No abstract

Objective Mate choice involves trading‐off several preferences. Research on this process tends to examine mate preference prioritization in homogenous samples using a small number of traits and thus provide little insight into whether prioritization patterns reflect a universal human nature. This study examined whether prioritization patterns, and their accompanying sex differences, are consistent across Eastern and Western cultures. Method In the largest test of the mate preference priority model to date, we asked an international sample of participants (N = 2,477) to design an ideal long‐term partner by allocating mate dollars to eight traits using three budgets. Unlike previous versions of the task, we included traits known to vary in importance by culture (e.g., religiosity and chastity). Results Under low budget conditions, Eastern and Western participants differed in their mate dollar allocation for almost every trait (average d = 0.42), indicating that culture influences prioritization. Despite these differences, traits fundamental for the reproductive success of each sex in the ancestral environment were prioritized by both Eastern and Western participants. Conclusion The tendency to prioritize reproductively fundamental traits is present in both Eastern and Western cultures. The psychological mechanisms responsible for this process produce similar prioritization patterns despite cross‐cultural variation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased negative emotions and decreased positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes might have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we tested the effectiveness of reappraisal, an emotion-regulation strategy that modifies how one thinks about a situation. Participants from 87 countries and regions (n = 21,644) were randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing) or one of two control conditions (active or passive). Results revealed that both reappraisal interventions (vesus both control conditions) consistently reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions across different measures. Reconstrual and repurposing interventions had similar effects. Importantly, planned exploratory analyses indicated that reappraisal interventions did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviours. The findings demonstrate the viability of creating scalable, low-cost interventions for use around the world.

This study examined the moderating effect of cortisol (C) on the relationship between testosterone (T) and hand-grip strength (HGS) in healthy young men. Sixty-five males were monitored for salivary T, C and HGS before and 15 min after a short bout (5 × 6-s trials) of sprint cycling exercise. Sprint exercise promoted (p < .05) positive changes in T (6.1 ± 24.9%) and HGS (3.4 ± 7.5%), but a negative C response (-14.4 ± 33.1%). The T and C measures did not independently predict HGS, but a significant T × C interaction was found in relation to these outcomes. Further testing revealed that pre-test T and HGS were negatively associated (p < .05), but only in men with high C levels. The exercise changes in T and HGS were also negatively related in men with low C levels (p < .05), but no relationship was seen in men with high C levels. In summary, complex relationships between T and HGS emerged when considering C as a moderating variable. The pre-test combination of high C and low T levels favoured absolute HGS, whereas low pre-test C levels and a smaller T change were linked to larger HGS changes. These associations suggest that, in the current format, T is not necessarily anabolic to muscle strength in healthy young men. Such complexities could also explain some of the inconsistent T relationships with physical performance in lesser trained male populations.

Two studies investigated: (1) how people react to research describing a sex difference, depending on whether that difference favours males or females; and (2) how accurately people can predict how the average man and woman will react. In Study 1, Western participants (N = 492) viewed a fictional popular-science article describing either a malefavouring or a female-favouring sex difference (i.e., men/women draw better; women/men lie more). Both sexes reacted less positively to the male-favouring differences, judging the findings to be less important, less credible, and more offensive, harmful, and upsetting. Participants predicted that the average man and woman would react more positively to sex differences favouring their own sex. This was true of the average woman, although the level of own-sex favouritism was lower than participants predicted. It was not true, however, of the average man, wholike the average womanreacted more positively to the femalefavouring differences. Study 2 replicated these findings in a Southeast Asian sample (N = 336). Our results are consistent with the idea that both sexes are more protective of women than men, but that both exaggerate the level of same-sex favouritism within each sexa misconception that could potentially harm relations between the sexes.