Social and Developmental Revision Sheet PDF

**Social Revision** **[Social MCQ's (5 questions from each topic, 50 overall) ]** **Person perception** **Three Main Theoretical Approaches to Impression Formation** 1. **Constructivist (Asch, 1946)**: - **Focus:** Perceiver\'s interpretation. - **Process:** **Top-down** (theory-d...

**Social Revision** **[Social MCQ's (5 questions from each topic, 50 overall) ]** **Person perception** **Three Main Theoretical Approaches to Impression Formation** 1. **Constructivist (Asch, 1946)**: - **Focus:** Perceiver\'s interpretation. - **Process:** **Top-down** (theory-driven, based on schemas/stereotypes). - **Effects Identified:** - **Halo Effect:** A central trait (e.g., \"warm\" or \"cold\") strongly influences how we perceive other traits. - **Context Effect:** Traits are interpreted differently depending on the situation (e.g., \"strong\" can be seen as kind or cruel). - **Order Effect:** Traits presented earlier influence overall impressions more (**primacy effect**). - **Strengths:** Reliable, simple, adaptable. - **Weaknesses:** Artificial, limited to trait lists, less real-world applicability. 2. **Structuralist (Anderson, 1965):** - **Focus:** Target person's traits. - **Process:** **Bottom-up** (data-driven). - **Model:** **Cognitive algebra**---traits are evaluated independently and combined into an overall impression. - **Example:** Judging someone differently based on the role they occupy (e.g., friend vs. politician). 3. **Interactionist (McArthur & Baron, 1983):** - **Focus:** Interaction between perceiver and target. - **Process:** Combines top-down and bottom-up approaches. - **Key Concepts:** - **Attunements:** Perceiver\'s tendency to notice certain information (e.g., danger signals). - **Affordances:** Actions a person invites or allows (e.g., friendliness or dominance). **Person Perception vs. Impression Formation** - **Person Perception:** Recognizing specific qualities in others (e.g., how they behave or seem). - **Impression Formation:** Integrating various pieces of information into an overall judgment about someone. **First Impressions:** 1. **Thin Slices of Behavior:** - Small amounts of observable behavior (e.g., seconds-long video clips) can lead to surprisingly accurate judgments. - **Example:** Ambady et al. (1999) found people could identify sexual orientation better than chance after viewing 1- or 10-second video clips. 2. **Are First Impressions Accurate?** - **No:** Rosenhan (1973) showed psychiatric impostors could fool professionals, questioning first impressions in certain settings. - **Yes:** Ambady, Bernieri & Richeson (2000) found people could make accurate judgments from minimal behavior. - **Personality Judgments:** Paulhus and Bruce (1992) found high accuracy for traits like **extraversion**. **Mechanisms Linking Physical to Psychological Traits:** (Zebrowitz & Collins, 1997) 1. **Shared Origins:** - Genetic/environmental factors influence both physical and psychological traits (e.g., Down syndrome). 2. **Psychological-to-Physical Influence:** - Traits like stress or optimism shaping physical appearance (e.g., the **Dorian Gray effect**). 3. **Physical-to-Psychological Influence:** - Physical features (e.g., facial structure) influencing behavior or perception. 4. **Self-Fulfilling Prophecies:** - Expectations affecting behavior, leading to confirmation of the initial impression (e.g., **Rosenthal & Jacobson\'s Pygmalion Effect** in schools).   **Ambady (2010)** **1. What are \"thin slices\"?**\ Thin slices are **short samples of behavior** (less than 5 minutes) that reveal information about personality, emotions, and interpersonal relationships. **2. What characterizes intuitive judgments?** - **Speed:** Quick and automatic. - **Reliance on Minimal Information:** Require only a small amount of observable data. - **Non-Deliberative:** Occur without conscious effort or analysis, often based on implicit knowledge. **3. How are intuitive/efficient judgments investigated?** - **Methods:** - a. **Distraction Test:** - Tests whether judgments remain accurate while attention is divided by another task. - b. **Deliberation Test:** - Examines whether increased thinking time improves or reduces the accuracy of judgments. **4. Study 1** - **Background:**\ Previous research shows people can make accurate judgments from thin slices of behavior, which predict real-world outcomes. - **Aim:**\ To explore how people form judgments from brief behavioral observations. - **Conditions:** 1. **Distraction/Cognitive Load:** Participants performed another cognitive task while watching clips. 2. **Deliberation/Reasons Analysis:** Participants wrote reasons for their judgments before rating. 3. **Control:** Participants rated clips immediately after watching. 4. **Delayed Rating:** Participants waited 1 minute before rating as a time-control condition. - **Dependent Variable (DV):**\ Accuracy of judgments. - **Results:** 1. **Distraction:** Did not reduce accuracy. 2. **Deliberation:** Reduced accuracy compared to intuitive judgments. - **Conclusion:** 1. Judgments from thin slices are intuitive and efficient, unaffected by distractions. 2. **Deliberation interferes** with accuracy, as intuitive judgments seem more accurate. **5. Study 2 Compared to Study 1** - **Difference:**\ Study 2 further explored **why deliberation affects accuracy**, adding new tasks or conditions to understand this phenomenon. - **Findings:** - Deliberation reduced accuracy because participants focused on irrelevant information. - Intuitive judgments worked better when participants relied on instinct without overthinking. **6. Why does deliberation reduce accuracy?** - **Reason:**\ During deliberation, people may concentrate on **irrelevant information** or overanalyze, leading them away from the key observable traits linked to accurate impressions. **7. Are intuitive judgments always more accurate?** - **Answer:**\ No, not always. - If individuals focus on **irrelevant cues**, intuitive judgments can be less accurate. - Deliberative judgments may work better in specific contexts, especially when more information is needed. **Interpersonal attractions** Definition of Attraction - Berscheid & Walster (1978):\ *"An individual's tendency or predisposition to evaluate another person... in a positive (or negative) way."* Three Components of Attitudes 1. Affective:\ Liking or disliking someone. 2. Behavioral:\ Acting in a certain way toward someone. 3. Cognitive:\ Thinking a certain way about someone. Factors That Create Attraction 1. Proximity (Propinquity): - Increases attraction due to frequent interaction. - Examples: - Segal (1974): Students sitting close in class were more likely to be friends. - Festinger et al. (1950): 65% of friends in married-student housing lived in the same building. - Functional Distance: Friends were more likely to live on the same floor due to higher chances of interaction. 2. Familiarity (Mere Exposure Effect): - The more we encounter a stimulus, the more we like it (*Zajonc, 1968*). - Mita, Dermer & Knight (1977): People prefer their mirror images (more familiar to them). - Subliminal priming (*Bornstein et al., 1978*): Participants unconsciously preferred photos they had been exposed to. 3. Similarity: - Similarity in traits fosters attraction. - Key Research: - Byrne & Nelson (1965): *Similarity-attraction effect*. - Matching Hypothesis (*Walster et al., 1966*): People seek partners with similar social desirability. - Gruber-Baldini et al. (1995): Couples grow more similar over time. - Explanations for Similarity/Matching: - Fear of rejection. - Value alignment. - Social exchange theory. - Social/environmental factors. 4. Physical Attractiveness: - Cross-cultural agreement exists on what is considered attractive (*Langlois et al., 2000*). - Certain facial configurations are universally attractive (*Cunningham, 1986*). Physical Attractiveness: What Makes a Face Attractive? 1. Facial Features (Cunningham, 1986): - Women: - Childlike (Neonate): Large eyes, small nose, small chin. - Mature: Prominent cheekbones, narrow cheeks. - Expressive: High eyebrows, large pupils, big smile. - Men: - Large eyes, prominent cheekbones, large chin, big smile. 2. Evolutionary Traits: - Sexual Dimorphism: Preference for traits signaling sexual maturity, reproductive potential, and health (*Little, Jones & DeBruine, 2011*). - Menstrual Cycle Effects: Women prefer more masculine male faces during fertile phases (*Penton-Voak et al., 1999*). 3. Averageness: - Average faces are preferred as they signal health and genetic normality (*Langlois & Roggman, 1990*). - Composite faces of attractive individuals are rated higher than those of average faces (*Perrett et al., 1994*). 4. Symmetry: - Symmetrical faces are perceived as more attractive (*Rhodes, 1998*). - High fertility increases preference for symmetrical partners\' body scent (*Gangestad & Thornhill, 1998*). Sex Differences in Long-Term Mate Preferences 1. Key Preferences (Buss & Barnes, 1986): - Both sexes desire good companionship, honesty, and dependability. - Men prioritize physical attractiveness; women emphasize resources and education. 2. Parental Investment Theory (Trivers, 1972): - Women invest more in offspring (pregnancy, nursing) → more selective. - Men invest less (sperm only) → focus on fertility indicators like youth and beauty. 3. Infidelity Concerns (Buss et al., 1992): - Men are more upset by sexual infidelity (threatens paternity confidence). - Women are more upset by emotional infidelity (indicates lack of commitment). 4. Mate Selection in Ads and Dating: - Men seek attractive partners more often (*Deaux & Hanna, 1984*). - Women prioritize resources and financial stability (*Wiederman, 1993*). Cultural and Evolutionary Perspectives 1. Biosocial Role Theory (Eagly & Wood, 1999): - Gender roles influence preferences: Men as providers, women as caregivers. - Gender equality reduces sex differences in mate preferences. 2. Evolutionary Psychology (Buss, 1994): - Preferences evolve to enhance reproductive success. - Cultural variations adapt but do not erase evolved traits. Motoya and Horton (2014) **1. Definition of Attraction (Montoya & Horton, 2014)** - **Attraction:**\ \"A person's immediate and positive affective and/or behavioral response to a specific individual, a response that is influenced by the person's cognitive assessments.\" - It is shaped by initial evaluations made about others. **1a. Relationship Between Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive Aspects** - **Assumption:** - Affective and behavioral attraction arises from cognitive assessments. - These assessments focus on a target\'s **willingness** and **capacity** to facilitate the perceiver\'s goals and interests. **2. Evaluative Dimensions of Attraction** - Attraction is determined by two primary dimensions: 1. **Capacity:** - Indicates **competence** or **skill.** 2. **Willingness:** - Indicates **trustworthiness** or **warmth.** **2a. Assessments Made When Meeting Someone** - People evaluate: 1. The **capacity** of the target to facilitate their goals and needs. 2. The **willingness** of the target to help meet those goals and needs. **3. Examples of Behavioral vs. Affective Attraction** - **Behavioral attraction without affective attraction:** - Example: A student partners with a highly competent peer for a group project, appreciating their skills (behavioral), but feels no personal liking (affective). - **Affective attraction without behavioral attraction:** - Example: Feeling a strong liking (affective) for a distant friend's warmth and humor but choosing not to collaborate with them because they lack reliability or competence (behavioral). **4. Role of Goals in Evaluations** - Goals shape the importance of **capacity** and **willingness.** - **Dynamic Nature of Goals:** - **Example:** In a professional setting, competence (capacity) may matter more. - In a personal relationship, warmth (willingness) may be prioritized. - As goals change across time or contexts, so do the qualities valued in others. **5. Consciousness of Evaluations** - Not directly discussed in the excerpt, but evaluations of **willingness** and **capacity** are likely both: - **Automatic (implicit):** Quick judgments in initial encounters. - **Deliberate (explicit):** When reflection or decision-making is required. **6. Weighting of Dimensions** - While the excerpt doesn't specify, it is reasonable to assume: - The relative importance of **willingness** or **capacity** depends on the context (e.g., relationships vs. work). - Speculatively, **willingness** may often be weighted more heavily in personal relationships due to its association with trust and warmth. **7. Model's Explanation of Key Effects** - **Reciprocal Liking:** - Knowing someone likes us increases perceptions of their **willingness** (trustworthiness and warmth), enhancing attraction. - **Arousal:** - Arousal may heighten perceptions of a target's **capacity** (e.g., competence or dominance), intensifying attraction. - **Similarity:** - Similarity may be interpreted as a sign of both **capacity** (shared interests suggest understanding) and **willingness** (shared values suggest trustworthiness), thereby increasing attraction. **8. Findings** - **Core Insight:** - Interpersonal attraction is primarily driven by inferences about the target\'s **capacity** and **willingness** to facilitate the perceiver\'s goals and interests. Walter et al. (2020) **Characteristics Equally Preferred by Men and Women for Long-term Mates** - **Highly Preferred by Both Sexes:** - **Kindness**, **intelligence**, and **health**. - Traits related to **resources** (for stability) and **fertility** (for reproductive success). **Universal Differences in Mate Preferences Across Cultures** - **Men:** - Place greater emphasis on **physical attractiveness** and **youth** (indicators of fertility). - **Women:** - Value **financial resources** and **older age** (indicators of stability and resource provision). **Eagly & Wood's (Biosocial Role Theory) Explanation** - **Core Argument:** - Sex differences in mate preferences arise from **socially assigned roles**, not biology alone. - Societies often assign men to **provider roles** and women to **homemaker/caregiver roles**, shaping their preferences. - **Evidence Supporting Biosocial Role Theory:** - **Gender Equality Effects:** - In societies with higher gender equality, differences in mate preferences decrease. - Women value financial prosperity less, and men value physical attractiveness less in these contexts. - Age gaps between partners also tend to reduce with greater gender equality. **Walter et al.\'s Study** - **Reason for Study:** - To provide an **up-to-date analysis** of mate preferences. - To directly test predictions from **evolutionary psychology** and **biosocial role theory**. - Previous studies relied on reanalyzed or older data and used varying methodologies, making direct comparisons difficult. **Traits Measured in Walter et al.\'s Study** 1. **Kindness, intelligence, and health** - Expected to be universally desired by both sexes. 2. **Physical attractiveness and financial prosperity** - Expected to show sex differences in preferences. **Additional Variables Measured and Why** 1. **Gender Equality:** - To test **biosocial role theory** predictions. 2. **Pathogen Prevalence:** - To test **evolutionary psychology** predictions (higher pathogen prevalence predicts a stronger preference for physical attractiveness as an indicator of health). 3. **Age (participant and partner):** - To measure preferences for age differences in partners. **Key Findings from Walter et al.** 1. **Physical Attractiveness and Financial Prosperity:** - **Men:** Strong preference for physical attractiveness. - **Women:** Strong preference for financial resources. 2. **Age Preferences:** - **Women:** Preferred older partners. - **Men:** Preferred younger partners. 3. **Kindness, Intelligence, and Health:** - Both sexes valued these traits highly, but women rated them slightly higher. 4. **Gender Equality:** - In societies with more gender equality: - Age gaps between partners were smaller. - Differences in financial prosperity preferences were reduced. 5. **Pathogen Prevalence:** - No significant effect on preferences. **Which Perspective is Better Supported?** - **Evolutionary Psychology:** - Explains universal patterns, such as preferences for youth and attractiveness in men, and financial resources and older age in women. - Supported by cross-cultural consistency in these preferences. - **Biosocial Role Theory:** - Explains how societal roles and gender equality shape mate preferences, showing flexibility in these patterns. - Supported by the reduction of sex differences in more gender-equal societies. - **Conclusion:**\ Both theories have empirical support and are likely **complementary**. - Evolutionary psychology explains **biological universals** in mate preferences. - Biosocial role theory accounts for **variations influenced by culture and societal roles**.\ The interplay of biological and sociocultural factors provides the most comprehensive explanation. **Close relationships** Close Relationships: Definition and Provisions - Definition: Partners influence each other's thoughts, feelings, and behaviours over time, fulfilling important needs. - Weiss' (1974) 6 Provisions of Relationships: - Attachment, social integration, reliable alliance, guidance, reassurance of worth, and opportunity for nurturing. Social Psychological Models of Relationship Satisfaction 1. Social Exchange Models: - Focus: Minimize costs and maximize benefits. - Examples: - Interdependence Theory: Relationships depend on cost-reward ratios, comparison levels (CL), and alternatives (CLalt). - Investment Model: Commitment is influenced by satisfaction, investments, and quality of alternatives. - Key Findings: - Satisfaction (+), investment size (+), and alternatives (-) predict commitment and stability (Le & Agnew, 2003). - Relationship mechanisms (e.g., forgiveness) follow commitment (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). 2. Equity Theory: - Focus: Fairness in the ratio of inputs to outputs. - Inequity motivates efforts to restore fairness by adjusting perceptions or contributions. - Higher satisfaction in equitable relationships, especially for people with a high exchange orientation (Buunk & Van Yperen, 1991). 3. Exchange vs. Communal Relationships (Clark & Mills): - Exchange: Keeping mental records of contributions, focus on equity and fairness (if favours not returned will feel exploited.) - Communal: Responsiveness to needs without keeping track of contributions (want to please partner) Theories of Relationship Satisfaction and Stability 1. Interdependence Theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959): - Relationship satisfaction depends on: - Cost-reward ratios (minimax strategy). - Comparison levels (CL) based on expectations. - Alternatives (CLalt): Satisfaction leads to commitment unless alternatives are better. 2. Investment Model (Rusbult, 1983): - Satisfaction, investment, and lack of alternatives predict commitment, which leads to stability. - Example: Women in abusive relationships often stay due to low alternatives and high investments, even if satisfaction is low (Rusbult & Martz, 1995). Factors Influencing Satisfaction and Stability 1. Attributions (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990): - Satisfied partners attribute positive events to global, stable, and internal traits of their partner. - Negative events are attributed to specific, unstable, external causes. 2. Idealization (Murray, 1999): - Higher satisfaction when partners idealize each other, even minimizing faults. - Low self-esteem individuals struggle to idealize their partner. 3. Perceived Fairness: - Transition to parenthood: Perceived unfairness in household tasks predicts dissatisfaction (Grote & Clark, 2001). 4. Attachment Styles (Bowlby, 1969; Clark et al., 2010): - Attachment affects trust, self-esteem, and relationship norms. - Secure attachment supports communal norms, while insecure attachment aligns with exchange norms. Hatfield and Rapson (2011) **Summary of Equity in Relationships:** 1. **Definition of Equity**: - Equity is the principle that people prefer fairness in relationships, feeling satisfied when they get what they deserve---no more, no less. It involves a balanced distribution of rewards and responsibilities. 2. **Four Propositions of Equity Theory**: - People strive to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. - Societies reward fairness and discourage inequity. - People feel discomfort from inequity, whether they are over-benefited (guilt) or under-benefited (resentment). - To restore balance, people adjust perceptions, behaviors, or relationships. 3. **When Equity Matters Least**: - In long-term, committed relationships, equity becomes less critical because partners trust that imbalances will even out over time. Immediate reciprocation is less emphasized in such relationships. 4. **Causality Between Inequity and Dissatisfaction**: - Evidence (e.g., van Yperen & Buunk, 1990) suggests inequity causes dissatisfaction. While dissatisfaction may occasionally heighten awareness of inequity, the primary direction is from inequity to dissatisfaction. 5. **Cultural Effects on Equity** (Aumer-Ryan et al., 2006): - Individualistic cultures (e.g., U.S.): Stronger emphasis on equity; relationships are often perceived as equitable. - Collectivist cultures: Less emphasis on individual fairness, more focus on group harmony and familial obligations, potentially leading to different perceptions of equity. 6. **Evidence from Other Species**: - Studies with capuchin monkeys demonstrate the importance of fairness. When treated inequitably (e.g., given less desirable rewards), they refused participation, displayed frustration, and rejected inferior rewards. 7. **Does Fairness Always Matter?** - Fairness generally matters, but its importance can fluctuate. In long-term relationships, minor inequities may be overlooked due to trust and commitment. However, persistent inequity can lead to dissatisfaction and relationship deterioration, underscoring its significance. **Leaderships** Definitions of Leadership 1. Yukl (1989): Leadership is the process through which an individual influences group members toward achieving specific goals. 2. Chemers (2001): Leadership involves social influence, enabling an individual to mobilize others in attaining a collective goal. Characteristics of Leadership (Forsyth, 1999): (5) - Reciprocal: Involves mutual influence between leaders and group members. - Transactional: Based on social exchanges like time, energy, and skills. - Transformational: Can change beliefs, values, motivation, and confidence. - Cooperative and Legitimate: Relies on shared goals rather than pure power dynamics. - Goal-Seeking: Focuses on organizing efforts to achieve personal and group objectives. Leadership Theories 1\. Trait Models - Suggest leadership is based on inherent or acquired traits. - *Great Person Theory*: Exceptional individuals are born leaders. 2\. Behavioural Models - Leadership effectiveness depends on behaviours rather than traits. - *Lippitt & White (1943)*: Leadership styles studied in boys\' groups: - Autocratic: Authoritative, task-focused, aloof. - Leader liked less, aggressive atmosphere, high productivity when leader present - Democratic: Inclusive, consultative, cooperative. - Leader liked more, friendly atmosphere (task oriented), relatively high productivity even unaffected by presence of leader - Laissez-Faire: Minimal intervention, self-directed groups. - Leader liked less, friendly atmosphere (play oriented), low productivity (increased in absence of leader) **Task-Oriented vs. Socioemotional Leaders** **Key Concepts** 1. **Bales (1950) Leadership Distinction:** - **Task-Oriented Leader:** - Focuses on completing the group's tasks and achieving goals. - Concerned with performance and productivity. - **Socioemotional Leader:** - Focuses on group members' feelings, relationships, and well-being. - Concerned with maintaining harmony and positive group dynamics. 2. **Assumption of Exclusivity:** - Early research assumed individuals could not excel in both roles simultaneously. 3. **Challenge to the Assumption:** - **Ohio State Leadership Studies:** - Found that individuals can score high on both task-oriented and socioemotional leadership qualities. - Leaders who balance both dimensions are often the most effective. - **Sorrentino & Field (1986):** Provided evidence supporting the effectiveness of leaders who are strong in both areas. **Interaction Process Analysis (Bales, 1950; 1970):** - A systematic coding scheme used to analyse group interactions. - Codes 12 types of behaviours: - **6 Task-Oriented Activities:** Related to goal setting, problem-solving, and task management. - **6 Socioemotional Activities:** Related to maintaining relationships, addressing group dynamics, and resolving conflicts. **Implications for Leadership:** - The most effective leaders integrate both task-oriented and socioemotional skills. - Understanding and balancing these roles is critical for fostering both group productivity and cohesion. 3\. Contingency Approaches - Leadership effectiveness depends on situational factors. - *Fiedler's Contingency Model*: - Leadership style measured using the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Scale. - Situational control factors: 1. Leader-Member Relations (most important). 2. Task Structure. 3. Position Power. - Limitations: Leadership style assumed to be fixed; test reliability issues. 4\. Transactional Models - Leadership is a dynamic exchange where leaders guide followers and are rewarded with approval, trust, or power. - *Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory*: - Leaders build high-quality relationships with select group members. - Strengths: Supported by research linking LMX to job satisfaction and well-being. - Limitations: Perceived favoritism; focus on individual relationships over group dynamics. 5\. Transformational Leadership - Leaders inspire followers to prioritize group/organizational goals over self-interest. - Key traits: Charisma, motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration. - *Strengths*: Empirical support, comprehensive, emphasizes followers\' needs. - *Limitations*: Overlapping elements; charisma as an innate trait; risk of misuse. 6\. Leadership as a Group Process - Leadership emerges from group identity and shared values. - *Social Identity Theory of Leadership*: Effective leaders represent and act on behalf of the group's identity and goals. - *Prototypicality*: Leaders who embody group values are more likely to emerge and succeed. - *Hains, Hogg, and Duck (1997)*: - Leaders viewed as prototypical are rated more favorably, especially in groups with high identity salience. - *Strengths*: Research support; follower-focused; compatible with other theories. Key Insights: - Leadership effectiveness is influenced by a combination of traits, behaviors, situational factors, and group dynamics. - Modern theories like LMX, Transformational Leadership, and Social Identity Theory emphasize relationships, motivation, and alignment with group values. Sergent and Stajkovic (2020)  **1. Why might gender be related to leadership effectiveness in a crisis?** - Women are often preferred as leaders during crises due to their **transformational leadership style**, characterized by: - Greater **empathy**, **collaboration**, and **confidence**. - Qualities such as **intuition**, **creativity**, and **emotional intelligence**, which are vital for navigating unpredictable challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic. - Women leaders are associated with **democratic decision-making** and creating **psychological safety**, encouraging engagement and trust among followers​(2020-47004-001). **2. What was done in the quantitative part of the study? What was found?** **Quantitative Analysis:** - Investigated the link between **governor gender** and COVID-19 death rates across U.S. states. - Used COVID-19 death data (as of May 5, 2020), adjusting for variables like: - **State population**, **political affiliation**, and **governor tenure**. - Examined the interaction between **governor gender** and the **timing of stay-at-home orders**. **Findings:** - States with **women governors** had fewer COVID-19 deaths than those with men governors. - States where **women governors issued early stay-at-home orders** saw significantly fewer deaths compared to states with men governors issuing similar orders​(2020-47004-001). **3. What was done in the qualitative part of the study? What was found?** **Qualitative Analysis:** - Analyzed **251 COVID-19-related briefings** by 38 governors (April 1--May 5, 2020) using **Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC)** software. - Measured the frequency of **empathetic** and **confident language**. **Findings:** - **Women governors**: - Expressed **more empathy**, showing awareness of their constituents' feelings and welfare. - Exuded **greater confidence** in their briefings. - Focused on issues like **economic concerns**, **job security**, and **emotional well-being**, aligning with public needs​(2020-47004-001). **4. What are the study's limitations and conclusions?** **Limitations:** - The data are **correlational**, so causation cannot be established. - Reliance on public transcripts introduces potential for **bias** (e.g., transcription inaccuracies). - Analysis was limited to a **binary gender framework**, missing nuances of leadership traits beyond gender stereotypes. - The study did not directly test whether **empathy** and **confidence** mediated the relationship between gender and COVID-19 deaths. **Conclusions:** - **Women governors** were associated with **fewer COVID-19 deaths**, likely due to their empathetic and confident communication. - Highlights the importance of **diverse leadership traits** and the inclusion of women in leadership roles, especially during crises​(2020-47004-001).