Take Part in Research on the Emotions - Online Questionnaire
After your excellent response to the research on music and personality (231 participants), I'm carrying out some new research on the emotions. So, I'm asking for your help again with an online multiple-choice questionnaire. The research is completely anonymous, carried out as part of an MSc course at a reputable university and is supervised by Professor Adrian Furnham.
As before, more information about the results of the study will be posted here on PsyBlog soon after the analysis is completed and results written up.
This study is now closed, thanks to everyone who took part. Results will be available in a month or two.
As before, more information about the results of the study will be posted here on PsyBlog soon after the analysis is completed and results written up.
This study is now closed, thanks to everyone who took part. Results will be available in a month or two.Labels: Emotion
Older and Musically Wiser?
[Photo by ariz]
Back in March I asked for your help with some research on music and personality I was carrying out with my colleagues. Although it was restricted to people living in the UK, there was a healthy response to the online questionnaire. Joy of joys, there were also some interesting results, so I thought I would update you with how it turned out.Music preferences and personality
Perhaps you'll remember this research was based on the relationships found between the music people like and their personalities (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003). More specifically, correlations have been found between the general attributes of musical genres that people like and responses to the 'Big Five' personality questionnaires (these Big Five factors are extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, agreeableness and conscientiousness).
There was a suggestion in the previous research that age might play a role in this relationship. This makes some intuitive sense - it's possible that with age comes musical wisdom. As a result your musical taste better reflects your personality; or perhaps your personality better reflects your musical taste!
Results
Either way, the research tested this idea using a personality questionnaire and the Short Test of Musical Preferences (with the fantastic acronym 'STOMP' ). When the data was analysed, it did indeed support the idea that the musical genre preferences of those over 30 were more strongly asssociated with their personalities than those aged between 18 and 30 (Dean, Yu & Epps (2007).
The correlations found for those aged 18 to 30 were between openness to experience and two categories of musical genres: music that is 'reflective & complex' and 'intense & rebellious' (r = .4 & .19 respectively). For those over 30, along with these associations, two more correlations emerged, these were between genres that were 'upbeat & conventional' and each of the two personality factors conscientiousness and agreeableness (r = .29 & .31 respectively).
How can this be explained? I speculate the age difference results from identity development. Young people are generally more engaged in the stressful work of developing and forming their identities. Part of this process might be about 'trying on' different types of music for size. For the more mature, however, their identity has usually settled down, so connections between music genre preferences and personality are stronger.
Thank you
So, thanks again to everyone who took part and watch this space for some new research I'll be conducting online.
→ Encephalon #21 is live at Ouroboros
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityLabels: Music, Personality
Will Solving The 'Hard Problem' of Consciousness Unweave the Rainbow?
[Inkbrushes by Adam Chamness: 1,2]
Some say in fifty years or so we'll have enough neuro-scientific evidence to completely describe the functioning of the brain. The question is, will this mountain of evidence be enough to explain the emergence of human consciousness? Consciousness. This familiar yet indescribable experience we all have, an awareness, something we can't physically point to nor experience from another's viewpoint.Being a hypothetical question about some future state of our knowledge, it has mainly been of academic interest to philosophers. But I actually think it's relevant to all of us because it accesses two fundamental questions about what it means to be human. First, on a practical level, is consciousness amenable to explanation? Second, on a mystical level, if consciousness can be explained, will its essence be lost?
Consciousness: 'easy' and 'hard' problems
An influential approach to consciousness splits the question into the 'easy problems of consciousness' and the 'hard problems of consciousness' (Chalmers, 1995). The so-called 'easy problems' are things like finding out how memory or attention actually work, the nuts and bolts of these functions. And even though these are the easy problems, scientists are still having considerable difficulty with them.
But, argue people like Chalmers, once we've described all these functions, we still won't fully understand consciousness. This is because we won't have addressed the so-called 'hard problem'. This is the feeling of what it is actually like to be you. That ineffable you-ness that no one else can share. Your experience.
Chalmers doesn't represent the most extreme example of this position, there are those who argue we can never truly understand consciousness. At least Chalmers acknowledges there are possibilities, although new conceptual techniques need developing.
There is no 'hard problem'
On the other side of the fence are those who argue the distinction between the 'hard problem' and the 'easy problem' is at best ill-advised and, at worst, plain dangerous. Just because we can't conceive of how consciousness can emerge from the description of the easy problems like attention and memory etc., doesn't mean it never will (Churchland, 1996). Just because we can set up complex philosophical arguments about what might be true in a thought experiment, doesn't mean it explains what is true here and now.
Philosophers of mind like Dennett argue that consciousness emerges from the physical processes of the brain (Dennett, 1996). Effectively he is saying there is no 'hard problem' to explain, some even argue he is saying there is no such thing as consciousness, rather he is redefining consciousness as 'reportability' (Chalmers, 1997).
Unweaving the rainbow
So there's a glance at two views on the so-called 'hard problem' of consciousness. But being a student of psychology, in addition to the actual arguments themselves, I'm naturally drawn to the motivations people might have for which they choose.
While there's a lot of complex discussion in this area, I think it partly comes down to whether you're relaxed about the idea that science might one day be able to explain the essence of human experience. For many people, I think this is an extremely uncomfortable thought. What Keats, talking of Newton's findings, refers to as a fear of 'unweaving the rainbow' - the fear that explaining something might somehow reduce the magic of it - is very real.
What's your view?
You can vote below on whether you think current scientific methods will ever be able to explain consciousness. Of course, it would be great to know your views, so go ahead and post a comment. I'd love to know what you think.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityLabels: Consciousness, Neuroscience
Is Sacrifice in Relationships Related to Commitment and Functioning?
Most people make relationship sacrifices in one way or another, but I'm always suspect of people who specifically emphasise them. It's inevitable that one partner's interests in a relationship will clash with the other, perhaps only occasionally, perhaps frequently. They get a job at the other end of the country, your family and friends live close by. What to do? When two people have to make this kind of choice, a compromise is eventually reached. New research suggests, though, that it is the way this compromise is interpreted that will have important implications for the relationship.
Two views of sacrifice
Research has seen relationship sacrifice in two markedly different ways (Whitton, Stanley & Markman, 2007). The first sees sacrifice as 'a good thing', which is associated with positive aspects of relationships. The idea is that a willingness to make sacrifices for your partner shows you've evolved past the early stages of a relationship. Theoretically, then, sacrifice is linked to commitment.
Feminist theory has a quite different take on sacrifice. Feminists point to a finding that women feel they have to make greater sacrifices than men to maintain their relationship. Here, sacrifice is also associated with depression. Similar findings for men have also been reported, although these findings are questioned.
Perception of sacrifice
How can these apparently opposing ideas be resolved? Whitton et al. (2007) suggest that it is not the sacrifice itself, but the way in which the individual views that sacrifice which is most important. To quantify this they created a measure of the perception of sacrifice as harmful to the self.
The results showed that within heterosexual couples, for both men and women, better relationship functioning was associated with sacrifices that were perceived as less harmful to the self. One possible explanation for this would be that higher commitment to a relationship actually lowers the perception that sacrifices are being made.
Unlike relationship functioning, however, connections between measures of commitment and lowered perceptions of sacrifice as harmful were only seen in men (also within heterosexual relationships). Whitton et al. (2007) suggest this might be explained by the finding from feminist theory that women feel a greater need than men to make sacrifices in their relationship.
In other words, women expect to make sacrifices in relationships, whether they are committed or not. As a result women's perception of sacrifice is unrelated to their relationship commitment. Men, in contrast, only tend to perceive sacrifices as less harmful when they are more committed to a relationship, hence the association.
Caution
- This finding is from only one study, which needs to be replicated.
- 90% of the participants were married, all were heterosexual. This may limit the generalisability of the findings.
- Self-report measures are open to all sorts of variances. E.g. the need to present the self in a good light to the researcher.
» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityLabels: Relationships
Is Friday the Thirteenth Unlucky?
Ironically, fear of Friday the 13th, along with the number 13 and bad things happening in threes, comes third in the list of superstitions Americans are most likely to endorse (9%; Vyse, 1997). It is only beaten by black cats crossing your path (endorsed by 14%) and walking under ladders (endorsed by 12%). But, where does this fear of Friday the 13th come from and is it justified?
The origins of triskaidekaphobia, fear of the number 13, are thought to go back at least to medieval times, perhaps further, to the Romans. Some suggest the unlucky association comes from Christianity: at the last supper Christ dined with his twelve apostles, so altogether there were thirteen.
Fear of Fridays is thought to come from the Christian belief that it is the unluckiest day of the week because Christ was crucified on Good Friday. Also, Scanlon et al. (1993) report many other regional fears about Fridays: apparently you shouldn't cut your hair or nails or call a doctor for the first time (it means certain death).
Unlucky drivers
Back in 1993 a group of researchers decided to meet this superstition head on with cold-headed empiricism. Scanlon et al. (1993) used three measures to try and work out if Friday the 13th is really unlucky for some, comparing each of the following figures with the previous Friday. They looked at the number of shoppers in supermarkets, vehicles on the motorway and hospital admissions from accidents.
They found that on Friday the 13th fewer people were driving and there were more transport accidents despite there being less vehicles on the road. People were, however, undeterred from shopping. Surprise, surprise.
Spooky? Maybe not. Along with the authors themselves, critics have pointed to a tiny sample and the fact that this is just one study.
Let's try again
In a larger sample, Nayha (2002) used data from deaths between 1971 and 1997 in Finland for how many people died in traffic accidents on Friday the 13th compared to other Fridays. They found that for men, Friday the 13ths were no more dangerous than any other Friday. But for women there was actually a much higher chance of dying in a traffic accident - the risk was raised by a massive 63%.
Before we all jump to sexist conclusions about dangerous, superstitious female drivers there's bad news for Nayha's study. Radun and Summala (2005), reanalysing the data, found no such effect. They argue that Nayha's results were just a statistical anomaly. Back to the drawing board on that one.
Still waiting for the answer...
So, it seems we're still waiting for solid evidence that Friday the 13th is really as unlucky as both tradition and superstition would have us believe. Perhaps because of the well-known bias against reporting non-significant or negative results, there is really evidence out there that Friday the 13th is quite safe but it is just not being published. Meta-analysis anyone?
Either way I hope blogging on Friday the 13th won't bring me any bad luck. Fingers crossed. Touch wood.
(Scanlon et al.'s (1993) research, published in the British Medical Journal, comes right after a report in the decline of doctor's wardrobes. In particular, it bemoans the disappearance of bow ties, because they are considered more hygienic than their longer cousins. This isn't relevant, it just amused me.)
BTW: Encephalon 20 is now out. Encephalon is the "blog carnival for brain geeks and those who love them".
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityParental 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? Continuing the series on the psychology of relationships, this post examines five broad ways psychological research has found people negotiate their newfound status as 'separated parents'.
Ahrons (1983) finds that co-parenting post-divorce can go one of five ways, the first three of which are considered relatively functional:
1. Dissolved Duos (or "Is Daddy dead?")
Dad disappears (and it is normally Daddy) and the children lose the relationship with their father. This is the only category resulting in a true single-parent family.
2. Perfect Pals (or "Mummy and Daddy are divorced? Are you sure?")
The 'Perfect Pals' continue to carry out their parenting duties together, still claim each other as their best friends and often do not remarry. Other people (not least psychologists) find their relationship mysterious.
3. Cooperative Colleagues (or "Mummy and Daddy work together.")
Less mysterious than the 'Perfect Pals', 'Cooperative Colleagues' work together but wouldn't describe each other as their best friend. This is code for: have remarried/got a new partner. This type of parenting style has often been reached only after a long, concerted effort.
These are the post-divorce/separation co-parenting styles considered less functional by Ahrons (1983):
4. Angry Associates (or "Mummy and Daddy shout at each other. A lot.")
Divorce didn't stop the fighting. There's plenty of anger and resentment to go around here. The children often lose out although 'Angry Associates' occasionally manage to be friendly.
5. Fiery Foes (or "Mummy and Daddy are spending my college fund on lawyers.")
All out warfare between parents. There's little escape from the rage for anyone in the family. Children often become pawns in the fight and parents frequently end up in court fighting over custody.
Unable to move on?
These categories, broad as they are, raise some interesting points that often remain concealed.
The idea is still floating around that hanging onto a relationship post-divorce/separation spells trouble. As a result people are often suspicious of the 'Perfect Pals', thinking they have been unable to 'move on' with their lives. But this isn't necessarily true. The 'Perfect Pals' along with the 'Cooperative Colleagues' are doing what's best for the children, trying to cope with a less than ideal situation.
In whose interests?
With all the talk of the children's welfare, parents get forgotten. While research is adamant that the both 'Perfect Pals' and 'Cooperative Colleagues' are doing the best for their children, it's less clear what's good for the parents themselves (Ahrons & Rodgers, 1989).
The best category to be in, from the child's perspective, is the 'Cooperative Colleagues' or 'Perfect Pals' who continue to have respect for each other, carry out their parental duties and can still remember the good times of their relationship. Unfortunately the mere existence of the other categories proves things don't always go so smoothly.
The 'binuclear family'
What four of these categories show is that the so-called 'single-parent' is something of a misnomer. Only the 'Dissolved Duo' really falls into this category, while all the rest, for better or worse, clearly do not.
Commentators on the family have been much too quick to talk of the father (or mother) being either present or absent (Ahrons & Rodgers, 1989). Often the truth lies somewhere in between. What more normally emerges from separation or divorce is the 'binuclear family', a new family system orbiting around two centres: some stable, others less so.
» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityLabels: Relationships
Seven Signs of Relationship (Dis)Satisfaction
Unlike 'love' and 'commitment', the words 'relationship satisfaction' are unlikely to strike fear into the heart of the unreconstructed man (or reconstructed woman). But 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?
Relationship satisfaction has been measured at both cognitive and behavioural levels (Fincham & Beach, 2006). Here are the main behaviours important in satisfaction:
1. Support behaviour. The giving and receiving of supportive behaviour has not only been found to affect relationship satisfaction but also general health levels.
2. The negative loop. One of the signatures of a dissatisfied couple is the negative loop. This is where you start off commenting on the lack of milk in the fridge and end up trading full-scale character assassinations.
3. Demand-withdrawal pattern. Another signature of the dissatisfied couple is the demand-withdrawal pattern: you wonder out-loud about a visit to the in-laws, they turn the TV up. The stereotype is that women demand and men withdraw, but who wants to be stereotyped?
And here are some of the main cognitions (thoughts) that are important:
4. Unrealistic beliefs. She's not stubborn. She's determined and principled. He's not lazy. He's laidback, chilled out. It may seem strange to say that 'cognitive distortions' and 'unrealistic beliefs' are associated with relationship satisfaction. But, as long as your reinterpretations of what others might consider flaws are positive, then unrealistic beliefs can be very good for your relationship.
5. Attribution patterns. Was she late from work 'just this once' for reasons beyond her control? Or, is this sort of thing always happening and she could just as easily make it home if she tried? Attributions are the reasons we attach to our own and other's behaviour, what we see as its cause. Patterns of attributions which paint partners in a good light are associated with relationship satisfaction.
6. Partner and ideal standards discrepancies. Guaranteed dissatisfaction: I want Angelina Jolie. I will accept no substitute.
7. Memory. Satisfaction is associated with feeling your relationship has improved in recent times.
Satisfied: yes or no?
Intuitively it seems obvious that relationship satisfaction should be a sliding scale, say, from 1 to 10. But, what some of the evidence suggests is that it might be just yes or no. Many of the processes important for relationship satisfaction tend to operate in self-reinforcing loops. So that if you start to become dissatisfied, for example, by a change in attributional patterns, things rapidly go from bad to worse.
Whether or not relationships can really be put into two categories, it certainly makes for an entertaining game while you're out people watching: them? No, not satisfied. Those two? Yes, satisfied.
Caution
Before you rush off to practice your attributional processes or work on your demand-withdrawal patterns, it's useful to know some limitations of this research:
- Most of these findings are based on research carried out in the US meaning it might not generalise to the rest of the world.
- Most studies are based on self-report data. Psychologists are acutely aware of the fact that people don't always tell the truth, or even know what's going on in their own heads, but sometimes there's no alternative. Flawed understanding is better than ignorance (just).
- One glaring omission is any mention of emotion in relationship satisfaction. While emotion is clearly important, Fincham & Beach report the research on emotion has been contradictory.
» This post is part of a series on the psychology of relationships.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityLabels: Relationships