Affectionate Writing Can Reduce Cholesterol
According to new research, writing down affectionate thoughts about close friends and family can reduce your cholesterol levels. Floyd et al. (2007) randomly assigned participants to one of two groups: one experimental and one control. The experimental group wrote with affection about one person in their lives for 20 minutes on three occasions over a five-week period. The control group wrote mundane descriptions of their activities over the week, jobs they had done and places they had lived.
The results from two separate studies demonstrated that after only 25 days, the experimental group who had written affectionate notes, showed a significant reduction in cholesterol. These reductions were seen independently from the effects of general health factors like age, drinking, smoking and so on. Mean cholesterol levels reduced from 170 mg/dL to 159 mg/dL (figures are from the second study which was methodologically more secure).
The researchers also examined whether linguistic features of the experimental group's writing affected cholesterol reduction. They found that those who wrote directly to someone showed greater reductions in cholesterol than those who wrote in the third person about someone.
One of the strengths of this study was that it specifically examined the benefits of expressing affection. Other studies have found evidence for the benefits of expressing affection but have had difficulties separating the expressing from the receiving. This is because when you express affection towards someone else, they are likely to reciprocate. Expressing is, therefore, tightly bound up with receiving.
In an age where human nature is often considered profoundly selfish, here's a selfish reason to be nice to people. Of course compared with all the money-spinning methods of reducing cholesterol levels around nowadays, you'll never see this one advertised (except on PsyBlog!) because it's essentially free. So, pass it on...
Caution
These are preliminary results. The research was carried out in a small sample (Study 1, N=34; Study 2, N=30) of healthy US college students all in the normal range for cholesterol. More research will be required to see if this generalises across cultures, overall health status and so on. On the other hand, the possible side-effects of writing affectionate letters are not that worrying, unless you count paper cuts.
» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityLabels: Health, Relationships
Top Ten Studies, Encephalon #19, 1,000+ Subscribers
Thanks to everyone who has voted so far in the Top Ten Psychology studies. As I write it's up to 270 votes. All the early action was on Stanley Milgram, but Aaron T. Beck has come from way down the field and is now edging it by 4%. Are you really going to let a psychiatrist win this? Freud was a solid runner out of the gates, but he's fading fast - looks like he doesn't have the legs for this distance. Miller, Loftus, Kahneman & Tversky are in the central bunch. Solid runners but they'll need to move right now...
Encephalon #19 is up at Peripersonal Space. So pull on your fighting trousers and get stuck in to the false dichotomy between emotion and reason.
And finally: a koala bear has been making friends with the penguins at an Australian zoo.... I'm sorry, I'm typing the wrong script...
And finally: PsyBlog has shot through the 1,000 subscriber mark today. So, keep up the good work loyal readers. As ever, I welcome your suggestions, comments, adulation, corrections, complaints and all round diversity.
Encephalon #19 is up at Peripersonal Space. So pull on your fighting trousers and get stuck in to the false dichotomy between emotion and reason.
And finally: a koala bear has been making friends with the penguins at an Australian zoo.... I'm sorry, I'm typing the wrong script...
And finally: PsyBlog has shot through the 1,000 subscriber mark today. So, keep up the good work loyal readers. As ever, I welcome your suggestions, comments, adulation, corrections, complaints and all round diversity.
Labels: Site News, Top Ten Studies
Seven Ways Music Influences Mood
Good music has direct access to the emotions. As such it's a fantastic tool for tweaking our moods. Saarikallio and Erkkila (2007) investigated the ways people use music to control and improve their mood by interviewing eight adolescents from Finland. The participants may be a small, very specific group, but they actually present a really useful list:
- Entertainment - At the most fundamental level music provides stimulation. It lifts the mood before going out, it passes the time while doing the washing up, it accompanies travelling, reading and surfing the web.
- Revival - Music revitalises in the morning and calms in the evening.
- Strong sensation - Music can provide deep, thrilling emotional experiences, particularly while performing.
- Diversion - Music distracts the mind from unpleasant thoughts which can easily fill the silence.
- Discharge - Music matching deep moods can release emotions: purging and cleansing.
- Mental work - Music encourages daydreaming, sliding into old memories, exploring the past.
- Solace - Shared emotion, shared experience, a connection to someone lost.
Many of Saarikallio and Erkkila's findings chime with previous research. For example, distraction is considered one of the most effective strategies for regulating mood. Music has also been strongly connected with reflective states. These tend to allow us greater understanding of our emotions.
One of the few negative connections Saarikallio and Erkkila consider is that sad music might promote rumination. Rumination is the constant examination of emotional state which, ironically, can lead to less clarity. On the contrary, however, Saarikallio and Erkkila found that music increased the understanding of feelings, an effect not associated with rumination.
Over to you...
Perhaps the way we use music varies with factors like age and culture. Do these adolescent's experiences ring true for you? If not, what would you add to the list?
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibility Communicating Persuasively: Email or Face-to-Face?
Our intuitive understanding is that face-to-face communication is the most persuasive. In reality, of course, it's not always possible to meet in person, so email wins out. How, then, do people react to persuasion attempts over email? Persuasion research has uncovered fascinating effects: that men seem more responsive to email because it bypasses their competitive tendencies (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2002). Women, however, may respond better in face-to-face encounters because they are more 'relationship-minded'. But is this finding just a gender stereotype?
Gender stereotypes
Guadagno and Cialdini explain their results in terms of expectations about social roles. Cultural stereotypes have it that men are task-oriented whereas women are relationship-oriented. So, when put in a situation where relationships were important i.e. face-to-face, women tend to follow the cultural stereotype. Similarly, as men are often viewed as more competitive, when they face each other they tend to be more competitive and so less open to persuasion.
Practically, what this research is suggesting is that email could provide a way of side-stepping men's competitive tendencies. But, this research doesn't consider the effects of pre-existing relationships. After all, we react differently to friends than strangers.
In an upcoming article, however, to be published in the journal 'Computers and Human Behaviour', Guadagno and Cialdini (2007) examine the effect of relationships. The problem for researchers is how to manipulate people's relationships experimentally to effectively test the differences. Guadagno and Cialdini use the concept of 'oneness'.
Oneness
Oneness refers to the idea of an interconnected identity. The closer two people feel, the more helping the other person is like helping themselves. So oneness can promote altruistic behaviour. Oneness can also be seen in terms of the classic in-group out-group dichotomy in social psychology. People show a positive bias towards other people who are in the same notional group as themselves: e.g. work colleagues.
Oneness was very simply manipulated in Guadagno and Cialdini's study by encouraging strangers to view each other in one of two ways. In the first manipulation two strangers were shown fictional results of a questionnaire they had completed which showed they had identical personalities. In the second, the fictional results showed they had completely different personalities. In this way, the first groups 'oneness' was encouraged, while in the second it was discouraged.
Then, as had been done in the previous study, participants attempted to persuade each other.
Results
The researchers found that when there were low levels of oneness between men, email was a more effective way to communicate. Conversely, for women, higher levels of oneness made face-to-face encounters significantly more persuasive.
How can these results be explained? Women may not generally be easily persuaded over email because there is less opportunity to form relationships from which attitude changes can be built. Men, however, tend to be less competitive over email and are better able to concentrate on arguments presented, rather than being distracted by seeing the other man as a threat.
Male-female interaction
Bear in mind that this study is ironing out the spectrum of differences amongst both men and women. In other words, clearly not all women are always relationship-focussed and not all men are always task-focussed. It seems an obvious point but it's a mistake often made in mainstream media presentation of psychology research.
Additionally, one of the drawbacks of the study was that it only concentrated on same-sex communication. Although, I would suggest it's better not to think of this study in terms of men and women but in terms of individual relationships.
So, if you want to persuade someone with whom you have a competitive relationship - whatever your and their gender - email might be a better choice. On the other hand, if your persuasion attempt is aimed at someone with whom you have a more cooperative relationship, face-to-face could be a better choice. Unfortunately, it isn't always possible to see someone face-to-face, so it's very useful to be aware of the processes operating in both face-to-face and online interactions.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityLabels: Email, Persuasion
RSS Feed Updated: Full Post Now Available
Good news for those of you subscribing to PsyBlog's RSS feed: the full post is now available in your feed reader. Previously only a taster appeared, forcing you to click through to the site for the full post. Along with the full post now being visible, you should also be seeing links and images appearing in your feed readers. If you're encountering any problems, please let me know by email or you can leave a comment on this post.
If the previous paragraph is all gobbledegook to you then have a look at the BBC's description of RSS feeds. This explains what RSS feeds are and why they are extremely useful. If you regularly read a variety of blogs, I'd definitely recommend getting a (usually free) piece of software called a 'feed reader'.
If the previous paragraph is all gobbledegook to you then have a look at the BBC's description of RSS feeds. This explains what RSS feeds are and why they are extremely useful. If you regularly read a variety of blogs, I'd definitely recommend getting a (usually free) piece of software called a 'feed reader'.
Labels: Site News
Why It's OK To Be Depressed Sometimes
The modern Western mindset has it that depression is an abnormal state. That when you're a bit down, it means you have a medical problem that requires treatment. Of course, this isn't necessarily true. While depression is clearly a major problem for many people that does require treatment of some type, do we all need to be treated every time we are down? More than this, though, if we become depressed, should we consider ourselves in some way abnormal?
What has been called the 'medicalisation' of mental health issues has long been noted by groups like the anti-psychiatrists. Indeed, Adam Curtis' new documentary provides a stark reminder of how modern mental health is driven by numbers. "Check-lists are nothing more than statistically derived descriptions of what is considered 'abnormal'"In creating the manuals relied on by many, but not all, psychiatrists (and psychologists) for diagnosis, the complexity of human thought and emotion has been reduced to a number of check-lists. These check-lists are nothing more than statistically derived descriptions of what is considered 'abnormal' - and therefore normal - human behaviour. By their very nature they make no attempt to understand the person themselves.
Mental illness may have been exaggerated
One of the major architects of this manual for diagnosing mental disorders is Dr Robert Spitzer. Dr Spitzer is interviewed in Adam Curtis' documentary. When asked what he thinks of his creation he admits, looking rather uncomfortable, that the rates of mental disorders have probably been exaggerated. The rate of exaggeration? Dr Spitzer says no one really knows, but it might be 20, 30, even 40%.
Certainly this is a worrying idea, but what worries me more is the effect it has on the way people view themselves and their personal experience. If doctors, a highly respected group in society, adopt certain yardsticks of mental health, it is only natural that these are going to affect the way we all think about our private emotional lives.
Who benefits?
Those with a Machiavellian bent might ask who the medicalisation of depression benefits. Roger Mulder, a psychiatrist in New Zealand suggests that both researchers and clinicians have something to gain from the increased prevalence of depression (Mulder, 2005). Clinicians make more work for themselves while researchers can attract more money to their research. And there's the pharmaceutical industry, but let's not start with them.
"If you continue to tell someone they have a disorder, they soon come to believe it."One group the increasing medicalisation of depression certainly doesn't benefit is those people who previously thought they were 'a little down', and are now labelled with a 'disorder'. If there's one thing that decades of research in psychology has taught us, it's that human beings are extremely susceptible to suggestion. If you continue to tell someone they have a disorder, they soon come to believe it.
Depression across cultures
Perhaps the clearest way to understand the modern Western attitude to depression is to compare it to that in other cultures. Derek Summerfield, a consultant psychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry, points out that Westerners tend to view emotion as internal, unintentional, biological and unrelated to cognition (Summerfield, 2006).
"At least non-Western attitudes to depression acknowledge that a situation can be changed." By contrast, a non-Western viewpoint is often characterised by a focus on situational and moral factors. The Western depression-as-disease model has the hallmarks of a condition inescapable without 'treatment'. How can you change your biology or tame emotions apparently arising unbidden from the deep? At least non-Western attitudes to depression acknowledge that a situation can be changed.
It's OK to be depressed sometimes
Ultimately we don't often hear the simple message that it's OK to be depressed sometimes. It's not pleasant, but it's part of being human. It doesn't necessarily mean professional treatment is required.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
ReferencesSummerfield, D. (2006). Depression: epidemic or pseudo-epidemic? Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, 99(3), 161-162.
Mulder, R. (2005) An epidemic of depression or the medicalisation of unhappiness. New Zealand Family Physician, 32(3), 161-163.
Labels: Depression
Discover the Perfect Musical Performance
As the oboe's 'tuning A' fades, the lights go down, a hush spreads across the audience, the conductor raises his baton, bringing it down with a flourish. So the orchestra starts, you settle back in your seat to listen, letting your mind drift away with the music.
Casting your eye across the faces of the musicians you begin to wonder if this is just another performance for them, just one more run-through of a well-rehearsed piece. Or is tonight special? Are they ready to invest the performance with something new, something magical that will send shivers down your spine?
As the music fills your mind, your eye is drawn to the conductor. His whole body is filled with meaning, vigorously communicating to his orchestra. The players themselves are focussed, as one, reacting precisely to this wildly gesticulating man. You start to get the feeling this is going to be good. A night to remember. If only it was always like this...
Leadership and group mood
In newly published research, Boerner and von Streit (2007) make progress towards this impossible end by suggesting two vital ingredients of the perfect performance. First they argue the orchestra's individual players must be emotionally 'in tune' with each other. The finest quality of performance is not just about timing, it is about a harmony of mood.
The second vital component is the leadership style of the conductor. Recent research in psychology suggests that group success is inspired by people with 'transformational' leadership styles. Boerner and von Streit argue that transformational conductors are:
- Charismatic - the orchestra is proud to work with them.
- Inspirational - motivate the orchestra by making it clear what is required.
- Intellectually stimulating - often suggest new interpretations
Conductor and orchestra interact
As the researchers expected, the highest quality orchestras were those with transformational conductors and high group mood. But the surprising result was the interaction that occurred between these two factors.
When the group mood of the orchestra was low, a transformational conductor was actually associated with a lower quality of orchestra. Similarly when the mood of the orchestra was high, a less transformational conductor was associated with a higher quality orchestra.
From this emerged the idea that orchestras with high group mood may actually ignore a poor conductor and still go on to produce a reasonable level of performance. According to Boerner and von Streit this is a well-known phenomenon in orchestras.
So the next time you go to the symphony, hoping to be transported, take a good look at the orchestra. Do they seem in a good mood? And when the conductor strides out, is it difficult for you, and the whole orchestra, to keep your eyes off him? If so, you could be in for a treat.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
ReferencesBoerner, S., & von Streit, C. (2007). Promoting orchestral performance: the interplay between musicians' mood and a conductor's leadership style. Psychology of Music, 35(1), 132.
Labels: Music
Sigmund Freud and Unconscious Mental Processes
With this, the final nomination for the top ten psychology studies, I'm rolling out a big gun: Sigmund Freud. The strange thing about Freud is that, amongst psychologists, his stock is relatively low. One of the main reasons his work is not considered 'scientific' is the apparent difficulty of testing his theories. Actually there is plenty of scientific evidence for his most important finding - the cognitive unconscious - but it has taken some time to be acknowledged. Indeed Freud made some startling contributions to psychology only accepted into the mainstream of academic research in the last few decades."...you are travelling back to the 19th century..."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....feel the pressure of my hand on your forehead...and as you do so you'll forget that there are processes in our minds to which we don't have access...that's it....breeeeeaaatthe....and forget that we often don't know the reason why we do the things we do.....in......out.....in....out.....forget, even, all the things you know about psychology...now you are travelling back to the 19th century and here is a smartly dressed young man looking at you with bright intelligent eyes...and that smell...pungent....cigars?
Treating neuroses
Frau Emmy von N. was one of the earliest patients to be treated with the nascent techniques of psychoanalysis. Frau Emmy suffered from a series of tics, some facial, the most obvious of which was a loud 'clacking' noise. To Freud the symptoms she showed were typical of hysteria and he soon set about treating her with his strange new methods.
"Talking to a patient? What good could that do?"And what strange methods they were. He talked to her. Talking to a patient? What good could that do? He hypnotised her and soon she began to speak of her frightening experiences - being a maidservant in an asylum, nursing her dying brother. Then Freud did something more unusual. He let her give full vent to her emotion. Later, after she had calmed down a little, she seemed better...
What then did these past events in Frau Emmy's life signal to Freud? What was the connection to her current symptoms? At this time Freud had begun to develop a theory that physical symptoms could be caused by thoughts not available to the conscious mind. His treatment - the talking, the hypnosis, the hand on the forehead, the free association, the couch - all were designed to try and access this so-called 'unconscious' world, to find the root-cause of distress. Once this root-cause could be identified and explained, Freud thought, the physical and psychological symptoms would be alleviated (Breuer & Freud, 1893).
The cognitive unconscious
"We are effectively cognitive icebergs with most of our 'thoughts' occurring below the water line."It was in Freud's work 'Project for a Scientific Psychology' (Freud, 1895) that he first laid down the radical (at the time) idea that cognitive processes are intrinsically unconscious. We are effectively cognitive icebergs with most of our 'thoughts' occurring below the water line, out of conscious perception.
The fact that this idea is no longer considered radical is testament to the last few decades of research which have shown the importance of unconscious processes. We now have abundant evidence for unconscious processes in the operation of memory, affect, attitudes and motivation (Westen, 1998).
And so, far from being unscientific and untestable, Freud's theory of unconscious mental processes was incredibly prescient. It laid the ground for some of the most important lines of research in psychology today. Research that tells us more and more about what it means to be human.
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.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
ReferencesBreuer, J., & Freud, S. (1893). Studies on hysteria. In: The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, 23, 1955-1964.
Freud, S. (1895). Project for a scientific psychology. Standard Edition, 1, 295-397.
Westen, D. (1998). The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 333-371.
Labels: Top Ten Studies
Encephalon #18 Now Online at Pharyngula
Encephalon, the neuroscience blog carnival, is now online at Pharyngula. Encephalon has some of the best posts from around the blogosphere on neuroscience related subjects. The latest issue is devoted to four themes: understanding brains, fixing brains, improving brains and evolving brains. I'd recommend you take a look to discover new ideas, new voices and new blogs.
Encephalon #18
Encephalon #18Labels: Neuroscience
The Trap - What Happened To Our Dream Of Freedom?
'The Trap - What Happened To Our Dream Of Freedom?' is a new documentary by the BAFTA-winning producer Adam Curtis. It looks at how models of human behaviour shaped by Cold War logic have come to control our lives. The first episode in the three-part series was shown on BBC TV here in the UK last Sunday. If you're curious about the intersection of psychology and politics, and how we got where we are today, then you must see this documentary. It's on BBC2 this Sunday and next Sunday at 9pm.
For everyone, especially those of you not in the UK, you can check out Adam Curtis' previous work, also excellent, on YouTube. The Power of Nightmares examines how politicians have used the power of fear to get what they want.
You can find the rest of this documentary by searching YouTube.
The other documentary, The Century of the Self explains how Freud's insights into unconscious human desires propelled the juggernauts of business and politics.
You can find the rest of this documentary by searching YouTube.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
BBC press release for 'The Trap'
The Trap - A Synopsis - Part 1 [Blairwatch]
For everyone, especially those of you not in the UK, you can check out Adam Curtis' previous work, also excellent, on YouTube. The Power of Nightmares examines how politicians have used the power of fear to get what they want.
You can find the rest of this documentary by searching YouTube.
The other documentary, The Century of the Self explains how Freud's insights into unconscious human desires propelled the juggernauts of business and politics.
You can find the rest of this documentary by searching YouTube.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
BBC press release for 'The Trap' The Trap - A Synopsis - Part 1 [Blairwatch] Labels: Media
Take Part in Research on Music and Personality - Now Finished
If you live in the UK, or Ireland for that matter, I'd like to ask you a favour. Along with fellow researchers I'm running an online study into the connections between music and personality. It was inspired by the study described in this post: 'Personality Secrets in Your Mp3 Player'. The study's website has some multiple choice questions asking you about aspects of your personality and which genres of music you like. It's not too taxing. Honest.
The research is completely anonymous, carried out as part of an MSc course at a reputable university and is supervised by a clinical psychologist.
I would be really grateful of you could take five or ten minutes to read the instructions and complete the short questionnaire. Remember: please only take part if you currently live in the UK or Ireland.
UPDATE: This research is now closed. Thanks to everyone for taking part, the response was very strong.
(If you have any questions please email me ).
Nobel Prize-Winning Research on Risky Decision Making
For this, the ninth nomination in the Top Ten Psychology Studies, it's Nobel Prize-winning research. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky were interested in the apparently strange way in which people make decisions in risky situations. One example is: 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?
Changes in wealth
Before Kahneman and Tversky (1979) published their ground-breaking research, risky decisions were usually analysed by thinking about the total wealth involved. When you look at this bet in the context of the total wealth it makes sense to gamble. It's obvious you've got more to gain than you have to lose. So, why do people tend not to?
"It is actually the changes in wealth on which people base their decision-making calculations."What Kahneman and Tversky suggested was that, in fact people think about small gambles like this in terms of losses, gains and neutral outcomes. It is actually the changes in wealth on which people base their decision-making calculations. But that doesn't completely explain why people don't take the bet. There's a further piece to the puzzle.
It turns out that at low levels of risk, such as this coin flip situation, people are more averse to the loss of £10 than they are attracted by the chance of winning the £20. Studies have shown that people actually need the chance of winning £30 before they'll consider risking their own £10.
Just as people show illogical risk aversion in some circumstances, they also show risk seeking behaviour in other circumstances.
Imagine you have to choose between these two options. The first is that you have an 85% chance of losing £1,000 along with a 15% chance of losing nothing. The second is a 100% chance of losing £800. Not much of a choice, right!? You're between a rock and hard place. Still, sometimes we have to cut our losses.
"When the potential for loss is there, suddenly people prefer to take a risk."According to the maths you should choose the sure loss of £800, but most people don't. Most people choose to gamble. So when the potential for loss is there, suddenly people prefer to take a risk. They've become risk seekers. Yet, when there's the potential for gains, people are often risk averse.
Framing bias
This way of thinking about how people behave in risky situations, which Kahneman and Tversky called Prospect Theory, has a second major insight that follows on from the risk aversion and risk seeking described above.
What they realised was that people behaved in different ways depending on how the risky situation was presented. Remember that if a risk is presented in terms of losses, people will be more risk seeking, and if it's expressed in terms of gains, people will be more risk averse.
Their classic example involves this fictional situation:
"Imagine your country is preparing for the outbreak of a disease expected to kill 600 people. If program A is adopted, exactly 200 people will be saved. If program B is adopted there is a 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved and a 2/3 probability that no people will be saved."Here, the risk is presented in terms of gains so people tend to choose option A (72%), which is, in fact, worse. Here's the same problem but this time presented in terms of losses:
"Imagine your country is preparing for the outbreak of a disease expected to kill 600 people. If program A is adopted, exactly 400 people will die. If program B is adopted there is a 1/3 probability that no one will die and a 2/3 probability that 600 people will die."Now most people (78%) choose B because the problem is presented in terms of losses. People suddenly prefer to take a risk. In fact, if you look at both the situations you'll see that, mathematically, they're identical and yet people's decision is heavily influenced by the way the problem is framed. This effect has been termed preference reversal.
Now back to the real world
After considering these sorts of problems for a few minutes, it's easy to wonder what all of this abstract reasoning has to do with the real world. Quite a lot argue Kahneman and Tversky. The Nobel Prize committee agreed.
"Everyday life involves endless 'gambles'."Everyday life involves endless 'gambles' and betting examples are just one of the easiest ways to understand how humans make decisions in risky situations. Certainly Kahneman and Tversky's work has plenty to say about some of the apparently strange decisions people make in everyday life.
So, next time you're agonising over a decision in terms of losses, try this simple trick. Re-imagine the whole decision in terms of gains. I can't promise it will help you make your decision, but at least you'll better understand Kahneman and Tversky's insightful research. Humans are not as rational as we would like to think.
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.
ReferencesKahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 313-327.
Labels: Decision-making, Top Ten Studies
Revealed: Eight Ways The Media Distorts Psychology
In a revelation that has shocked the world, PsyBlog reveals mainstream media reporting of psychology studies has been grossly distorted for decades. PsyBlog can now exclusively expose the eight 'specialist' techniques journalists use to misrepresent psychology studies.
1. I've told you a million times not to exaggerate
Practically the first rule of journalism is to sensationalise. Don't just say here's another study which adds a tiny little piece to an ever-growing jigsaw puzzle. Boring! People want mind-reading! Now that's news.
Example: The brain scan that can read people's intentions (The Guardian)
2. Correlation is not as sexy as causation
All scientists have it drummed into them: an association (correlation) between two factors doesn't mean one causes the other. But, if you just say 'there's a strong connection', readers assume it means causation. No need to correct this natural assumption because, repeat after me, correlation is not as sexy as causation.
Example: Buying a dog can make you happier (The Independent)
3. Comedy research
Dusty old journal articles filled with technical language? My God! What's this? A study about comedy? Oh that's bound to be a laugh, forget the earnest stuff, let's put this one in.
Example: Scientists find the perfect comedy face: Ricky Gervais (The Independent)
4. Sexy psychology
Sex sells. Don't you forget it. Psychology of sex? Sexual psychology. Loads of sex advice but not a single sexpert in sight? Commission that article now!
Example: Redheads 'have more sex than blondes or brunettes' (The Daily Mail)
5. Sexy psychology...but with real expert opinion buried at the end
All the hallmarks of a sexy psychology article but instead a quote from a recognised expert is buried at the end to give a whiff of credibility. The article below has a quote from PsyBlog's favourite proper sexpert, Dr Petra Boynton. You'll notice her caution way down the article. Long after quotes from random people the journo happens to know. Unfortunately, also long after most people have stopped reading.
Example: Why British women go off sex (unlike the French and Germans) (The Independent)
6. The power of tenuous celebrity links
A study about golf and psychology? Great, let's have a nice picture of Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas. The psychology can go hang.
Example: A happy home can make you better at golf, say psychologists (The Daily Mail)
7. Put psychology in the title, ignore in the body
Just the word psychology itself is attractive to readers. Perhaps you'll learn something about the human psyche. Perhaps not. Clever journos put psychology in the title and never mention it again. Oh, and if it's a bit titillating, all the better.
Example: Psychology of stripping (The Times)
8. Combine above techniques for more power
Exaggerate wildly, imply correlation equals causation, focus on comedy research, preferably about sex, hide the expert comment at the end, find a celebrity tie in and make sure you put psychology in the title and never mention it again.
Use all these and what have you got? The perfect media psychology article, guaranteed science-free.
Over to You
More ideas about the ways psychological research is misrepresented in the media? Comment away.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Labels: Media
Personality or Situation? The Psychology of Individual Differences
So far in this series on the top ten psychology studies, the research has lumped us all together in one group and asked what psychological research says about all of us. The studies have asked questions about how people's emotions, memories and perceptions work. What they haven't asked is 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.
Eysenck and the personality
The first is one of the earliest studies in a long line of research by Hans Eysenck. Eysenck was influenced by Greek philosophy in his search for human personality. The Greeks thought there were four categories of person: the melancholic , the sanguine, the choleric and the phlegmatic. Eysenck, instead of thinking people could be pigeon-holed this neatly suggested people could be described on a sliding scale of each of these factors. He had a hunch that personality differences between people could be described on two 'dimensions'. "Extraversion is the degree to which a person is outgoing and neuroticism is the degree to which they are emotionally stable (or not)."These dimensions were introversion versus extraversion and neuroticism versus stability. Extraversion is the degree to which a person is outgoing and neuroticism is the degree to which they are emotionally stable (or not).
If you imagine these two dimensions at right angles to each other then you have a big cross with four quadrants on which everyone's personality falls somewhere. For example, if you are highly introverted and highly neurotic, you are an extremely anxious person. On the other hand if you are highly neurotic but extraverted then you would be an hysteric (Hampson, 1988).
Eysenck (1944) tested this theory by using information from 700 patients at a military hospital. He asked their treating psychiatrists to rate patients on a number of scales which included 'degraded work history', 'sex anomalies' and 'dependent' along with a host of others. From these he used factor analysis (see below for a description of factor analysis) from which these two dimensions of introversion/extraversion and neuroticism/stability emerged.
"Eysenck made an exciting, bold statement..."When you think about it, Eysenck made an exciting, bold statement: every human's personality can be classified on just two sliding scales. Since then personality theory has moved on and now theorists have settled on five sliding scales. This scale is going strong and appears to describe some of the systematic ways in which people differ. Well it would do, if there wasn't one rather large fly in the personality psychologist's ointment: the situation.
Mischel and the situation
In 1968, Walter Mischel dropped a bomb on personality theory with his innocuously titled study, 'Personality and Assessment'. Mischel thought the evidence showed tests such as Eysenck's were almost worthless because they didn't take into account the situation. "what is a personality test really telling us about a person?"It is clear, he argued, that people behave quite differently depending on the situation. Imagine you're late for an appointment, you're sitting in huge traffic jam, do you behave the same way as when you're sitting at home, relaxed? It not, then what is a personality test really telling us about a person?
Mischel (1968) reviewed a series of studies that attempted to predict people's behaviour from their personality scores. He found there was little consistency in people's behaviour across situations. In fact, he concluded there was as little as 9% of agreement between the way people behaved in different situations. Or, put the other way around 91% of the differences in people's behaviour in different situations couldn't be accounted for by personality tests.
Situation versus personality
The work of both Eysenck and Mischel was crucial in forming what became a massive debate in psychology. Mischel's particularly, as it made many psychologists ask what was the point of studying personality if it predicted so little. "Eysenck was saying you are what's inside, your personality, and Mischel was saying you are what is outside, the situation."These two studies don't just encapsulate the debate about personality and the situation but also highlight another constant battle in psychology, between the power of internal and external forces, your own thoughts and feelings versus those of society. Eysenck was saying you are what's inside, your personality, and Mischel was saying you are what is outside, the situation.
It doesn't take a genius to point out they were both right in their own ways. People do seem to be different in certain aspects, for example some people are more sociable than others. But people also show remarkable similarities in certain situations, e.g. their need to conform. The trick is in finding the balance between the two, a problem at which psychology is still working hard. Nevertheless, both Mischel and Eysenck's work gave an important insight into what it means to be human, what it means to be an individual.
Factor analysis
The problem for personality researchers is how to gather data about personality. How do you reliably test people's personality? It's extremely difficult to put lots of people in the same situation and see how they react. The solution personality psychologists came up with is a technical one, called 'factor analysis'. What this involves is first asking people how they would react in a series of hypothetical situations. Then, the results are analysed using this statistical technique, factor analysis, to look for patterns in the data.
Patterns that emerge tend to lump particular questions together so that they form a 'factor'. Each factor is presumed to represent some form of separated psychological entity, part of the overall structure of personality. [Back to text]
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.
ReferencesEysenck, H. (1944). Types of personality: a factorial study of 700 neurotics. Journal of Mental Science, 90, 851-861.
Hampson, S. (1988). The Construction of Personality: An Introduction. Oxford: Routledge.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: John Wiley.
Labels: Personality, Top Ten Studies
Site News: Old Posts Appearing as New
Apologies to readers who are seeing old posts appearing in the feed and in automated emails as if they were new. It's happening because I'm updating old posts and then the system thinks they are brand new when obviously they're not.
Hopefully I've sorted this out now. Let me know if you're having any problems. I've added new contact details so that you can contact me directly by email.
Thanks for your patience.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Hopefully I've sorted this out now. Let me know if you're having any problems. I've added new contact details so that you can contact me directly by email.
Thanks for your patience.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Labels: Site News
Memory Manipulated After The Event
This is the seventh nomination for the top ten studies in psychology. After a look at Miller's magical number seven, we return to memory but this time not to the information processing capacity of memory. Instead 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.
First, a snippet of my personal history. I have a memory from when I was three years old of playing in a sandpit. I don't remember much else about it other than this sandpit was outside the building in which I lived. For years I used to think this was my earliest memory, now I'm not so sure and here's why.
A car crash
Like some of the best experiments, although Loftus and Palmer's (1974) study was quite simple, its implications were profound. In the first of two experiments, 45 participants watched a film of a car accident. Nine of these were then asked this specific question: "About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?". The other four groups of nine were asked an almost identical question but with one important difference. Instead of the word hit, the words 'smashed', 'collided', bumped, and 'contacted' were used.
The participants who were asked the question using the word 'smashed' as opposed to 'contacted', estimated the cars were travelling, on average, almost 10mph faster. The other words were fanned out in between.
So, what is this telling us? Probably, that because people are not good at gauging the speed of a car, the cue comes from the experimenter. If the experimenter asks the question using the word 'smashed', the participant assumes it was going faster than if they say 'contacted'.
"It's in the follow-up study that things get interesting."It's in the follow-up study that things get interesting. The same experiment was repeated roughly as before, but with 150 participants. This time, however, participants filled out a questionnaire about the crash and were then asked to return in a week. As before, the question about the speed of the crash was varied between groups. Some read 'hit', some 'smashed' and so on.
One week later participants returned and were asked to fill out a questionnaire about the accident in which was hidden a crucial question: "Did you see any broken glass?". As broken glass is indicative of a more serious accident, so greater speed, Loftus and Palmer expected the group in which the word 'smashed' had been used would be more likely to indicate there was broken glass. This was exactly what they found.
Malleable memories
Reporting their experiment Loftus and Palmer adopt a cautious tone as befits a journal article. For them it is a replication of a fact already known. That the phrasing of a question about an event can affect our memory for that event. For me, although the experiment is deceptively simple, it goes to the heart of how memories are constructed. It makes me wonder if that childhood sandpit in my mind's eye is really something I can remember.
What about your childhood memories? What about your memory for last week? To what extent are things you remember happening a week ago affected by intervening events and people? The beauty of Loftus and Palmer's experiment is it shows how important other people can be in shaping our own memories.
Whether or not my memory is real or a construction isn't so important in the context of that sandpit, but what if I'm an eyewitness to a serious crime, called to testify in court? What if an adult 'recovers' a memory of being abused by their parents as a child? The answers to these questions have vital impacts on the lives of all those involved. Loftus' later work has taken in both of these highly controversial questions, and more.
Still, my thoughts often return to this original study in more mundane, personal terms. Do I really remember that sandpit? I can see myself sitting there, playing, looking up past the building, into the sky. If that memory is false, can I ever really remember anything?
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.
ReferencesLoftus, E. F. & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585-589.
Labels: Memory, Top Ten Studies
PsyBlog: Repair in Progress
As some of you may have noticed, PsyBlog disappeared from the web a couple of days ago. Apologies for the outage which was beyond my control. Don't panic, though, the problem has been tracked down and fixed. That said, you may still be experiencing some problems getting to the site, but these should iron themselves out over the next few hours and days.
Labels: Site News