Freitag, 18. Oktober 2013

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning; 1999


Abstract

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.


















































































[See also: "Why the Unskilled Are Unaware"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/]

Literacy and Numeracy Are More Heritable Than Intelligence in Primary School

Literacy and Numeracy Are More Heritable Than Intelligence in Primary School
Yulia Kovas et al.; 2013


Abstract

Because literacy and numeracy are the focus of teaching in schools, whereas general cognitive ability (g, intelligence) is not, it would be reasonable to expect that literacy and numeracy are less heritable than g. Here, we directly compare heritabilities of multiple measures of literacy, numeracy, and g in a United Kingdom sample of 7,500 pairs of twins assessed longitudinally at ages 7, 9, and 12. We show that differences between children are significantly and substantially more heritable for literacy and numeracy than for g at ages 7 and 9, but not 12. We suggest that the reason for this counterintuitive result is that universal education in the early school years reduces environmental disparities so that individual differences that remain are to a greater extent due to genetic differences. In contrast, the heritability of g increases during development as individuals select and create their own environments correlated with their genetic propensities.

[see also: http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/original-paper-strong-genetic-influence.html & http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/heritability-estimates-and-analysis-of.html]

Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013

Co-ruminating increases stress hormone levels in women

Co-ruminating increases stress hormone levels in women
Jennifer Byrd Craven et al.; March 2008
Hormones and Behavior


Abstract

Same-sex friendships are an important source of social support and typically contribute to positive adjustment. However, there can be adjustment trade-offs if the friends co-ruminate (i.e., talk excessively about problems) in that co-rumination is related to having close friendships but also to increased internalizing symptoms. The current study utilized an experimental manipulation that elicited co-rumination in young women and thus mirrored an everyday response to stress. Observed co-rumination was associated with a significant increase in the stress hormone, cortisol (after controlling for self-reported co-rumination and for cortisol levels assessed before the discussion of problems). These findings suggest that co-rumination can amplify, rather than mitigate, the hormonal stress response to personal life stressors.

[Möglicherweise erklärt das auch, weshalb mancher Mann die  'gesunde Verdrängung' der Ko-Rumination vorzieht.]

Dienstag, 15. Oktober 2013

Risk as a payoff variance:

"Theory and research in behavioral ecology, economics, and psychology have converged on a conception of "risk" as a payoff variance. ... The riskier of two choices with equal expected values is that with the higher payoff variance. Preference for that option is called risk proneness or risk seeking, while preference for the low-variance option is called risk aversion."

M. Daly & M. Wilson

Risk Taking:

>[The] sexes differ in risk taking from childhood. One of the best measures of physical risk taking in children is the incidence of accidental death and injury. In most industrialized countries, including the United States, accidents are the leading cause of death for children older than one year. A World Health Organization study of accidental-death rates in fifty countries found a substantially higher rate for boys in all countries, with a ratio of male to female deaths of 1.9:1 in Europe and 1.7:1 in non-European countries. Notwithstanding greater equality and socially sanctioned androgyny, the male/female accidental-death ratio actually increased in the United States from 1960 to 1979.
Greater risk taking among boys is a robust finding. Boys are exposed to greater risks not only because they are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, but also because when engaging in the same activity as girls, they are more likely to perform it in a risky manner. Boys are substantially more likely to approach hazardous items than girls, and they differ in how they approach them, with girls tending to look and point and boys tending to touch and retrieve them.
Several factors appear to account for the greater inclination of boys to engage in risky activity. Boys tend to have both a higher activity level and poorer impulse control, both traits that are associated with injury rates. Three factors are correlated with self-reported risk taking in both boys and girls: attribution of injuries to bad luck, a belief that one is less vulnerable to injury than one's peers, and downplaying the degree of risk. Boys score higher than girls on all three of these traits.
Boys are less likely than girls to abstain from a risky activity simply because they have seen a peer injured while engaging in the same activity. The best predictor of girls' willingness to take a particular risk is their belief about the likelihood of getting hurt, while for boys it is the perceived severity of the injury. That is, girls tend to avoid risks if they think they might get hurt, while boys seem to be willing to take risks if they do not think they will get too hurt. It is possible, however, that positive attitudes about risk may result in part from risk taking, rather than causing it.
In adolescence and adulthood, sex differences in risk taking increase. Men are disproportionately involved in risky recreational activities such as car racing, sky diving, and hang gliding. Indeed, sex is the variable most predictive of the extent of participation in high-risk recreation. The driving style of men also shows a greater propensity toward risk. Men are disproportionately represented in risky employment, as well. Over 90 percent of all workplace deaths in the United States are males. A list of dangerous occupations is a list of disproportionately male occupations: fisherman, logger, airplane pilot, structural metal worker, coal miner, oil and gas extraction occupations, water transportation occupations, construction laborer, taxicab driver, roofer, and truck driver.
Men's greater propensity to risk their lives is demonstrated by a study of the recipients of awards granted by the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission. Of the 676 acts of heroism recognized from 1989 through 1995, 92 percent were performed by males. Moreover, over one-half of these rescued by women were known to the rescuer, while over two-thirds of those rescued by men were strangers. Although this is not a random sample of heroes, since one must be nominated for the award, it is likely that, if anything, the sex difference is understated because acts of heroism by women would tend to attract more attention than those by men.
Risk taking is statistically correlated with a number of other stereotypically male traits. People who rate high on achievement and dominance, for example, tend to be high risk takers. Risk taking and competitiveness may be related, since competition-prone individuals tend to be willing to take greater risks in pursuit of their competitive objective. High risk takers also fight more frequently, are more socially aggressive, take more dares, and participate in more rough sports and physical activities such as hunting, mountain climbing, and auto racing. In contrast, risk taking is negatively associated with a number of stereotypically female traits: affiliation, nurturance, succorance, deference, and abasement.
Psychologist Elizabeth Arch has suggested that the sex differences in achievement orientation ... may be explained in part by sex differences in risk taking. From an early age, females are more averse not just to physical risk but also to social risk, and they "tend to behave in a manner that ensures continued social inclusion". This aversion to risk may be partially responsible for women's disproportionately low representation in positions involving "career risk", which may be adversely affect their prospects for advancement. This pattern suggests that what is sometimes labeled women's "fear of success" is in fact the more prosaic and easier to understand "fear of failure".
One's willingness to take risks depends in large part upon the relative values that one places on success and failure. A person whose appetite for success exceeds his aversion to failure will be inclined toward action; a person whose aversion to failure exceeds his appetite for success will be inclined not to act. A strong motive to achieve or to avoid failure may also bias the actor's subjective probability of outcome. That is, an achievement-oriented person may have a higher expectation of success than is objectively warranted, while a person with a high motivation to avoid failure may consistently underestimate the chance of success.<

Kingsley R. Browne; 2002;
Biology at Work

Sonntag, 13. Oktober 2013

Men’s mate retention varies with men’s personality and their partner’s personality

Men’s mate retention varies with men’s personality and their partner’s personality
William F. McKibbin et al.; 2013


Abstract

Mate retention is the recurrent adaptive problem of retaining a mate in a relationship. Humans may have evolved mechanisms which motivate behavior in response to this problem. We examined the relation- ship between men’s mate retention and men’s and their partner’s personality in studies of 467 men and 565 women in committed relationships. Participants reported on their own or their partner’s mate retention and both their own and their partner’s personality. Results indicate a negative relationship between men’s Emotional Stability and men’s mate retention and a positive relationship between men’s Agreeableness and men’s benefit-provisioning mate retention. Discussion addresses limitations and directions for future research addressing the links between personality and mate retention.

Samstag, 12. Oktober 2013

Risk-taking as a situationally sensitive male mating strategy

Risk-taking as a situationally sensitive male mating strategy
Michael K Baker and John K Maner; 2008


Abstract

Evolutionary theorists suggest that men engage in risk-taking more than women do in part because, throughout human evolutionary history, men have faced greater sexual selection pressures. We build on this idea by testing the hypothesis that risk-taking reflects a male mating strategy that is sensitive to characteristics of a potential mate. Consistent with this hypothesis, the current experiment demonstrated a positive relationship between mating motivation and risk-taking, but only in men who had been exposed to images of highly attractive females. Moreover, risk-taking in men was associated with enhanced memory for attractive female faces, indicating enhanced processing of their attractive facial characteristics. No relationship between mating motivation and risk-taking was observed in men exposed to images of unattractive women, nor was any such relationship observed in women. This experiment provides evidence that psychological states associated with mating may promote risk-taking, and that these effects are sex specific and are sensitive to situational context.