The behavioral ecology of moral dilemmas: childhood unpredictability, but not harshness, predicts less deontological and utilitarian responding

Childhood unpredictability and harshness are associated with patterns of psychology and behavior that enable individuals to make the most of adverse environments. The current research assessed effects of childhood unpredictability and harshness on individual differences in sacrificial moral decision making. Six studies (N = 1,503) supported the hypothesis that childhood unpredictability, but not harshness, would be associated with fewer decisions to reject harm (consistent with deontological ethics) and to maximize overall outcomes (consistent with utilitarian ethics). These associations were not moderated by perceptions of current environmental unpredictability (Studies 3a and 3b) and were robust to potential confounds (religiosity, political conservativism, Big 5 personality traits, and social desirability; Study 5). The associations between childhood unpredictability and lower deontological and utilitarian tendencies were statistically mediated by low levels of empathic concern and poor-quality social relationships (Study 4). Findings are consistent with the possibility that early calibration to ecological unpredictability, but not harshness, undermines other-oriented psychological processes which, in turn, reduce moral concerns about harm and consequences for other people

Equalitarianism: A source of liberal bias

Recent scholarship has challenged the long-held assumption in the social sciences that Conservatives are more biased than Liberals, contending that the predominance of Liberals in social science may have caused social scientists to ignore liberal bias. Here, we demonstrate that Liberals are particularly prone to bias about victims’ groups (e.g. Blacks, Muslims, women) and identify a trait that consistently predicts this bias. This trait, termed Equalitarianism, stems from an aversion to inequality and is comprised of three interrelated assumptions: (1) demographic groups do not differ biologically; (2) prejudice is ubiquitous; (3) society can, and should, make all groups equal in society. This leads to bias against information that portrays a perceived privileged group more favorably than a perceived victims’ group. Eight studies (n=3,274) support this theory. Liberalism was associated with perceiving certain groups as victims (Studies 1a-1b). In Studies 2-7, Liberals evaluated the same study as less credible when the results concluded that a privileged group (men and Whites) had a superior quality relative to a victims’ group (women and Blacks) than vice versa. Ruling out alternative explanations of Bayesian (or other normative) reasoning, significant order effects in within-subjects designs in Studies 6 and 7 suggest that Liberals think that they should not evaluate identical information differently depending on which group is said to have a superior quality, yet do so. In all studies, higher equalitarianism mediated the relationship between more liberal ideology and lower credibility ratings when privileged groups were said to score higher on a socially valuable trait

sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672221113670 – Supplemental material for Lifting Me Up or Tearing You Down? The Role of Prestige and Dominance in Benign Versus Malicious Envy

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672221113670 for Lifting Me Up or Tearing You Down? The Role of Prestige and Dominance in Benign Versus Malicious Envy by Connor R. Hasty, Sarah E. Ainsworth, Jose L. Martinez and Jon K. Maner in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</p

An Introduction to Synthetic Biology

Synthetic biology is a newly emerged discipline that came into light several years ago. It is an interdisciplinary field bringing together the expertise from science, engineering, and computing to create artificial parts or systems in the biological world. This chapter provides a concise overview of the background and developments in synthetic biology with focus on some of the latest research findings. It is believed that synthetic biology can open new doors for solutions to many existing daily life problems. However, there are still many challenges to be overcome due to the complex nature of biological systems. The discoveries and knowledge that will be gained from the ongoing studies in synthetic biology will enrich our understanding towards how life has been designed by nature and to what extent it can be altered or improved by artificial interference