<p> Despite the direct connection between anal sex and pleasure (Hite, 1981; Morin, 2010), the majority of academic literature on anal sex frames the topic in terms of homophobia (when referring to male-bodied people) and/or disease (Aguilar, 2017; Brody &amp; Weiss, 2011; McBride &amp; Fortenberry, 2010). While only two academic articles (Branfman &amp; Stiritz, 2012; Branfman, Stiritz, &amp; Anderson, 2017) have been published on the topic of anoreceptive heterosexual males (ARHMs), there is evidence of this type of sexuality dating back to Ancient Egypt and Greece (Bullough, 1976; Foucault, 1990b). This is indicative of the socially systemic heteronormativity and associated constructs of heterosexism, homophobia, and phallocentrism that can instill shame and stigma in those with non-conforming sexual preferences, such as ARHMs, BDSM practitioners, and BDSM-oriented ARHMs (Ayres &amp; Leudeman, 2013; Bosson, Prewitt-Freilino, &amp; Taylor, 2005; Crane &amp; Crane-Seeber, 2003; Heasley, 2005; Taormino, 2008; Yost, 2010). Therefore, this research examined levels of heteronormativity, sexual shame, and sexual pride to determine whether higher levels of heteronormativity predict higher levels of sexual shame and lower levels of sexual pride in ARHMs, and whether heteronormativity, sexual shame, and sexual pride in ARHMs differ according to BDSM status. In multivariate linear regressions and independent-samples t-tests on data from 906 ARHMs, heteronormativity did not significantly contribute to the prediction of sexual shame in ARHMs; there was not a significant difference in heteronormativity between BDSM-oriented and non-BDSM-oriented ARHMs; there was a significant difference in sexual shame between BDSM-oriented and non-BDSM-oriented ARHMs, but not in the hypothesized direction (there were higher levels of sexual shame among BDSM-oriented ARHMs); and there was not a significant difference in sexual pride between BDSM-oriented and non-BDSM-oriented ARHMs. These findings highlight the nuance in sexual orientation and expression. It remains unclear whether the constructs of masculinity and heteronormativity are expanding to accommodate what were previously considered non-conforming sexual and gender expressions, or whether these constructs continue to obfuscate and repress through a manipulation of language that reinforces privilege. These findings have implications for clinicians who work with those who have both privileged and marginalized identities and/or sexual orientations.</p><p>

This study investigated the differential facilitative effects of single and consistent/inconsistent multiple models on children's donating behavior. One hundred and twenty eight students from four schools participated in the investigation which exposed the subjects to one of eight video taped modeling conditions (comprised of donating and/or non-donating models) in which the subjects observed generous and/or selfish behavior by the model(s). Subjects then played a game with the experimenter in which they earned chips. The immediate modeling effects were measured by the number of chips that the subjects donated to other children when given such an opportunity. Retention of such modeling effects was assessed in a follow-up measure where the children again played a game, earned chips, and had the opportunity to anonymously donate any or all of their chips The results of this investigation more closely approximate the results predicted by Bandura's social learning theory (the amalgam effect of multiple models) than previous studies. Subjects viewing single and multiple consistently donating models donated at significantly greater levels than did all other conditions. Subjects viewing single and multiple consistently non-donating models donated significantly less amounts than did all other conditions. The obtained order of the multiple inconsistent conditions supports Bandura's (1969, 1972) theory in that it appears that when multiple inconsistent models were observed, the response produced was an amalgam of the behaviors of the divergent models. That is, the subjects did not directly imitate either one or the other of the models, but instead produced a response that was the result of combinations of the observed behavior Therefore, this investigation lends further support to the theory that models serve to influence learning through their informative function. Results are further discussed in terms of how future investigations could attempt to answer questions raised in this study / acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

The goals of this investigation were to examine the proportional effects of modeled behavior where a child sees both models donating, but in different amounts (i.e., one model donating 4 chips, one model donating 14 chips); to further assess the effects of inconsistent models (i.e., one model donating, one model not donating); to examine the differential facilitative effects of one versus two models behaving consistently on children's subsequent donation behavior; and to further investigate the enduring effects (i.e., retention) of observation of these various modeling experiences Eighty third and fourth grade children were exposed to one of ten experimental conditions; no model (NM), no model with instructions (NM I), one model-donating four (IM-d 4), two models-donating four (2M-d 4), two models-donating/not donating four/zero (2M-d/nd 4/0), one model-donating fourteen (1M-d 14), two models-donating fourteen (2M-d 14), two models-donating/not donating fourteen/zero (2M-d 14/0), two models-donating fourteen/four (2M-d 14/4), or two models-donating four/fourteen (2M-d 4/14). Then, each child earned chips by playing a game with the subsequent opportunity to donate a portion of those chips to others. A follow-up measure was conducted two weeks later in which children again played the game and had the opportunity to donate Results indicated that children in the 1M-d 4, the 2M-d 4, and the 2M-d/nd 4/0 conditions donated significantly more than children in either control condition (i.e., NM, NM I). Children in both of the control conditions (i.e., NM, NM I) donated significantly less than subjects in the 1M-d 14 and the 2M-d 14 conditions. In addition, children who observed inconsistent models 2M-d/nd 14/0 donated significantly less than children who observed models who donated 14 chips (i.e., 1M-d 14, 2M-d 14). It was predicted that subjects observing multiple consistent models (i.e., 2M-d 4) would match the modeled behavior more precisely than subjects observing a single model donate (i.e., 1M-d 4). A similar prediction was made for the 2M-d 14 versus 1M-d 14 conditions. Neither prediction was supported by the data The results were discussed in terms of a cost/benefit analysis that may be conducted by children prior to donating. That is, the subjcts would consider the cost/benefits of donating relative to the costs/benefits of not donating. Factors that were proposed to influence this process were: the social acceptability of the behavior, the value placed on the chips, and the outcome of donation or non-donation Suggestions for future research were advanced based on the cost/benefit model / acase@tulane.edu

Prior studies investigating the influence of anxiety upon angry aggression have grouped subjects on the basis of self-reported levels of anxiety and looked at group differences when angered (Dengerink, 1971; Dorsky & Taylor, 1972). In the present study, however, both anxiety and anger were experimentally manipulated in subjects whose self-reported anxiety scores were known before giving them an opportunity to aggress Subjects were 80 male college students enrolled in an introductory psychology class who had previously completed the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, (STAI) and the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory. The men were randomly assigned to one of eight treatment conditions in which all combinations of anxiety (induced vs. control), anger (induced vs. control), and other (anxiety induction first vs. anger induction first) were included. Anxiety was created by leading the subjects to believe that the experiment involved their receiving electric shock. Anger was induced by the experimenter's very rude treatment of the subject. The aggression measure involved the subject's rating the experimenter's qualification for continued employment by this department, providing an opportunity to retaliate (Zillmann & Cantor, 1976). Throughout the experimental procedure blood pressure and heart rate were periodically monitored It was found that (1) both anger and anxiety manipulations elevated physiological arousal; (2) self-report personality scores of hostility and anxiety, as measured by the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory respectively, were not related to the magnitude of interpersonal aggression; and, (3) subjects who were exposed to the anxiety induction coupled with anger arousal exhibited less aggression than subjects who received solely the anger arousal. Therefore, the presence of anxiety mitigated a tendency toward aggression when angered Results suggest that anxiety has a mitigating effect on aggression and that anxious arousal does not combine additively with angry arousal to increase aggression as would be expected from an excitation transfer model. In prior studies investigating the relationship between anxiety and anger, anxiety has been generally operationalized solely on the basis of self-reported measures of social anxiety. In the present study, anxiety was experimentally created and monitored through physiological measures, thus providing much stronger support to the hypothesis that the presence of anxiety in an individual acts as a mitigator of angry aggression / acase@tulane.edu

The present study was undertaken in response to the contradictory findings in the literature. It contributed confirmation to some existing work and disconfirmed other work. No decisive outcomes were forthcoming, however the use of a standardized set of measures does lend validity to the efforts made. Problems that need to be addressed by future research are measurement of sex role orientation, methodology for success/failure manipulation, and evaluating task with respect to sex stereotyping. First, it is still not clear that the sex role orientation measure used encompasses enough of the role behaviors of males and females to classify them into homogenous groupings. Future research should focus on improved indicators for sex role orientation. Second, the methodology used appeared to be successful since the students were involved in the tasks and accepted the feedback as legitimate. However, the experimenters all felt somewhat uncomfortable setting up the manipulation. Perhaps other methods can be devised to circumvent the need to provide false or contrived feedback. Third, one consideration that may have affected the outcome was the 'masculine' (math) and 'feminine' (verbal) nature of the tasks. Much of the literature discusses sex-stereotyping of tasks and counterbalancing the tasks would be necessary in order to assert that no cultural effects are confounded with expectations. The results of the present study do require examining the masculine or feminine nature of the tasks as a possible explanation for unpredicted outcomes. Although sex differences were frequently reported in the literature the effects of sex in this study were in interaction with sex role orientation, achievement motivation, and task outcome. This suggests that inclusion of individual differences within sex adds significantly to the clarification of sex differences. It is felt that this conclusion is the real contribution that this research made to the study of sex differences in achievement behavior / acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

Scapegoating in a small group was investigated as a function of group success/failure, individual group member's apparent responsibility for the group outcome, and in-group vs out-group status. Ninety-six subjects, one half male and the other half female, were divided into 16 same-sex sessions, for a total of six subjects per session. In the context of a game, subjects were asked to rank each other's performance after each trial of the session; one half of the subjects believed a member was excluded on the basis of random selection and the other half of the subjects believed exclusion was based on poor performance (Selection procedure). One half of the games resulted in a success, the other half in a failure. The results indicated that scapegoating occurred as derived from the general definition: the excluded member was derogated in ratings under both conditions of the Selection procedure; and the propensity of given individuals to derogate consistently one target prior to the final outcome was also demonstrated. The results also indicated a tendency to derogate an out-group member more than an in-group member. As predicted, derogation of the excluded member increased under the conditions of failure for both Selection procedure groups; however, the prevalence of the early indentification of a target failed to increase under conditions of failure. From the results, it was concluded that the different types of scapegoating implied by a general definition operationally existed, and while primarily exploratory in nature, predictions were confirmed regarding the likelihood of scapegoating behavior in the face of a failure / acase@tulane.edu

The present investigation was conducted to determine the effect of prior experience on the weapons effect. It was predicted that weapons experienced persons, having learned the dangers of being aroused while in the presence of firearms, would be motivated to discount such arousal and attribute it to an alternate source when possible. To test this prediction, angered undergraduates were given a placebo described as either a stimulant or a vitamin and exposed to slides of firearms or neutral objects. Half of these subjects had weapons experience while the others did not. While the results indicated that weapons experienced and weapons inexperienced subjects did not differ in their responsiveness to weapons as cues, there was evidence that subjects who scored high in personality aggressiveness were more aggressive when aggressive cues were presented than when they were not. Low aggressive subjects by contrast showed a tendency in the opposite direction / acase@tulane.edu