These data confirm the relevant theoretical analysis, and have practical implications for a change in current language training practices. As with the earlier studies, topography-based verbal behavior was easier to learn, and led to more new stimulus-class relations than selection-based verbal behavior. This was accomplished by varying the number of object relations being learned, and by interspersing already learned tasks with the training of new tasks. The current study replicated the two previous ones by teaching the same two verbal relations and testing for the emergence of new relations, but adjusted the task to the subject's level of functioning during the experiment. The results of both studies favored the topography-based system, but in each case some subjects were not verbally skillful enough to learn either system and some learned both too easily to permit a useful comparison. Sundberg and Sundberg (1990) also compared them for the spontaneous development of a new relation, identifying the object when hearing its name (stimulus class formation or equivalence).
Sundberg and Sundberg (1990) and Wraikat (1990) compared these systems in terms of the ease of learning object naming (tact) and giving the correct sign or pointing to the correct symbol on hearing the object name (intraverbal). Michael (1985) identified two types of verbal behavior, topography-based (e.g., speaking or using sign language) and selection-based (e.g., using a symbol board). If so, then the success of efforts to increase such activity - or, regressively, to suppress it - may be better understood. These gendered expressions plausibly reflect differentiable environmental pressures in the past and may help explain behaviors in and barriers to women’s electoral political activity in the present. Cognitive risk-assessment mechanisms evolving in the hominid line came to be expressed differently in females and males, in women and men. Using the framework of life-history theory, I hypothesize that both cognitive and environmental factors in human evolution, particularly as they relate to sexual selection and social roles, have shaped the psychology of ambition in gendered ways affecting contemporary politics.
To fill this gap, I explore how evolutionary theory offers insights into gendered differences in political ambition and the evaluation of electoral risk. To date, scholars have focused on supply-side and demand-side explanations of women’s underrepresentation but differences in how men and women assess electoral risk (the risk involved in seeking political office) are not fully explained. Worldwide, men’s dominance in the realm of politics has also been the norm.
In the United States, women have long held the right to vote and can participate fully in the political process, and yet they are underrepresented at all levels of elected office.
0 kommentar(er)
