Ein paar interessante Studien, damit sie nicht untergehen:
A paradox exists in research on girls and women. On the one hand, they behave in a more egalitarian fashion than their male counterparts. On the other hand, status increases their own and their children’s survival.
Evidence from non-human primates can help reconcile these findings. In species that do not reside with female kin for life, females are relatively egalitarian and individualistic. They typically do not cooperate or engage in direct competition and exhibit little tolerance for status differentials.
Results and Conclusions
Women follow this pattern. While a husband’s status and her female relatives’ support enhance a woman’s status and reproductive success, her own actions too influence her access to resources and allies. Evidence on girls’ and women’s same-sex competition and quests for status supports the hypothesis that human females inhabit dispersal-egalitarian communities in which competition is avoided, an egalitarian ethos prevails, competitive behavior is disguised, and status differentials are not tolerated.
In this article, the authors use survey data to explore relationships between gender, fear of crime and socially desirable responding. The data show that for men, but not women, reported fear levels are inversely related to scores on a so-called ‘lie scale’, which measures the tendency to provide socially desirable rather than totally candid responses. This pattern holds irrespective of age and suggests that the genders are affected differently by social pressure to downplay fears about crime. Statistical analyses suggest that this tendency is likely to be responsible for the observed inclination for males to report lower levels of crime-related anxieties. In fact, males may actually be more afraid of crime than women when this tendency is quantified and corrected for. The results raise concerns about apparent gender differences in fear of crime, and about the use of fear of crime measures more generally. The present findings may also go some way to resolving the victimization–fear and fear–risk paradoxes which for so long have mystified criminologists. The article ends with some recommendations for research into the fear of crime.
• Husbands reported higher levels of sexual desire for their spouse than did wives.
• Testosterone accounted for the sex difference in sexual desire for one’s spouse.
• Relational, cognitive, and emotional variables did not account for this sex difference.
One challenge many marital couples face is that they experience discrepant levels of sexual desire for one another. Such discrepancies are particularly likely to arise in mixed-sex relationships because, at least in long-term relationships, men tend to have higher levels of sexual desire for their partner than do women. But what underlies this sex difference? We used a dyadic study of 100 mixed-sex community-based newlywed spouses to investigate the role of biological, relational, cognitive, and emotional factors in explaining sex differences in dyadic sexual desire for a long-term partner. Consistent with predictions, wives on average reported lower daily sexual desire for their spouse than did husbands. Moreover, individual differences in men’s and women’s levels of circulating testosterone explained this sex difference whereas relational (marital satisfaction, commitment), cognitive (sex-role identification, stress, self-esteem), and emotional (mood, depressive symptoms) factors did not. These findings advance our knowledge of factors that influence dyadic sexual desire and may have practical implications for treating relationship distress in mixed-sex marriages.
We tested the fixity of political preferences of 136 healthy males during the 2011 U.S. presidential election season by administering synthetic testosterone or placebo to participants who had identified the strength of their political affiliation. Before the testosterone treatment, we found that weakly affiliated Democrats had 19% higher basal testosterone than those who identified strongly with the party (p=0.015). When weakly affiliated Democrats received additional testosterone, the strength of their party fell by 12% (p=.01) and they reported 45% warmer feelings towards Republican candidates for president (p < 0.001). Our results demonstrate that testosterone induces a “red shift“ among weakly-affiliated Democrats. This effect was associated with improved mood. No effects were found of testosterone administration for strongly affiliated Democrats or strong or weak Republicans. Our findings provide evidence that neuroactive hormones affect political preferences.
Trigger warnings, content warnings, or content notes are alerts about upcoming content that may contain themes related to past negative experiences. Advocates claim that warnings help people to emotionally prepare for or completely avoid distressing material. Critics argue that warnings both contribute to a culture of avoidance at odds with evidence-based treatment practices and instill fear about upcoming content. Recently, a body of psychological research has begun to investigate these claims empirically. We present the results of a meta-analysis of all empirical studies on the effects of these warnings. Overall, we found that warnings have no effect on affective responses to negative material nor on educational outcomes (i.e., comprehension). However, warnings reliably increase anticipatory affect. Findings on avoidance were mixed, suggesting either that warnings have no effect on engagement with material, or that they increase engagement with negative material under specific circumstances. Limitations and implications for policy and therapeutic practice are discussed.