Clever girl: Benevolent sexism and cardiovascular threat.

Benevolent sexism is a double-edged sword that uses praise to maintain gender inequality, which consequently makes women feel less efficacious, agentic and competent. This study investigated whether benevolently sexist feedback that was supportive could result in cardiovascular responses indicative of threat (lower cardiac output/higher total peripheral resistance). Women received either supportive non-sexist or supportive yet benevolent sexist feedback from a male evaluator following practice trials on a verbal reasoning test. As expected, women receiving benevolent sexist feedback exhibited cardiovascular threat during a subsequent test, relative to women receiving non-sexist feedback. There was no support for an alternative hypothesis that benevolent sexist feedback would lead to cardiovascular responses consistent with disengaging from the task altogether (i.e., lower heart rate and ventricular contractility). These findings illustrate that the consequences of benevolent sexism can occur spontaneously, while women are engaged with a task, and when the sexist feedback is intended as supportive.

Too many fish in the sea: A motivational examination of the choice overload experience.

Evidence supports that being overwhelmed by many choice options predicts negative consequences. However, there is uncertainty regarding the effects of choice overload on two key motivational dimensions: (1) the extent to which people view their decision as subjectively valuable (versus not), and (2) the extent to which people view themselves as capable (versus incapable) of reaching a good decision. While evaluating their options and while deciding, we assessed theory-based cardiovascular responses reflecting these dimensions. A meta-analysis across two experiments found that participants who made a final selection from many options-relative to those who chose from few or rated many-exhibited cardiovascular responses consistent with greater task engagement (i.e., perceiving greater subjective value), as well as greater threat (i.e., perceiving fewer resources to manage situational demands). The current work suggests a novel motivational account of choice overload, providing insight into the nature and timing of this experience as it occurs.

Positive Feedback From Male Authority Figures Boosts Women's Math Outcomes.

People often search for cues in the environment to determine whether or not they will be judged or treated negatively based on their social identities. Accordingly, feedback from gatekeepers-members of majority groups who hold authority and power in a field-may be an especially important cue for those at risk of experiencing social identity threat, such as women in math settings. Across a series of studies, women who received positive ("Good job!") versus objective (score only) feedback from a male (vs. female) authority figure in math reported greater confidence; belonging; self-efficacy; more favorable Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) attitudes/identification/interest; and greater implicit identification with math. Men were affected only by the type of math feedback they received, not by the source of feedback. A meta-analysis across studies confirmed results. Together, these findings suggest that positive feedback from gatekeepers is an important situational cue that can improve the outcomes of negatively stereotyped groups.

Preejection period can be calculated using R peak instead of Q.

Preejection period (PEP) is a common measure of sympathetic nervous system activation in psychophysiological research, which makes it important to measure reliably for as many participants as possible. PEP is typically calculated as the interval between the onset or peak of the electrocardiogram Q wave and the impedance cardiography B point, but the Q wave can lack clear definition and even its peak is not visible for all participants. We thus investigated the feasibility of using the electrocardiogram R wave peak (Rpeak ) instead of Q because it can be consistently identified with ease and precision. Across four samples (total N = 408), young adult participants completed a variety of minimally metabolically demanding laboratory tasks after a resting baseline. Results consistently supported a close relationship between absolute levels of the Rpeak -B interval and PEP (accounting for approximately 90% of the variance at baseline and 89% during task performance, on average), but for reactivity values, Rpeak -B was practically indistinguishable from PEP (accounting for over 98% of the variance, on average). Given that using Rpeak rather than the onset or peak of Q saves time, eliminates potential subjectivity, and can be applied to more participants (i.e., those without a visible Q wave), findings suggest that Rpeak -B likely provides an adequate estimate of PEP when absolute levels are of interest and clearly does so for within-person changes.