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 malefavouring 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, wholike the average womanreacted more positively to the femalefavouring 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 sexa misconception that could potentially harm relations between the sexes.

We report a direct replication of our earlier study looking at how people react to research on sex differences depending on whether the research puts men or women in a better light. Three-hundred-and-three participants read a fictional popular-science article about fabricated research finding that women score higher on a desirable trait/lower on an undesirable one (female-favoring difference) or that men do (male-favoring difference). Consistent with our original study, both sexes reacted less positively to the male-favoring differences, with no difference between men and women in the strength of this effect. Also consistent with our original study, belief in male privilege and a left-leaning political orientation predicted less positive reactions to the male-favoring sex differences; neither variable, however, predicted reactions to the female-favoring sex differences (in the original study, male-privilege belief predicted positive reactions). As well as looking at how participants reacted to the research, we looked at their predictions about how the average man and woman would react. Consistent with our earlier results, participants of both sexes predicted that the average man and woman would exhibit considerable own-sex favoritism. In doing so, they exaggerated the magnitude of the average woman’s own-sex favoritism and predicted strong own-sex favoritism from the average man when in fact the average man exhibited modest other-sex favoritism. A greater awareness of people’s tendency to exaggerate own-sex bias could help to ameliorate conflict between the sexes.

Two studies (total N = 778) looked at (1) how people react to research finding a sex difference depending on whether the research puts men or women in a better light and (2) how well people can predict the average man and average woman's reactions. Participants read a fictional popular‐science article about fictional research finding either a male‐ or a female‐favouring sex difference. The research was credited to either a male or a female lead researcher. In both studies, both sexes reacted less positively to differences favouring males; in contrast to our earlier research, however, the effect was larger among female participants. Contrary to a widespread expectation, participants did not react less positively to research led by a female. Participants did react less positively, though, to research led by a male when the research reported a male‐favouring difference in a highly valued trait. Participants judged male‐favouring research to be lower in quality than female‐favouring research, apparently in large part because they saw the former as more harmful. In both studies, participants predicted that the average man and woman would exhibit substantial own‐sex favouritism, with both sexes predicting more own‐sex favouritism from the other sex than the other sex predicted from itself. In making these predictions, participants overestimated women's own‐sex favouritism, and got the direction of the effect wrong for men. A greater understanding of the tendency to overestimate gender‐ingroup bias could help quell antagonisms between the sexes.

Apathy, defined as a lack of motivation, is a prevalent and persistent behavioural and psychological symptom of dementia. Limited research suggests that apathy is associated with increased carer burden, but there are no studies investigating carers’ subjective experiences of apathy. This study aimed to fill this gap and explore the lived experience of apathy in dementia from the perspectives of the people with dementia and their carers. This article reports on the carers’ perspectives. Six dyads of people with dementia and carers participated in semi-structured interviews, which were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Three superordinate themes were identified: (1) achieving a balance of conflicting emotions—the challenges of apathy led to feelings of guilt, acceptance, and frustration; (2) new roles imposed by caring, which involved taking on new responsibilities and promoting remaining interests of person with dementia; and (3) having a life of one’s own—coping with apathy by talking to others, and spending time away from the caring role. This study highlighted that carers are caught in a struggle between wanting to involve the person with dementia in decisions and finding that they cannot if they want to overcome the hurdle of apathy. Implications of this study suggest that a wider understanding of apathy at a societal level could lead to the provision of a helpful forum for carers to share their experiences.

We aimed to explore and gain an understanding into how people with dementia experience apathy, and consequently suggest effective interventions to help them and their carers. Twelve participants (6 dyads of 6 people with dementia and their family carers) were recruited from “memory cafes” (meeting groups for people with dementia and their families), social groups, seminars, and patient and public involvement (PPI) meetings. People with dementia and their carers were interviewed separately and simultaneously. Quantitative data were collected using validated scales for apathy, cognition, anxiety, and depression. The interviews were semi-structured, focusing on the subjective interpretation of apathy and impacts on behaviour, habits, hobbies, relationships, mood, and activities of daily living. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), which generated codes and patterns that were collated into themes. Four major themes were identified, three of which highlighted the challenging aspects of apathy. One described the positive aspects of the individuals’ efforts to overcome apathy and remain connected with the world and people around them. This study is the first to illustrate the subjective experience of apathy in dementia, portraying it as a more complex and active phenomenon than previously assumed. Apathy and its effects warrant more attention from clinicians, researchers, and others involved in dementia care.