A tendency to gather less evidence in the Beads task is reliably associated with the presence of delusional symptomatology. In contrast, certainty on the task, and responses to contradictory evidence, do not discriminate well between those with and without delusions. The implications for the underlying basis of the JTC bias, and its role in the formation and maintenance of delusions, are discussed.

Neuroimaging (NI) technologies are having increasing impact in the study of complex cognitive and social processes. In this emerging field of social cognitive neuroscience, a central goal should be to increase the understanding of the interaction between the neurobiology of the individual and the environment in which humans develop and function. The study of sex/gender is often a focus for NI research, and may be motivated by a desire to better understand general developmental principles, mental health problems that show female-male disparities, and gendered differences in society. In order to ensure the maximum possible contribution of NI research to these goals, we draw attention to four key principles—overlap, mosaicism, contingency and entanglement—that have emerged from sex/gender research and that should inform NI research design, analysis and interpretation. We discuss the implications of these principles in the form of constructive guidelines and suggestions for researchers, editors, reviewers and science communicators.

There have been recent suggestions that the amygdala may be involved in the development or mediation of 'theory of mind'. We report a patient, B.M., with early or congenital left amygdala damage who, by adulthood, had received the psychiatric diagnoses of schizophrenia and Asperger's syndrome. We conducted a series of experimental investigations to determine B.M.'s cognitive functioning. In line with his diagnoses, B.M. was found to be severely impaired in his ability to represent mental states. Following this, we conducted a second series of studies to determine B.M.'s executive functioning. In the literature, there have been frequent claims that theory of mind is mediated by general executive functioning. B.M. showed no indication of executive function impairment, passing 16 tests assessing his ability to inhibit dominant responses, create and maintain goal-related behaviours, and temporally sequence behaviour. The findings are discussed with reference to models regarding the role of the amygdala in the development of theory of mind and the degree of dissociation between theory of mind and executive functioning. We conclude that theory of mind is not simply a function of more general executive functions, and that executive functions can develop and function on-line, independently of theory of mind. Moreover, we conclude that the amygdala may play some role in the development of the circuitry mediating theory of mind.

It has been argued that gender essentialism impedes progress towards greater gender equality. Here we present a new gender essentialism scale (GES), and validate it in two large nationally representative samples from Denmark and Australia. In both samples the GES was highly reliable and predicted lack of support for sex-role egalitarianism and support for gender discrimination, as well as perceived fairness of gender-based treatment in the Australian sample, independently of two established predictors (i.e., social dominance orientation and conservative political orientation). In addition, gender essentialism assessed by the GES moderated some manifestations of the backlash effect: high essentialists were more likely to respond negatively towards a power-seeking female political candidate relative to a male candidate. Given the implications for possible workplace interventions, further work could usefully explore whether gender essentialism moderates other well-established forms of gender bias.

Why is popular understanding of female–male differences still based on rigid models of development, even though contemporary developmental sciences emphasize plasticity? Is it because the science of sex differences still works from the same rigid models?

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract