Extrapair behaviour reveals flexible female choosiness and mixed support for classic good genes in blue-footed boobies

2014 ◽  
Vol 95 ◽  
pp. 145-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynna Marie Kiere ◽  
Hugh Drummond
Keyword(s):  
Good Genes ◽  
Mixed Support ◽  
Female Choosiness

The Political Economy of Urban Homicide: Assessing the Relative Impact of Gender Inequality on Sex-Specific Victimization

2003 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mari A. DeWees ◽  
Karen F. Parker
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Gender Inequality ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Gender Disparities ◽  
Homicide Victimization ◽  
Mixed Support ◽  
Unique Effect ◽  
Market Opportunities ◽  
Us Cities ◽  
Theoretical Issues

This research examines the ways in which the changing political economy of urban areas has contributed differently to the homicide victimization rates of females and males across US cities. Recent research, while relatively limited, has presented disparate results regarding the effect of gender inequality on urban sex-specific victimization. Our work further explores this relationship by taking into account relative gender disparities in income, education, labor market opportunities, and politics in an examination of sex-specific homicide victimization in 1990. Key to this current investigation is the evaluation of feminist and lifestyle arguments that suggest that structural gender inequality has a unique effect on female victimization. Overall, our findings reveal gender inequality to be a significant predictor of both male and female urban homicide. While these findings suggest mixed support for theoretical arguments regarding gender inequality, further analyses reveal significant differences in specific types of gender inequality on victimization patterns across genders. These additional results highlight the need for greater attention toward both methodological and theoretical issues when examining the interconnections between gender, political economy, and violence in research.

Good genes and old age: Do old mates provide superior genes?

1995 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 759-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. F. Hansen ◽  
D. K. Price
Keyword(s):  
Old Age ◽  
Good Genes

scholarly journals Extrapair paternity in the great tit (Parus major): a test of the “good genes” hypothesis

1998 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 388-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Strohbach ◽  
Eberhard Curio ◽  
Andrea Bathen ◽  
Jōrg Epplen ◽  
Thomas Lubjuhn
Keyword(s):  
Parus Major ◽  
Great Tit ◽  
Good Genes ◽  
Extrapair Paternity

scholarly journals Good, bad and ugly genes? Science matters, also in terms of terminology and word usage

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-49
Author(s):  
Claus-Christian Carbon
Keyword(s):  
Belief System ◽  
Good Genes ◽  
Everyday Language ◽  
Life And Death ◽  
Political Debates ◽  
Moral Perspective ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Specific Medication ◽  
Scientific Terms ◽  
Scientific Arguments

Abstract Our words shape our thinking, our thinking creates action. Scientific terms can be particularly influential when used in everyday language in terms of allegedly scientific arguments that back certain views or actions. Such use can be especially toxic when the terms refer to concepts that are ill-defined, outdated or questionable themselves. The term “good genes” represents an exemplary case in this regard. It refers to the belief system of eugenics and implies a moral perspective. The latest political debates demonstrate how easily such terms and concepts are employed to induce racist thinking and action; in the end it may even result in specific medication, selective investment in medical treatment, and so ultimately impacting the life and death of patients. Science has the obligation to explicitly opt-out from such lines of argument, and to routinely check and re-think its theories, concepts and vocabulary.

Mental Money Laundering: A Motivated Violation of Fungibility

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Imas ◽  
George Loewenstein ◽  
Carey K Morewedge
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Money Laundering ◽  
Consumer Choice ◽  
Mental Accounting ◽  
Moral Behavior ◽  
Corporate Behavior ◽  
Mixed Support ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
As If

Abstract People exploit flexibility in mental accounting to relax psychological constraints on spending. Four studies demonstrate this in the context of moral behavior. The first study replicates prior findings that people donate more money to charity when they earned it through unethical versus ethical means. However, when the unethically-earned money is first “laundered”––the cash is physically exchanged for the same amount but from a different arbitrary source—people spent it as if it was earned ethically. This mental money laundering represents an extreme violation of fungibility. The second study demonstrates that mental money laundering generalizes to cases in which ethically and unethically earned money are mixed. When gains from ethical and unethical sources were pooled, people spent the entire pooled sum as if it was ethically earned. The last two studies provide mixed support for the prediction that people actively seek out laundering opportunities for unethically earned money, suggesting partial sophistication about these effects. These findings provide new evidence for the ease with which people can rationalize misbehavior, and have implications for consumer choice, corporate behavior and public policy.

White Americans’ Opposition to Affirmative Action, Revisited: New Racism, Principled Objections, or Both?

2021 ◽  
pp. 232949652110246
Author(s):  
Matthew O. Hunt ◽  
Ryan A. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
General Social Survey ◽  
First Century ◽  
White Americans ◽  
Short Article ◽  
Social Survey ◽  
Mixed Support ◽  
Primary Determinant ◽  
Preferential Hiring ◽  
Key Aspects

In this short article, we provide an update and extension of Thomas C. Wilson’s study, “Whites’ Opposition to Affirmative Action: Rejection of Group-based Preferences as well as Rejection of Blacks.” Wilson drew on data from the 1996 General Social Survey (GSS) to revisit a long-standing debate in the racial attitudes literature concerning whether anti-black prejudice (e.g., “new racism”) or ostensibly race-neutral opposition to group-based policies generally (i.e., “principled objections”) is the primary determinant of whites’ opposition to affirmative action in the form of “preferential hiring and promotion for blacks.” We analyze data from the 2000–2018 GSS to replicate and extend key aspects of Wilson’s work. As in the prior study, we find mixed support for the new racism and principled objections perspectives, providing an important update on white Americans’ beliefs about affirmative action for the twenty-first century.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document