Two studies investigated (1) how people react to research describing a sex difference, depending on whether that difference favours males or females, and (2) how accurately people can predict how the average man and woman will react. In Study 1, Western participants (N = 492) viewed a fictional popular-science article describing either a male-favouring or a female-favouring sex difference (i.e., men/women draw better; women/men lie more). Both sexes reacted less positively to the male-favouring differences, judging the findings to be less important, less credible, and more offensive, harmful, and upsetting. Participants predicted that the average man and woman would react more positively to sex differences favouring their own sex. This was true of the average woman, although the level of own-sex favouritism was lower than participants predicted. It was not true, however, of the average man, who - like the average woman - reacted more positively to the female-favouring differences. Study 2 replicated these findings in a Southeast Asian sample (N = 336). Our results are consistent with the idea that both sexes are more protective of women than men, but that both exaggerate the level of same-sex favouritism within each sex - a misconception that could potentially harm relations between the sexes.
When examining spontaneously recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse, victims report that there had been periods in which they had forgotten the abuse. However, there are sometimes people with whom the victim had spoken about the abuse during the period in which the victim had supposedly forgotten the abuse, suggesting the victim had not forgotten the abuse but the prior recall of the abuse. The underestimation of previous knowledge is termed the forgot-it-all-along effect. The goal of the present study was replicating the results of a laboratory study that had provided a theoretical understanding for the forgot-it-all-along effect by showing that people have difficulties remembering "remembering" when the memory had previously been recalled in a different context. The effect was replicated by using the same neutral context sentences, suggesting the finding was robust. We also extended the experimental design by using positive and negative context sentences, but it did not become smaller when the positive sentences provided the different context or larger when the negative sentences provided the different context. Although the sample sizes were sufficiently large to provide statistical power for the forgot-it-all-along effect, they may not have been sufficiently large to observe the moderation effects of emotional context.
According to the arousal-mood hypothesis, changes in arousal and mood when exposed to auditory stimulation underlie the detrimental effects or improvements in cognitive performance. Findings supporting or against this hypothesis are, however, often based on subjective ratings of arousal rather than autonomic/physiological indices of arousal. To assess the arousal-mood hypothesis, we carried out a systematic review of the literature on 31 studies investigating cardiac, electrodermal, and pupillometry measures when exposed to different types of auditory stimulation (music, ambient noise, white noise, and binaural beats) in relation to cognitive performance. Our review suggests that the effects of music, noise, or binaural beats on cardiac, electrodermal, and pupillometry measures in relation to cognitive performance are either mixed or insufficient to draw conclusions. Importantly, the evidence for or against the arousal-mood hypothesis is at best indirect because autonomic arousal and cognitive performance are often considered separately. Future research is needed to directly evaluate the effects of auditory stimulation on autonomic arousal and cognitive performance holistically.