9,468 publications found
Sort by
A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men's power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles.

According to ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996), the coexistence of gendered power differences and mutual interdependence creates two apparently opposing but complementary sexist ideologies: hostile sexism (HS; viewing women as manipulative competitors who seek to gain power over men) coincides with benevolent sexism (BS; a chivalrous view of women as pure and moral, yet weak and passive, deserving men's protection and admiration, as long as they conform). The research on these ideologies employs the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, used extensively in psychology and allied disciplines, often to understand the roles sexist attitudes play in reinforcing gender inequality. Following contemporary guidelines, this systematic review utilizes a principled approach to synthesize the multidisciplinary empirical literature on ambivalent sexism. After screening 1,870 potentially relevant articles and fully reviewing 654 eligible articles, five main domains emerge in ambivalent sexism research (social ideologies, violence, workplace, stereotypes, intimate relationships). The accumulating evidence across domains offers bottom-up empirical support for ambivalent sexism as a coordinated system to maintain control over women (and sometimes men). Hostile sexism acts through the direct and diverse paths of envious/resentful prejudices, being more sensitive to power and sexuality cues; Benevolent sexism acts through prejudices related to interdependence (primarily gender-based paternalism and gender-role differentiation), enforcing traditional gender relations and being more sensitive to role-related cues. Discussion points to common methodological limitations, suggests guidelines, and finds future avenues for ambivalent sexism research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Comparing gesture frequency between autistic and neurotypical individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

While diagnostic assessments for autism routinely screen for reduced frequency of gestures, evidence supporting reduced gesture production in autism is inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to clarify differences in frequency of gestures between autistic and neurotypical individuals. Included studies compared frequency of gestures between autistic and neurotypical individuals. Database searches (APA PsycInfo, ERIC, MEDLINE, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global) and a call for unpublished data on the International Society for Gesture Studies listserv identified research from January 1994 to March 2023. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Designs. Quantitative synthesis involved a narrative review of all findings and meta-analysis of articles allowing effect size calculations, stratified by the type of gesture. Thirty-one articles comparing frequency of gestures between 701 autistic and 860 neurotypical individuals were included in the narrative review, 25 of which were also included in the meta-analysis. Compared to neurotypical individuals, meta-analyses found that autistic individuals produced significantly less total, deictic, and emblematic gestures. While the number of iconic gestures appeared comparable between groups, studies investigating iconic gestures exhibited an almost equal trend of both positive and negative effect sizes, which were mostly nonsignificant. The way gesture production was measured, age, observer familiarity, and task structure (but not overall study quality) moderated the effect size, albeit inconsistently across the types of gestures. Findings have implications relating to profiling gesture use in diagnostic assessments for autism and highlight gaps in our understanding of differences in gesture production in autism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Cortical, subcortical, and cerebellar contributions to language processing: A meta-analytic review of 403 neuroimaging experiments.

Language is a key human faculty for communication and interaction that provides invaluable insight into the human mind. Previous work has dissected different linguistic operations, but the large-scale brain networks involved in language processing are still not fully uncovered. Particularly, little is known about the subdomain-specific engagement of brain areas during semantic, syntactic, phonological, and prosodic processing and the role of subcortical and cerebellar areas. Here, we present the largest coordinate-based meta-analysis of language processing including 403 experiments. Overall, language processing primarily engaged bilateral fronto-temporal cortices, with the highest activation likelihood in the left posterior inferior frontal gyrus (IFG). Whereas we could not detect any syntax-specific regions, semantics specifically engaged left posterior temporal areas (left fusiform and occipitotemporal cortex) and the left frontal pole. Phonology showed highest subdomain-specificity in bilateral auditory and left postcentral regions, whereas prosody engaged specifically the right amygdala and the right IFG. Across all subdomains and modalities, we found strong bilateral subcortical and cerebellar contributions. Especially the right cerebellum was engaged during various processes, including speech production, visual, and phonological tasks. Collectively, our results emphasize consistent recruitment and high functional modularity for general language processing in bilateral domain-specific (temporo-frontal) and domain-general (medial frontal/anterior cingulate cortex) regions but also a high specialization of different subareas for different linguistic subdomains. Our findings refine current neurobiological models of language by adding novel insight into the general sensitivity of the language network and subdomain-specific functions of different brain areas and highlighting the role of subcortical and cerebellar regions for different language operations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Fenneman et al.'s (2022) review of formal impulsivity models: Implications for theory and measures of impulsivity.

In Fenneman et al.'s (2022) review of theories and integrated impulsivity model, the authors distinguish between information impulsivity (i.e., acting without considering consequences) and temporal impulsivity (i.e., the tendency to pick sooner outcomes over later ones). The authors find that both types of impulsivity can be adaptive in different contexts. For example, when individuals experience scarcity of resources or when they are close to a minimum level of reserves (critical threshold). In this commentary, we extend their findings to a discussion about the measurement of impulsivity. We argue that a common method for measuring temporal impulsivity in which people make decisions between outcomes that are spaced out in time (intertemporal choice tasks), puts individuals in a specific context that is unlikely to generalize well to other situations. Furthermore, trait measures of impulsivity may only be modestly informative about future impulsive behavior because they largely abstract away from important context. To address these issues, we advocate for the development of dynamic measures of the two types of impulsivity. We argue that measuring temporal impulsivity in naturalistic contexts with varying environmental and state parameters could provide insights into whether individuals (i.e., humans and nonhuman animals) react to environmental changes adaptively, while trait measures of impulsivity more generally should collect and provide more contextual information. Dynamic measurement of different types of impulsivity will also allow for more discussion about adaptive impulsive responses in different contexts, which could help combat the stigmatization of various disorders associated with impulsivity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).