Why Women Rarely Rise to the Top: A Social Identity Model of Leader Prototypes.

Purpose We propose a social identity model of leader prototypes to address why the maleness of leader prototypes is more pronounced among men than among women (e.g., Schein, 2001). Specifically, we argue that individuals project their ingroup prototype (e.g., a male prototype) onto a valued other category (e.g., leaders) (e.g., Wenzel, Mummendey, Weber, & Waldzus, 2003) in order to maintain a positive ingroup (e.g., gender) identity. We hypothesized that both women and men engage in ingroup projection of their gender prototype on their leader prototype, and we expected this effect to be stronger for men than women. We also investigated intelligence as a moderator of ingroup projection. Methodology Participants (276 students, University of Lausanne) assessed to what extent attributes on a list of gender traits were characteristic of a successful leader. We computed relative ingroup similarity scores (e.g., Waldzus & Mummendey, 2004) representing the difference between how characteristic ingroup traits are for a successful leader, and how characteristic outgroup traits are for a successful leader. Results Results showed that men engaged in ingroup projection while women engaged in outgroup projection, and that men engaged in ingroup projection to a greater extent. We also found a small, but positive effect of intelligence on ingroup projection among men. Limitations The use of a student sample might limit the external validity of our findings. Implications Our findings contribute to research on the under-representation of women in managerial roles, and introduce intelligence as a predictor of ingroup projection. Value Our study allows for a more fine-grained understanding of the cognitive representations of leaders of men and women.

Body donations today and tomorrow: What is best practice and why?

There is considerable agreement that the use of human bodies for teaching and research remains important, yet not all universities use dissection to teach human gross anatomy. The concept of body donation has evolved over centuries and there are still considerable discrepancies among countries regarding the means by which human bodies are acquired and used for education and research. Many countries have well-established donation programs and use body dissection to teach most if not all human gross anatomy. In contrast, there are countries without donation programs that use unclaimed bodies or perhaps a few donated bodies instead. In several countries, use of cadavers for dissection is unthinkable for cultural or religious reasons. Against this background, successful donation programs are highlighted in the present review, emphasizing those aspects of the programs that make them successful. Looking to the future, we consider what best practice could look like and how the use of unclaimed bodies for anatomy teaching could be replaced. From an ethical point of view, countries that depend upon unclaimed bodies of dubious provenance are encouraged to use these reports and adopt strategies for developing successful donation programs. In many countries, the act of body donation has been guided by laws and ethical frameworks and has evolved alongside the needs for medical knowledge and for improved teaching of human anatomy. There will also be a future need for human bodies to ensure optimal pre- and post-graduate training and for use in biomedical research. Good body donation practice should be adopted wherever possible, moving away from the use of unclaimed bodies of dubious provenance and adopting strategies to favor the establishment of successful donation programs. Clin. Anat. 29:11-18, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Why evolution matters for species conservation: perspectives from three case studies of plant metapopulations

We advocate the advantage of an evolutionary approach to conservation biology that considers evolutionary history at various levels of biological organization. We review work on three separate plant taxa, spanning from one to multiple decades, illustrating extremes in metapopulation functioning. We show how the rare endemics Centaurea corymbosa (Clape Massif, France) and Brassica insularis in Corsica (France) may be caught in an evolutionary trap: disruption of metapopulation functioning due to lack of colonization of new sites may have counterselected traits such as dispersal ability or self-compatibility, making these species particularly vulnerable to any disturbance. The third case study concerns the evolution of life history strategies in the highly diverse genus Leucadendron of the South African fynbos. There, fire disturbance and the recolonization phase after fires are so integral to the functioning of populations that recruitment of new individuals is conditioned by fire. We show how past adaptation to different fire regimes and climatic constraints make species with different life history syndromes more or less vulnerable to global changes. These different case studies suggest that management strategies should promote evolutionary potential and evolutionary processes to better protect extant biodiversity and biodiversification.

Are Public Private Partnerships that Rigid ? And Why ? : Evidence from Toll Road Concession Contracts

Transport concession contracts are commonly said to be standardized and too rigid. They would not allow public authorities to adapt them to evolving context and circumstances. This paper aims at challenging this view and, more particularly, the view that contractual rigidity for transport concessions is exogenous. Using a transaction cost framework, we disentangle between three main determinants of contractual rigidity: traffic uncertainty; connivance between contracting parties; quality of the institutional environment. Using an original database of toll road concession contracts, we observe a great variety of provisions for toll adjustment. We find that these exogenous determinants significantly influence contractual choices.

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies, and to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to defining (non-) dissemination of research findings. SETTING: We performed a scoping review of definitions of the term 'publication bias' in highly cited publications. PARTICIPANTS: Ideas and experiences of a core group of authors were collected in a draft document, which was complemented by the findings from our literature search. INTERVENTIONS: The draft document including findings from the literature search was circulated to an international group of experts and revised until no additional ideas emerged and consensus was reached. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: We propose a new approach to the comprehensive conceptualisation of (non-) dissemination of research. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Our 'What, Who and Why?' approach includes issues that need to be considered when disseminating research findings (What?), the different players who should assume responsibility during the various stages of conducting a clinical trial and disseminating clinical trial documents (Who?), and motivations that might lead the various players to disseminate findings selectively, thereby introducing bias in the dissemination process (Why?). CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive framework of (non-) dissemination of research findings, based on the results of a scoping literature search and expert consensus will facilitate the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the multifaceted issue of selective publication, historically referred to as 'publication bias'.