Female rodents are not more variable than male rodents: A meta-analysis of preclinical studies of fear and anxiety.

Recent meta-analyses have demonstrated that data from female rodents, tested without regard for estrous stage, is no more variable than male data across a range of traits. Nonetheless, widespread use of male-only samples persists in preclinical studies of anxiety disorders, despite this condition being twice more prevalent amongst women relative to men. We conducted a meta-analysis of over 4900 data points obtained from 263 articles assessing behavioural measures of fear and anxiety in rodents. We found no evidence for greater female variability on any measure. Overall, males had greater variability than unstaged females, which was predominantly driven by studies of learned fear. Compared to unstaged females, staged, but not ovariectomised, females showed reduced variability. Experiments using individual housing and rats were associated with greater variability relative to those using group housing and mice; these effects were not moderated by sex. These results illustrate that the estrous cycle does not inflate variability in females beyond that of males, despite being a female-specific modulator of fear and anxiety behaviour.

Always look on the bright side of logic? Testing explanations of intuitive sensitivity to logic in perceptual tasks.

Much recent research and theorizing in the field of reasoning has been concerned with intuitive sensitivity to logical validity, such as the logic-brightness effect, in which logically valid arguments are judged to have a "brighter" typeface than invalid arguments. We propose and test a novel signal competition account of this phenomenon. Our account makes two assumptions: (a) as per the demands of the logic-brightness task, people attempt to find a perceptual signal to guide brightness judgments, but (b) when the perceptual signal is hard to discern, they instead attend to cues such as argument validity. Experiment 1 tested this account by manipulating the difficulty of the perceptual contrast. When contrast discrimination was relatively difficult, we replicated the logic-brightness effect. When the discrimination was easy, the effect was eliminated. Experiment 2 manipulated the ambiguity of the perceptual task, comparing discrimination performance when the perceptual contrast was labeled in terms of rating "brightness" or "darkness". When the less ambiguous darkness labeling was used, there was no evidence of a logic-brightness effect. In both experiments, individual sensitivity to the perceptual discrimination was negatively correlated with sensitivity to argument validity. Hierarchical latent mixture modeling revealed distinct individual strategies: responses based on perceptual cues, responses based on validity or guessing. Consistent with the signal competition account, the proportion of those responding to validity increased with perceptual discrimination difficulty or task ambiguity. The results challenge explanations of the logic-brightness effect based on parallel dual-process models of reasoning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).