Feedback about writing evidence

Pelin, it was hard to follow your sentence structure, so I rephrased it.  I also think it is preferable, where possible, to  focus on what people do, not on how constructs are related.   

Write for cover up teaching/research for future (in needed)

Jeremy Burman (Groningen)
Nina Hansen (Groningen)

Michael Bender (Tilburg)
Yvette Van Osch (Tilburg)

Michael Verkuyten (Utrecht)
Sheida Novin (Utrecht)

Josh Tybur (VU Amsterdam)

Bertjan Doosje (UvA)
Birol Akkus
Sanne Lamers

Summary of Saucier Lab Research on Masculine Honor Beliefs

Recent research has conceptualized adherence to masculine honor ideology as an individual difference in one’s endorsement of MHB, suggesting men and women from nonhonor cultures may also endorse masculine honor ideology (e.g., Barnes et al., 2012; Saucier & McManus, 2014; Saucier et al., 2016). Influenced by previous honor research, Saucier et al. (2016) developed the Masculine Honor Beliefs Scale (MHBS) to measure seven facets (e.g., pride in manhood and provocation) representing MHB. MHB explain regional differences in honor-related responses to provocation (see Saucier, Miller, et al., 2018). Furthermore, the MHBS has been used to examine relationships between adherence to MHB and various attitudes and perceptions of social behaviors, such as perceptions of the world being a “competitive jungle” (Saucier, Webster, et al., 2018), men’s motivations for muscularity (Saucier, O’Dea, & Stratmoen, 2017), perceptions of slurs against men’s masculinity as insulting and deserving of retaliatory aggression (Saucier, Till, Miller, O’Dea, & Andres, 2015), expectations for men to physically confront honor threats (O’Dea, Chalman, Castro Bueno, & Saucier, 2018), and negative perceptions of those who do not (O’Dea, Bueno, & Saucier, 2017). MHB are associated with various political attitudes, including greater endorsement of agentic male candidates for President of the U.S. (Martens, Stratmoen, & Saucier, 2018), negative perceptions of football players who knelt during the National Anthem to protest police violence against racial minorities (Stratmoen, Lawless, & Saucier, 2018), and greater support for restrictive national security policies and endorsement of war (Saucier, Webster, et al., 2018). Furthermore, MHB are associated with negative perceptions of rape survivors and increased support for punishment for rapists (Saucier, Strain, Hockett, & McManus, 2015), as well as with perceptions of romantic rejection as threatening men’s honor and consequently expecting increased aggression by men toward women who reject their romantic advances (Stratmoen, Greer, Martens, & Saucier, 2018).

Source is this paper: Stratmoen, E., Rivera, E. D., & Saucier, D. A. (2019). “Sorry, I already have a boyfriend”: Masculine honor beliefs and perceptions of women’s use of deceptive rejection behaviors to avert unwanted romantic advances. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 0265407519865615.

Excellent symposium abstract and talk abstract (SPSP2020)

SPSP2020 Symposium - Evolutionary Mismatches for Relationships, Politics, and Goal Pursuit

Symposium abstract: Modern advances lead to rapid environmental changes that outpace the ability of humans to adapt. The four talks in this symposium will explore evolutionarily novel features of the environment (e.g., medical advances, large societies) that have implications for a wide range of behaviors. The first speaker will present a theoretical perspective suggesting that many social issues are due in part to mismatches between the modern and evolutionary environments. The remaining talks will discuss recent empirical work derived from this perspective in three domains. Specifically, the second speaker will present longitudinal data demonstrating that women’s hormonal contraceptive use impacts their relationship outcomes. The third speaker will present evidence suggesting that evolved heuristics can explain people’s selection of narcissistic and authoritarian leaders as well as the underrepresentation of women leaders. The final speaker will present five studies suggesting that people are maladapted to evaluate goal progress by showing that modern demands lead people to misperceive goal pursuit. Together, these talks introduce a new framework for understanding important human social phenomena.

Talk 1 abstract: It’s a mismatched world

Living standards in modern societies are at historically unprecedented high levels and people are living longer, safer, and freer lives than ever. Ironically, however, modern people experience lower psychological well-being than ancestral humans such that they report increased chronic stress, anxiety, and depression; are more dissatisfied in their romantic relationships; are more prone to divorce; and, are more dissatisfied in the workplace. Here, an evolutionary mismatch perspective is introduced as a framework through which to view and examine modern problems. Human psychology consists of mechanisms that evolved to process environmental inputs, turning them into behavioral outputs that, on average, increase survival or reproductive prospects. Modern contexts, however, differ vastly from the environment that existed as human psychological mechanisms evolved, thereby leading many mechanisms to produce maladaptive output. In this talk, the evolutionary mismatch process is described, areas of mismatch are highlighted, and implications for psychological science and policy are considered.

Talk 2 abstract: Hormonal contraception: A possible evolutionary mismatch for relationships

Modern-day environments differ drastically from those in which humans evolved, and such differences likely have important implications for human mating psychology. One particularly notable difference is the modern development of hormonal contraceptives (HCs). HCs alter the hormones of the many women who use them, including hormones associated with women’s partner preferences (particularly preferences for genetic fitness). Accordingly, the HC congruency hypothesis posits that changing HC use after relationship formation (relative to use at relationship formation) changes women’s relationship evaluations. We tested this possibility in two independent, longitudinal studies of 203 newlywed couples. Results demonstrated that when women’s HC use was incongruent (versus congruent) with their use at relationship formation, they reported lower sexual and marital satisfaction—though, such women were buffered against lower marital satisfaction when their partners were particularly physically attractive (a marker of genetic fitness). These findings highlight the importance of considering mismatches between the modern and ancestral environments for better understanding close relationships.

Talk 3 abstract: The appeal of a strong leader: Evidence for mismatch?

We live in large, complex organizations with strong, powerful leaders. Yet our minds evolved in small-scale societies with distributed leadership. Discrepancies between modern versus small-scale societies may account for many leadership challenges today (e.g., preference for authoritarian and narcissistic political leaders, underrepresentation of women leaders). Current leadership theories cannot account for these challenges because they assume that leadership selection is a rational decision-making process. We argue instead that people select leaders using simple heuristics that are mismatched to the modern world. Four studies on political elections show that people (a) attend more to physical cues of leaders (e.g., height, appearance) than competence cues; (b) attribute organizational successes and failures disproportionally to the people in charge, despite contrary evidence; and (c) base their leadership preferences on their own physiological (e.g., strength, health) and developmental needs (e.g., childhood environment). The result is a comprehensive understanding of the evolved heuristics that shape leadership preferences and how they may be mismatched in modern societies.

Talk 4 abstract: Evolutionary mismatches in self-regulation: Having long-term goals but using short-term standards

Society has changed at a faster pace than human biology, leading to mismatches between the ancestral and modern context of goal pursuits. We discuss one implication of modern goal pursuit—that long-term goal pursuits often require short-term standards. Across 5 studies, we show that the presence of these standards draws attention, leading to nonlinear biases in how people evaluate goal progress. In Studies 1-3, we examine nonlinear perceptions of goal progress across multiple goals involving both inhibition and initiation behaviors. In Study 4, we investigated whether nonlinear perceptions emerge from only externally imposed standards or whether they also exist across self-set standards. Finally, in Study 5, we tested the degree to which these processes may reflect a self-serving bias versus a binary bias and examined temporal reframing. Together, these studies suggest that people perceive a linear phenomenon—long-term goal progress—as non-linear. We discuss these findings from an evolutionary perspective, highlighting the incongruence between modern and ancestral societies with regard to goal pursuit demands.