Following in the Wake of Anger: When Not Discriminating Is Discriminating

Does seeing a scowling face change your impression of the next person you see? Does this depend on the race of the two people? Across four studies, White participants evaluated neutrally expressive White males as less threatening when they followed angry (relative to neutral) White faces; Black males were not judged as less threatening following angry Black faces. This lack of threat-anchored contrast for Black male faces is not attributable to a general tendency for White targets to homogenize Black males—neutral Black targets following smiling Black faces were contrasted away from them and seen as less friendly—and emerged only for perceivers low in motivation to respond without prejudice (i.e., for those relatively comfortable responding prejudicially). This research provides novel evidence for the overperception of threat in Black males

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Becker et al. / MEMORY FOR ATTRACTIVENESS Concentrating on Beauty: Sexual Selection and Sociospatial Memory

In three experiments, location memory for faces was examine

I only have eyes for you: Ovulation redirects attention (but not memory) to attractive men

A number of studies have found a disjunction between women’s attention to, and memory for, handsome men. Although women pay initial attention to handsome men, they do not remember those men later. The present study examines how ovulation might differentially affect these attentional and memory processes. We found that women near ovulation increased their visual attention to attractive men. However, this increased visual attention did not translate into better memory. Discussion focuses on possible explanations, in the context of an emerging body of findings on disjunctions between attention to, and memory for, other people.National Institute of Mental Health (U.S.) (R01MH064734

The confounded nature of angry men and happy women.

Findings of 7 studies suggested that decisions about the sex of a face and the emotional expressions of anger or happiness are not independent: Participants were faster and more accurate at detecting angry expressions on male faces and at detecting happy expressions on female faces. These findings were robust across different stimulus sets and judgment tasks and indicated bottom-up perceptual processes rather than just top-down conceptually driven ones. Results from additional studies in which neutrally expressive faces were used suggested that the connections between masculine features and angry expressions and between feminine features and happy expressions might be a property of the sexual dimorphism of the face itself and not merely a result of gender stereotypes biasing the perception

Dynamical Evolutionary Psychology: Mapping the Domains of the New Interactionist Paradigm

Dynamical systems and evolutionary theories have both been proposed as integrative approaches to psychology. These approaches are typically applied to different sets of questions. Dynamical systems models address the properties of psychological systems as they emerge and change over time; evolutionary models address the specific func-tions and contents of psychological structures. New insights can be achieved by inte-grating these two paradigms, and we propose a framework to begin doing so. The framework specifies a set of six evolutionarily fundamental social goals that place predictable constraints on emergent processes within and between individuals, influ-encing their dynamics over the short-term, and across developmental and evolution-ary time scales. These social goals also predictably influence the dynamic emergence and change of cultural norms. This framework has heuristic as well as integrative po-tential, generating novel hypotheses within a number of unexplored areas at psychol-ogy’s interface with the other biological and social sciences. Every second-order interaction is moderated by third order interactions, which in turn are moderated b

Deep Rationality: The Evolutionary Economics of Decision Making

What is a “rational” decision? Economists traditionally viewed rationality as maximizing expected satisfaction. This view has been useful in modeling basic microeconomic concepts, but falls short in accounting for many everyday human decisions. It leaves unanswered why some things reliably make people more satisfied than others, and why people frequently act to make others happy at a cost to themselves. Drawing on an evolutionary perspective, we propose that people make decisions according to a set of principles that may not appear to make sense at the superficial level, but that demonstrate rationality at a deeper evolutionary level. By this, we mean that people use adaptive domain-specific decision-rules that, on average, would have resulted in fitness benefits. Using this framework, we re-examine several economic principles. We suggest that traditional psychological functions governing risk aversion, discounting of future benefits, and budget allocations to multiple goods, for example, vary in predictable ways as a function of the underlying motive of the decision-maker and individual differences linked to evolved life-history strategies. A deep rationality framework not only helps explain why people make the decisions they do, but also inspires multiple directions for future research

Dynamical Evolutionary Psychology: Individual Decision Rules and Emergent Social Norms

A new theory integrating evolutionary and dynamical approaches is proposed. Following evolutionary models, psychological mechanisms are conceived as conditional decision rules designed to address fundamental problems confronted by human ancestors, with qualitatively different decision rules serving different problem domains and individual differences in decision rules as a function of adaptive and random variation. Following dynamical models, decision mechanisms within individuals are assumed to unfold in dynamic interplay with decision mechanisms of others in social networks. Decision mecha-nisms in different domains have different dynamic outcomes and lead to different sociospatial geome-tries. Three series of simulations examining trade-offs in cooperation and mating decisions illustrate how individual decision mechanisms and group dynamics mutually constrain one another, and offer insights about gene–culture interactions. Evolutionary psychology and dynamical systems theory have both been proposed as antidotes to the theoretical fragmentation that long characterized the field of psychology. Evolutionary psy-chologists have proposed that isolated psychological research top-ics such as aggression, taste aversion, language acquisition, mate selection, and spatial cognition can be connected to research on cultural anthropology, ecology, zoology, genetics, and physiology via principles of modern Darwinian theory (e.g., Buss, 1995; Kenrick, 1994; Lumsden & Wilson, 1981; Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). Dynamical systems theorists have searched for even more fundamental principles: general rules capable of linking informa-tion processing in the human brain with processes found in eco-nomic markets, biological ecosystems, and worldwide weathe

The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs

Social exchange and evolutionary models of mate selection incorporate economic assumptions but have not considered a key distinction between necessities and luxuries. This distinction can clarify an apparent paradox: Status and attractiveness, though emphasized by many researchers, are not typically rated highly by research participants. Three studies supported the hypothesis that women and men first ensure sufficient levels of necessities in potential mates before considering many other characteristics rated as more important in prior surveys. In Studies 1 and 2, participants designed ideal long-term mates, purchasing various characteristics with 3 different budgets. Study 3 used a mate-screening paradigm and showed that people inquire 1st about hypothesized necessities. Physical attractiveness was a necessity to men, status and resources were necessities to women, and kindness and intelligence were necessities to both. Relationship researchers adopting social exchange and evolutionary perspectives have used economic principles (e.g., Hatfield, Utne, & Traupmann, 1979; Kenrick, Groth, Trost, & Sadalla, 1993). However, a key distinction from economics has been omitted—necessities versus luxuries (e.g., Varian, 1984). Though peopl