On being unpredictable and winning.

In theory, it can be strategically advantageous for competitors to make themselves unpredictable to their opponents, for example, by variably mixing hostility and friendliness. Empirically, it remains open whether and how competitors make themselves unpredictable, why they do so, and how this conditions conflict dynamics and outcomes. We examine these questions in interactive attacker-defender contests, in which attackers invest to capture resources held and defended by their opponent. Study 1, a reanalysis of nine (un)published experiments (total N = 650), reveals significant cross-trial variability especially in proactive attacks and less in reactive defense. Study 2 (N = 200) shows that greater variability makes both attacker's and defender's next move more difficult to predict, especially when variability is due to occasional rather than (in)frequent extreme investments in conflict. Studies 3 (N = 27) and 4 (N = 106) show that precontest testosterone, a hormone associated with risk-taking and status competition, drives variability during attack which, in turn, increases sympathetic arousal in defenders and defender variability (Study 4). Rather than being motivated by wealth maximization, being unpredictable in conflict and competition emerges in function of the attacker's desire to win "no matter what" and comes with significant welfare cost to both victor and victim. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Sensitive liberals and unfeeling conservatives? Interoceptive sensitivity predicts political liberalism.

The stark divide between the political right and left is rooted in conflicting beliefs, values, and personality-and, recent research suggests, perhaps even lower-level physiological differences between individuals. In this registered report, we investigated a novel domain of ideological differences in physiological processes: interoceptive sensitivity-that is, a person's attunement to their own internal bodily states and signals (e.g., physiological arousal, pain, and respiration). We conducted two studies testing the hypothesis that greater interoceptive sensitivity would be associated with greater conservatism: one laboratory study in the Netherlands using a physiological heartbeat detection task and one large-scale online study in the United States employing an innovative webcam-based measure of interoceptive sensitivity. Contrary to our predictions, we found evidence that interoceptive sensitivity may instead predict greater political liberalism (versus conservatism), although this association was primarily limited to the American sample. We discuss implications for our understanding of the physiological underpinnings of political ideology.

Assessing the Effects of a Real-Life Contact Intervention on Prejudice Toward LGBT People.

Prejudice against sexual and gender minorities (e.g., LGBT people) is quite prevalent and is harmful. We examined an existing-and often-used-contact intervention in pre-existing groups in an educational setting and assessed its effectiveness in reducing different forms of LGBT negativity. We focused particularly on modern LGBT negativity: a relatively subtle form of prejudice, involving ambivalence, denial, and/or the belief that there is too much attention for LGBT prejudice. We used a mixed design in which condition (experimental vs. control group) was the between-participants factor, which was randomized at the group level, and time (pretest vs. posttest vs. follow-up) was the within-participants factor (N = 117). Interventions were video recorded and the behavior of LGBT educators and participants was coded. Participants responded positively to the intervention, especially to the LGBT educator's "coming-out story." Exploratory analysis of the video data indicated that the perceived effectiveness of the intervention was higher in groups where participants were more engaged, although caution is necessary in interpreting this finding. The most important measure indicated that modern LGBT negativity decreased in the intervention groups directly after the intervention, but returned to baseline levels one week later. However, in the control condition, modern LGBT negativity had increased over time. Taken together, this suggests that an actual reduction in modern LGBT negativity was short-lived (i.e., the intervention effect disappeared within 7 days).

On the physiology of interruption after unexpectedness.

We tested whether surprise elicits similar physiological changes as those associated with orienting and freezing after threat, as surprise also involves a state of interruption and attention for effective action. Moreover, because surprise is primarily driven by the unexpectedness of an event, initial physiological responses were predicted to be similar for positive, neutral, and negative surprises. Results of repetition-change studies (4 + 1 in Supplemental Materials) showed that surprise lowers heart rate (Experiments 1-4) and increases blood pressure (Experiment 4). No effects on body movement (Experiment 2) or finger temperature (Experiment 4) were found. When unexpected stimuli were presented more often (making them less surprising) heart rate returned to baseline, while blood pressure remained high (Experiment 4). These effects were not influenced by stimulus valence. However, second-to-second analyses within the first (surprising) block showed a tendency for a stronger increase in systolic blood pressure after negative vs. positive surprise.

Reflecting on Existential Threats Elicits Self-Reported Negative Affect but No Physiological Arousal.

There is mixed evidence whether reflecting on an existential threat increases negative affect and thereby elicits subjective arousal and physiological activation. Additionally, it is debated whether different existential and non-existential threats elicit different arousal responses, although systematic comparisons are lacking. The current study explored affective, subjective, and physiological arousal responses while comparing several existential threats with a non-existential threat and with a control condition. One-hundred-and-seventy-one undergraduate students were randomly allocated to one of four existential threat conditions: mortality salience (MS), freedom restriction, uncontrollability, and uncertainty; or to the non-existential threat condition: social-evaluative threat (SET); or to a control condition (TV salience). Self-reported positive/negative affect was measured before and after reflection, while subjective arousal and physiological activation (electrodermal, cardiovascular, and respiratory) were measured on a high time-scale during baseline and reflection. Results showed larger increases in self-reported negative affect, as compared to the control condition, for all existential threat conditions, while there were no differences between the control condition and threat conditions regarding positive affect, subjective arousal, skin conductance, respiratory rate, and respiratory sinus arrythmia. There were subtle differences between existential and non-existential threat conditions, most notably in affective responses. Correlations showed positive associations between negative affect and subjective arousal and between trait avoidance and subjective arousal. This study is the first to systematically compare affective, subjective, and physiological changes in arousal due to reflecting on different existential threats, as well as one non-existential threat. We showed that, as compared to a control condition, reflecting on threats has a large impact on negative affect, but no significant impact on positive affect, subjective arousal, and physiological activation.

Freezing in response to social threat: a replication.

Freezing is an adaptive defensive response to a stressful event. Recent research suggests that freezing not only occurs in response to physical threats but also in response to social threats (e.g., angry faces; Roelofs et al. in Psychol Sci 21:1575-1581, 2010). Given the practical and theoretical importance of this finding, the current study aimed to replicate and extend it. Following the original study, we measured heart rate while participants viewed emotional faces (angry, happy, neutral). Extending the original study, we included a baseline measure and performed additional, more fine-grained analyses. Our results support the hypothesis that participants show physiological signs of freezing when looking at angry faces. Importantly, we also find this effect when comparing heart rate in the angry block to baseline levels. Interestingly, the heart rate effects are explained by deceleration in the first 30 s of the 1-min angry block, but not in the second 30 s. Like Roelofs et al., we find evidence that the effects are modulated by state anxiety, but our effects are only marginal and we do not replicate the negative correlation between heart rate and state anxiety in the angry block. In general, we thus find evidence for physiological signs of freezing in response to social threat. We discuss implications and venues for future research.