Sex Differences In Social Behavior Research Articles

Conceptual Overview (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)

Pornography is neither a documentary media genre that documents what real sex in everyday life looks like, nor is it a pedagogical or moral media genre aimed at showing what ideal sex (in terms of health or morality) should look like. Instead, pornography is a fictional media genre that depicts sexual fantasies and explicitly presents naked bodies and sexual activities for the purpose of sexual arousal (Williams, 1989; McKee et al., 2020). Regarding media ethics and media effects, pornography has traditionally been viewed as highly problematic. Pornographic material has been accused of portraying sexuality in unhealthy, morally questionable and often sexist ways, thereby harming performers, audiences, and society at large. In the age of the Internet, pornography has become more diverse, accessible, and widespread than ever (Döring, 2009; Miller et al., 2020). Consequently, the depiction of sexuality in pornography is the focus of a growing number of content analyses of both mass media (e.g., erotic and pornographic novels and movies) and social media (e.g., erotic and pornographic stories, photos and videos shared via online platforms). Typically, pornography’s portrayals of sexuality are examined by measuring the prevalence and frequency of sexual practices and related gender roles via quantitative content analysis (for research reviews see Carrotte et al., 2020; Miller & McBain, 2022).
 It should be noted that the conceptual differentiation between erotica and pornography is complex and that “pornography” remains an ideologically charged, and often negatively connotated, concept. Hence, the research literature sometimes uses the broader and more neutral term “sexually explicit material” (SEM) in place of “pornographic material” (McKee et al., 2020). Furthermore, it must be emphasized that in the context of content analyses of SEM the focus is typically on legal pornography. Legal visual pornography is produced with adults who have given their informed consent for their image to be recorded, and then disseminated and marketed as SEM. Illegal pornography is usually beyond the scope of media content research, as the acquisition and use of illegal material would be unethical and illegal for researchers (e.g., the analysis of so-called “child pornography”, or what might be more accurately labeled “images of child sexual abuse”). Criminological and forensic research projects are exceptions to this rule.
  
 Field of application/theoretical foundation:
 The theories applied in pornographic media content research primarily come from four academic disciplines: communication science, psychology, sex research, and gender studies. These different theories are fairly similar in their core assumption that pornography users’ sexual cognitions and behaviors are molded by the ways in which sexuality is portrayed in pornographic material. Some of the theories also explain the typical content of pornography and point to the fact that audiences might not only be influenced by pornography but can also shape porn production through their preferences. All theories demand content analyses of pornographic material to back up their predictions.
 General Media Effects Theories
 Cultivation Theory and Social Cognitive Theory are the most commonly used media effects theories, irrespective of specific media content. They are often applied to pornographic material.
 
 Cultivation Theory (CT) was developed by communication researcher George Gerbner in the 1960s (Gerbner, 1998). CT claims that heavy media users’ perceptions of the prevalence of different societal phenomena (e.g., crimes) are shaped by the prevalence with which these phenomena occur in the media they consume (e.g., cop shows on TV). Applied to pornography, CT predicts that heavy users of pornography will severely overestimate the prevalence of sexual practices that are rare in reality, but widespread in pornography. Young people who lack real life sexual experience are regarded as particularly vulnerable for sexual cultivation effects in terms of biased perceptions of the popularity and normalcy of different performances of sexuality (e.g., name calling and slapping during sex).
 Another classic media effects theory that is widely adopted in pornography research is psychologist Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1971), later re-labeled as Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; Bandura, 2001). SCT claims that people imitate the behaviors of media role models. Applied to pornographic material, SCT predicts that media audiences will develop more favorable attitudes towards, and engage more frequently in, sexual behaviors portrayed positively in sexually explicit material. Such sexual imitation effects may influence not only attitudes toward, and engagement in, sex acts represented in pornography (e.g., anal sex), but also gender role behaviors (e.g., men acting dominantly, women acting submissively during sex), safer sex measures (e.g., lack of condom use), bodily appearance (e.g., breast augmentation), and consent communication (e.g., lack of explicitly asking for, or giving, consent to engage in different sex acts).
 
 Sexual Media Effects Theories
 While CT and SCT are broad media effects theories applicable to pornography as well as many other types of media content, Sexual Script Theory and the 3AM specifically address sexual media and their effects.
 
 Sexual Script Theory (SST) was developed by sociologists John Gagnon and William Simon in the 1970s (Gagnon & Simon, 1973; Simon & Gagnon, 2003; Wiederman, 2015). SST argues that human sexuality is not merely a biological instinct, but a highly complex set of cognitions and behaviors shaped by symbolic, social and cultural factors: People develop ideas about how to have sex in terms of organized cognitive schemas or “scripts” that reflect intra-psychic desires (e.g., their sexual fantasies), social norms (e.g., peers’ and partners’ sexual expectations), and cultural influences (e.g., representations of sexuality in the media they consume). SST stresses that the intra-psychic, social, and cultural determinants of individuals’ sexual scripts mutually influence each other and can change over time (Simon & Gagnon, 2003). However, in pornography research, usually only the third element of the theory (cultural influences through media representations of sexuality) is considered. Applied to pornography, SST predicts that sexual scripts presented in pornographic material (e.g., spontaneous anal sex with strangers without condoms or overt consent communication) can shape individuals’ sexual scripts.
 The Acquisition, Activation, and Application Model of Media Sexual Socialization (3AM) was developed more recently by communication researcher Paul Wright as a specification of SST regarding media influence (Wright, 2011). According to the 3AM, sexually explicit media content shapes cognitive schemas of sexuality in three ways: Pornography can foster the creation of new schemas (schema acquisition), it can prime extant schemas (schema activation), and it can facilitate the utilization of extant schemas to inform attitudes and behaviors (schema application). The 3AM differentiates between specific scripting effects of pornography (e.g., engaging in condom-free casual anal sex without sufficient consent communication after having observed this exact sexual script multiple times in pornography) versus abstract scripting effects (e.g., adopting a more permissive sexual worldview after having observed many people engaging in unrestricted sex in pornography).
 
  
 The aforementioned general and sexuality-specific media effects theories have been used predominantly to predict negative (unwanted, harmful) effects such as dangerously distorted views of sexuality and gender roles as well as engagement in risky or violent sexual behaviors, while potential positive effects have been mostly ignored. Only recently, has serious consideration been given to the beneficial effects of pornography use (e.g., sexual identity validation, sexual empowerment, improved couple communication, sexual skill acquisition, etc.) in the research literature (e.g., Döring, 2021; Döring & Mohseni, 2018; Döring et al., 2021; Kohut & Fisher, 2013; Kohut et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2018; Tillmann & Wells, 2022). Depending on specific negative and/or positive effect assumptions, different aspects of the representation of sexuality will be measured (e.g., expressions of aggression during sex or different types of sexual stimulation techniques).
  
 Gender Role, Feminist and Queer Theories
 Typically, analysis of the ways in which sexuality is represented in pornography involves considerations of gender relations, therefore gender role theories and feminist theories of gender (in-)equality are frequently drawn upon (e.g., Eagly, 1987). There are two main reasons for this additional theoretical focus on gender: 1) Most SEM depicts heterosexual encounters, hence the portrayal of sexuality in pornography implies a portrayal of sexual gender relations (Williams, 1989). 2) Gender relations in the media are often asymmetrical, depicting men and women in superior and subordinate positions, respectively. Such patriarchal gender relations are expected to be reflected, or even exaggerated, in pornographic material. Radical feminist approaches in particular characterize pornography as a portrayal of sexual degradation of women by men, that is so harmful to society that it should be prohibited (e.g., MacKinnon, 1991). Other feminist approaches are also critical of asymmetric gender relations in traditional mainstream pornography and call for more gender equality in SEM, such as in feminist pornography (Williams, 1989). Feminist criticism of gender roles and relations in pornography does not address the demographic variable of sex/gender alone, but also covers other diversity dimensions such as age, race/ethnicity, or disability. According to the analytical framework of intersectionality, the subordination and discrimination of women in society and media representations particularly affect those women who have multiple marginalized demographic characteristics (e.g., the representation of white women in pornography differs from that of black or Asian women; Fritz et al. 2021). Queer theory is also concerned with different racial/ethnic and sexual identities of women and their participation and representation in pornography (Ingraham 2013).
 Content analyses of pornography need to take into consideration that pornography is becoming increasingly diverse (Miller & McBain, 2022). Hence, content analyses need to differentiate between various pornographic sub-genres such as commercial heterosexual mainstream pornography (traditionally targeting men) versus, for example, women-friendly and couple-oriented pornography, feminist pornography, queer pornography, fetish and kink pornography, or authentic amateur and DIY (do it yourself) pornography in the form of visual or text pornography (Döring, 2021; McKee et al., 2008). Gender role, feminist, and queer theories predict that gender relations in mainstream pornography are more asymmetrical, stereotypical and patriarchal than in women- and couple-friendly, feminist and queer pornography.
 Sexual Fantasy and Desire Theories
 The above-mentioned effect theories do not address and explain the main intended effect of pornography, namely immediate sexual arousal, pleasure and satisfaction. The theories focus on linking the fictional pornographic content directly with real life opinions and behaviors, but mostly ignore the links between fictional pornographic content and sexual fantasies. Research shows that many sexual fantasies of people of all genders are unrealistic, extreme, clichéd, violent and norm-violating and that norm-violation is often what makes them arousing (e.g., Bivona et al., 2012; Critelli & Bivona, 2008; Joyal, 2015). The same might be true for pornographic content. Hence, measuring pornography, a fictional media genre, against standards of realism, health and morality might not always be in line with the main entertainment purpose of the genre. Erotizing the forbidden and dangerous (e.g, sex with family members, with mysterious strangers, with authority figures, with non-human creatures) is a common trope of sexual fantasies, hence meaningful variables to measure pornographic portrayals of sexuality could be derived from, and related to, theories of sexual fantasy and desire (e.g., Salmon et al., 2019; Stoller, 1985). Indulging in unrealistic and norm-violating fantasies and fictional media contents is part of media entertainment and may not necessarily lead to norm-violating behaviors. Competent media users should be able to differentiate between fiction and reality.
  
 Mold Theories versus Mirror Theories
 When analyzing and criticizing sexuality portrayals in pornography, it is important to realize that media do not just uni-directionally influence public opinions and behaviors (mold theory). Rather, media also bi-directionally reflect existing sexual relations and fantasies (mirror theory). Recent sex surveys, for example, demonstrate that engagement in consensual BDSM (Bondage/Discipline, Dominance/Submission, Sadism/Masochism) practices and rough sex (e.g., name calling, spanking, hair pulling) is fairly widespread in the general population and enjoyed by all genders (e.g., Burch & Salmon, 2019; Herbenick et al., 2021a, 2021b; Strizzi et al., 2022). Hence, it might not always be the adult industry that influences audiences’ sexualities, but also audiences’ sexual interests that influence porn production. Particularly in the digital pornography market, producers and vendors can easily analyze audience preferences through the analysis of search terms and download statistics and adopt their content accordingly. Furthermore, general beauty trends in society (e.g., regarding shaving of pubic and body hair, growing of beards, or multiple tattoos and other body art) might be mirrored in pornography (through its selection and presentation of performers) rather than of generated by it.
  
 References/combination with other methods of data collection:
 Manual quantitative content analyses of pornographic material can be combined with qualitative (e.g., Keft-Kennedy, 2008) as well as computational (e.g., Seehuus et al., 2019) content analyses. Furthermore, content analyses can be complemented with qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys to investigate perceptions and evaluations of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography among pornography’s creators and performers (e.g., West, 2019) and audiences (e.g., Cowan & Dunn, 1994; Hardy et al., 2022; Paasoonen, 2021; Shor, 2022). Additionally, experimental studies are helpful to measure directly how different dimensions of pornographic portrayals of sexuality are perceived and evaluated by recipients, and if and how these portrayals can affect audiences’ sexuality-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., Kohut & Fisher, 2013; Miller et al., 2019).
  
 Example studies for manual quantitative content analyses:
 Acknowledging the multidimensionality and complexity of portrayals of sexuality in pornography, a recent research review identified eight main dimensions of analysis (Miller & McBain, 2022) that are adopted and extended in this DOCA entry as: 1) violence, 2) degradation, 3) sex acts, 4) performer demographics (sex/gender, age, race/ethnicity), 5) performer bodily appearance, 6) safer sex practices, 7) relational context of sex, and 8) consent communication. Example studies and measures for all eight dimensions of pornographic portrayals of sexuality are presented in separate DOCA entries.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 Eight Dimension of Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography
  
 
 
 DOCA entry
 
 
 
 
 1)    Violence
 
 
 Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Violence
 
 
 
 
 2)    Degradation
 
 
 Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Degradation
 
 
 
 
 3)    Sex Acts
 
 
 Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Sex Acts
 
 
 
 
 4)    Performer Demographics
 
 
 Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Performer Demographics
 
 
 
 
 5)    Performer Bodily Appearance
 
 
 Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Performer Bodily Appearance
 
 
 
 
 6)    Safer Sex Practices
 
 
 Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Safer Sex Practices
 
 
 
 
 7)    Relational Context of Sex
 
 
 Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Relational Context of Sex
 
 
 
 
 8)    Consent Communication
 
 
 Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Consent Communication
 
 
 
 
 
  
 References
 Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. General Learning.
 Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03
 Bivona, J. M., Critelli, J. W., & Clark, M. J. (2012). Women's rape fantasies: An empirical evaluation of the major explanations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(5), 1107–1119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9934-6
 Burch, R. L., & Salmon, C. (2019). The rough stuff: Understanding aggressive consensual sex. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5(4), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-019-00196-y
 Carrotte, E. R., Davis, A. C., & Lim, M. S. (2020). Sexual behaviors and violence in pornography: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of video content analyses. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(5), Article e16702. https://doi.org/10.2196/16702
 Cowan, G., & Dunn, K. F. (1994). What themes in pornography lead to perceptions of the degradation of women? Journal of Sex Research, 31(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726
 Critelli, J. W., & Bivona, J. M. (2008). Women's erotic rape fantasies: An evaluation of theory and research. Journal of Sex Research, 45(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490701808191
 Döring, N. (2009). The Internet’s impact on sexuality: A critical review of 15 years of research. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1089–1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003
 Döring, N. (2021). Erotic Fan Fiction. In A. D. Lykins (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sexuality and gender (pp. 1–8). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59531-3_65-1
 Döring, N., Krämer, N., Mikhailova, V., Brand, M., Krüger, T. H. C., & Vowe, G. (2021). Sexual interaction in digital contexts and its implications for sexual health: A conceptual analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 769732. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.769732
 Döring, N., & Mohseni, M. R. (2018). Are online sexual activities and sexting good for adults’ sexual well-being? Results from a national online survey. International Journal of Sexual Health, 30(3), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2018.1491921
 Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Erlbaum.
 Fritz, N., Malic, V. [Vinny], Paul, B., & Zhou, Y. (2021). Worse than objects: The depiction of black women and men and their sexual relationship in pornography. Gender Issues 38, 100-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-020-09255-2
 Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality (2. ed.). AldineTransaction.
 Gerbner, G. (1998). Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass Communication and Society, 1(3-4), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.1998.9677855
 Hardy, J., Kukkonen, T., & Milhausen, R. (2022). Examining sexually explicit material use in adults over the age of 65 years. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 31(1), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047
 Herbenick, D., Fu, T.‑C., Patterson, C., Rosenstock Gonzalez, Y. R., Luetke, M., Svetina Valdivia, D., Eastman-Mueller, H., Guerra-Reyes, L., & Rosenberg, M. (2021a). Prevalence and characteristics of choking/strangulation during sex: Findings from a probability survey of undergraduate students. Journal of American College Health, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2021.1920599
 Herbenick, D., Patterson, C., Beckmeyer, J., Gonzalez, Y. R. R., Luetke, M., Guerra-Reyes, L., Eastman-Mueller, H., Valdivia, D. S., & Rosenberg, M. (2021b). Diverse sexual behaviors in undergraduate students: Findings from a campus probability survey. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 18(6), 1024–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.03.006
 Ingraham, N. (2013). Queering pornography through qualitative method. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7(2), 158-159. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2013.7.2.218
 Joyal, C. C. (2015). Defining "normophilic" and "paraphilic" sexual fantasies in a population-based sample: On the importance of considering subgroups. Sexual Medicine, 3(4), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/sm2.96
 Keft-Kennedy, V. (2008). Fantasising masculinity in Buffyverse slash fiction: Sexuality, violence, and the vampire. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(1), 49–80.
 Kohut, T., & Fisher, W. A. (2013). The impact of brief exposure to sexually explicit video clips on partnered female clitoral self-stimulation, orgasm and sexual satisfaction. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 22(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935
 Kohut, T., Fisher, W. A., & Campbell, L. (2017). Perceived effects of pornography on the couple relationship: Initial findings of open-ended, participant-informed, "bottom-up" research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0783-6
 MacKinnon, C. A. (1991). Pornography as defamation and discrimination. Boston University Law Review, 71, 793-818.
 McKee, A., Albury, K., & Lumby, C. (2008). The porn report. Melbourne University Press.
 McKee, A., Byron, P., Litsou, K., & Ingham, R. (2020). An interdisciplinary definition of pornography: Results from a global Delphi panel. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(3), 1085–1091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4
 Miller, D. J., Hald, G. M., & Kidd, G. (2018). Self-perceived effects of pornography consumption among heterosexual men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(3), 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000112
 Miller, D. J., & McBain, K. A. (2022). The content of contemporary, mainstream pornography: A literature review of content analytic studies. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 17(2), 219–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648
 Miller, D. J., McBain, K. A., & Raggatt, P. T. F. (2019). An experimental investigation into pornography’s effect on men’s perceptions of the likelihood of women engaging in porn-like sex. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8(4), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202
 Miller, D. J., Raggatt, P. T. F., & McBain, K. (2020). A literature review of studies into the prevalence and frequency of men’s pornography use. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 15(4), 502–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676
 Paasonen, S. (2021). “We watch porn for the fucking, not for romantic tiptoeing”: Extremity, fantasy and women’s porn use. Porn Studies, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366
 Salmon, C., Fisher, M. L., & Burch, R. L. (2019). Evolutionary approaches: Integrating pornography preferences, short-term mating, and infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 148, 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.030
 Seehuus, M., Stanton, A. M., & Handy, A. B. (2019). On the content of "real-world" sexual fantasy: Results from an analysis of 250,000+ anonymous text-based erotic fantasies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(3), 725–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0
 Shor, E. (2022). Who seeks aggression in pornography? Findings from interviews with viewers. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(2), 1237–1255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1
 Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (2003). Sexual scripts: Origins, influences and changes. Qualitative Sociology, 26(4), 491–497. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAS.0000005053.99846.e5
 Stoller, R. J. (1985). Observing the erotic imagination. Yale University Press.
 Strizzi, J. M., Øverup, C. S., Ciprić, A., Hald, G. M., & Træen, B. (2022). BDSM: Does it hurt or help sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and relationship closeness? Journal of Sex Research, 59(2), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.1950116
 Tillman, M., & Wells, B. E. (2022). An intersectional feminist analysis of women's experiences of authenticity in pornography. Journal of Sex Research, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.2024489
 West, C. (2019). Pornography and ethics: An interview with porn performer Blath. Porn Studies, 6(2), 264–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540
 Wiederman, M. W. (2015). Sexual Script Theory: Past, present, and future. In J. DeLamater & R. F. Plante (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of sexualities (pp. 7–22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17341-2_2
 Williams, L. (1989). Hard Core: Power, pleasure, and the frenzy of the visible. University of California Press.
 Wright, P. J. (2011). Mass media effects on youth sexual behavior assessing the claim for causality. Annals of the International Communication Association, 35(1), 343–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2011.11679121

PSXVI-18 Heifers are from Venus, steers are from mars: Sex differences in social behaviors in drylot housed brahman cattle exposed to a cattle brush

Abstract Sex differences in cattle productivity and efficiency have been established, yet an empirical examination of how sex influences cattle social behavior in dry lots is absent. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of sex on the performance of social behaviors and brush use in drylot-housed Brahman yearling steers (n = 2 pens; 19 steers/pen) and heifers (n = 2 pens; 15 heifers/pen). Cattle were video recorded from 8:00 to 20:00 for 71 d, and to date, d 1 has been decoded using continuous observations. Video was decoded for social behavior for 15 minutes of every 30 minutes using continuous observations. Average bout duration (sec), total duration per day (sec), and bout frequency of allogrooming, bar licking, tongue rolling, and brush utilization were recorded for each pen. Frequency was recorded for headbutting and mounting. Data were normalized, and the differences between sexes for each behavior were evaluated with a t-test (PROC TTEST). Average bout duration, bout frequency, and total duration for allogrooming (P > 0.15), bar licking (P > 0.63), and brush use (P > 0.78) and bout frequency for brush displacement (P > 0.78) and headbutt (P > 0.76) did not differ between sexes. Heifers tended (P = 0.09) to perform more bunk displacements than steers (heifers: 94.5 ± 64.5 count/pen/d; steers: 29 ± 3 count/pen/d). Steers performed more mounts than heifers (P < 0.0001; steers: 2.5 ± 0.5 mounts/pen/d; heifers: 0 ± 0 mounts/pen/d). This preliminary evaluation suggests that sexes may differ in the prevalence and type of social behaviors performed while housed in drylots, yet inclusion of more data will confirm these early observations.

Synaptic Connections of Aromatase Circuits in the Medial Amygdala Are Sex Specific.

The brains of male and female mice are shaped by genetics and hormones during development. The enzyme aromatase helps establish sex differences in social behaviors and in the neural circuits that produce these behaviors. The medial amygdala of mice contains a large population of aromatase neurons and is a critical hub in the social behavior network. Moreover, the neural representation of social stimuli in the medial amygdala displays clear sex differences that track developmental changes in social behaviors. Here, we identify a potential anatomic basis for those sex differences. We found that sensory input from the accessory olfactory bulb (AOB) to aromatase neurons is derived nearly exclusively from the anterior AOB, which selectively responds to chemosensory cues from conspecific animals. Through the coordinated use of mouse transgenics and viral-based circuit-tracing strategies, we demonstrate a clear sex difference in the volume of synapses connecting the accessory olfactory bulb to aromatase-expressing neurons in the medial amygdala of male versus female mice. This difference in anatomy likely mediates, at least in part, sex differences in medial amygdala-mediated social behaviors.

The effects of pubertal exposure to bisphenol-A on social behavior in male mice.

Puberty is a crucial developmental period for structural modifications of brain and activation of the neural circuits underlying sex differences in social behavior. It is possible that pubertal exposure to bisphenol-A (BPA), a common EED with a weak estrogenic activity, influences social behavior. After being exposed to BPA at 0.04, 0.4, 4mgkg-1 for 18 days, the 7-week-old male mice were tested with social play and three-chamber. The results showed that pubertal BPA exposure decreased social play between adolescent males and sociability of adolescent males. Further, pubertal BPA exposure reduced sociability and inhibited social novel preferences of adult males. BPA inhibited social interactions with opposite sex but improved socio-sexual exploration and the low-intensity mating behavior (mounting) with same sex in adult males. In residential-intruder test, BPA-exposed adult males showed a decrease in aggressiveness and an enhancement in prosocial behavior with intruder. Western blot analysis showed that BPA (especially at 4mg/kg/d) down-regulated the levels of AR in the amygdala and the striatum but up-regulated the levels of DR1 and DAT proteins in the striatum of adult males. BPA at 4mgkg-1 decreased the levels of T in the serum and the brain. These results suggest that pubertal BPA exposure affects social play and sociability of adolescent males and even results in long-term effects on social behavior of adult males. BPA-induced down-regulations of the levels of AR in the amygdala and the striatum and up-regulation of the levels of DR1 and DAT in the striatum may be involved.

Microglia Sculpt Sex Differences in Social Behavior

Microglia are increasingly recognized as developmental sculptors of neural circuits. In this issue of Neuron, VanRyzin etal. (2019) demonstrate a novel mechanism by which endocannabinoids drive microglia to phagocytose newborn astrocytes in the medial amygdala of male rats, promoting sex differences in social play behavior.

Characteristics of Green Hotels’ Potential Customers: A Case of Vietnamese Domestic Tourists

Despite the fact that the green wave has spread globally over the hotel industry, the characteristics of an environmentally friendly tourist has not yet been clearly clarified and is still controversial. Therefore, the objective of this study is to describe the demographics and behavioral qualities of Vietnamese domestic tourists who are willing patrons in a green hotel. The results show that the distinguishing characteristics of green travelers seeking green lodging are that they belong to the young generation, are female, have high educational accomplishment, and have high levels of participation in daily eco-friendly activities.
 Keywords: Green tourist, environmentally friendly, demographic, involvement.
 References
 [1] Manaktola, K., and Jauhari, V., “Exploring consumer attitude and behavior towards green practices in the lodging industry in India”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19 (2007) 5, 364-377.[2] Webster, F., “Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer”, Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (1975) 12, 188-196.[3] Dolnicar, S., and Matus, K., “Are green tourists a managerially useful target segment?”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 17 (2008) 3-4, 314-334.[4] Dolnicar, S., Crouch, G., and Long, P., “Environment-friendly tourists: What do we really know about them?”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16 (2008) 2,197-210.[5] Millar, M., and Mayer, K., “A profile of travelers who are willing to stay in environmentally friendly hotel”, Hospitality Review, 30 (2013) 2, 90-108.[6] Kasim, A., “Socio-environmentally responsible hotel business: Do tourists to Penang Island, Malaysia care?”, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 11 (2004) 4, 5-28.[7] Smith, W., “Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies”, Journal of Marketing, 21 (1956), 3-8.[8] Kotler, P., and Armstrong, G., Principles of marketing, (2011), 14th ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.[9] Gitelson, R., and Kerstetter, D., “The relationship between sociodemographic variables, benefits sought and subsequent vacation behavior: A case study”, Journal of Travel Research, 28 (1990) 3, 24-29.[10] Quiroga, O., “Characteristics of package tourists in Europe”, Annals of Tourism Research, 17 (1990) 2, 185-207.[11] [11] Crossley, J., and Lee, B., “Characteristics of ecotourists and mass tourists”, Visions in Leisure and Business, 13 (1994) 2, 4-12.[12] Hsieh, S., O’Leary, J., and Morrison, A., “A comparison of package and non-package travelers from the United Kingdom”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 3 (1994), 79-100.[13] Seaton, A., The analysis of tourism demand: Market segmentation. In Seaton, A. V. and Bennett, M. M. (Eds.), Marketing tourism products: Concepts, issues, cases, (1996), London: Thomson Business Press, pp. 28-54.[14] Legoherel, P., “Toward a market segmentation of the tourism trade: Expenditure levels and consumer behavior instability”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 7 (1998) 3, 19-39.[15] Mok, C., and Iverson, T., “Expenditure-based segmentation: Taiwanese tourist to Guam”, Tourism Management, 21 (2000) 3, 299-305.[16] Jackson, M., Inbakaran, R., and Schmierer, C., Rationalizing personality typologies in tourism? A lexical analysis, In Aicken, M. and Ryan, C. (Eds), Taking Tourism to the Limits Refereed Research Papers, (2003), University of Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, 338-360.[17] Inbakaran, R., and Jackson, M., “Understanding resort visitors through segmentation”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6 (2005) 1, 53-71.[18] Dimanche F., Havitz, M., and Howard, D., “Testing the involvement profile scale in the context of selected recreational and touristic activities”, Journal of Leisure Research, 23 (1991) 1, 51-66.[19] Wu, S., “An experimental study on the relationship between consumer involvement and advertising effectiveness”, Asis Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 13 (2001) 1, 43-56.[20] Zaichkowsky, J., “Measuring the involvement construct”, Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (1985), 341-352.[21] Lee, M., and Lou, Y., “Consumer reliance on intrinsic and extrinsic cues in product evaluations: A conjoint approach”, Journal of Applied Business Research, 12 (1995) 1, 21-28.[22] Amendah, E. and Park, J., “Consumer involvement and psychological antecedents on eco-friendly destinations: Willingness to pay more”, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 17 (2008) 3-4, 262-283.[23] Shrum, L., McCarty, J., and Lowrey, T., “Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and their implications for advertising strategy”, Journal of Advertising, 24 (1995) 2, 71-82.[24] Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., and Barbaro-Forleo, G., “Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18 (2001) 6, 503-520.[25] Dolnicar, S. B., “Commonsense segmentation - A systematics of segmentation approaches in tourism”, Journal of Travel Research, 42 (2004) 3, 244-250.[26] Fairweather, J. R., Maslin, C., and Simmons, D. G., “Environmental Values and Response to Ecolabels Among International Visitors to New Zealand”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13 (2005) 1, 82-98.[27] Saad, G., and Gill, T., “Application of evolutionary psychology in marketing”, Psychology and Marketing, 17 (2000) 12, 1005-1034.[28] Eagly, A. H. , Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation, (1987), Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.[29] Konrad, A. M., Corrigall, E., Lieb, P., and Edgar Ritchie, J., “Sex Differences in Job Attribute Preferences among Managers and Business Students”, Group and Organization Management, 25 (2000) 2, 108-131.[30] McIntyre, R. P., Meloche, M. S., and Lewis, S. L., “National culture as a macro tool for environmental sensitivity segmentation”. In: Cravens, D. W., Dickson, P. R. (Eds.), AMA Summer Educators’ Conference Proceedings 4, (1993), American Marketing Association, Chicago, pp. 153-159.[31] Banerjee, B. and McKeage, K., “How green is my value: exploring the relationship between environmentalism and materialism”. In: Allen, C. T., John, D. R. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research 22. (1994), Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 147–152.[32] Homburg, C., and Giering, A., “Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical analysis”, Psychology and Marketing, 18 (2001) 1, 43-66.[33] Im, S., Bayus, B. L., and Mason, C. H., “An empirical study of innate consumer innovativeness, personal characteristics, and new-product adoption behavior”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (2003) 1, 61-73.[34] Evanschitzky, H., and Wunderlich, M., “An examination of moderator effects: the four stage loyalty model”, Journal of Service Research, 8 (2006) 4, 330-345.[35] Wilson, M. A., ‘Nature Oriented Tourism in Ecuador: Assessment of Industry Structure and Development Needs’, FPEI Working Paper No. 20. Research Triangle Park, (1987), NC: Southeast Center for Forest. [36] Meric, H. J., and Hunt, J., “Ecotourists’ Motivational and Demographic Characteristics: A Case of North Carolina Travelers”, Journal of Travel Research, 36 (1998), 57-61.[37] Gilly, M. C., and Zeithaml, V. A., “The elderly consumer and adoption of technologies”, Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (1985), 353-357.[38] Keaveney, S. M., and Parthasarathy, M., “Customer switching behavior in online services: an exploratory study of the role of selected attitudinal, behavioral, and demographic factors”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 29 (2001) 4, 374-390.[39] Henion, K. E., “The effect of ecologically relevant information on detergent sales”, Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (1972), 10-14.[40] Roberts, J. A., “Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for advertising”, Journal of Business Research, 36 (1996), 217-231.[41] Nguyen Thi Phuong Thao, “The Relationship between Eco-friendly Practices and Attitudes toward Green Hotels for Domestic Tourists”, VNU Journal of Science: Economics and Business, 33 (2017) 2, 101-111[42] Han, H., Hsu, L., and Lee, J., “Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers’ eco-friendly decision-making process”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28 (2009) 4, 519-528.

P.1.h.008 - Rats exposed to maternal depression and antidepressant treatment during development show sex differences in social behavior

P.1.h.008 - Rats exposed to maternal depression and antidepressant treatment during development show sex differences in social behavior

Vocal repertoire of free-ranging black howler monkeys' (Alouatta pigra): Call types, contexts, and sex-related contributions.

Alouatta species utter the most powerful primate vocalizations in the Neotropics and are well-known for their loud and long-lasting male howling bouts. However, the diversity of acoustic structures used in these howling bouts, as well as in non-howling contexts, and the relative contribution of the different group members to the entire vocal repertoire, needed to be explored further. This report provides the first detailed description of the vocal repertoire of black howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra), focusing on acoustic structures and contexts of emission of both loud and soft calls as well as on the contribution rate of males and females to the different call types. Three free-ranging social groups of black howler monkeys living in Palenque National Park, Mexico were monitored. We identified twelve acoustically discriminable call types, eight described previously and four described here for the first time. A few call types were systematically emitted either isolated or during howling bouts, but most of them could be heard in both calling contexts. Three call types were emitted only by females and two only by males. Adult males' call rates (for the seven shared call types) were higher than those of females but only when considering calls emitted within howling bouts. Our contextual analysis enabled us to divide call types into potential functional categories, according to their degree of contribution, to intra-group versus inter-group interactions and to neutral-positive versus negative situations. We then discussed how socio-ecological factors, notably sex differences in social behaviors, may explain the variability found in the vocal repertoire of this species and compared our findings with the literature on other primate species.

Juvenile social relationships reflect adult patterns of behavior in wild geladas.

Unlike many mammals, primates spend much of their lives as reproductively-immature juveniles. During the juvenile period, they develop social relationships and physical skills that both facilitate survival to adulthood and impact adult fitness. In this study, we use 2 years of observational data to examine the development of these skills across the juvenile period in a wild cercopithecine primate, the gelada (Theropithecus gelada). As adults, male and female geladas require different skills to be successful; we therefore expected sex differences in social behavior and partner choice during the juvenile period to already reflect these sex-specific trajectories. For example, males, who disperse at puberty and ultimately must challenge other adult males for access to mates, should invest in high-energy play-fighting with other males to develop fighting and rival assessment skills. In contrast, philopatric females, who remain with their close kin throughout their lives, should invest more in forming less-physical and more-social bonds with other females within their group. As predicted, sex differences that foreshadowed sex-specific adult roles were apparent in play rates, the average number of play partners per individual, grooming partner types and social partner preferences. Males played more and had more play partners than same-age females. Males also groomed more often with individuals from outside their natal group than females, although no sex difference was observed in either grooming rates or number of grooming partners per individual. Females stopped playing earlier than males, and instead invested in grooming relationships with close relatives. Additionally, we found that individual play and grooming rates were temporally consistent for both males and females (i.e., from one year to the next year), suggesting that individuals exhibit stable behavioral phenotypes. We conclude by discussing how early life in geladas may shape adult behavior and reproductive strategies.

Investigation of pre-pubertal sex differences in wheel running and social behavior in three mouse strains.

Sex differences in social behaviors exist in mammals during adulthood, and further evidence suggests that sex differences in behavior are present before sexual maturity. In order to model behavioral disorders in animals, it is important to assess baseline sex-related behavioral differences, especially when studying disorders for which sex-related behavioral effects are expected. We investigated the effect of sex on behavior in 3 strains of pre-pubertal mice (C57BL/6, CFW, and CF1) using a wheel-running assay. We found no significant sex differences in latency to run on the wheel or total duration of wheel running within each strain. During the social interaction test, there were no differences between sexes in latency or total duration of contact or following between a subject and novel mouse. We also evaluated behavioral patterns of wheel running and stereotypical behaviors, such as burrowing and grooming. Both sexes showed characteristic wheel running behavior, spending the majority of each trial interacting with the wheel when it was free and more time performing other activities (e.g., stereotypical behaviors, general locomotion) when it was jammed. These results provide evidence that, among various strains of pre-pubertal mice, baseline sex-related behavioral differences are not strong enough to influence the measured behaviors.

Sex Differences in the Development of Social Relationships in Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta).

Several studies have documented the importance of social bonding for the enhancement of individual fitness. However, little is known about how social relationships develop through ontogeny, and whether their development follows the same trajectory in males and females. Here we analyzed affiliative interactions (proximity, social grooming, play) combined with demographic and genetic data in semi-free-ranging rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) on Cayo Santiago over their first 4 yr of life (from birth to sexual maturation) to understand how these interactions change through development in both sexes. Generalized linear mixed models revealed that social behaviors mostly followed different developmental trajectories in males and females and were highly dependent on the social context. In particular, sex differences in social behavior varied through development depending on the partner's sex and age. Females engaged in more social interactions than males, especially with other females, and were more involved in grooming around the time of maturation. In contrast, males interacted more with males and age peers, especially around maturation. Sex differences in social behavior varied through development, but also depended on rank, partner's rank, and kin line, although not consistently. High-ranking individuals, especially older females, were generally preferred as social partners. Moreover, both male and female individuals interacted mostly with maternal kin, although males also preferred paternal kin over nonkin. Importantly, most developmental changes in sociality happened when individuals were ca. 2 yr old, suggesting that this might be a milestone in the development of sociality in rhesus macaques. The only notable exception to this pattern was play, which was more pronounced in males from the beginning of their lives. We propose that play might serve as a trigger of sex differences in social behavior, with sex differences emerging early in development and increasing through time as males and females gradually grow into their adult social roles.

Black and White or Shades of Gray

Sex differences are a perpetually popular topic among scholars and lay audiences, but no research has addressed the underlying structure of these differences. Many people assume that sex differences in social behavior are categorical—that these differences represent fundamental distinctions between two distinct categories (taxa) of humans. Contrasted with this view is the idea that sex differences are dimensional—that differences between men and women indicate nothing more than relative positions along overlapping continuous dimensions. We used taxometric methods to examine whether a variety of well-established sex differences are indicative of taxa or dimensions. The evidence clearly supported the latter. Thus, for the psychological constructs that we examined, there is little support for believing that sex differences are anything more than individual differences that vary in magnitude from one attribute to another.

Neonatal MeCP2 is important for the organization of sex differences in vasopressin expression

Several neurodevelopmental disorders are marked by atypical Methyl-CpG-binding protein 2 (MeCP2) expression or function; however, the role of MeCP2 is complex and not entirely clear. Interestingly, there are sex differences in some of these disorders, and it appears that MeCP2 has sex-specific roles during development. Specifically, recent data indicate that a transient reduction in MeCP2 within developing amygdala reduces juvenile social play behavior in males to female-typical levels. These data suggest that MeCP2 within the amygdala is involved in programming lasting sex differences in social behavior. In the present study, we infused MeCP2 or control siRNA into the amygdala of male and female rats during the first three days of postnatal life in order to assess the impact of a transient reduction in MeCP2 on arginine vasopressin (AVP), a neural marker that is expressed differentially between males and females and is linked to a number of social behaviors. The expression of AVP, as well as several other genes, was measured in two-week old and adult animals. Two-week old males expressed more AVP and galanin mRNA in the amygdala than females, and a transient reduction in MeCP2 eliminated this sex difference by reducing the expression of both gene products in males. A transient reduction in MeCP2 also decreased androgen receptor (AR) mRNA in two-week old males. In adulthood, control males had more AVP-immunoreactive (AVP-ir) cells than females in the centromedial amygdala (CMA), bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BST) and in the fibers that project from these cells to the lateral septum (LS). A transient reduction in MeCP2 eliminated this sex difference. Interestingly, there were no lasting differences in galanin or AR levels in adulthood. Reducing MeCP2 levels during development did not alter estrogen receptorα, neurofilament or Foxg1. We conclude that a transient reduction in MeCP2 expression in the developing male amygdala has a transient impact on galanin and AR expression but a lasting impact on AVP expression, highlighting the importance of MeCP2 in organizing sex differences in the amygdala.

Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas.

Although it is commonly believed that women are kinder and more cooperative than men, there is conflicting evidence for this assertion. Current theories of sex differences in social behavior suggest that it may be useful to examine in what situations men and women are likely to differ in cooperation. Here, we derive predictions from both sociocultural and evolutionary perspectives on context-specific sex differences in cooperation, and we conduct a unique meta-analytic study of 272 effect sizes-sampled across 50 years of research-on social dilemmas to examine several potential moderators. The overall average effect size is not statistically different from zero (d = -0.05), suggesting that men and women do not differ in their overall amounts of cooperation. However, the association between sex and cooperation is moderated by several key features of the social context: Male-male interactions are more cooperative than female-female interactions (d = 0.16), yet women cooperate more than men in mixed-sex interactions (d = -0.22). In repeated interactions, men are more cooperative than women. Women were more cooperative than men in larger groups and in more recent studies, but these differences disappeared after statistically controlling for several study characteristics. We discuss these results in the context of both sociocultural and evolutionary theories of sex differences, stress the need for an integrated biosocial approach, and outline directions for future research.

Benefits of pair housing are consistent across a diverse population of rhesus macaques

Introducing singly housed rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) into isosexual pairs is widely considered to improve welfare. The population of laboratory rhesus macaques is heterogeneous on a variety of factors and there is little literature available to directly evaluate the influence of many of these factors on the benefits of pair housing. Subjects were 46 adult female and 18 adult male rhesus macaques housed at the Tulane National Primate Research Center and the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. Behavioral data totalling 859h and serum cortisol levels derived from 312 serum samples were analyzed for main effects of housing condition, comparing single housing to pair housing. In addition, a series of analyses were performed to test for interactions between housing condition and seven independent variables: sex, age, prior duration of single housing, presence or absence of a history of self-injurious behavior, and dominance rank, levels of affiliation and agonism in the paired setting. After the collection of 4–8h of baseline data and three serum cortisol samples, pairs of individuals were introduced to one another and data collection was repeated, no earlier than 4 weeks after introduction. In pair housing both female and male subjects showed decrease in abnormal behavior (females: 54% reduction; P=0.001; males: 18% reduction; P=0.0007) and anxiety-related behavior (females: 35% reduction; P=0.0001; males: 41% reduction; P=0.0001), and increases in locomotion (females: 41% increase; P=0.0001; males: 76% increase: P=0.002). In pair housing, there were no significant sex differences in social behavior. Descriptively, paired females spent 12% of samples engaged in affiliative behavior and 0.5% engaged in agonistic behavior (backtransformed arcsin square root means). The corresponding values for males were 12% and 0.3%. No interaction effects were detected with any of the independent variables tested in this study. Cortisol values varied with sex but did not differ between housing conditions; no differences were detected when any of the above variables were included in the statistical model. Results support the general consensus among those studying the welfare of captive primates that social housing is a potent means for promoting behavioral indicators of the psychological well-being of laboratory primates. These results are of considerable practical significance and include information that refutes common perceptions about the unsuitability of males as socialization candidates, perceived negative consequences of subordinate rank within a pair, or variation in social dynamics observed in particular pairs. The population of singly housed rhesus macaques that will derive benefit from pair housing is diverse and findings of improved welfare can be broadly applied.

Teaching and Learning Guide for: Fairness and Power in Family Organization

This guide accompanies the following article: Gabrielle Poeschl, ‘What Family Organization Tells Us about Fairness and Power in Marital Relationships’, Social and Personality Compass 1/1 (2007): 557–571, 10.1111/j.1751‐9004.2007.00026.xAuthor's IntroductionOne thing that often strikes me, when I talk with people, is the human capacity to accept and defend surprising aspects of the social life. Thus, we have some feeling that the separation between the domestic and the public spheres has not always existed, but we are ready to assume that in the first human groups, men went out hunting to feed their family, while women stayed in the camp to take care of the children. Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, we are reluctant to question the opinion that men and women differ in personality traits and competences that make them more capable of performing different types of tasks. In other words, we are prone to believe in historical reconstructions or in social constructions that help us to explain and justify present‐day relations between social groups. As a result, current debates about the differences between the sexes, or about the status of women during 99% of human history, do not have much influence on the way in which people enact their family roles. In particular, women continue to be held responsible and to feel responsible for family organization and, therefore, they still do the greater share of housework and often view the unequal division of family tasks as fair and satisfactory. If young unmarried people are apt to value more egalitarian relations, they downplay the impact of constraints and social pressures on family practices, which usually bring married people to conform to the traditional family roles. In turn, the adoption of unequal family practices contradicts the progression of women in the public sphere and, consequently, contributes to maintaining the asymmetry between men and women in society as a whole. The extensive research on family organization provides matter for debates on attitudes, norms, values, and behaviors, which are likely to promote students’ interest in research in social psychology and to stimulate their reflection on social inequalities.Author RecommendsFraming the problem of family organization in a broader perspective about sex and gender:1. Nielsen, J. M. (1990). Sex and gender in society. Perspectives on stratification. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.This book provides a good understanding of the structural aspects of the inequality between the sexes, outlining its historical roots and its nature, and presenting explanations and theories about gender stratification. It gives a solid basis to understand as well as to study present‐day family organization and gender roles.2. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.In this classic book, the author examines how the assumptions transmitted by the cultural discourses and social institutions shape individuals’ perceptions of the social reality. It analyzes how androcentrism, gender polarization, and biological essentialism contribute to the maintenance of an unequal social structure organized around predefined gender roles.3. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social‐role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.This book emphasizes the importance of men and women's positions in the social structure to explain their distinctive traits and behaviors. Male and female adults are viewed as the recipients of social pressures to conform to role expectations, acquire skills to accomplish relevant social behaviors, and develop beliefs about the consequences of these behaviors.4. Adovasio, J. M., Soffer, O., & Page, J. (2007). The invisible sex: Uncovering the true roles of women in prehistory. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Written by anthropologists, this book presents current research about prehistoric women and attempts to rectify commonly held theories about how the first human groups were living. The authors argue that men were probably not mighty hunters and discuss, in particular, the role of women in supplying food and creating artifacts to be used in this activity by the egalitarian prehistoric communities.Focusing the issue of family organization:5. Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (2003). The second shift. Working parents and the revolution at home (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.This book analyses the way in which a small sample of spouses with different ideologies (traditional, egalitarian, and transitional) negotiate who does the housework and cares for the children. Conclusions based on a series of interviews and observations highlight the predominant contribution of women to the second job constituted by the family work.6. Casper, L. M., & Bianchi, S. M. (2002). Continuity and change in the American family. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.In this demographically focused book, authors describe the changes that occurred in the American families during the second half of the 20th century, and present theories to interpret the causes of the changes and to assess their consequences. Topics discussed include cohabitation, changes in life of mothers and fathers, child care, economic disparities related to family structure, and the way work and family are combined.Online MaterialsThere is a lot of material on the Web on gender and family issues: Government sites, feminist sites or religious sites, among others, present reports and data about the equality between the sexes, or develop points of view about the desirable roles for men and women in the family and in the society more generally. Official reports, statistics, and documents may be found, for example, on the following sites:1. United Nations Development Program http://hdr.undp.org/en/ Global, national, and regional reports on human development may be downloaded from this site. Human development is defined as the progress made in order that people lead healthy lives, have access to knowledge and to the resources needed for a decent standard of living, and be able to participate in the life of the community. Data about achieving equality between men and women may be found in the published reports, where market and nonmarket activities are described.2. WomenWatch. United Nations Inter‐agency Network on Women and Gender Equality http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ As a space for global gender equality issues, this sites offers information and resources on the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women. It presents numerous links to reports, papers and statistics.3. UNIFEM. United Nations Development Fund for Women http://www.unifem.org/ On this site, which focuses on the advancement of women's rights, information, publications, and reports about the advancement of women and achievement of gender equality may be found.4. European Commission. Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=418&langId=en This site provides information on the effort to achieve equality between men and women in the European Union, through equal treatment legislation, gender mainstreaming, and specific measures for the advancement of women.5. Status of Women Canada http://www.swc‐cfc.gc.ca/index_e.html This site is designed to provide information about women's issues. Among the numerous publications that may be viewed online, papers and data on paid and unpaid work may be chosen from the alphabetical list of the ‘publication’ section of the site.Sample Syllabus for Seminar in Fairness and Power in Family OrganizationCourse descriptionThe aim of this course is to introduce students to the theories and research on family organization. It discusses the origin of present‐day family organization; the division of family work between spouses, the reasons that might explain this division and the feelings it induces in partners; the distribution of power between spouses and its implications on marital satisfaction; the consequences of family organization on the achievement of equality between men and women in the public sphere. Theories and research developments are introduced through lectures, readings, weekly assignments, group projects, and discussions.Course format and readingsThis seminar on Fairness and Power in Family Organization consists of lectures, class discussions, and a proposed study for groups of two to three students. There are several texts that students should all read, and each student will have to present a single (different) journal article. Weekly assignments are proposed to provide complementary material for discussions.Course requirements and gradingThe requirements of the course are the following: to do all the weekly assignments and readings before class, so that we can have informed discussions; to participate actively in the class discussions; to present an article (using PowerPoint) selected from among the suggested readings; to contribute constructively to a research project conceived by a small group of students. Final grades will be based on the amount and quality of student participation in general (20%), individual presentation of readings (40%), and the group presentation (PowerPoint and handout) of the proposed study (40%).Course projectsIndividual presentation.  You will be expected to present to the class the paper that you selected in agreement with your professor, using PowerPoint. You should mention the objective of the paper, summarize the cited literature, describe how the data were collected, present the main findings, and explain what the authors felt their main contribution was. You should outline how the paper contributes to your own understanding of the issue, what questions it raises and how further studies might be developed on the basis of those data. Note that you will not be graded on your presentational style, but on your ability to integrate and transmit the information provided by the paper.Group presentation.  The group presentation consists of a PowerPoint presentation that should include the following sections: (a) a title page; (b) an introduction that presents the main objective of the study and justifies its theoretical and social importance; (c) a brief review of relevant literature; (d) a clearly stated hypothesis; (e) a method section explaining how the data are collected, the sample defined and the data analyzed; (f) the expected results; (g) a brief discussion indicating what might be concluded if the results support – or do not support – the hypothesis; and (h) a reference section.Research project idea.  The proposed study should be original and develop any of the topics discussed in the seminar and presented hereafter. It should aim at shedding light on a selected aspect of the issue, which should contribute to expand the current state of knowledge on the way in which family organization reflects different conceptions of fairness and power, or different readjustments in these conceptions that affect marital relationships and, more generally, social organization.Topics, Focus Questions, and ReadingsPart 1: IntroductionThe first part of the seminar is dedicated to the presentation of a historical perspective on the relations between men and women and the progressive division of roles by sex. It describes how the theories about the differences between the sexes stemmed from the roles of breadwinner and caretaker and how these theories still contribute, in turn, to justify the traditional division of roles between men and women. Assignment and Focus Questions: Ask about ten persons – half men, half women – how they view the roles of men and women in prehistory. What are, in your opinion, the reasons why men and women traditionally perform different roles? Readings for All: Nielsen, J. M. (1990). Sex and gender in society. Perspectives on stratification. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Chapter 2: Gender and status in preindustrial societies (pp. 25–48). Nielsen, J. M. (1990). Sex and gender in society. Perspectives on stratification. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Chapter 3: Gender and status in industrial and industrializing societies (pp. 49–84). Suggested Readings: Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754.Folbre, N. (1991). The unproductive housewife: Her evolution in nineteenth‐century economic thought. Signs, 16, 463–484.Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance. Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.Hoffman, C., & Hurst, N. (1990). Gender stereotypes: perception or rationalization? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 197–208.Hollingworth, L. S. (1916). The vocational aptitudes of women. In H. L. Hollinworth (Ed.) Vocational psychology: its problems and method (pp. 222–244). New York, NY: D’Appleton & Company.Scott, J. W. (1993). The woman worker. In G. Fraisse, & M. Perrot (Eds.), A history of women in the West, Vol. IV, Emerging feminism from revolution to world war (pp. 399–426). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Shields, S. A. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women. American Psychologist, 30, 739–754.West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151.Part 2: Present‐day family organization: characteristics and explanationsThe second part of the seminar focuses on the present‐day family organization and the ‘gender‐typed’ division of domestic and parental tasks. The factors explaining inter‐individual variations, such as age, education, or family structure are discussed, as well as the main explanations for the lack of changes in traditional family organization. Assignment and Focus Questions: Ask about ten married persons – half men, half women – how they divide the domestic and parental tasks at home and why they do so. Think about what you, personally, would do and why. Readings for All: Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1208–1233.Shelton, B. A., & John, D. (1996). The division of household labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 299–322. Suggested Readings: Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Social Forces, 79, 191–228.Davis, S. N., Greenstein, T. N., & Gerteisen Marks, J. P. (2007). Effects of union type on division of household labor. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1246–1272.Greenstein, T. N. (1996). Husbands’ participation in domestic labor: Interactive effects of wives’ and husbands’ gender ideology. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 585–595.Gupta, S. (2006). Her money, her time: Women's earnings and their housework hours. Social Sciences Research, 35, 975–999.Poeschl, G., Pinto, I., Múrias, C., Silva, A., & Ribeiro, R. (2006). Representations of family practices, belief in sex differences and sexism. Sex Roles, 55, 111–121.Presser, H. B. (1994). Employment schedules among dual‐earner spouses and the division of household labor by gender. American Sociological Review, 59, 348–364.Singleton, A., & Maher, J. (2004). The ‘new man’ is in the house: Young men, social change, and housework. The Journal of Men's Studies, 12, 227–240.Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1989). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 845–871.Part 3: Perception of (un)fairness with family organizationThe third part of the seminar deals with the common paradoxical feeling of fairness with the unequal division of family tasks and discusses the proposed explanations for this feeling. Inter‐individual variations in the perception of fairness are examined as well as the implications of the perception of unfairness for spouses and marital relationship. Assignment and Focus Questions: Ask about ten married persons – half men, half women – whether they are satisfied with the way they divide domestic and parental tasks and why they find this division (un)fair and (un)satisfactory. Would you share their feeling? Why? What would, in your opinion, be a fair and satisfactory family organization? Readings for All: Kluwer, E. S., & Mikula, G. (2002). Gender‐related inequalities in the division of family work in close relationships: A social psychological perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 185–216.Major, B. (1993). Gender, entitlement and the distribution of family labor. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 141–159. Suggested Readings: Baxter, J., & Western, M. (1998). Satisfaction with housework: Examining the paradox. Sociology, 32, 101–120.Frisco, M., & Williams, K. (2003). Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dual‐earner households. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 51–73.Gager, C., & Hohmann‐Marriott, B. (2006). Distributive justice in the household. Marriage and Family Review, 40, 5–42.Grote, N. K., Naylor, K. E., & Clark, M. S. (2002). Perceiving the division of family work to be unfair: Do social comparisons, enjoyment, and competence matter? Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 510–522.Mikula, G. (1998). Division of household labor and perceived justice: A growing field of research. Social Justice Research, 11, 215–241.Mikula, G., & Freudenthaler, H. H. (2002). Division of tasks and duties and the perception of injustice: The case of household chores. Psychologische Beitraege, 44, 567–584.Poeschl, G. (2008). Social norms and the feeling of justice about unequal family practices. Social Justice Research, 21 (1), 69–85.Thompson, L. (1991). Family work: Women's sense of fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 181–196.Part 4: Power relations in family organizationThe fourth part of the seminar addresses the division of power and authority in the family. It discusses different perspectives on family power, the relationship between women's earnings, power, and conformity to the normative family roles, the concept of female gatekeeping, as well as the implications of the perception of an unbalanced distribution of power on marital satisfaction. Assignment and Focus Questions: Ask about ten married persons – half men, half women – to tell you how they view the division of power in their family and on which clues they base their opinion. Do you agree with their analysis? Why? How would you describe a desirable distribution of power between spouses? Readings for All: Kranichfeld, M. L. (1987). Rethinking family power. Journal of Family Issues, 8, 42–56.Tichenor, V. (2005). Maintaining men's dominance: Negotiating identity and power when she earns more. Sex Roles, 53, 191–205. Suggested Readings: Allen, S. M., & Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers’ beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 199–212.Bittman, M., England, P., Folbre, N., Sayer, L., & Matheson, G. (2003). When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. American Journal of Sociology, 109, 186–214.Deutsch, F. M., Roksa, J., & Meeske, C. (2003). How gender counts when couples count their money. Sex Roles, 48, 291–304.McBride, B. A., Brown, G. L., Bost, K. K., Shin, N., Vaughn, B., & Korth, B. (2005). Paternal identity, maternal gatekeeping, and father involvement. Family Relations, 54, 360–372.Müller, U. (1998). The micropolitics of gender differences in family life. In V. Ferreira, T. Tavares, & S. Portugal (Eds.), Shifting Bonds, Shifting Bounds (pp. 329–344). Oeiras: Celta Editora.Tichenor, V. (1999). Status and income as gendered resources: The case of marital power. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 638–650.Vogler, C. (1998). Money in the household: Some underlying issues of power. Sociological Review, 46, 687–713.Weigel, D. J., Bennett, K. K., & Ballard‐Reisch, D. S. (2006). Influence strategies in marriage: Self and partner links between equity, strategy use, and marital satisfaction and commitment. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 77–95.Part 5: Family organization and equality between men and women in the public sphereThe last part of the seminar examines the social consequences of traditional family practices. It discusses the way in which inequalities within the family lead to inequalities outside the family, namely by conditioning women's participation in the economic and political spheres, and the way in which such practices contribute, ultimately, to the ‘feminization of poverty’. Assignment and Focus Questions: Ask about ten persons – half men, half women – how they balance their family and professional tasks. Do you think that the equality between the spouses implies sharing roles? And what do you think about an equal representation of men and women in the breadwinning and care giving roles? Readings for All: Smock, P., & Noonan, M. C. (2005). Intersections: Gender, work, and family well‐being in the United States. In S. M. Bianchi, L. M. Casper & R. B. King (Eds.), Work, family, health and well‐being (pp. 343–360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. United Nations Development Program (2007). Human Development Report 2007/2008. Gender empowerment measures (pp. 326–346). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Suggested readings: Brescoll, V. L., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2005). Attitudes toward traditional and nontraditional parents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 436–445.Hersch, J., & Stratton, L. S. (1997). Housework, fixed effects, and wages of married workers. Journal of Human Resources, 32, 285–307.Hersch, J., & Stratton, L. S. (2002). Housework and wages. Journal of Human Resources, 37, 217–229.Holden, K. C., & Smock, P. J. (1991). The economic costs of marital dissolution: Why do women bear a disproportionate cost? Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 51–78.Kaufman, G., & Uhlenberg, P. (2000). The influence of parenthood on the work effort of married men and women. Social Forces, 78, 931–947.Riggs, J. M. (1997). Mandates for mothers and fathers: Perceptions of breadwinners and care givers. Sex Roles, 37, 565–580.Smock, P. J. (1994). Gender and the short‐run economic consequences of marital disruption. Social Forces, 73, 243–262.Waldfogel, J. (1998). Understanding the ‘family gap’ in pay for women with children. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 137–156.

Asymmetries in the Friendship Preferences and Social Styles of Men and Women.

Several hypotheses on the form and function of sex differences in social behaviors were tested. The results suggest that friendship preferences in both sexes can be understood in terms of perceived reciprocity potential-capacity and willingness to engage in a mutually beneficial relationship. Divergent social styles may in turn reflect trade-offs between behaviors selected to maintain large, functional coalitions in men and intimate, secure relationships in women. The findings are interpreted from a broad socio-relational framework of the types of behaviors that facilitate selective advertisement and investment of reciprocity potential across individuals and within groups of men and women.

Moral Issues and Gender Differences in Ethical Judgment using Reidenbach and Robin’s (1990) Multidimensional Ethics Scale: Implications in Teaching of Business Ethics

In this study, we examined moral issues and gender differences in ethical judgment using Reidenbach and Robin’s [Journal of Business Ethics 9 (1990) 639) multidimensional ethics scale (MES). A total of 340 undergraduate students were asked to provide ethical judgment by rating three moral issues in the MES labeled: ‚sales’, ‚auto’, and ‚retail’ using three ethics theories: moral equity, relativism, and contractualism. We found that female students’ ratings of ethical judgment were consistently higher than that of male students across two out of three moral issues examined (i.e., sales and retails) and ethics theories; providing support for Eagly’s [1987, Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-role Interpretation. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, England)] social role theory. After controlling for moral issues, women’s higher ratings of ethical judgment over men’s became statistically non-significant. Theoretical and practical implications based on the study’s findings are provided.

An evolutionary psychological perspective on gender similarities and differences.

ceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hartung, C. M., & Widiger, T. A. (1998). Gender differences in the diagnosis of mental illness. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 260–278. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581– 592. Lippa, R. (1998). Gender-related individual difference and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the “People–Things” dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 996–1009. Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sex differences in social behavior and cognition: Utility of sexual selection for hypothesis generation

Knickmeyer and colleagues’ (this issue) provide intriguing evidence for a nascent and possibly hormonally influenced sex difference, favoring preschool girls, for some aspects of theory of mind (ToM), that is, skill at making inferences about the thoughts, feelings, and intentions of other people. The study is important because the measure used to assess the associated generation of mental and affective state terms and intentional propositions to describe object-to-object interactions is more sensitive to sex differences then most ToM tests used at this age. The study also contributes with the use of an evolutionary perspective to generate hypotheses regarding sex differences in ToM and social behavior. In fact, over the past three decades, Darwin’s (1871) evolutionary mechanisms of sexual selection (described below) have been used by biologists to