Wednesday 7 December 2016

Gender Influence on Young Children's Acceptance of Expertise


From the time we are born, humans must learn a phenomenal amount of information to survive and thrive in the complexities of human society.  Starting at a young age, children look to experts to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. Research suggests that by the age of four, a child preferd someone who knows how to fix their broken toy over someone who only knows the name of the tool needed to fix it. This ability to identify important information is a foundation in the concept of social learning. Social learning is described as the ability for a child to gain knowledge from others without engaging in the activity directly. As far as children’s interpretation of gender stereotypes, young children seem to develop a preference to play with others of the same gender as them. Children often exhibit a strong sense of gender identity that starts in preschool. and articulate rigid expectations in how they and their peers should behave, otherwise known as stereotype (e.g. ‘Pink is a girl’s colour’, and ‘Boys play with trucks, not dolls’).


Current Study
To test the extent of how children’s view of gender affects the ability to recognize experts, Boseovski, Hughes, and Miller looked at the influence of opposite gender stereotype on children’s ability to identify the correct expert, likability, and learning preference. To test this, they used forty-eight 5-6 year olds, and forty-eight 6-8 year olds. The children perform tasks that included stories that involved boy and girl characters of the same age, that were either experts or novices in an activity. Half of the characters of both genders, were experts in stereotypical activities. Boys being experts in football or construction and girls being experts in sewing and ballet. The other half of the characters were counter gender-stereotypical experts: boys who knew a lot about ballet or sewing and girls who knew a lot about construction and football.


When children were presented a story with a choice between experts who looked like a stereotype of their gender and a novice, results showed all but three children identified the correct expert from the novice. The boys rated boy experts significantly higher on the likability scale than girl stereotypical experts. The girls rated girl stereotypical experts higher than boys, but not significantly so. 

However, results were a little different when children were presented stories with a choice between a gender typical novice and an expert who looked like the opposite of their gender, otherwise known as gender counter-stereotypical.  When looking at the children’s responses to correctly identify the counter-stereotypical expert, the results showed younger boys and girls picked the experts the same amount. As expected, the older children were more likely to pick the gender counter-stereotypical experts as correct than younger children. However, it is interesting that authors specifically noted boys in both age groups were at chance levels for identifying girl experts as correct. Meaning the boys were more likely to identify the boy expert as correct, but not so much for the girl experts when the experts were gender counter-stereotypical. As for likability ratings, older children gave higher likability scores for counter gender-stereotypical experts than younger children, no matter the gender of the expert. Interestingly, the authors found younger and older boys liked boy experts more than girl experts in this group. When it came to the learning preferences for the children, younger children wanted to learn more from experts of the same gender, no matter the stereotype. Keeping in line with other research, younger boys were more likely to prefer learning from boy experts, and younger girls were more likely to prefer learning from girl experts. But, older boys and girls did not have a learning preference for same gender experts. 
 
The authors specifically mentioned the older and younger boys’ performance as interesting. They also confirmed the results were consistent with other research that indicated boys were less likely than girls to acknowledge girls as gender counter stereotypical experts in activities like athletics. Boseovski, Hughes, and Miller point out that as girls age they are heavily discouraged from taking part in physical sports. However, it is important to note that the authors are cautious in drawing conclusions from their results and do not draw cause and effect relationships from their results. 

Moving Forward
Why is this important? We want to make sure our children have every opportunity and advantage to learn new information and blossom into smart, inquisitive adults. Part of that includes helping children recognize when experts have useful information. Another part of why it’s important to understand the influence of gender on children’s knowledge acquisition is because we want to reduce stigma surrounding rigid gender stereotypes.  Ultimately we want everyone’s expertise to be recognized and taken seriously. This is not a simple topic research, nor is it an easy problem to fix. But I am hopeful that future research will help us minimize negative effects of rigid gender expectations.



Author: Melissa Elfers


Source: 

Boseovski, J. J., Hughes, C., & Miller, S. E. (2016). Expertise in unexpected places: Children’s acceptance of information from gender counter-stereotypical experts. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 161–176. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.002

Tuesday 6 December 2016

Sex Differences and Suicidality Rates Among Cannabis Users

The reputation of marijuana use has been gaining favors over the past few years while the harmful effects have been downplayed. Cannabis is becoming the most widely used illicit substance in the world. Most people tend to be biased based on their own personal experiences with the substance. Scientific studies need to be carefully reported in order to clarify the cause and effect. The relationship between weed and mental health of both men and women is discussed in more detail in this article. 


Cannabis has inconsistently been associated with several psychiatric disorders in the past. Researchers have even explored the more specific associations between chronic cannabis use and mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety and suicidality. The findings were, however, inconsistent and varied greatly.
Another factor that researchers have considered is the sex of the cannabis user: Men and women were affected differently. The differences were not just limited to biological ones (such as in hormone imbalances), but they were also social and psychological in nature.  


Nadav Shalit (2016) and his colleagues from the Tel Aviv University in Israel conducted a longitudinal study on cannabis use and the suicidality rate amongst both men and women. They collected data on cannabis use from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) in the United States. The data was analyzed using statistical procedures and they found that the connection between suicidality and cannabis use is sex-dependent. High frequency of cannabis use in men was shown to be associated with suicide incidents, whereas the use of cannabis in women was found to have no effect on suicide rates. However, women who already had a high baseline suicide rates were more likely to start using marijuana than men. An interesting pattern that came up during the study was that the sexes of people who reported cannabis use in the last 12 months differed in several socio-demographic factors. The men were older, less educated, had a higher income, and a higher alcohol and drug abuse rates, whereas women reported having more anxiety and depressive disorders.



The benefits of knowing this information could possibly help psychotherapists when treating drug addicts, specifically stoners who are abusing cannabis and are experiencing health risks. Women and men who have been using cannabis for a long time will be treated differently and the rates of suicide thoughts, as well as depression could be predicted by the therapist based on their cannabis use levels. Even though the relationship between cannabis use and suicide is just correlated, and has not been proven that one leads to the other, it may still give insight and help therapists predict one factor using the other. 


Overall, Shalit's (2016) findings have demonstrated that there is a significant association between heavy, long term marijuana use and suicidality in men but not in women. However, women who already had a higher rate of suicidality and depressive symptoms did tend to be more likely to initiate cannabis use. The implications and the exact causation of one factor on the other has to be further explored and researched. 







- Written by: Huda Al-Sharafi

Reference:
Shalit, N., Shoval, G., Shlosberg, D., Feingold, D., & Lev-Ran, S. (2016). The association between cannabis use and suicidality among men and women: A population-based longitudinal study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 205, 216-224.

Monday 5 December 2016

Shedding Light on the Wrongfully Convicted


Case Study
With production of documentaries such as Making a Murderer, it’s no wonder there has been public attention paid to high-profile cases of wrongful convictions.  If you are unfamiliar, Making a Murderer follows the criminal case of Stephen Avery of Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.  Avery was convicted of rape and attempted murder in 1985 following a witness identifying him from a lineup.  Avery served 18 years in prison before DNA tests revealed that he was not the terrible man who committed this crime.  Cases such as these are not as uncommon as you make think.  In fact, the number of wrongful convictions of innocent people is staggering enough that two law students created a project that exonerates the innocent and prevent future injustices. 

The Innocence Project is a team of passionate individuals, from lawyers to researchers, who help the wrongfully convicted be freed from prison through DNA exoneration.  To this day they have helped over 300 individuals be released from prison, who have unfairly served an average of 14 years before their release. 

Eyewitness Testimonies & the Role of Research
Although thousands of people are grateful for the services of the Innocence Project, action can be taken prior to wrongful conviction so that their caring efforts are not needed.  There are SO many areas of the legal system that can benefit from psychological research and SO many areas are underutilizing scientific findings.  To better paint this picture, let me walk you through a possible scenario of wrongful conviction…

You are serving on a jury for a terribly sad case of rape and murder, such as jurors that sat in on the Stephen Avery case.  There is little evidence that points to one suspect; a few alibis, some conflicting information, and overall no solid proof.  The victim stands trial and confidently points out X as the man who assaulted her.  It is now an easy decision for you, the juror, as you convict X as guilty.

In the courtroom, and eyewitness identification serves as very strong evidence as to who committed a crime, especially when coming from the victim.  This isn’t to say that the juror, or the victim in the case of a false identification, should be blamed for this.  At the time, they have no idea that they are putting away someone who did not commit the crime; they are voting guilty because it has been proved to them in court that the person did it.  But, imagine the pain you and the falsely accused feel 15-odd years later when a DNA proves it wasn’t who you thought it was.


So, how do we overcome the possibility of innocent people being put in jail due to false identifications?  There are thousands of psychological research papers dedicated to a variety of courtroom elements.  The research ranges from juror deliberation, qualification of the judge and other officials, and eye witness testimonies.  Psychological research can be utilized to evaluate current procedures, and most importantly, present likelihood of how legitimate a piece of evidence presented in the courtroom is.  In the case of eyewitness testimony, lineup procedures are often investigated for their accuracy.  Lineup procedures receive so much attention because they are the means to which witnesses are able to identify perpetrators.  Therefore, decisions made in lineups carry a lot of weight in court.  It is important that research in lineups are utilized because they bring to reality the fact that sometimes, witness identifications can be wrong.  Research suggests that witnesses typically like to make a selection, whether they are sure the person they identify is the perpetrator or not.  Additionally, research of lineups is also useful as they investigate how closely the procedures that ensure accuracy of the witnesses selection are actually followed. 

Lineup Procedures
Currently, there are 5 recommendations that lineup procedures, by law, should follow (Wells & Quigley-McBride, 2016):

1) The suspect should not stand out. 
2) Only ONE suspect should be present, with the other individuals known innocent. 
3) Both the witness, and the officer, should be blind to who is the suspect. 
4) The witness should be explicitly told that the perpetrator may not be present in the lineup. 
5) Witness should report their certainty following an identification. 



Adherence to these recommendations ensures that lineups are executed effectively, and false identifications are minimized.  According to Wells and Quigley-McBride (2016), on paper, these procedures are supported by many law enforcement agencies across the United States.  However, it is hard to determine how closely each step is followed; although the recommendations are widely received, we still have hundreds of people wrongfully convicted, many of these people being falsely identified through lineups.   From a citizen's standpoint, we can do our part by educating ourselves on the dangers of false identifications.  You can get involved in the Innocence Project yourself, or, if you are ever selected to stand on a jury, you can do your part in ensuring that the evidence provided is scientific and fair.  Always take an objective, scientific standpoint, and seek the truth!

For more information on the Stephen avery case, see: 
http://stevenaverytrial.com

For more information on the Innocence Project, see: 
http://www.innocenceproject.org

For more information on lineup procedures and how they are followed in American, see: 
Wells, G. L., & Quigley-McBride, A. (2016). Applying Eyewitness Identification Research to the Legal System: A Glance at Where We Have Been and Where We Could Go. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition5(3), 290-294.