To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Social role theory and evolutionary neuroandrogenic (ENA) theory are compared regarding how well they can explain 15 cognitive and behavioral sex differences that appear to be present in all human cultures. In essence, social role theory argues that, except for males being larger and more muscular and only females being able to bear children, cognitive and behavioral differences between the sexes result from sociocultural training and expectations. On the other hand, ENA theory attributes sex differences in cognition and behavior to evolved differential exposure of male and female brains to sex hormones, especially testosterone. The existence of 15 nearly certain universal sex differences in cognitive and behavioral traits was documented in a recently published book based on findings from over 40,000 empirical studies. This Element documents that, while both theories have explanatory power, ENA theory surpasses social role theory in explaining the universality of most of the 15 traits.
Chapter 14 examines international legitimacy as a system of reference that influences how actors (primarily states and individuals) experience meaning in the international sphere and, to some degree, at the national level. As a way to unpack what to understand in how a sense of legitimacy can function as a reference and framework of meaning in an international system, this chapter focuses on three points: how the start of an international order can impact its legitimacy, which leads me to argue that it can happen in three ways: force, negotiation, and a combination of the two, each of these ways having an impact on how the sense of legitimacy of international order is perceived; how, once in place, the sense of legitimacy in an international system influences actors (their behavior, identity and values); and how the scope and depth of legitimacy internationally can vary with time and circumstances.
To examine the relationship between children’s adaptive functioning and neighborhood resources – such as school quality, access to healthy food, green spaces, and housing quality – using a large, diverse clinical outpatient sample.
Method:
Pediatric outpatients (N = 6,942; age M = 10.44 years; 67.0% male; 50.3% White; 33.9% Medicaid), aged 1-18, who underwent neuropsychological or psychological evaluation were included if their caregiver completed the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, 3rd Edition (ABAS-3) and had a nationally normed Child Opportunity Index (COI) score, a composite measure of 29 geo-coded neighborhood characteristics.
Results:
Children from higher-opportunity neighborhoods demonstrated significantly stronger adaptive functioning across conceptual, social, and practical domains. Those in the top 40% of neighborhood advantage exhibited stronger adaptive skills than those in the bottom 60%. Neighborhood resources and family financial resources were associated with greater adaptive skills beyond child age, sex, and racial/ethnic background.
Conclusion:
Neighborhood resources are linked to children’s adaptive functioning, possibly due to increased opportunities to practice these skills in safer, more supportive environments. These findings emphasize the importance of considering environmental factors in assessing adaptive skills and highlight the need for public health investments and legislation related to community resources.
Narratives and studies of Latino partisanship often emphasize Democratic identification, but some have recently suggested a shift towards Republicans. We address these by examining Latino party identification over a 34-year period, leveraging 35 national surveys with a total of over 103,000 Latino respondents along with Census data to create post-stratified survey weights to correct for biases. We emphasize changing partisanship over time by nativity, birth cohorts, and by national origin. From 2000 to 2012, we observed a slight overall increase in Democratic identification and a decrease in Republican identification, but this was driven by foreign-born Latinos. After 2012, we see declining Democratic identification overall, greater Republican identification among foreign-born and older native-born Latinos, and accelerating Independent identification among native-born Millennial and Gen Z Latinos. These results show that generational turnover and differences by nativity challenge extant theories of Latino partisan change over time.
Incretin-based treatments, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists (eg liraglutide and semaglutide), have rapidly transformed obesity treatment. The well-documented weight loss effect from these agents is considered to be primarily a result of their actions on food intake, but frequent anecdotal reports from varied sources have suggested that they might also broadly affect consummatory behavior, including alcohol and drugs of abuse, suggesting a potential modulatory effect on reward behavior. Herein, we critically review the extant literature on the behavioral effects of GLP-1R agonists in humans, including their impact on feeding behavior, alcohol/drug intake, and overall reward response. We also consider the physiological and neurobiological underpinnings of GLP-1 actions, with a focus on its distinct central and peripheral roles, as well as its relationships with the broader energy homeostasis network. We conclude with a discussion on the implications of this line of research on how behavior is conceptualized, and the potential future directions for research.
Leishmaniasis, Chagas disease (CD), and Human African Trypanosomiasis (HAT) are neglected tropical diseases in humans caused by intracellular parasites from the class Kinetoplastida. Leishmaniasis is one infectious disease that exhibits sex-bias not explained solely by behavioral or cultural differences. However, HAT and CD have less well documented and understood sex-related differences, either due to a lack of differences or insufficient research and reporting.
Methods
This paper reviews the rate of disease and disease severity among male and females infected with CD, HAT, and leishmaniasis. We further review the specific immune response to each pathogen and potential sex-based mechanisms which could impact immune responses and disease outcomes.
Results
These mechanisms include sex hormone modulation of the immune response, sex-related genetic differences, and socio-cultural factors impacting risky behaviors in men and women. The mechanistic differences in immune response among sexes and pathogens provide important insights and identification of areas for further research.
Conclusions
This information can aid in future development of inclusive, targeted, safe, and effective treatments and control measures for these neglected diseases and other infectious diseases.
We provide a practical overview of the most important steps of behavioral observation and coding, with a focus on how these processes are typically executed within social and personality psychology. The chapter has six main sections. We begin by explaining what is meant by behavioral observation and coding, and we outline the strengths and challenges of this method. We then describe two guiding principles that apply throughout observation and coding. Next, we highlight several aspects of observation and coding for researchers to consider, many of which vary along a continuum. We also discuss practical questions regarding coding, such as the number of coders needed. We describe the analysis of behavioral data – from establishing inter-rater agreement to running models with the coded behaviors as outcomes of interest. Lastly, we discuss concerns related to automated processing of videos and text and topics related to the open-science movement.
Suppose you are running a company that provides proofreading services to publishers. You employ people who sit in front of screens, correcting written text. Spelling errors are the most frequent problem, so you are motivated to hire proofreaders who are excellent spellers. Therefore, you decide to give your job applicants a spelling test. It isn’t hard: throw together 25 words, and score everyone on a scale of 0–25. You are now a social scientist, a specialist called a psychometrician, measuring “spelling ability.”
The reader should be officially informed that in this chapter I take leave of the widely accepted consensus about nature–nurture. This is not a textbook, and everything that I have said up to now has been very much my own take on things, but for the most part I have not strayed far from what most scientists would say about the intellectual history of nature and nurture. Not everyone perhaps, but most people agree that Galton was a racist, eugenics a moral and scientific failure, heritability of behavioral differences nearly universal, heritability a less than useful explanatory concept, twin studies an interesting but ultimately limited research paradigm, and linkage and candidate gene analysis of human behavior decisive failures.
Has it always been the case that living people must struggle with the moral failings of their dead ancestors, or is that a special burden that has been placed on the shoulders of citizens and scientists living in contemporary Europe and North America? Recently, the culture feels as though it is being torn apart by this question. I was taught in grade school that the United States is the greatest country in the world, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where anyone could be a millionaire or president if they put in the effort. It is hardly radical to recognize that this is less than true today and isn’t even close to true historically, especially if one is not white, Christian, and male.
Notwithstanding Galton’s admonition to count everything, counting is just a tool; it is no more science than hammering is architecture. One hundred years after Galton, Robert Hutchins remarked, contemptuously, that a social scientist is a person who counts telephone poles. The obvious way to turn counting into science is by conducting experiments, that is by manipulating nature and observing what the consequences are for whatever one is counting. Gregor Mendel, for example, was certainly a counter – he counted the mixtures of smooth and wrinkled peas in the progeny of the pea plants he intentionally crossed. What made Mendel’s work science was the intentional crossing of the plants, not the counting itself. It would have been much more difficult – perhaps impossible – to observe the segregation and independent assortment of traits by counting smooth and wrinkled peas in the wild.
Why is divorce heritable? It’s clear that it is heritable, in the rMZ > rDZ sense. I hope I have convinced you that the heritability of divorce doesn’t mean that there are “divorce genes,” or that divorce is passed down genetically from parents to children, but seriously: how does something like that happen? I am aware that my constant minimizing of the implications of heritability can seem as though I am keeping my finger in the dike against an inevitable onslaught of scientifically based genetic determinism, the final Plominesque realization that our genes make us who we are, the apotheosis of Galton’s proclamation in 1869: “I propose to show … that a man’s natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world” (Hereditary Genius, p. 1).
Robert Plomin, whose name has come up a few times already, is unquestionably the most important psychological geneticist of our time. Trained in social and personality psychology at the University of Texas at Austin in the 1970s (my graduate alma mater, though we didn’t overlap), he went on to faculty positions at the University of Colorado and the Pennsylvania State University (both major American centers for behavior genetics) before moving to London to take a position at the Institute of Psychiatry. Plomin’s career has embodied the integration of behavioral genetics into mainstream social science and psychology. Everywhere Plomin has been, he has initiated twin and adoption studies, many of which continue to make contributions today. Although genetics has always played a central role in Plomin’s research, you would never mistake his work for that of a biologist or quantitative geneticist: he (like me) has always been first and foremost a psychologist.
The Second World War marked a turning point for what was considered acceptable in genetics and its implications for eugenic and racially motivated social policies. To be sure, the change in attitude was not quick or decisive. Tens of thousands of Americans were sterilized involuntarily after the war. Anti-black racism, antisemitism, and anti-immigrant sentiment, needless to say, persisted for a long while and have not yet been eliminated; interracial marriage was still illegal in much of the country during my lifetime. But – and despite the foot-dragging, I think this needs to be recognized as an advance – it slowly became less and less acceptable to adopt openly eugenic or racist opinions in public or to justify them based on science. Retrograde attitudes about such things persist to this day, but they have mostly been relegated to the fringes of scientific discourse.
Many people outside of psychology and biology come to the subject of nature–nurture because of an interest in race. That is unfortunate, but I get it. People, especially in the United States, are obsessed with race, for obvious reasons: American history is indelibly steeped in racial categories. The two foundational failures of the American experience – genocide of Indigenous Americans and enslavement of Africans – happened because of race and racism. Even today in the United States, people of all persuasions think about race all the time, whether as hereditarian racists convinced that there are essential biological differences among ancestral groups, progressives fascinated by personal identity and the degradations that non-white people still experience, or the dozens of racial and ethnic categories obsessively collected by the U.S. census.
Let’s summarize where the nature–nurture debate stood as the twentieth century drew to a close. When the century began, thinkers were faced for the first time with the hard evolutionary fact that human beings were not fundamentally different biologically than other evolved organisms. Galton and his eugenic followers concluded that even those parts of human experience that seemed to be unique – social, class, and cultural differences; abilities, attitudes, and personal struggles – were likewise subsumed by evolution and the mammalian biology it produced. People and societies could therefore be treated like herds of animals, rated on their superior and inferior qualities, bred to maintain them, treated to fix them, and culled as necessary for the good of the herd. Not every mid-century moral disaster that followed resulted from their misinterpretation of human evolution, but it played a role. Society has been trying to recover from biologically justified racism, eugenics, and genocide ever since.
The theory of evolution, as espoused by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species in 1859, was difficult to accept for religious believers whose assumptions about the world were shattered by it, but Darwin’s The Descent of Man, published 12 years later, posed even greater challenges to people who did accept it, and those challenges continue today. It has often been noted that a disorienting consequence of the Enlightenment was to force people to recognize that humans were not created at the center of the universe in the image of God, but instead on a remote dust-speck of a planet, in the image of mold, rats, dogs, and chimps. For the entirety of recorded history, moral beliefs about humans had been based on the idea that people were in some fundamental sense apart from the rest of nature. Darwin disabused us of that notion once and for all. The scientific and social upheaval that has occurred since Darwin has been an extended process of coming to terms with a unification of humans and the rest of the natural world.
Care of the dying is an essential part of holistic cancer nursing. Improving nurses’ attitudes and behaviors regarding care of the dying is one of the critical factors in increasing the quality of nursing service. This study aims to examine the impact of an educational program based on the CARES tool on nurses’ attitudes and behaviors toward care of the dying.
Methods
A quasi-experimental study with pre- and post-intervention measures was conducted. A total of 222 oncology nurses from 14 hospitals in Beijing, China, were enrolled using a convenient sampling method. This online educational course developed based on the CARES framework comprised 7 modules and 10 sessions. Each session was carried out twice a week over 30–60 min. Data were collected using a sociodemographic characteristics questionnaire, the Frommelt Attitude Towards Care of the Dying Scale (FATCOD) and the Nurses’ Practice Behavior Toward Care of the Dying Questionnaire (NPBTCOD). Reassessment of attitudes and behaviors was conducted when completed the learning and 6 months after the learning, respectively. The sociodemographic characteristics of the nurses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and differences in attitudes and behaviors were reported and compared by the paired t-test.
Results
All the 222 oncology nurses completed educational courses, and 218 nurses (98.20%) completed the pre- and post-attitudes evaluation and 213 (95.9%) nurses completed the pre- and post-behaviors evaluation. The mean (SD) FATCOD score before and after the educational program was 108.83 (12.07) versus 115.09 (14.91), respectively (t = −8.546, p ≥ 0.001). The mean (SD) NPBTCOD score before and after the educational program was 69.14 (17.56) versus 73.40 (18.96), respectively (t = −3.231, p = 0.001).
Significance of results
This educational intervention was found to be an effective method for improving oncology nurses’ attitudes and behaviors toward caring for dying patients.
There are arguably few areas of science more fiercely contested than the question of what makes us who we are. Are we products of our environments or our genes? Is nature the governing force behind our behaviour or is it nurture? While it is now widely agreed that it is a mixture of both, discussions continue as to which is the dominant influence. This unique volume presents a clear explanation of heritability, the ongoing nature versus nurture debate and the evidence that is currently available. Starting at the beginning of the modern nature-nurture debate, with Darwin and Galton, this book describes how evolution posed a challenge to humanity by demonstrating that humans are animals, and how modern social science was necessitated when humans became an object of natural science. It clearly sets out the most common misconceptions such as the idea that heritability means that a trait is 'genetic' or that it is a justification for eugenics.
What is a system? What is a dynamical system? Systems are characterized by a few central notions: their state and their behavior foremost, and then some derived notions such as reachability and observability. These notions pop up in many fields, so it is important to understand them in nontechnical terms. This chapter therefore introduces what people call a narrative that aims at describing the central ideas. In the remainder of the book, the ideas presented here are made mathematically precise in concrete numerical situations. It turns out that a sharp understanding of just the notion of state suffices to develop most if not the whole mathematical machinery needed to solve the main engineering problems related to systems and their dynamics.