No abstract

No abstract

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.

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.

Although women today excel in many areas of society, they are often underrepresented in the traditionally male-dominated fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM). The present research examined whether traditional romantic partner preferences-specifically, a desire to date partners who are smarter than oneself-affects women's tendency to minimize their intelligence in STEM fields when pursuing romantic goals. Women (but not men) who preferred smarter romantic partners showed worse math performance (Studies 1-2), less identification with math (Study 2), and less interest in STEM careers (Study 3) when the goal to be romantically desirable was activated. A meta-analysis across studies supported results. This research thus demonstrates that partner preferences influence women's STEM outcomes in response to romantic goal pursuit.