Are There Sex Differences in Reaction to Different Types of Sexual Infidelity?

Evolutionary theory based research shows that women and men can differ in their responses to sexual and emotional infidelity. However, research has not examined the question of whether men and women react similarly or differently to a partner’s engagement in different types of sexual infidelity. The present re-search sought to answer this question. Based on the aforementioned prior research, and short term mating desires, sex differences in reactions to different types of sexual infidelity were not expected. Both women and men were expected to report higher levels of upset when a partner engaged in sexual intercourse rather than when a partner engaged in oral sex, heavy petting, or kissing with another person. The results were consistent with the hypothesis. Both men and women were most upset by a partner’s engagement in sexual intercourse with another person. These findings are discussed in terms of prior research.

Are there sex differences in reaction to different types of sexual infidelity?

Evolutionary theory based research shows that women and men can differ in their responses to sexual and emotional infidelity. However, research has not examined the question of whether men and women react similarly or differently to a partner’s engagement in different types of sexual infidelity. The present research sought to answer this question. Based on the aforementioned prior research, and short term mating desires, sex differences in reactions to different types of sexual infidelity were not expected. Both women and men were expected to report higher levels of upset when a partner engaged in sexual intercourse rather than when a partner engaged in oral sex, heavy petting, or kissing with another person. The results were consistent with the hypothesis. Both men and women were most upset by a partner’s engagement in sexual intercourse with another person. These findings are discussed in terms of prior research.

Cell Types as Natural Kinds

Talk of different types of cells is commonplace in the biological sciences. We know a great deal, for example, about human muscle cells by studying the same type of cells in mice. Information about cell type is apparently largely projectible across species boundaries. But what defines cell type? Do cells come pre-packaged into different natural kinds? Philosophical attention to these questions has been extremely limited [see e.g., Wilson (Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays, pp 187-207, 1999; Genes and the Agents of Life, 2005; Wilson et al. Philos Top 35(1/2): 189-215, 2007)]. On the face of it, the problems we face in individuating cellular kinds resemble those biologists and philosophers of biology encountered in thinking about species: there are apparently many different (and interconnected) bases on which we might legitimately classify cells. We could, for example, focus on their developmental history (a sort of analogue to a species' evolutionary history); or we might divide on the basis of certain structural features, functional role, location within larger systems, and so on. In this paper, I sketch an approach to cellular kinds inspired by Boyd's Homeostatic Property Cluster Theory, applying some lessons from this application back to general questions about the nature of natural kinds.

Impact of Various Insurance Types on Level and Appropriateness of Health Care Consumption

The goal of this study was to examine the extent to which insurance type, or method of care management, impact the appropriate delivery of health care. Previous studies indicate a relationship between insurance type and patterns of consumption but do not directly link the incentives or disincentives inherent in each plan with trends inconsumption of health care. This study explores how different types of health insurance coverage affect the location, the degree, and the frequency of health care consumption in order to gain insight into which plans promote appropriate delivery and consumption ofcare.