From allies to adversaries?

Comments on the article by A. H. Eagly and W. Wood (see record 1999-05337-002) which examined the origins of sex differences in human behavior. Eagly and Wood argued that social structural theory can explain the origin of psychological sex differences. In the present article, E. Kleyman praises Eagly and Wood for clarifying her confusion as to the difference between the evolutionary theory and the social structural theory views on the origins of sex differences in behavior. She states that before the article by Eagly and Wood it was difficult to see the significant distinctions between the social structural theory's acceptance of evolutionary origins of the human species and evolutionary theory's acceptance of social input and context. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Darwin is in the details.

Comments on the article by A. H. Eagly and W. Wood (see record 1999-05337-002) which examined the origins of sex differences in human behavior. Eagly and Wood argued that social structural theory can explain the origin of psychological sex differences. The present authors suggest that evolutionary models of sex differences are based on a much broader foundation that Eagly and Wood imply. They note that Eagly and Wood misconstrued previous age preference findings as supporting the "common knowledge" that men prefer younger women. Eagly and Wood also showed that as societies approach gender equality in resource access, some sex differences in mate preferences decrease; however, as the current authors note, evolved mechanisms are not environmentally insensitive. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Incompatible with evolutionary theorizing.

Comments on the article by A. H. Eagly and W. Wood (see record 1999-05337-002) which examined the origins of sex differences in human behavior. Eagly and Wood argued that social structural theory can explain the origin of psychological sex differences. The present article discusses conceptual problems which render Eagly and Wood's theory implausible. The authors see the social structuralists' dualistic interpretation of the origin of human traits as untenable and note that it results from a misunderstanding of what drives the evolution of adaptations. It is also noted that social structuralists' contention that humans do not have evolved psychological sex differences is implausible, because their implicit assumption that the sexes have not faced different adaptive problems over evolutionary history is not true. The authors point out that social structuralists neglect empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that behavioral sex differences are mediated by hormonal influences. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Dialectical responses to questions about dialectical thinking.

Responds to comments by S. F. Chan (see record 2000-05933-017), D. Y. F. Ho (see record 2000-05933-018), and Y.-T. Lee (see record 2000-05933-019) on the article by K. Peng and R. E. Nisbett (see record 1999-11125-001) that made a number of assertions that reveal problems in logic and argumentation. In their studies, Peng and Nisbett found that Chinese tended to like dialectical proverbs and social resolution better than did Americans, and Chinese tended to prefer dialectical arguments over classic Western logical arguments. In the current article, Peng and Nisbett defend their work against criticisms made by the aforementioned authors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Should we stop studying sex differences altogether?

Discusses whether the study of sex differences in psychological literature is politically valuable, and its long-range contribution to scientific progress. It is concluded that the study of sex differences should continue, but that they should not be reported in every article as claimed by A. Eagly (see record 1988-00051-001). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

More on reporting sex differences.

Expands on points made by A. Eagly (see record 1988-00051-001) on reporting sex differences in psychological literature, and suggests that (1) the majority of articles do not analyze gender differences in Ss and (2) when gender differences are found, there may be implicit biases in their interpretation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Wishing away history.

Responds to the comment by M. F. Hoyt (see record 2001-18061-014) on the article by P. Gilford and P. Cushman (see record 2000-05933-002). It is argued that Hoyt did not grasp the synchronistic connection between managed care's practices and its implications for current understandings of human being. The authors believe that either Hoyt did not fully understand their concerns or he is unable to apply them to his own theory. It is maintained that Hoyt's comments demonstrate how difficult it is for psychologists to think historically and critically about their practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Constructing managed care, constructing brief therapy.

Comments on the article by P. Cushman and P. Gilford (see record 2000-05933-002). The author appreciates the questioning of managed care's use of positivism and "objective scientism" as well as a recognition of its focus on "instrumentality, efficiency, and conformity", but argues that brief therapy and managed care are not synonymous. The author sees many problems with managed care, but also sees the need for fiscally viable and clinically sound ways to provide broad services. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Scientific freedom is not the only issue.

Comments on the R. A. Bjork (see record 2000-05933-001) discussion of the editorial policy of American Psychological Association (APA) journals and the independence of scientific publishing. S. J. Ondersma notes that the influence science has is indeed a "frightening responsibility' (Bjork, 2000), one that does require the vigorous defense of scientific freedom. It also requires objectivity, protection against misuse, and openness to valid criticism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection.

Men and women clearly differ in some psychological domains. A. H. Eagly (see record 1995-21141-001) shows that these differences are not artifactual or unstable. Ideally, the next scientific step is to develop a cogent explanatory framework for understanding why the sexes differ in some psychological domains and not in others and for generating accurate predictions about sex differences as yet undiscovered. This article offers a brief outline of an explanatory framework for psychological sex differences—one that is anchored in the new theoretical paradigm of evolutionary psychology. Men and women differ, in this view, in domains in which they have faced different adaptive problems over human evolutionary history. In all other domains, the sexes are predicted to be psychologically similar. Evolutionary psychology jettisons the false dichotomy between biology and environment and provides a powerful metatheory of why sex differences exist, where they exist, and in what contexts they are expressed (D. M. Buss, 1995). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

'The structure of phenotypic personality traits": Author's reactions to the six comments.

L. R. Goldberg replies to the comments by R. O. Kroger and L. A. Wood (see record 1994-17497-001), S. Guastello (see record 1994-17488-001), D. R. Comer (see record 1994-17481-001), H. J. Eysenck (see record 1994-17486-001), W. D. Shadel and D. Cervone (see record 1994-17520-001), and H. E. Cattell (see record 1994-17479-001) on Goldberg's (PA, Vol 80:17546) article on the Big Five personality traits. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Happiness, flow, and economic equality.

Replies to comments by D. Belle et al (see record 2000-02781-018), S. Reiss (see record 2000-02781-019), T. B. Smith (see record 2000-02781-020), and J. R. Sink (see record 2000-02781-021) on the article by M. Csikszentmihalyi (see record 1999-11644-003) on materialism and the flow experience as an explanation of happiness. Csikszentmihalyi addresses the concerns of each author. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Magnitude of psychological gender differences: Another side to the story.

A. H. Eagly (see record 1995-21141-001) argued that feminism created a political climate that has led to research that inaccurately minimizes psychological gender differences. In this article, the authors assert that feminist psychologists do not have a uniform position on this issue, and that many have argued for large gender differences. Meta-analyses indicate great variability in the magnitude of gender differences across different behaviors. However, more psychological gender differences (25%) fall in the close-to-zero range than do other effects in psychology (6%). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cigarette smoking does cause distress.

Replies to comments by J. D. Kassel (see record 2000-02781-014), T. M. Piasecki and T. B. Baker (see record 2000-02781-015), and D. G. Gilbert and F. Joseph McClernon (see record 2000-02781-016) on A. C. Parrott's (see record 1999-11644-002) article regarding the link between cigarette smoking and stress. Parrott responds by focusing on several articles published during the past year. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Let's be realistic!

Replies to comments by M. B. Smith (see record 2000-02781-010), K Sheldon et al (see record 2000-02781-011), and J. M. DuBois (see record 2000-02781-012) on H. H. Kendler's (see record 1999-11644-004) article on the role of value in the world of psychology. They incorrectly read into Kendler's position an espousal of a so-called value-free science, a discipline that is free of all values. A major thrust of Kendler's article was not that all of science is value free but instead that scientific data are value neutral; there is no logical connection between the natural is and the moral ought. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Opinions or Data?

Replies to comments by W. Wood (1962) to the original article by M. R. Feinberg and J. Lefkowitz (see record 1963-02029-001), which assessed the image of industrial psychology among corporate executives. The author discusses five points made by Wood, including issues regarding opinion vs. research findings and original study's methodology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Critique of Cooper's meta-analytic assessment of the findings on sex differences in conformity behavior.

Assesses H. M. Cooper's (see record 1980-20979-001) attempt to demonstrate the superiority of a meta-analytic (statistical) to a literary (nonstatistical) approach to evaluating the import of a collection of tests of the same null hypothesis. Cooper performed a meta-analysis of the findings on sex differences in conformity behavior reported in 2 literary reviews—E. E. Maccoby and C. N. Jacklin (1975) and A. H. Eagly (see record 1979-23638-001). The present author criticizes Cooper's analysis for (a) having a statistical error that is instrumental in drawing 1 of 2 conclusions that conflict with those of the literary analysts, (b) its choice of effect-size indices, and (c) most importantly, its treatment of effect-size data. It is contended that contrary to his own injunction, Cooper almost totally failed to take effect-size data into account in his analysis. Effect-size analyses performed by the present author dispute the 2 conclusions of Cooper's that are at odds with those of the literary analysts. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Executive functioning and alcohol-related aggression: Reply to Weingartner (2000), Bates (2000), Lyvers (2000), Cherek (2000), and Berman (2000).

H. Weingartner (see record 2000-02949-018), M. E. Bates (see record 2000-02949-014), M. Lyvers (see record 2000-02949-017), D. R. Cherek (see record 2000-02949-016), and M. E. Berman (see record 2000-02949-015) put forth some very interesting and thought-provoking commentaries on the author's executive functioning framework for alcohol-related aggression (P. R. Giancola; see record 2000-02949-013). Many of their comments raised very important questions such as how executive functioning should be defined and conceptualized. Specifically, they asked whether executive functioning is better conceptualized as a unidimensional macroconstruct or as a set of related, yet independent, cognitive processes. Another key question was what other factors does executive functioning interact with to facilitate intoxicated aggression. Although these issues are far from being resolved, the author hopes that his article, their commentaries, and his responses will generate new research that will ultimately help to better predict and prevent alcohol-related aggression. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences.

In 2 studies that draw from the social role theory of sex differences (A. H. Eagly, W. Wood, & A. B. Diekman, 2000), the authors investigated differences in agentic and communal characteristics in letters of recommendation for men and women for academic positions and whether such differences influenced selection decisions in academia. The results supported the hypotheses, indicating (a) that women were described as more communal and less agentic than men (Study 1) and (b) that communal characteristics have a negative relationship with hiring decisions in academia that are based on letters of recommendation (Study 2). Such results are particularly important because letters of recommendation continue to be heavily weighted and commonly used selection tools (R. D. Arvey & T. E. Campion, 1982; R. M. Guion, 1998), particularly in academia (E. P. Sheehan, T. M. McDevitt, & H. C. Ross, 1998). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis.

In this article, we meta-analytically examine experimental studies to assess the moderating effect of provocation on gender differences in aggression. Convergent evidence shows that, whereas unprovoked men are more aggressive than women, provocation markedly attenuates this gender difference. Gender differences in appraisals of provocation intensity and fear of danger from retaliation (but not negative affect) partially mediate the attenuating effect of provocation. However, they do not entirely account for its manipulated effect. Type of provocation and other contextual variables also affect the magnitude of gender differences in aggression. The results support a social role analysis of gender differences in aggression and counter A. H. Eagly and V. Steffen's (see record 1987-10140-001) meta-analytic inability to confirm an attenuating effect of provocation on gender differences in aggression. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)