Can Cognitive Neuroscience Tell Us Anything About the Mind?
Cognitive neuroscience - essentially brain scanning - has become all the rage in psychology and related fields. Given the headlong rush by, well, practically everyone, into cognitive neuroscience I still entertain a quaintly unfashionable stance: I'm sceptical. My scepticism is not total though, many cognitive neuroscientists claim that there are many exciting findings to come. They're probably right, but while neuroimaging can certainly tell us much about the brain, there's reason to believe it hasn't told us much about the mind. To understand what I mean by this we need to go back to basics by asking what research is for.
"Does cognitive neuroscience really have the power to distinguish between psychological theories?"Like all scientists, psychologists are continually knocking out new theories to explain the way we think and behave. One of the most important functions of research is its ability to differentiate between two theories. If research doesn't at least provide a clue one way or the other then theoretically, and so practically, it's a waste of time. Does cognitive neuroscience really have the power to distinguish between psychological theories? Is it any use to a cognitive psychologist?
A critic's view
Max Coltheart is Professor of Psychology at Macquarie University in Australia and in a recent journal article he wonders whether cognitive neuroscience has really told us anything useful about the mind so far (Coltheart, 2006). It's important to realise that his emphasis is on the mind, as in cognitive processes, as distinct from the brain, as in physiological processes.
"Neuroscience's strength is in physiological processes..."There's no doubt the mind's cognitive processes are a function of the brain's physiological activity but these two things are nevertheless (currently) separate questions. Cognitive neuroscience's strength is in physiological processes, and as imaging technology improves, so will the importance of its findings in this area. But, again, why should a psychologist care that much which part of the brain lights up in a scanner, if the mind's functioning is still so far removed from our understanding of its physiology?
An example
All this can be difficult to grasp in abstract. Take one of Coltheart's examples. Suppose you're a psychologist interested in how people work out what other people are going to do. Their intentions. Suppose there are only two competing theories that you've got to choose between:
- 'Simulation theory': I literally run a crude simulation of your mental state in my own mind. From this I try and work out what you're going to do next.
- 'Theory theory': I create a theory about you, then try to work out what you're going to do from that.
"...evidence from cognitive neuroscience fails to distinguish between theories."This is just two theories and one study - not exactly a scathing criticism of the whole of cognitive neuroscience. But Coltheart does run through four other examples where evidence from cognitive neuroscience fails to distinguish between theories. Again, remember that we're talking about relatively high level psychological theories here, not low-level physiological processes.
Coltheart goes on to pull quotes from a range of people who argue that, in principle, neuroimaging is useless for psychological theory and understanding of the mind. Here's a good computing metaphor:
"No amount of knowledge about the hardware of a computer will tell you anything serious about the nature of the software that the computer runs. In the same way, no facts about the activity of the brain could be used to confirm or refute some information-processing model of cognition." (Coltheart, 2004, p.22)I personally don't know enough about cognitive neuroscience to argue whether or not this statement is true, but it certainly has intuitive appeal. Considering the enormous quantity of money going into cognitive neuroscience right now, it seems unlikely this would be a majority view amongst psychologists. Not that scientist are slaves to money, of course...Ahem...
What's your view?
There's precious little discussion of Coltheart's criticisms in the blogosphere and there's plenty of good neuroscience blogs around. Let me know what you think, leave a comment below.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
ReferencesColtheart, M. (2004) Brain imaging, connectionism and cognitive neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2, 21-25.
Coltheart, M. (2006). What has functional neuroimaging told us about the mind (so far)? Cortex, 42(3), 323-31.
Ramnani, N., & Miall, R. C. (2004). A circuit in the human brain for predicting the actions of others. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 85-90.
Labels: Neuroscience
How 'Naive Cynicism' May Poison Your Relationships
Cynicism has its uses. Being suspicious about the motives of others won't leave you gasping when you are tricked. Expecting negative events means you are never disappointed. Anything good is a bonus. But can cynicism go to far? A study by Kruger and Gilovich (1999) suggests it can.
The authors asked married couples to estimate how often their partner was responsible for both desirable and undesirable relationship events. This came out about even: each person admitted causing some bad events while claiming responsibility for some of the good events in the relationship. Half and half, fair's fair.
They then asked each person to estimate what their partner had claimed. Here's the surprise. On average people assumed their partners would take more responsibility for the good events and deny the bad events. Actually they'd done nothing of the sort.
"People tended to assume that others are more biased than they really are."It's not just married people who show this bias. The authors also studied video game players, debaters and darts players. A similar type of bias was seen in these groups as well. People tended to assume that others are more biased than they really are. This bias is called 'naive cynicism'. It is wrongly thinking the worst of other people.
Research in children shows this bias develops early. Mills and Keil (2005) found that by as young as seven children have learnt to be cynical. The authors even suggest children may be more cynical than adults.
Life can be more pleasant - especially with your partner - when you give the benefit of the doubt. It may well be the cynics who are deluding themselves.
» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References
Kruger, J., & Gilovich, T. (1999). Naive cynicism. everyday theories of responsibility assessment: On biased assumptions of bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 743-753.
Mills, C. M., & Keil, F. C. (2005). The Development of Cynicism. Psychological Science, 16(5), 385-390.
The authors asked married couples to estimate how often their partner was responsible for both desirable and undesirable relationship events. This came out about even: each person admitted causing some bad events while claiming responsibility for some of the good events in the relationship. Half and half, fair's fair.
They then asked each person to estimate what their partner had claimed. Here's the surprise. On average people assumed their partners would take more responsibility for the good events and deny the bad events. Actually they'd done nothing of the sort.
"People tended to assume that others are more biased than they really are."It's not just married people who show this bias. The authors also studied video game players, debaters and darts players. A similar type of bias was seen in these groups as well. People tended to assume that others are more biased than they really are. This bias is called 'naive cynicism'. It is wrongly thinking the worst of other people.
Research in children shows this bias develops early. Mills and Keil (2005) found that by as young as seven children have learnt to be cynical. The authors even suggest children may be more cynical than adults.
Life can be more pleasant - especially with your partner - when you give the benefit of the doubt. It may well be the cynics who are deluding themselves.
» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
ReferencesKruger, J., & Gilovich, T. (1999). Naive cynicism. everyday theories of responsibility assessment: On biased assumptions of bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 743-753.
Mills, C. M., & Keil, F. C. (2005). The Development of Cynicism. Psychological Science, 16(5), 385-390.
Labels: Relationships
Stanley Milgram: Obedience to Authority Or Just Conformity?
What psychological experiment could be so powerful that simply taking part might change your view of yourself and human nature? What experimental procedure could provoke some people to profuse sweating and trembling, leaving 10% extremely upset, while others broke into unexplained hysterical laughter? What finding could be so powerful that it sent many psychologists into frenzied rebuttals? Welcome to the sixth nomination for the top ten psychology studies and as you'll have guessed it's a big one. Hold on for controversy though, as this study has come in for considerable criticism with some saying its claims are wildly overblown.
Explaining human cruelty
"Many wondered after the horrors of WWII, and not for the first time, how people could be motivated to commit acts of such brutality towards each other."Stanley Milgram's now famous experiments were designed to test obedience to authority (Milgram, 1963). What Milgram wanted to know was how far humans will go when an authority figure orders them to hurt another human being. Many wondered after the horrors of WWII, and not for the first time, how people could be motivated to commit acts of such brutality towards each other. Not just those in the armed forces, but ordinary people were coerced into carrying out the most cruel and gruesome acts.
But Milgram didn't investigate the extreme situation of war, he wanted to see how people would react under relatively 'ordinary' conditions in the lab. How would people behave when told to give an electrical shock to another person? To what extent would people obey the dictates of the situation and ignore their own misgivings about what they were doing?
The experimental situation into which people were put was initially straightforward. Participants were told they were involved in a learning experiment, that they were to administer electrical shocks and that they should continue to the end of the experiment. Told they would be the 'teacher and another person the 'learner', they sat in front of a machine with a number of dials labelled with steadily increasing voltages. This was the 'shock machine'. The third switch from the top was labelled: "Danger: Severe Shock", the last two simply: "XXX".
During the course of the experiment, each time the 'learner' made a mistake the participant was ordered to administer ever-increasing electrical shocks. Of course the learner kept making mistakes so the teacher (the poor participant) had to keep giving higher and higher electrical shocks, and hearing the resultant screams of pain until finally the learner went quiet.
"When the participant baulked at giving the electrical shocks, the experimenter - an authority figure dressed in a white lab coat - ordered them to continue."Participants were not in fact delivering electrical shocks, the learner in the experiment was actually an actor following a rehearsed script. The learner was kept out of sight of the participants so they came to their own assumptions about the pain they were causing. They were, however, left in little doubt that towards the end of the experiment the shocks were extremely painful and the learner might well have been rendered unconscious. When the participant baulked at giving the electrical shocks, the experimenter - an authority figure dressed in a white lab coat - ordered them to continue.
Results
Before I explain the results, try to imagine yourself as the participant in this experiment. How far would you go giving what you thought were electrical shocks to another human being simply for a study about memory? What would you think when the learner went quiet after you apparently administered a shock labelled on the board "Danger: Severe Shock"? Honestly. How far would you go?
How ever far you think, you're probably underestimating as that's what most people do. Like the experiment, the results shocked. Milgram's study discovered people are much more obedient than you might imagine. 63% of the participants continued right until the end - they administered all the shocks even with the learner screaming in agony, begging to stop and eventually falling silent. These weren't specially selected sadists, these were ordinary people like you and me who had volunteered for a psychology study.
How can these results be explained?
At the time Milgram's study was big news. Milgram explained his results by the power of the situation. This was a social psychology experiment which appeared to show, beautifully in fact, how much social situations can influence people's behaviour.
The experiment set off a small industry of follow-up studies carried out in labs all around the world. Were the findings still true in different cultures, in slightly varying situations and in different genders (only men were in the original study)? By and large the answers were that even when manipulating many different experimental variables, people were still remarkably obedient. One exception was that one study found Australian women were much less obedient. Make of that what you will.
Fundamentally flawed?
Now think again. Sure, the experiment relies on the situation to influence people's behaviour, but how real is the situation? If it was you, surely you would understand on some level that this wasn't real, that you weren't really electrocuting someone, that knocking someone unconscious would not be allowed in a university study?
"How good would the actors have to be in order to avoid giving away the fact they were actors?"Also, people pick up considerable nonverbal cues from each other. How good would the actors have to be in order to avoid giving away the fact they were actors? People are adept at playing along even with those situations they know in their heart-of-hearts to be fake. The more we find out about human psychology, the more we discover about the power of unconscious processes, both emotional and cognitive. These can have massive influences on our behaviour without our awareness.
Assuming people were not utterly convinced on an unconscious level that the experiment was for real, an alternative explanation is in order. Perhaps Milgram's work really demonstrates the power of conformity. The pull we all feel to please the experimenter, to fit in with the situation, to do what is expected of us. While this is still a powerful interpretation from a brilliant experiment, it isn't what Milgram was really looking for.
Whether you believe the experiment shows what it purports to or not, there is no doubting that Milgram's work was some of the most influential and impressive carried out in psychology. It is also an experiment very unlikely to be repeated nowadays (outside of virtual reality) because of modern ethical standards. Certainly when I first came across it, my view of human nature was changed irrevocably. Now, thinking critically, I'm not so sure.
Your turn: please comment
Please leave a comment below if you'd like to air your views on this experiment. I'm particularly interested in both strong support and serious criticisms of Milgram's work. As psychologist like to tell their participants: there are no wrong answers.
» This study is also nominated as a top 10 social psychology study.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS) to read the rest of the top ten studies.
Now Vote!
All the nominations for the top ten studies in psychology are now in. It's time for you to vote for your favourite. Which one most captures your imagination? You can recap the runners and riders here, where you can also vote.
ReferencesMilgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378. [Abstract | PDF 453K]
Labels: Conformity, Social Psychology, Top Ten Studies
Your Partner Has Been Unfaithful. The Question is Why.
Continuing the ongoing series on the psychology of relationships, this post takes a look at an event that can end everything: infidelity. A lot of the psychology research on relationships has focussed on the predictors of infidelity. But what tends to get lost is its affect on the relationship. A new study by Hall and Fincham (2006) looks at just this and finds it comes down to how you answer the question why.
Attributions are the reasons or explanations that we attach to things. So if we see the dog standing by the front door with the lead in its mouth we assume it wants to go for a walk. Psychologists have applied these potentially complex models of the way we make attributions to the study of relationships. So, I might make two opposing attributions for why my partner cheated on me:
The reason attributions are important is they're directly related to whether or not we can forgive. Returning to the two examples above, you can see that infidelity is easier to forgive if you believe it was an isolated mistake that was at least understandable in the circumstances. On the other hand, if you think there's no changing your partner then there's less chance of forgiving them.
Hall and Fincham (2006) tested exactly this connection in people who had been cheated on by their partners, running from the types of attributions they made, through to whether they were able to forgive and how that related to relationship termination. The 'bad' attributions I've been discussing are labelled 'conflict-promoting' attributions by Hall and Fincham (2006). These were associated more strongly with the ending of the relationship.
Vitally even if you finish your relationship, Hall and Fincham (2006) emphasise that you must find a way to forgive the other person. Forgiveness will often come more easily if you can answer the question of why they cheated without scowling.
» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References
Hall, J., & Fincham, F. (2006). Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The roles of attributions and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(5), 508-522.
Attributions are the reasons or explanations that we attach to things. So if we see the dog standing by the front door with the lead in its mouth we assume it wants to go for a walk. Psychologists have applied these potentially complex models of the way we make attributions to the study of relationships. So, I might make two opposing attributions for why my partner cheated on me:
- It's just the way they are built, it will probably happen again and there's no changing it.
- It was a momentary aberration in those particular circumstances and it probably won't happen again.
The reason attributions are important is they're directly related to whether or not we can forgive. Returning to the two examples above, you can see that infidelity is easier to forgive if you believe it was an isolated mistake that was at least understandable in the circumstances. On the other hand, if you think there's no changing your partner then there's less chance of forgiving them.
Hall and Fincham (2006) tested exactly this connection in people who had been cheated on by their partners, running from the types of attributions they made, through to whether they were able to forgive and how that related to relationship termination. The 'bad' attributions I've been discussing are labelled 'conflict-promoting' attributions by Hall and Fincham (2006). These were associated more strongly with the ending of the relationship.
Vitally even if you finish your relationship, Hall and Fincham (2006) emphasise that you must find a way to forgive the other person. Forgiveness will often come more easily if you can answer the question of why they cheated without scowling.
» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
ReferencesHall, J., & Fincham, F. (2006). Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The roles of attributions and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(5), 508-522.
Labels: Infidelity, Relationships
Even 24,576 Measurements Couldn't Prove Plants Have Souls
Convinced the 1960s was the golden age of psychology? You'd be forgiven for think that after reading the first four 'Top Ten Psychology Studies'. The more historically minded might look back a century further for the true golden age, to Gustav Fechner, a physicist turned proto-psychologist. It was Fechner who, with the publication of his masterwork Elements of Psychophysics in 1860, is often credited with helping to found experimental psychology (Fechner, 1860). Strange, really, for a man who set out to prove plants have souls.
Psychophysics might have a name that sounds exciting, but its experimental methods are pretty dull. What Fechner was interested in was measurement, measuring the relationship between a stimulus and the resulting sensation. He did this using a variety of experimental methods. Typically, though, he would give a participant two weights and ask them which they thought was heavier. Then he would repeat this procedure over and over and over again until he was satisfied he had enough measurements. In one such experiment he took 24,576 measurements.
"Fechner wanted to prove there was a mathematical relationship between stimulus and sensation."Fechner wanted to prove there was a mathematical relationship between stimulus and sensation. In doing this he perfected the technique of measuring 'just noticeable differences' gained from his mentor, Ernst Weber. This is done by decreasing the differences between different stimuli - say the weight of two balls - until the participant can no longer tell them apart.
The soul-life of plants
The irony is that Fechner set about this huge mountain of rather hard-headed measurements for quite whimsical reasons. He wanted to provide evidence for his philosophical ideas, most notable amongst these was his insistence that plants had minds. Indeed he devoted a whole book to discussing the 'soul-life of plants'. Fechner also believed that plants, like humans were part of a hierarchy of minds, at the top of which sat our sun, and above that, the universe as a whole. These free-floating ideas seem a far cry from the 24,576 meticulous measurements, but such is the human spirit.
Few of Fechner's ideas have survived in modern psychophysics and yet Fechner's obsession with measurement lives on today in many areas of psychology. Indeed, it is for his methods more than his findings that he is celebrated. It has been argued that ability measurement is the single largest contribution psychology has made to society (Michell, 1999). While IQ and personality test may not bear much direct relation to Fechner's ideas, their spirit is the same: to measure, to quantify, to know the difference between.
Like the old-school psychologists? Read on about the man often credited with carrying out the first experiment in psychology: Willhelm Wundt.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Now Vote!
All the nominations for the top ten studies in psychology are now in. It's time for you to vote for your favourite. Which one most captures your imagination? You can recap the runners and riders here, where you can also vote.
References
Fechner, G. (1860). Elements of psychophysics (HE Adler, Trans.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in Psychology: critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Psychophysics might have a name that sounds exciting, but its experimental methods are pretty dull. What Fechner was interested in was measurement, measuring the relationship between a stimulus and the resulting sensation. He did this using a variety of experimental methods. Typically, though, he would give a participant two weights and ask them which they thought was heavier. Then he would repeat this procedure over and over and over again until he was satisfied he had enough measurements. In one such experiment he took 24,576 measurements.
"Fechner wanted to prove there was a mathematical relationship between stimulus and sensation."Fechner wanted to prove there was a mathematical relationship between stimulus and sensation. In doing this he perfected the technique of measuring 'just noticeable differences' gained from his mentor, Ernst Weber. This is done by decreasing the differences between different stimuli - say the weight of two balls - until the participant can no longer tell them apart.
The soul-life of plants
The irony is that Fechner set about this huge mountain of rather hard-headed measurements for quite whimsical reasons. He wanted to provide evidence for his philosophical ideas, most notable amongst these was his insistence that plants had minds. Indeed he devoted a whole book to discussing the 'soul-life of plants'. Fechner also believed that plants, like humans were part of a hierarchy of minds, at the top of which sat our sun, and above that, the universe as a whole. These free-floating ideas seem a far cry from the 24,576 meticulous measurements, but such is the human spirit.
Few of Fechner's ideas have survived in modern psychophysics and yet Fechner's obsession with measurement lives on today in many areas of psychology. Indeed, it is for his methods more than his findings that he is celebrated. It has been argued that ability measurement is the single largest contribution psychology has made to society (Michell, 1999). While IQ and personality test may not bear much direct relation to Fechner's ideas, their spirit is the same: to measure, to quantify, to know the difference between.
Like the old-school psychologists? Read on about the man often credited with carrying out the first experiment in psychology: Willhelm Wundt.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Now Vote!
All the nominations for the top ten studies in psychology are now in. It's time for you to vote for your favourite. Which one most captures your imagination? You can recap the runners and riders here, where you can also vote.
ReferencesFechner, G. (1860). Elements of psychophysics (HE Adler, Trans.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in Psychology: critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Labels: Psychophysics, Top Ten Studies
Euphoria Induced by Experimental Trickery
To illustrate this nomination for my top ten psychology studies I'd like to tell you a story. Imagine it's the 1960s and you're a first year psychology student at the University of Minnesota. Being a brave soul, along with wanting a better final grade, you've agreed to take part in a psychology experiment.
You've heard that it involves testing a new vitamin injection but that hasn't put you off. These are the days when men are real men and psychology experiments are real psychology experiments. Innocent days before ethics committees and lawyers took over and stopped psychologists injecting people and lying about their motives in the name of understanding human behaviour.
So you turn up to the lab where a white-coated man tells you they are testing the effects of a vitamin injection on vision. You roll up your sleeve and concentrate on those extra marks you're going to receive as result of participating in this experiment.
Messing around
Soon after the injection you are taken to different room where another student who has also just had the injection is waiting. The other student, who nods and smiles when you come in, is scribbling on pieces of paper and seems full of energy. His energy is infectious; soon the two of you are playing catch and flying paper aeroplanes around the room. Your childish enjoyment of just messing around increases. You help the other student build a tower from a pile of folders lying around in the room, then try to shoot it down with elastic-band powered paper balls.
A few hours later, after your involvement in the experiment has finished, you bump into a friend who also did the experiment. When he relates what happened to him, you can hardly contain your amusement at the clever subterfuge.
Unlike you, your friend was told the vitamin injection had some side-effects including a raised heart-rate, trembling hands and a flushed face. Like you they were shown into a room after the injection with the over-excited fellow student. Unlike you, after interacting with them, they didn't experience the same high level euphoria and excitement. What's going on?
The explanation
As you learned from the experimenter after it was finished, you were actually given a shot of adrenaline, not a vitamin preparation. This increases your heart-rate, makes you hands tremble and flushes your face. But as you weren't expecting this to happen, to what do you attribute these changes in your body's state? Quite naturally, as it turns out, you think the physiological changes you're experiencing are from playing with a the student. In fact the fellow student is in on the experiment. He's been instructed to act in this manner in a certain manner with the participants.
A beautiful manipulation
I've described two conditions from Schacter & Singer's (1962) landmark study. They also controlled for elements such as the stimulating effect of having an injection and the suggestion effect of telling people what to expect from the injection. Without knowing about these, you can still see the simple beauty of the experimental manipulation. The only difference between you and your friend's experience was what you were told to expect. Your emotional response flowed from there.
Ultimately Schachter & Singer (1962) were trying to understand how cognitions influence emotion. In this they were successful to a certain extent. Their study clearly illustrates the importance of how you interpret your physiological states, which themselves form an important component of your emotions. Also, their cognitive theory of emotional arousal dominated for two decades.
No study is perfect, of course, and this one had some flaws. It was criticised on two main grounds:
Find out more about appraisal theory.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Now Vote!
All the nominations for the top ten studies in psychology are now in. It's time for you to vote for your favourite. Which one most captures your imagination? You can recap the runners and riders here, where you can also vote.
References
Schachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69, 379-99.
You've heard that it involves testing a new vitamin injection but that hasn't put you off. These are the days when men are real men and psychology experiments are real psychology experiments. Innocent days before ethics committees and lawyers took over and stopped psychologists injecting people and lying about their motives in the name of understanding human behaviour.
So you turn up to the lab where a white-coated man tells you they are testing the effects of a vitamin injection on vision. You roll up your sleeve and concentrate on those extra marks you're going to receive as result of participating in this experiment.
Messing around
Soon after the injection you are taken to different room where another student who has also just had the injection is waiting. The other student, who nods and smiles when you come in, is scribbling on pieces of paper and seems full of energy. His energy is infectious; soon the two of you are playing catch and flying paper aeroplanes around the room. Your childish enjoyment of just messing around increases. You help the other student build a tower from a pile of folders lying around in the room, then try to shoot it down with elastic-band powered paper balls.
"You are enjoying yourself. Your heart-rate is higher, your face flushed, hands trembling."
You are enjoying yourself. Your heart-rate is higher, your face flushed, hands trembling. After a while the experimenter returns and asks you to fill out a questionnaire about your mood. You indicate exactly how feel: euphoric, full of energy, ready for mischief. A few hours later, after your involvement in the experiment has finished, you bump into a friend who also did the experiment. When he relates what happened to him, you can hardly contain your amusement at the clever subterfuge.
Unlike you, your friend was told the vitamin injection had some side-effects including a raised heart-rate, trembling hands and a flushed face. Like you they were shown into a room after the injection with the over-excited fellow student. Unlike you, after interacting with them, they didn't experience the same high level euphoria and excitement. What's going on?
The explanation
As you learned from the experimenter after it was finished, you were actually given a shot of adrenaline, not a vitamin preparation. This increases your heart-rate, makes you hands tremble and flushes your face. But as you weren't expecting this to happen, to what do you attribute these changes in your body's state? Quite naturally, as it turns out, you think the physiological changes you're experiencing are from playing with a the student. In fact the fellow student is in on the experiment. He's been instructed to act in this manner in a certain manner with the participants.
"Your friend had the same experience as you in all but one respect."
Your friend had the same experience as you in all but one respect. Crucially, he was told to expect the physiological changes as a result of the injection. Instead of interpreting the physiological changes as excitement, your friend already has an explanation for the sensations. You, on the other hand, had no other explanation for the physiological changes than the fun you were having. So, in effect, you 'explained' your feelings in terms of being euphoric when your physiological reactions had actually been manipulated by the injection. In other words you thought messing around was much more exciting than it actually was.A beautiful manipulation
I've described two conditions from Schacter & Singer's (1962) landmark study. They also controlled for elements such as the stimulating effect of having an injection and the suggestion effect of telling people what to expect from the injection. Without knowing about these, you can still see the simple beauty of the experimental manipulation. The only difference between you and your friend's experience was what you were told to expect. Your emotional response flowed from there.
Ultimately Schachter & Singer (1962) were trying to understand how cognitions influence emotion. In this they were successful to a certain extent. Their study clearly illustrates the importance of how you interpret your physiological states, which themselves form an important component of your emotions. Also, their cognitive theory of emotional arousal dominated for two decades.
No study is perfect, of course, and this one had some flaws. It was criticised on two main grounds:
- The size of the effect seen in the experiment was not that large.
- Other researchers had difficulties repeating the experiment.
Find out more about appraisal theory.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Now Vote!
All the nominations for the top ten studies in psychology are now in. It's time for you to vote for your favourite. Which one most captures your imagination? You can recap the runners and riders here, where you can also vote.
ReferencesSchachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69, 379-99.
Labels: Emotion, Top Ten Studies
Revolutionary Treatment of Depression
It seems incredible that a successful form of psychological therapy could be based on telling people their thoughts are mistaken. And yet that is partly how cognitive therapy works.
Cognitive therapy was originally developed for the treatment of depression. In his work with patients Beck developed the idea that at the heart of depression lay one or more irrational beliefs (Beck, 1963). Here are a few examples:
For many people he treated, and for the many more subsequently treated with his - and related techniques - his methods have turned out to be remarkably effective. It's no exaggeration to state that the ideas and techniques that have flowed from Beck's study and similar findings brought about a revolution in treatment for many psychological disorders.
Find out more about depressive thinking styles.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Now Vote!
All the nominations for the top ten studies in psychology are now in. It's time for you to vote for your favourite. Which one most captures your imagination? You can recap the runners and riders here, where you can also vote.
Reference
Beck, A. (1963). Thinking And Depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 14, 324-33.
"The founding father of cognitive therapy is Aaron T. Beck a psychologist not well known to the lay public, but widely revered amongst psychologists."
This type of therapy has easily overtaking Freudian-style psychotherapy in recent decades to become the most popular form of treatment for depression, phobias and many other common psychological problems. The founding father of cognitive therapy is Aaron T. Beck a psychologist not well known to the lay public, but widely revered amongst psychologists. One of his studies is the third nomination for the Top Ten Psychology Studies.Cognitive therapy was originally developed for the treatment of depression. In his work with patients Beck developed the idea that at the heart of depression lay one or more irrational beliefs (Beck, 1963). Here are a few examples:
- Over-generalisation. Drawing general conclusions from a single (usually negative) event. E.g. thinking that failing to be promoted at work means a promotion will never come.
- Minimalisation and Maximisation. Getting things out of perspective: e.g. either grossly underestimating own performance or overestimating the importance of a negative event.
- Dichotomous thinking - Thinking that everything is either very good or very bad so that there are no gray areas. In reality, of course, life is one big gray area.
"Beck thought depressed patients could be helped if therapists could challenge these irrational beliefs."
These irrational beliefs took the form of 'automatic thoughts' which seemed to be accessible to conscious introspection. Beck thought depressed patients could be helped if therapists could challenge these irrational beliefs. At heart cognitive therapy encourages people to see that some of their thoughts are mistaken. By adjusting these thoughts it has been found that people's emotional distress can be lessened.For many people he treated, and for the many more subsequently treated with his - and related techniques - his methods have turned out to be remarkably effective. It's no exaggeration to state that the ideas and techniques that have flowed from Beck's study and similar findings brought about a revolution in treatment for many psychological disorders.
Find out more about depressive thinking styles.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Now Vote!
All the nominations for the top ten studies in psychology are now in. It's time for you to vote for your favourite. Which one most captures your imagination? You can recap the runners and riders here, where you can also vote.
ReferenceBeck, A. (1963). Thinking And Depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 14, 324-33.
Labels: Depression, Top Ten Studies
The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two
It is sometimes said human beings are nothing more than a collection of memories. Memories for people, events, places, sounds and sights. Our whole world is funnelled in through our memories. In fact, they may be our most prized possessions. The study of memory has always been central to psychology - this post describes one of its most influential findings. This is the second nomination for the Top Ten Psychology Studies.
The title of this post is the same given to a 1956 article by the psychologist George A. Miller in which he describes the capacity of human memory. The article's opening has become famous amongst historians of psychology:
"My problem is that I have been persecuted by an integer. For seven years this number has followed me around, has intruded in my most private data, and has assaulted me from the pages of our most public journals. This number assumes a variety of disguises, being sometimes a little larger and sometimes a little smaller than usual, but never changing so much as to be unrecognizable." (Miller, 1956, p. 81).It's not just Miller who was persecuted by this number though, it's all of us. What this magical number represents - 7 plus or minus 2 - is the number of items we can hold in our short-term memory.
"...memory is a slippery concept..."
So while most people can generally hold around seven numbers in mind for a short period, almost everyone finds it difficult to hold ten digits in mind. Remember that memory is a slippery concept: short-term memory for psychologists refers to things that are currently being used by your brain right now. For example as you're reading this post the words you've read go into short-term memory for a very short period, you extract some meaning (hopefully) and then the meaning is either stored or discarded. You'll probably still have some faint memory of this article tomorrow, but won't be able to remember most of the actual words.
All sorts of experiments and theories have followed disputing the 7 items approach to memory. More recent studies have, for example, shown how we put items together in order to 'chunk' data. Still, the basic concept that our immediate short-term memory is relatively limited is still valid.
If you think seven isn't much then be thankful you're not a six month old infant. Recent research suggests they can only hold one thing in short-term memory (Kaldy & Leslie, 2005). Poor little chaps. Perhaps babies are the new goldfish?
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Now Vote!
All the nominations for the top ten studies in psychology are now in. It's time for you to vote for your favourite. Which one most captures your imagination? You can recap the runners and riders here, where you can also vote.
ReferencesKaldy, Z., & Leslie, A. (2005). A memory span of one? Object identification in 6.5-month-old infants. Cognition, 97(2), 153-177.
Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for information processing. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
Labels: Memory, Top Ten Studies
Why Money Can Never Save the Environment, But Fear Might
Richard Branson, the British entrepreneur who owns the Virgin group of companies, today announced a $25 million dollar prize for an invention that can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. What a waste of time. $25 million can't help the environment, neither can $25 billion or $25 trillion. It's a catastrophic misunderstanding of the problem. Politicians and entrepreneurs alike tend to reduce every problem to monetary considerations. Of course money is important but human behaviour follows its own rules, a fact thousands of years of our history amply underlines.
We are selfish
Just look at the US as a prime example of an advanced society in love with itself and in love with its way of life. It is arguably the most technologically advanced society in the world and what is the result? The invasion and destabilisation of fragile countries to get more fuel to run more cars to create more carbon dioxide to destroy our world. And that's the most 'advanced' country. What about other countries more desperate, whose people have far less to lose?
Let me be clear, I'm not blaming any particular country, I'm only using the US as a prime example. Here in the UK we're just as bad, although as we don't have as much influence so we don't cause quite as much damage. The problem is the same in every country because human nature is the same across the world. Give people a chance and they'll take all they can get.
Ultimately people quite naturally want to protect their own way of life. We have got used to travelling around in cars, eating foods flown from the other side of the world and living lives of which our ancestors could only have dreamed. Yes, we nod towards environmentalism by recycling the odd empty wine bottle or newspaper, or turning off the lights when we leave a room, but how much difference does this really make?
Suicidal societies
This problem isn't new. As Jared Diamond points out in his recent book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, humans have been destroying their environment and paying the consequences for millennia.
- The inhabitants of Easter Island were reduced to cannibalism after depleting all their natural resources. They chopped down all their trees and ate all the birds and finally had to eat each other in a desperate struggle for survival.
- Cannibalism was rife at the end for the inhabitants of Mangareva, another society that destroyed its own natural resources.
- The Vikings in Greenland failed to learn from the native Inuit, destroyed their environment leading to their own extinction.
That was then, this is now
"While the tools of these societies might have been different, the people operating the tools were working from roughly the same set of premises as we are today..."
The examples go on and on. But surely, you say, these people weren't technologically advanced, they didn't have the tools we have now: container ships, airlines and satellites encircling the globe, they were living in precarious places in the world, where natural resources were scarce. While the tools of these societies might have been different, the people operating the tools were working from roughly the same set of premises as we are today: first survive, then make life comfortable, then make it more comfortable, then repeat and reproduce. Think how much more damage our tools can do to the environment than theirs could. If humans can make an island uninhabitable with rudimentary iron age technology, think what we can do with all our mighty machines. We have the power in our hands to make the Easter Islanders, Mangarevans and Norse Greenlanders look like tiny blips on the radar of self-destruction. Where once we worried about our world going up in a mushroom-shaped cloud, our species now faces the prospect of a more extended demise at the end of which may lie cannibalism.
Insoluble?
Is the destruction of our environment an insoluble problem? Will we ever learn the lessons of history? Can we really accept the measures that might be necessary to save the world? If there is one thing that politicians have discovered in the 20th century it's that fear motivates people. If people can be put in a state of fear, their behaviour can be changed. A fearful populace will support measures that once seemed unimaginable. But fear is no good if it's hovering at some distant point in the future, as does environmental collapse. Someone needs to be holding a weapon in your face now, the adrenaline has to be flowing.
"...it's not your own children at the centre of the debate, it's everyone else's children..."
Branson talks about how he wants a future for his children and his children's children. This is useless rhetoric. Of course you'll protect your own children, but it's not your own children at the centre of the debate, it's everyone else's children. What will you do to save them?In reality Branson's $25 million is just another empty gesture everyone will have forgotten about tomorrow when they climb back into their cars to go to work to earn the money to afford the trinkets of a modern consumer society, like a Virgin mobile phone, or a Virgin Atlantic airline trip.
Hope through fear
Governments, societies, individuals; we all need to understand the problem is fundamentally human. If we can understand this then we have a chance of making the necessary changes. Nothing can save us but a revolution in our thinking. That revolution can only come from fear. Fear that we won't survive.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
ReferencesDiamond, J. (2005) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. London: Penguin.
Labels: Environment
What Are Babies Watching?
The first study for your consideration in the top ten psychology studies is by Robert Fantz, a developmental psychologist, and it is deceptively simple. Like many of us staring at young babies, Fantz wondered how much they understand about the world. "The eyes of tiny infants look glazed and they mostly seem concerned with the bare necessities of life."The eyes of tiny infants look glazed and they mostly seem concerned with the bare necessities of life. What do they understand about the world and how can you possibly find out, given that babies are not so hot on answering complex questions about their perceptual abilities?
In 1961, when Fantz carried out his experiment, there wasn't much you could do to find out what was going on in a baby's head - other than watch. And watching the baby is what he did.
An enduring feature of human nature is if there's something of interest near us, we generally look at it. So Fantz set up a display board above the baby to which were attached two pictures (Fantz, 1961). On one was a bulls-eye and on the other was the sketch of a human face. Then, from behind the board, invisible to the baby, he peeked through a hole to watch what the baby looked at.
Results
"...a two-month old baby looked twice as much at the human face as it did at the bulls-eye."What he found was that a two-month old baby looked twice as much at the human face as it did at the bulls-eye. This suggested that human babies have some powers of pattern and form selection. Before this it was thought that babies looked out onto a chaotic world of which they could make little sense.
In modern psychology the descendents of this experiment are still used today to find out what babies understand about the world. These have discovered that we're remarkably early developers. At one month we can follow a slow-moving object. At two months we can move both our eyes together and begin to appreciate how far away things are. At three months we can tell the difference between members of our family (Hunt, 1993).
As a result of these and similar studies, psychologists have suggested that we are born with a definite preference for viewing human faces. This would certainly make evolutionary sense as other human faces hold all sorts of useful information which is vital for our survival.
Not a bad set of conclusions from simply watching a baby's eyes! So Robert Fantz is the first nomination for the top ten studies in psychology.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Now Vote!
All the nominations for the top ten studies in psychology are now in. It's time for you to vote for your favourite. Which one most captures your imagination? You can recap the runners and riders here, where you can also vote.
ReferencesFantz, R. (1961). The origin of form perception. Scientific American, 204, 66-72.
Hunt, M. (1993). The story of psychology. London: Doubleday.
Labels: Development, Top Ten Studies
Getting Closer: The Art of Self-Disclosure
Turning an acquaintance into a good friend can be hard. Whether it's romantic or platonic, there are endless reasons why people fail to connect and maintain their relationships with each other. This disconnect isn't always a result of some huge mistake by one person or the other, more often it's just that people drift apart. Social bonds can be hard to maintain, especially when they aren't based on firm routine footings like work, marriage or other institutions.
In explaining how people form strong relationships, psychologists - along with other social scientists - have long been interested in what personal information people reveal to each other. This research has culminated in recent studies of how internet daters reveal (or fail to reveal) information about themselves.
Not just deep and meaningful
Research on self-disclosure is enormous, addressing issues such as when people choose to self-disclose, for what reasons and whether it is effective. Within this research though, Greene, Derlega and Mathews (2006) point out some highlights.
Self-disclosure brings to mind earnest conversations about our deepest hopes and fears. But self-disclosure is also about simply sharing our preferences for music, food or books. These can play an equally important role in forming relationships as those deep and meaningful conversations.
Effectiveness
One of the main reasons we engage in self-disclosure is because of how it affects other people's perceptions of us, and indeed, our perceptions of other people. We want others to like us so we tell them our secrets. Does this really work or is it just a fantasy peddled by movie and TV script-writers?
Reviewing a range of studies, Collins and Miller (1994) found there are three main effects of self-disclosure on liking:
Being responsive
While increasing intimacy between people through self-disclosure is often seen as 'a good thing', there are many ways it can go wrong.
Process models of self-disclosure have looked at how disclosures are dynamically dealt with in relationships. The way in which you react to the self-disclosure of others is of vital importance. People want to be 'understood' not just 'heard'. This is demonstrated through behaviours like responsiveness, attentiveness and timing. The way in which listening occurs has a huge impact on whether intimate information grows and blooms or falls on fallow ground.
Self-disclosure online
More recent research has focussed on the ways in which self-disclosure occurs in online relationships. Two aspects of internet dating make it particularly interesting to study in relation to self-disclosure:
The study came to some rather complex conclusions but one clear finding emerged. Those successful at online dating tended to use large amounts of positive self-disclosure, along with an openness about their intent. So, generally it is better to be open about yourself and honest and clear about your intentions. In other words, the best strategy is the polar opposite of many people's actual practice in online dating.
The art of self-disclosure
The idea that self-disclosure is important in relationships is no big surprise. But while it may be easy to understand in principle, the complexity of the process means it's much harder to do in practice. The art of self-disclosing, then, is giving information to others in the right way and at the right time. Receiving intimate information is no less of a skill, involving the verbal and nonverbal communication of understanding. Online dating offers the huge temptation to cheat at self-disclosure, but, to be successful, the art of self-disclosure is much the same in the online world as the offline.
Note
Hopefully this brief survey of some issues from the self-disclosure research has been useful. Please don't hesitate to comment, especially if you know of other good resources or articles on this subject.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References
Collins, N., & Miller, L. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457-75.
Gibbs, J., Ellison, N., & Heino, R. (2006). Self-Presentation in Online Personals: The Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet Dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152.
Greene, K., Derlega, V., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In: A. L. Vangelisti, D. Perlman (Eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
In explaining how people form strong relationships, psychologists - along with other social scientists - have long been interested in what personal information people reveal to each other. This research has culminated in recent studies of how internet daters reveal (or fail to reveal) information about themselves.
Not just deep and meaningful
Research on self-disclosure is enormous, addressing issues such as when people choose to self-disclose, for what reasons and whether it is effective. Within this research though, Greene, Derlega and Mathews (2006) point out some highlights.
Self-disclosure brings to mind earnest conversations about our deepest hopes and fears. But self-disclosure is also about simply sharing our preferences for music, food or books. These can play an equally important role in forming relationships as those deep and meaningful conversations.
"When someone you've just met starts pouring out their heart, it can make you want to run away."
Changing circumstances reveal different patterns of self-disclosure. Romantic partners often go through an initial stage of frantic self-disclosure. In contrast, long-term partners may reduce their self-disclosure alarmingly as the relationship lengthens. But not all disclosure is good disclosure. Early studies on self-disclosure confirm that too much self-disclosure too soon can be off-putting. When someone you've just met starts pouring out their heart, it can make you want to run away.Effectiveness
One of the main reasons we engage in self-disclosure is because of how it affects other people's perceptions of us, and indeed, our perceptions of other people. We want others to like us so we tell them our secrets. Does this really work or is it just a fantasy peddled by movie and TV script-writers?
Reviewing a range of studies, Collins and Miller (1994) found there are three main effects of self-disclosure on liking:
- Those who disclose intimate secrets tend to be more liked than those who don't.
- People disclose more to those they like (relatively obvious).
- People prefer those to whom they have made personal disclosures (not so obvious).
Being responsive
While increasing intimacy between people through self-disclosure is often seen as 'a good thing', there are many ways it can go wrong.
"People want to be 'understood' not just 'heard'."
Again, you can disclose too much too soon. More importantly, self-disclosure is not just about blurting out your darkest secret, it's about negotiating a complex relationship. Process models of self-disclosure have looked at how disclosures are dynamically dealt with in relationships. The way in which you react to the self-disclosure of others is of vital importance. People want to be 'understood' not just 'heard'. This is demonstrated through behaviours like responsiveness, attentiveness and timing. The way in which listening occurs has a huge impact on whether intimate information grows and blooms or falls on fallow ground.
Self-disclosure online
More recent research has focussed on the ways in which self-disclosure occurs in online relationships. Two aspects of internet dating make it particularly interesting to study in relation to self-disclosure:
- Those communicating online have more control over the way they present themselves. When speaking face-to-face, a huge amount of information is transmitted through nonverbal communication. Much of this is involuntary, but this becomes largely irrelevant online.
- It easier to construct an identity online. Emails can be crafted and photographs retouched.
"...the best strategy is the polar opposite of many people's actual practice in online dating."
As a result of both of these, it is easier to carry out 'impression management' (lying). These points are made in a study by Gibbs, Ellison and Heino (2006) in which the perceived success of members of an internet dating service was related to self-disclosure. The study came to some rather complex conclusions but one clear finding emerged. Those successful at online dating tended to use large amounts of positive self-disclosure, along with an openness about their intent. So, generally it is better to be open about yourself and honest and clear about your intentions. In other words, the best strategy is the polar opposite of many people's actual practice in online dating.
The art of self-disclosure
The idea that self-disclosure is important in relationships is no big surprise. But while it may be easy to understand in principle, the complexity of the process means it's much harder to do in practice. The art of self-disclosing, then, is giving information to others in the right way and at the right time. Receiving intimate information is no less of a skill, involving the verbal and nonverbal communication of understanding. Online dating offers the huge temptation to cheat at self-disclosure, but, to be successful, the art of self-disclosure is much the same in the online world as the offline.
Note
Hopefully this brief survey of some issues from the self-disclosure research has been useful. Please don't hesitate to comment, especially if you know of other good resources or articles on this subject.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
ReferencesCollins, N., & Miller, L. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457-75.
Gibbs, J., Ellison, N., & Heino, R. (2006). Self-Presentation in Online Personals: The Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet Dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152.
Greene, K., Derlega, V., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In: A. L. Vangelisti, D. Perlman (Eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Labels: Internet Dating, Relationships, Self-disclosure
Top Ten Psychology Studies
Just because a study is old doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Indeed, the effects of many older studies are still being felt in psychology today. Generations of psychology students have wandered out of lectures, seeing themselves and other people in a new light. So, in this series of posts I look at ten studies that have changed psychology and the way we see humanity.
Have a read and vote for the one that most captures your imagination below.
"What do babies understand about the world and how can you possibly find out, given that babies are not so hot on answering complex questions about their perceptual abilities?"
"It's not just Miller who was persecuted by this number though, it's all of us. What this magical number represents - 7 plus or minus 2 - is the number of items we can hold in our short-term memory."
"It seems incredible that a successful form of psychological therapy could be based on telling people their thoughts are mistaken. And yet that is partly how cognitive therapy works."
"Imagine it's the 1960s and you're a first year psychology student at the University of Minnesota. Being a brave soul, along with wanting a better final grade, you've agreed to take part in a psychology experiment. You've heard that it involves testing a new vitamin injection but that hasn't put you off."
"It was Fechner who, with the publication of his masterwork Elements of Psychophysics in 1860, is often credited with helping to found experimental psychology (Fechner, 1860). Strange, really, for a man who set out to prove plants have souls."
"What psychological experiment could so be so powerful that simply taking part might change your view of yourself and human nature? What experimental procedure could provoke some people to profuse sweating and trembling, leaving 10% extremely upset, while others broke into unexplained hysterical laughter?"
"...we examine the quality of our memories, in particular the ways in which memory can be changed after the event we are remembering. The work of Elizabeth Loftus has been extremely influential in this area as one of her early studies demonstrates."
"...what can psychologists tell us about the systematic differences between people? To answer this question I have to break the pattern just this once and include two studies, from two apparently warring factions of personality psychology."
"Would you bet £10 on the flip of a coin if you stood to win £20? So you've got a 50% chance of losing £10 and a 50% chance of winning £20. This seems like a good bet to take and yet studies show that people tend not to take it. Why?"
"To really understand the revolutionary nature of Freud's work you need to do something for me: to forget you've every heard of him or his ideas. Just lie back...relax...."
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
» Also, check out the top ten social psychology studies.
Labels: Top Ten Studies
Personality Secrets in Your Mp3 Player
Once past saying 'hello' and 'how are you?' to someone you've just met, what is next? How do we make friends and get to know other people? Psychologists have talked about the importance of body language, physical appearance and clothing but they've not been so keen on what we actually talk about. A recent study put participants in same-sex and opposite-sex pairings and told them to get to know each other over 6 weeks (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006). Analysing the results, they found the most popular topic of conversation was music. What is it about music that's so useful when we first meet someone and what kind of information can we extract from the music another person likes?
"how good is music as a measure of personality?"
The number of people who talked about music was surprisingly high. In the first week on average 58% of the pairs discussed music compared to 37% of all the other categories of conversation combined. Other categories included books, movies, TV, football and clothes. Why then do we use music as a first port of call in getting to know another person? We probably think that music is indirectly telling us something about the other person's personality. For this reason, the second question this study tried to answer was: how good is music as a measure of personality?
Top 10 personalities
To measure this, participants were asked to judge people's personality solely on their top 10 list of songs.
"...a person's openness to experience was best communicated by their top 10 list of songs."
This was compared to participants results on a standard type of personality test measuring the big five personality traits: openness to experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability. Overall the results showed that music preferences were reasonably accurate in conveying aspects of personality. Of the five traits, it was a person's openness to experience that was best communicated by their top 10 list of songs, followed by extraversion and emotional stability. On the other hand, music preferences didn't say much about whether a person was conscientious or not.What some music preferences mean for personality:
- Likes vocals: extraverted
- Likes country: emotionally stable. On the face of it, this is bizarre really because country music is all about heartache. Either the emotionally stable are attracted to country music or it has a calming effect on the unstable!
- Likes jazz: intellectual
"...this finding might not hold in different age-groups."
One really important caveat for this study was that the average age of the participants was around 18 so this finding might not hold in different age-groups. My experience is young people talk about music much more than older people. This raises the question of what, for example, might be the most common topic of conversations for other age-groups getting acquainted. Any suggestions?Despite this limitation it seems that talking about music might be a very powerful way to make a connection with another person.
» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
ReferencesRentfrow, P.J., & Gosling, S.D. (2006). Message in a Ballad. The Role of Music Preferences in Interpersonal Perception. Psychological Science, 17(3), 236-242.
Labels: Music, Relationships
Why Health Benefits of Good Relationships Rival Exercise and Nutrition
"...although people often talk up relationships, their behaviour tells a different story."
This series of posts starts - at the start - with the simple question of why we even need strong relationships. This might seem like asking why do we need food, water or oxygen. But, although people often talk up relationships, their behaviour tells a different story. Likening relationships to basic physiological needs, some might argue, is a step too far. After all if I was stranded on a desert island I'd survive longer with just fresh drinking than with only a friend to talk to. But that isn't a fair comparison. For many of us in modern Western societies, our basic physiological needs are fulfilled and it is on higher goals that our mental and physical health depends. When arguing relationships are as important to health as exercise and nutrition, it is really a reflection on the relative comfort we enjoy.
Physical wear and tear
So what does the research tell us? Carol Ryff has been carrying out research into the connection between relationships and health for some time. In one study which followed 10,317 people from birth over 36 years, data on social relationships was collected along with biological markers important for indicating wear and tear on the body. Measures included systolic blood pressure, urinary cortisol levels and epinephrine levels. The data support the idea that negative relational experiences are associated with greater wear and tear on the body (Hauser et al., 1993).
Like any good scientist you'll be saying: well there may be an association but does that mean that poor relationships actually cause poor health? As it's not ethical to deliberately subject humans to desert island conditions - unless it's for TV of course - we just don't know.
"...Levels of oxytocin have been causally linked to lowering blood pressure and heart rate."
That said, there's evidence from measuring oxytocin in animal studies. Levels of oxytocin have been causally linked to lowering blood pressure and heart rate (Ryff et al., 2001). Indeed in a recent study a relationship was found between poor social relationships and oxytocin levels (Taylor et al., 2006).If living a longer and happier life relies on our relationships, how exactly do we start these relationships? In the next few posts I'll move on to look at what research is telling us about finding both friends and partners.
» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.
See also: Review of The Impact of Inequality: How to Make Sick Societies Healthier by Richard G Wilkinson (The Guardian)
ReferencesHauser, R., Carr, D., Hauser, T., Hayes, J., Krecker, M., Kuo, H., et al. (1993). The class of 1957 after 35 years: Overview and preliminary findings (Center for Demography and Ecology Paper 93-17). Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Ryff, C. D., Singer, B. H., Wing, E., Dienberg Love, G. (2001) Elective affinities and uninvited agonies. In: C. Ryff, & B. Singer (Eds.). Emotion, social relationships, and health. Oxford University Press New York.
Taylor, S.E., Gonzaga, G.C., Klein, L.C., Hu, P., Greendale, G.A., Seeman, T.E., et al. (2006) Relation of oxytocin to psychological stress responses and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis activity in older women. Psychosomatic medicine, 68(2), 238-45.
Labels: Health, Relationships
The Psychology of Relationships
It is now a truism that our relationships have important effects on our psychological well-being. Some even suggest maintaining and fuelling good relationships might be as vital for our health as good nutrition and regular exercise (Ryff et al., 2001). Not only that but according to the social epidemiologist Richard G. Wilkinson the health of our society may depend on the quality of our relationships.
Unfortunately many aspects of our modern lives work against our relationships. Changes at work send us to opposite ends of the country, weak social and family ties lead to isolation and loneliness. What can psychology tell us about how we meet, how we get on and what happens if it all goes wrong?
In this series of posts I'll be taking an accessible look at some of the major themes emerging in the psychology of relationships.
1. Why Health Benefits of Good Relationships Rival Exercise and Nutrition
"For many of us in modern Western societies, our basic physiological needs are fulfilled and it is on higher goals that our mental and physical health depends."
2. Personality Secrets in Your Mp3 Player
"What is it about music that's so useful when we first meet someone and what kind of information can we extract from the music another person likes?"
3. Getting Closer: The Art of Self-Disclosure
"When someone you've just met starts pouring out their heart, it can make you want to run away."
4. Your Partner Has Been Unfaithful. The Question is Why.
"The type of attributions I make about my partner's behaviour will have an important affect on whether I can get over what they've done, or not. It will also affect whether I can save the relationship - if I want to that is."
5. How 'Naive Cynicism' May Poison Your Relationships
"Cynicism has its uses, but can it go too far? A study by Kruger and Gilovich (1999) suggests it can."
6. Affectionate Writing Can Reduce Cholesterol
"According to new research, writing down affectionate thoughts about close friends and family can reduce your cholesterol levels."
7. Seven Signs of Relationship (Dis)Satisfaction
"Once a relationship has become long-term, although we still talk about love and commitment, in some ways it's satisfaction that comes to the forefront. Indeed, low satisfaction is an important predictor of relationship breakdown. So, what factors have psychologists found are important in how satisfied we are with our relationships?"
8. Parental Relationships After Divorce: From 'Perfect Pals' to 'Fiery Foes'
"Although divorce/relationship breakdown happens at a number of levels - psychological, legal, economic - it is children that are usually the first concern. Who will take custody? How will the parents manage their relationship after they have separated?"
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Labels: Relationships
Is Life Passing You By?
Since the rise of ever more effective technologies for recording and archiving moments in our lives, the present moment is dying. Photography is a good example. Everyone has been to a party where there's someone flitting around in the background with their camera while never really taking part in what is going on. We've all done it in one way or another. Holiday-makers spend all their time taking photos; documenting every meal, building and beach as though for a museum exhibition. Why? What for? Well the reasoning appears sound enough: I want a keepsake. But there's one thing that current technology cannot capture: our emotional states. And our emotional states are important. They are what make us human.
An emotional animal
For thousands of years we have thought ourselves largely rational beasts, occasionally beset by emotional outbursts, but ultimately still relying on logic and reason to survive. For decades cognitive psychologists have implicitly supported this picture by producing reams of research about thought processes. How we solve problems, what we pay attention to, how our brains build the waves of data from our senses into our realities.
"Our emotions are constantly interacting with our thoughts."
That has begun to change. Psychological research is now suggesting a quite different picture. Our emotions are constantly interacting with our thoughts. One recent example discussed here is the effect of emotions on our perception. A study found our perception of visual contrast can improve in fearful situations. Emotion can actually improve your eyesight. This is only one of many examples that include everything from relatively minor effects on our attention to moulding our whole experience of the world.Recording culture
To understand what this might mean for our recording culture think back twenty generations. Two hundred years ago music only existed in that one moment: when it was played. After that it was gone. It didn't matter if you went to a concert, or sat down to listen to a friend play the violin. However good the musician, it would only be played exactly that way once. Two hundred years ago if someone played, you listened. Carefully.
"It's only natural for us to feel the past can be electronically captured and carried into the future."
Back in the present our lives are quite different. Recording technology allows us to listen again and again to our favourite music, pause movies while we make tea and, of course, freeze those precious holiday moments in two-dimensional form. It's only natural for us to feel the past can be electronically captured and carried into the future. But recording technologies are only a poor substitute for reality. Looking at a photograph helps bring back thoughts and feelings from when the image was taken. That's why looking at someone else's photographs is often such a tedious activity. There are no thoughts or feelings attached to these pictures, there is nothing but the image itself. What if we sail through our own lives without paying attention to our thoughts and feelings? When we look back on today, yesterday, last year, what do we remember?
Whether we realise it or not, our emotions are continually operating to affect the way we see the world. This is happening even when we don't specifically feel any emotions. A recording can never match the experience of being fully present: something our culture does not often recognise.
Mindfulness
Eastern philosophies have long recognised the importance of living in the moment. Buddhism teaches a way of life called 'mindfulness' which is essentially a way of battling the continuing obsession for both the past and the future to the detriment of the present. While Buddhist learning is certainly important and has much to teach us, it is difficult to understand in the Western world simply because our cultural history has moulded our consciousness in a different manner.
Instead we look to science to explain our lives. Explanations of our daily malaises need to be described to us in terms we Westerners can understand. Unfortunately, when compared to philosophy, modern science, especially psychology, has had little time to provide evidence for the kind of universal insight already available in Buddhist teachings. This is probably why ideas such as mindfulness are becoming fashionable despite scientific psychology still retaining a relatively cool attitude.
Live rather than record
"Millions watch 'reality TV' which no more represents their reality than a stranger's holiday snaps."
The recording culture is only one facet of modern life, although in many ways it is so pervasive that it provides the perfect metaphor. Is it marketing that's turned us into such freaks for recording? The fetishisation of technology has certainly helped but these are only manifestations. It has more to do with the age we live in. We are continually bypassing the present in favour of imagined futures or the lives of others. Time is converted to money to be 'spent' at a later date. Millions watch 'reality TV' which no more represents their reality than a stranger's holiday snaps.So take pictures, record videos, watch reality TV but don't forget life is for the living, emotionally, not for recording. Be warned though: really living is much harder work than simply recording and watching.
For a more academic treatment of the emotions, follow my search for emotional truth from the start.Labels: Emotion, Mindfulness, Recording