Spatial Mismatch, Race and Ethnicity, and Unemployment: Implications for Interventions With Women on Probation and Parole

For 312 women on probation and parole, we used mediation and conditional process analyses to examine the indirect effect of minority racial/ethnic status on unemployment through spatial mismatch between women’s place of residence and the location of available jobs. Consistent with the spatial mismatch hypothesis, employment opportunities per capita within 2 miles of women’s census tract of residence mediated the relationship between minority status and unemployment. The connection of spatial mismatch to unemployment was less pronounced for women with high levels of transportation access. Findings point to the importance of broader social policies to support well-developed transportation systems and community-based job development.

The Psychology of Online Political Hostility: A Comprehensive, Cross-National Test of the Mismatch Hypothesis

Why are online discussions about politics more hostile than offline discussions? A popular answer argues that human psychology is tailored for face-to-face interaction and people’s behavior therefore changes for the worse in impersonal online discussions. We provide a theoretical formalization and empirical test of this explanation: the mismatch hypothesis. We argue that mismatches between human psychology and novel features of online environments could (a) change people’s behavior, (b) create adverse selection effects, and (c) bias people’s perceptions. Across eight studies, leveraging cross-national surveys and behavioral experiments (total N = 8,434), we test the mismatch hypothesis but only find evidence for limited selection effects. Instead, hostile political discussions are the result of status-driven individuals who are drawn to politics and are equally hostile both online and offline. Finally, we offer initial evidence that online discussions feel more hostile, in part, because the behavior of such individuals is more visible online than offline.

Prenatal programming of depression: cumulative risk or mismatch in the Ontario Child Health Study?

Consistent with cumulative risk hypotheses of psychopathology, studies examining prenatal adversity and later mental health largely suggest that pre and postnatal stress exposures have summative effects. Fewer data support that a mismatch in stress levels between pre- and postnatal life increases risk (the mismatch hypothesis). In this retrospective cohort study using data from the 1983 Ontario Child Health Study (OCHS), we examined interactions between birth weight status and childhood/adolescent stress to predict major depression in adulthood. Ninety-five participants born at low birth weight (LBW; <2500 g) and 972 normal birth weight (NBW) control participants completed the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short-Form Major Depression module at 21–34 years of age. A youth risk scale consisting of five stressful exposures (family dysfunction, socioeconomic disadvantage, parental criminality, maternal mental illness, exposure to other life stresses) indexed child/adolescent adversity. Birth weight groups did not differ by childhood risk score nor depression levels. A significant interaction was observed between birth weight and the youth risk scale whereby exposure to increasing levels of exposure to childhood/adolescent adversity predicted increased levels of depression in the NBW group, but lower rates in those born at LBW. Consistent with the mismatch hypothesis, data from a large, longitudinally followed cohort suggest that the mental health of adults born LBW may be more resilient to the adverse effects of childhood/adolescent stress. Taken in the context of previous studies of low birth weight infants, these findings suggest that the nature of associations between gestational stress and later mental health may depend on the magnitude of prenatal stress exposure, as well as the degree of resilience and/or plasticity conferred by their early-life environment.

What’s the Problem?

The first chapter sets up the current situation: why is behavior change considered hard, and what do people recommend be done? I present a novel perspective on public health problems, arguing that they all derive from inabilities to learn appropriate responses due to recent changes to the environments in which we live that have occurred through technological evolution. This is a “mismatch” hypothesis common in evolutionary psychology applied to behavior change. Different types of mismatch occur between particular structures of public health problems (as learning problems). This is actually a theory of public health—why certain kinds of health problems arise in the first place.

The Psychology of Online Political Hostility: A Comprehensive, Cross-National Test of the Mismatch Hypothesis

Why are online discussions about politics experienced as more hostile than offline discussions? A popular answer builds on the argument that human psychology is tailored for face-to-face interaction and, accordingly, people’s behavior changes for the worse in impersonal online discussions. We provide the first theoretical formalization and empirical test of this explanation: the mismatch hypothesis. We argue that mismatches between human psychology and novel features of online communication environments could (a) change people’s behavior, (b) bias their perceptions and (c) create adverse selection effects. We leverage five cross-national representative surveys and online behavioral experiments (total N=7510) to test the mismatch hypothesis but find little to no evidence. Rather, we find that online political hostility reflects the behavior of individuals predisposed to be hostile in all (including offline) contexts. Yet, because their behavior is more likely to be witnessed on public online platforms, these are perceived to induce more hostility.