10 2022. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.2022.2074288

Abstract: Empirical studies have persistently reported negative attitudes of meat eaters toward vegetarians and vegans (veg*ns), but scant attention has been paid to veg*ns’ attitudes toward meat eaters. We aimed to investigate the attitudes of meat eaters and veg*ns from both perspectives. In addition, we explored the attitudes of occasional meat eaters. We performed a cross-sectional study (Study 1) among meat eaters, veg*ns, and occasional meat eaters, as well as a content analysis of publicly available tweets (Study 2). Study 1 (N = 477, Mage = 23.45, SD = 5.91) showed that the attitudes of veg*ns toward meat eaters are significantly more negative compared to the attitudes of meat eaters toward veg*ns, but both were lower than the midpoint on scales measuring negative attitudes toward the other. Study 2 showed that only a small portion (<1%) of tweets (N = 1,328) on meat eating or veg*nism contained signs of negative attitudes. The two studies provide little evidence of the existence of strong negative attitudes.

Keywords: Meat eatersoccasional meat eatersattitudesin-group biasintergroup perception veg*ns


Across cultures, women are much higher than men on fearful personality traits. Why? The sex difference in fear is mediated by that in physical strength.

Physical Strength Partly Explains Sex Differences in Trait Anxiety in Young Americans. Nicholas Kerry, Damian R. Murray. Psychological Science, April 2, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620971298

Abstract: Among the most consistent sex differences to emerge from personality research is that women score higher than men on the Big Five personality trait Neuroticism. However, there are few functionally coherent explanations for this sex difference. The current studies tested whether this sex difference is due, in part, to variation in physical capital. Two preregistered studies (total N = 878 U.S. students) found that sex differences in the anxiety facet of Neuroticism were mediated by variation in physical strength and self-perceived formidability. Study 1 (N = 374) did not find a predicted mediation effect for overall Neuroticism but found a mediation effect for anxiety (the facet of Neuroticism most strongly associated with grip strength). Study 2 (N = 504) predicted and replicated this mediation effect. Further, sex differences in anxiety were serially mediated by grip strength and self-perceived formidability. These findings add to a nascent literature suggesting that differences in physical attributes may partially explain sex differences in personality.

Keywords: anxiety, Neuroticism, personality, sex differences, physical strength, formidability, open data, open materials, preregistered

In two studies, grip strength negatively predicted anxiety, and sex differences in anxiety were serially mediated by grip strength and self-perceived formidability. These findings suggest that some sex-based variation in personality may be partly attributable to variation in physical attributes.

These results suggest the testable hypothesis that other psychological and behavioral sex differences could be partly explained by differences in physical attributes. For example, there is evidence that social dominance and aggression—both of which tend to be higher in men—also covary intrasexually with physical strength (Farrington, 1989Gallup et al., 2007Price et al., 2011). Future research might investigate whether these and other psychological sex differences can be partly explained by differences in strength or stature.

Important limitations of this work should be noted. First, within-sex associations between strength and anxiety were small and somewhat inconsistent, and sex still accounted for some variance in anxiety beyond that explained by physical strength. Imperfect measurement of the key variables may have contributed to the small effects observed (see the Supplemental Material). Another possible explanation for the small within-sex effects is that the measures of strength and formidability employed here acted as a proxy for another variable, such as health or attractiveness (which both covary with grip strength; see Gallup & Fink, 2018). Although we cannot rule out this explanation, analyses reported in the Supplemental Material found relationships to be robust when controlling for several potential confounds, including body mass index, age, and a measure of self-perceived attractiveness. Similarly, though, these effects could be explained by a common underlying physiological factor, such as developmental testosterone levels (testosterone levels correlate negatively with anxiety in both sexes; see McHenry et al., 2014). Finally, a key limitation relating to the causal interpretation of these findings is that the mediational models presented here use cross-sectional data and cannot alone demonstrate causality. Thus, although the data here are consistent with the hypothesis that lower physical strength leads to higher anxiety, we cannot rule out alternative causal explanations.

Further, several additional questions remain unanswered. Is the association between strength and anxiety best explained by developmental calibration (i.e., people adapting behaviors to their strengths and weaknesses), genetic pleiotropy (i.e., genes associated with physical formidability also being associated with lower dispositional anxiety; see Lukaszewski & Roney, 2011), or facultative epigenetic processes whereby methylation of genes associated with strength also has consequences for anxiety? And, importantly, will these relationships generalize to other cultures, and would effects be larger for cultures and populations in which formidability is a more functional part of social life? Although these and other questions must be addressed in future research, the studies presented here support the hypothesis that sex differences in anxiety can be partly explained by differences in physical strength and self-perceived formidability. These findings suggest that further work on sex differences in personality may benefit from an increased focus on the role of physical attributes.