The present studies address two criticisms of the theory of evolved sex differences in jealousy: (a) that the sex difference in jealousy emerges only in response to hypothetical infidelity scenarios, and (b) that the sex difference emerges only using forced-choice measures. In two separate studies, one a paper-and-pencil survey with a student sample and the other a web-based survey targeting a non-student sample, men and women showed significant sex differences in jealousy in response to actual infidelity experiences; men experienced more jealousy in response to the sexual aspects of an actual infidelity, whereas women experienced more jealousy in response to the emotional aspects of the infidelity. Sex differences emerged using both continuous measures of jealousy as well as the traditional forced-choice measure. Overall, our results demonstrate that sex differences in jealousy are not limited to responses to hypothetical infidelity scenarios; they also emerge in response to actual infidelity experiences.
It is a common problem in psychology subject pools for past study participants to inform future participants of key experimental details (also known as crosstalk). Previous research (Edlund, Sagarin, Skowronski, Johnson, & Kutter, 2009) demonstrated that a combined classroom and laboratory treatment could significantly reduce crosstalk. The present investigation tested a laboratory-only treatment for the prevention of crosstalk at five universities, along with institutional-level moderators of crosstalk. Results indicated the presence of crosstalk at all universities and that the laboratory-based treatment was effective in reducing crosstalk. Importantly, crosstalk rates were higher (but successfully neutralized) in research pools with higher research credit requirements. Therefore, this research provides valuable guidance regarding crosstalk prevalence and its minimization by researchers.
In 3 experiments, some participants read a story describing ambiguously mean behaviors performed by another person. Other participants read the story and imagined that they performed the behaviors. Results showed that (a) exposure to a conceptual priming manipulation caused assimilation effects in actor meanness judgments, regardless of whether the actor was self or other, (b) tasks designed neither to heighten self-concept accessibility nor to threaten the self moderated the effects of conceptual meanness primes on self-meanness judgments, and (c) this lack of moderation occurred despite considerable evidence of self-enhancement effects elsewhere in self-judgments. A fourth experiment examined the extent to which priming affected interpretations of real self or other behavior. Results were consistent with the idea that priming altered event interpretation and subsequent judgments but also suggested that judgments were influenced by self-enhancement motivation. Implications of the results for theorizing in personality and self-knowledge acquisition are discussed.
Three studies assessed the content of cultural stereotypes and personal beliefs regarding individuals with dwarfism among "average height" (i.e., non-dwarf) individuals. In Studies 1 and 2, undergraduates from three separate institutions selected adjectives to reflect traits constituting both the cultural stereotype about dwarves and their own personal beliefs about dwarves (cf. Devine & Elliot, 1995). The most commonly endorsed traits for the cultural stereotype tended to be negative (e.g., weird, incapable, childlike); the most commonly endorsed traits for personal beliefs were largely positive (e.g., capable, intelligent, kind). In Study 3, undergraduates from two separate institutions used an open-ended method to indicate their personal beliefs about dwarves (cf. Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1994). Responses contained a mixture of positive and negative characteristics, suggesting a greater willingness to admit to negative personal beliefs using the open-ended method.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.