War, Peace and the Role of Power in Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment
[Photo by moonjazz]
The typical retelling of Sherif's classic Robbers Cave experiment highlights the resolution of intergroup prejudice, but recent interpretations suggest a darker conclusion that demonstrates the corrupting influence of power.The Robbers Cave experiment, a classic study of prejudice and conflict, has at least one hidden story. The well-known story emerged in the decades following the experiment as textbook writers adopted a particular retelling. With repetition people soon accepted this story as reality, forgetting it is just one version of events, one interpretation of a complex series of studies. As scholars have returned to the Robbers Cave experiment another story has emerged, putting a whole new perspective on the findings.
First though, the more familiar story...
Conflict and prejudice
In this experiment twenty-two 11 year-old boys were taken to a summer camp in Robbers Cave State Park, Oklahoma, little knowing they were the subjects of an experiment. Before the trip the boys were randomly divided into two groups. It's these two groups that formed the basis of Sherif's study of how prejudice and conflict build up between two groups of people (Sherif et al., 1961).
When the boys arrived, they were housed in separate cabins and, for the first week, did not know about the existence of the other group. They spent this time bonding with each other while swimming and hiking. Both groups chose a name which they had stencilled on their shirts and flags: one group was the Eagles and the other the Rattlers.
Name calling
The two groups now established, the experiment moved into its second phase. For the first time the two groups were allowed to find out about each other and soon the signs of intergroup conflict emerged in the form of verbal abuse.
A little name-calling wasn't enough, though. The experimenters wanted to increase the conflict substantially. To do this they pitted the groups against each other in a series of competitions. This ratcheted up the antagonism between the two groups, especially once all the team scores were added up and the Rattlers won the overall trophy for the competitive activities. They didn't let the Eagles forget it.
The Rattlers staked their claim to the ball field by planting their flag in it. Later on each group started name calling at the other and singing derogatory songs. Soon the groups were refusing to eat in the same room together.
Making peace
With conflict between the groups successfully instigated, the experiment now moved into its final phase. Could the experimenters make the two groups kiss and make up? First of all they tried some activities in which the two groups were brought together, such as watching a film and shooting firecrackers, but neither of these worked.
The experimenters then tried a new approach. They took the two groups to a new location and gave them a series of problems to try and solve. In the first problem the boys were told the drinking water supply had been attacked by vandals. After the two groups successfully worked together to unblock a faucet, the first seeds of peace were sown.
In the second problem the two groups had to club together to pay for the movie they wanted to watch. Both groups also agreed on which movie they should watch. By the evening the members of both groups were once again eating together.
The groups 'accidentally' came across more problems over the next few days. The key thing about each of them was that they involved superordinate goals: boys from both groups worked together to achieve something they all had an interest in. Finally all the boys decided to travel home together in the same bus. Peace had broken out all over.
Sherif reached an important conclusion from this study, and other similar work carried out in the 1940s and 50s. He argued that groups naturally develop their own cultures, status structures and boundaries. Think of each of these groups of boys as like a country in microcosm. Each country has its own culture, its government, legal system and it draws boundaries to differentiate itself from neighbouring countries. From these internal structures, the roots of conflict in both the groups of boys and between countries are created.
One of the reasons Sherif's study is so famous is that it appeared to show how groups could be reconciled, how peace could flourish. The key was the focus on superordinate goals, those stretching beyond the boundaries of the group itself. It seemed that this was what brought the Rattlers and the Eagles back together.
The other story
What is often left out of the familiar story is that it was not the first of its type, but actually the third in a series carried out by Sherif and colleagues. The two earlier studies had rather less happy endings. In the first, the boys ganged up on a common enemy and in the second they ganged up on the experimenters themselves. How does this alter the way we look at the original Robbers Cave experiment?
Michael Billig argues that when looking at all three studies, Sherif's work involves not just two groups but three, the experimenters are part of the system as well (Billig, 1976). In fact, with the experimenters included, it is clear they are actually the most powerful group. Much of the conflict between the two groups of boys is orchestrated by the experimenters. The experimenters have a vested interest in creating conflict between the two groups of boys. It was they who had the most to lose if the experiment went wrong, and the most to gain if it went right.
Power relations
The three experiments, then, one with a 'happy' ending, and two less so, can be seen in terms of the possible outcomes when a powerful group tries to manipulate two weaker groups. Sometimes they can be made to play fair (experiment three), sometimes the groups will unite against a common enemy (experiment one) and sometimes they will turn on the powerful group (experiment two).
For psychologist Frances Cherry it is the second experiment which makes this analysis plausible. When the boys rebel against the experimenters, they showed understanding of how they were being manipulated (Cherry, 1995). Although the Robbers Cave experiment is, in some sense, the 'successful' study, taken together with the other two it is more realistic. In reality, Cherry argues, it is more often the case that groups hold unequal amounts of power.
Weak groups can rebel
Unequal levels of power between groups fundamentally changes the dynamic between them. Whether it's countries, corporations, or just families, if one group has more power, suddenly the way is open for orchestrated competitions and cooperation, not to mention manipulation. Manipulating other groups, though, is a dangerous game, and weaker groups don't always play by the rules set for them. Perhaps this is the more subtle, if less enduring message of the Robbers Cave experiment and its supposedly less successful predecessors.
» You can read the original study on the Classics in the History of Psychology website.
» Discover more of the best social psychology studies.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
References
Billig, M. (1976). Social psychology and intergroup relations. Published in cooperation with the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology by Academic Press London.
Cherry, F. (1995). Lost in translation. In F. Cherry, The "stubborn particulars" of social psychology: Essays on the research process. London: Routledge
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup cooperation and conflict: The robbers cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
Labels: Social Psychology
Men Happier Than Women? Another Bogus Sex Difference
[Photo by tavopp]
Nowadays men are apparently happier, on average, than women, claims a piece in the New York Times. This claim of a 'happiness gap' comes from evidence finding that in the last 35 years women's subjective well-being has been in decline, despite the objective improvement in women's lives over that time. In the 1970s women's subjective wellbeing was higher than men, now the reverse is true. There's no doubt it's an eye-catching trend, which is exactly why it is being reported in the Times. But, says Mark Lieberman at the Language Log, this just another example of making too much of a small differences:
"The way he tells us about this "growing happiness gap" is a lovely example of scientific research as moral fable. And his story is also an especially clear case of a key method in this transformation: turning small differences in group distributions into categorical statements about group properties."
Not only is the small gap blown out of all proportion, but there might also be no gap to explode. In a follow-up post Mark explains there was no statistically significant difference between men and women's happiness at either ends of the study's range (1972-2006). The only way to detect any difference at all is to aggregate the data using a statistical technique called 'ordered probit', and even then it's still a minute difference.
Men are from Mars...
Perhaps by now you're nodding sagely at yet another tale of media distortion. While it is certainly that, it is also yet another manifestation of our collective fascination with the difference between the sexes. This obsession is partly fuelled by a hidden paradox in how men and women are popularly represented and understood.
Women are striving towards equality with men in modern affluent societies, and have been for hundreds of years. In better developed parts of the world, the rhetoric of equality is now firmly in place. Men and women are equal and they must act and be treated equally.
Being 'equal', of course, doesn't mean being 'the same', but perhaps we forget that. Indeed, maybe the more we profess equality, the more fascinated we become with our differences. This story on the happiness gap between the sexes was the second most emailed on the NYT site on the day it was published. The NYT blog was flooded with comments on the subject.
This is just one example, but there are many more. Glance at the popular psychology shelves of a local book stores. They are packed with books claiming to 'explain' the opposite sex to us. What exactly are these differences they are explaining?
Two cultures?
Well, from a psychobiological perspective, there is little to choose between men and women, but from a cultural perspective, the differences are sometimes huge. So it must be these cultural differences by which we are fascinated, right?
The thing about 'culture' is that it feeds directly on itself - there is no fountainhead, no place where culture comes from. This is important because it means that every time a newspaper article is written or a TV program is made emphasising sex differences, it is not only trying to describe a phenomenon it is also affecting it. So, the NYT article is not only claiming to describe a happiness gap between the sexes, it is also creating it. Luckily we don't all believe everything we read in the newspapers.
But obviously the newspapers, along with other media, have a huge incentive to pump out articles on things that fascinate us. So, as long as we struggle with our views of our own sex and the opposite, we will continue to see reflections of this struggle in our culture. And so the cycle continues.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Labels: Happiness
Schizophrenia Explained: The Center Cannot Hold by Elyn R. Saks (Book Review)
In her new book, Elyn, R. Saks describes the monumental challenges she faced in her journey through madness, but this autobiography is profoundly hopeful. Highly recommended.Do you know what it's like to be crazy - not just angry, I mean psychotic? Do you know what it feels like to believe your very thoughts can kill, that your loved ones are imposters conspiring against you? Do you know what it feels like to be restrained with such force you can barely breath, to be pumped full of powerful, toxic drugs, to feel your own self splinter, recede, then disappear? In short, do you know what madness is?
Elyn R. Saks does, and she is determined her diagnosis will not be a death sentence. In her new book 'The Center Cannot Hold
', the Professor of Law, Psychology, and Psychiatry at the University of Southern California tells the story of her ongoing battle with schizophrenia. Considering the psychotic breaks she endures, it is incredible she's managed to build a successful academic career. And yet she has, and this book is the story of her battle through madness, searching for some understanding of the illness she is both fighting and trying to accept as part of herself."Elyn Elyn, watermelon"
Elyn R. Saks
The descriptions of madness produce some otherworldly writing. Saks recreates the so-called 'word salad' (schizophasia) that is often characteristic of those having psychotic breaks. At their first meeting one psychiatrist asks her name:
"My name is Elyn. They used to call me 'Elyn, Elyn, watermelon.' At school. Where I used to go. When I am now and having trouble.'
"What kind of trouble?" she asked.
"There's trouble. Right here in River City. Home of the New Haveners. Where there is no heaven, new or old. I'm just looking for a haven. Can you give me a haven? Aren't you too young? Why are you crying? I cry because the voices are at the end of time. Time is too old. I've killed lots of people."
And later:
"There's the killing fields," I said. "Heads exploding. I didn't do anything wrong. They just said 'quake, fake, lake.' I used to ski. Are you trying to kill me?"
Battle with medication
Like many suffering from serious mental illness, Saks has a love-hate relationship with medication, which is both sworn enemy and occasional saviour. Anti-psychotics in hefty doses can work wonders for some people, clearing the fog of psychosis. But they also exact a price. Side-effects include rapid involuntary movements like lip smacking and rapid blinking, behaviours that can be permanent. The drugs can also cause impotence, lethargy, weight gain and...the list goes on.
Saks' doctors tell her to keep taking the drugs, but she is scared the side-effects will become permanent. For Saks, the very fact that drugs are required is a sign of weakness; she is continually trying to wean herself off medication, but normally with disastrous consequences.
Fighting stigma and injustice
Saks is well aware of the stigma attached to schizophrenia, learning her lesson early that job offers do not come unless she is economical with the truth. She explains that people with schizophrenia are not psychotic all the time, they have 'psychotic breaks' which vary in frequency from one person to another. They are not dangerous to others - their behaviour and language might appear frightening but they pose the greatest threat to themselves.
Through her life she shows it is possible for people with schizophrenia to have a life, to work, to find love, although sadly Saks may be an exception to the general rule.
It is clear that her illness influenced Saks in her choice of academic discipline. Early in her career she worked for a charity championing the rights of those with psychiatric diagnoses. Later she explored the legal ramifications of multiple personality disorders. Now, as a professor at USC she is a leading expert in mental health law.
Hope
Although Saks describes many depressing things, ultimately this is not a depressing book. Yes, it is an honest portrayal of inner torture, but the book is also filled to the brim with determination. Here is a woman who will not give in to the vagaries of her body, who finds a way around, through or under the obstacles life throws at her. From this determination emerges hope. Hope for the future. For Saks, like all of us, nothing is more important than hope.
» Buy 'The Center Cannot Hold: My Journey Through Madness
' at Amazon.com.» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Labels: Book Reviews
Malcolm Gladwell on Why More Choice Means More Profit
For this diverting TED talk Malcolm Gladwell of 'The Tipping Point'
and 'Blink'
fame, is asked to discuss the pursuit of happiness. So he talks about the development of spaghetti sauce, quite naturally. This pean is particularly interesting as it shows exactly why consumer markets are incentivised to offer us more choice. The polar opposite of what Barry Schwartz explains in his TED talk: why too much choice is bad for us. The best balance probably lies somewhere in between.Gladwell is really talking about ancient history here in terms of product marketing. Most industries have long since adopted the mantra that increasing choice means increasing profits, and now most have probably taken it too far. Hence, Schwartz's talk.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Expressing Negative Experience is Both Symptom and Cure
[Photo by scribex]
Here's a puzzle. Some of my favourite research in psychology finds that expressive writing can benefit both physical and mental health. And yet research on the social sharing of negative experience tells us that it doesn't change the original memory and fails to bring relief. How come benefits are seen from expressive writing - which is often about sharing negative experience - and yet social sharing of emotions doesn't bring relief? Let's take a closer look.Benefits of expressive writing
Many of the expressive writing studies have been carried out by Professor James Pennebaker at the University of Texas and colleagues. A typical experiment involves one group writing down their thoughts and feelings for a period (Pennebaker & Chung, in press). The second control group write for the same time, but on a superficial subject. Time after time the expressive writing group show a variety of benefits. Most notably they improve on psychological and physiological outcomes, with some studies showing the practice is effective than types of therapy.
This is a really well researched area with more than 150 studies published since the first one in 1986. Many different aspects have been examined: the subjects that people write about, whether they concentrate on the good or the bad and how writing compares to talking to yourself or talking to others.
The findings from the expressive writing studies generally fit in with how we expect our emotional worlds to work (although the magnitude of the findings is surprising). Specifically: bottling up or keeping your emotions inside is detrimental. Using expressive writing or other techniques to let them out, however, is likely to be beneficial.
Not so fast - life is rarely that simple.
Social sharing of negative experience
In fact, it turns out from a series of studies conducted by Bernard Rime (Universite catholique de Louvain) and colleagues, that socially sharing an emotion does not actually bring emotional relief. In other words: letting it out doesn't help.
One experiment had participants share the most upsetting emotional events of their lives, in detail. This was done in a variety of different ways with some participants emphasising factual accounts and others emphasising emotional accounts. These conditions were then compared to a control where participants talked about a nonemotional topic.
When all the participants were followed up two months later, the effect of sharing had no impact on the memory of their most upsetting event. Despite this, those in the emotional sharing condition still thought the experience had been beneficial to them.
To many people this will seem counter-intuitive, but it is nevertheless a strong finding in the research. Yes, people feel compelled to share negative emotional experiences. Yes, people generally think it is beneficial to share their negative emotional experiences. No, sharing negative experiences doesn't seem to change the original memory in any measurable way. No, sharing negative experiences isn't associated with recovery from a traumatic experience.
In fact, it's worse than that, people who continue to share negative experiences tend to show less recovery.
Symptom and cure?
So, how to solve this puzzle? First, the research says it's possible to benefit from expressive writing, then it says letting your emotions out is associated with lack of recovery from negative emotional experiences. What's going on?
Part of the solution probably lies in the fact that expressing negative emotions is both a symptom and part of the cure. Pennebaker (2001) provides this analogy. People often get a fever when they're ill. The fever is both a sign of illness and part of the healing process. It's the same with sharing negative emotions. It's a sign of trauma or difficult experience and it can also be part of the healing process, in certain circumstances.
On top of this, we're all different. Some people feel inhibited about discussing negative emotional experiences, and it's these people that benefit most from expressive writing. This is backed up by the finding that generally speaking men - who are more likely to be inhibited - benefit more from expressive writing than women.
Another explanation is that it depends on exactly how we are sharing negative experiences with each other. A study reported recently here found that careful analysis of negative emotions is beneficial, but analysis of positive emotions is not.
Unexpected findings
Ultimately these two lines of research are fascinating precisely because they are unexpected. Sharing negative experience is supposed to reduce the emotional aftershock. Research says no. Surely expressive writing is too benign an activity to make any difference? Again, wrong - it actually has quite a beneficial effect. Resolving their divergent conclusions, however, will have to wait for future research.
» More on how affectionate writing can reduce cholesterol
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References
Pennebaker, J.W., & Chung, C.K. (in press). Expressive writing, emotional upheavals, and health. In H. Friedman and R. Silver (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pennebaker, J.W. (2001). Disclosing and Sharing Emotion: Psychological, Social and Health Consequences. In: M.S. Stroebe, W. Stroebe, R.O. Hansson, & H. Schut (Eds.) Handbook of bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care (pp. 517-539). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Increase Life Satisfaction by Analysing the Negative But Just Experiencing the Positive
[Photo by baala]
Our wellbeing isn't just affected by what we think about, but also how we think. In particular, the way in which we process past life events has an important impact on our life satisfaction and physical health. A series of experiments conducted by Professor Sonja Lyubomirsky and colleagues at the University of California, Riverside, shows how we should analyse the negative, but just experience the positive (Lyubomirsky, Sousa & Dickerhoof, 2006).Study 1
This was designed to find out which method of processing negative events is most beneficial: writing, talking aloud or privately thinking about them. The study found those who thought privately about negative events saw reductions in the life satisfaction and no changes in other measures. On the other hand, participants who talked or wrote about a negative event showed improved mental health, life satisfaction and social functioning.
Study 2
Here participants turned their attention to positive events in their lives - and were asked to write, talk or privately think about them. Here it was privately thinking about positive life events that was associated with increased life satisfaction, rather than talking or writing about them.
Study 3
The third study looked more closely at exactly how people thought about positive events. It compared merely replaying a positive event in the mind, with breaking it down and attempting to analyse it. This found that, as expected, thinking about a really happy moment increased health and physical functioning. On the other hand, analysing a positive event tended to reduce well-being and health.
The message of this research is that systematic analysis of negative events improves well-being and health. Positive events, on the other hand, should just be re-experienced, not analysed.
» Read more on positive psychology.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
Reference
Lyubomirsky, S., Sousa, L., & Dickerhoof, R. (2006). The costs and benefits of writing, talking, and thinking about life's triumphs and defeats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 692-708.
Labels: Happiness, Positive Psychology
10 Grateful Steps to Happiness
[Photo by nattu]
PsyBlog has gone gratitude-mad this week, what with reporting experimental evidence that practicing gratitude can increase happiness by 25% and reviewing 'thanks' , the book by the study's author. To round it off here are Dr Robert Emmons' top 10 tips for actually becoming more grateful, and consequently more happy.1. Keep a gratitude journal
Sit down, daily, and write about the things for which you are grateful. Start with whatever springs to mind and work from there. Try not to write the same thing every day but explore your gratefulness.
2. Remember the bad
The way things are now may seem better in the light of bad memories. Don't forget the bad things that have happened, the contrast may encourage gratefulness.
3. Ask yourself three questions
Choose someone you know, then first consider what you have received from them, second what you have given to them and thirdly what trouble you have caused them. This may lead to discovering you owe others more than you thought.
4. Pray
Whether you are Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim or atheist, a ritualised form of giving thanks may help increase gratitude.
5. Use your senses
80% of people say they are thankful for their health. If so, then get back in touch with the simple human fact of being able to sense what is out there: use your vision, touch, taste and smell to experience the world, and be thankful you can.
6. Use visual reminders
Two big obstacles to being grateful are simply forgetting and failing to be mindful. So leave a note of some kind reminding you to be grateful. It could be a post-it, an object in your home or another person to nudge you occasionally.
7. Swear an oath to be more grateful
Promise on whatever you hold holy that you'll be more grateful. Sounds crazy? There's a study to show it works.
8. Think grateful thoughts
Called 'automatic thoughts' or self-talk in cognitive therapy, these are the habitual things we say to ourselves all day long. What if you said to yourself: "My life is a gift" all day long? Too cheesy? OK, what about: "Every day is a surprise".
9. Acting grateful is being grateful
Say thank you, become more grateful. It's that simple.
10. Be grateful to your enemies?
It'll take a big creative leap to be thankful to the people who you most despise. But big creative leaps are just the kind of things likely to set off a change in yourself. Give it a try.
Read my review of 'thanks!: how the new science of gratitude can make you happier'.
» Discover more articles in this series on the new science of happiness.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Labels: Grattitude, Happiness, Positive Psychology
'thanks!' by Robert A. Emmons (Book Review)
Dr. Robert A. Emmons' new positive psychology book, 'thanks!
', argues that practising gratitude benefits our happiness, satisfaction with life and physical health."Gratitude is the secret to life" - Albert Schweitzer
"Dear God, we paid for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing." - Bart Simpson
Invoking the words of the great philosopher Bart Simpson, along with other mere mortals, Dr Robert Emmons makes a great case for the importance of gratitude in life. Thankfully it's not just the words of Bart Simpson and a few nicely chosen anecdotes on which Emmons is relying, he has scientific evidence. Emmons opens the book with experimental evidence showing how gratefulness can increase happiness by 25%.
Practising gratitude may also have a number of knock-on benefits. It is inversely related to depression, may increase social ties and there's evidence gains in happiness are maintained for six months after people begin practising gratitude.
Emmons travels further than describing his own research, fascinating though it is. He moves on to look at ways in which gratitude is physically represented, how gratitude intersects with religion and how gratitude can be practised.
This is an easily accessible book. The experiments are described with admirable clarity, there is no psychological gobbledegook and the vignettes of people's experience are easily digested.
As a relentlessly positive book, though, it may well set some people's teeth on edge. The book is scattered with examples of the super-humanly grateful: an Alzheimer's carer being grateful her husband can remember the season and thankful nuns out-living just about everyone. The chapter on obstacles to gratitude comes as relief, reminding us of the difficulties of maintaining a grateful disposition.
For the psychologist in me there was too much anecdote and not enough experiment. But for the casual reader in me looking for inspiration there was much to ponder. In the end I was happy I read this book - it is a much-needed reminder to all of us there is always something to be grateful for.
» Buy 'thanks!' by Dr Robert Emmons from Amazon.com
or at Amazon.co.uk 
.» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Labels: Book Reviews, Grattitude, Happiness
Thinking of a Psychology Degree? Free Lectures from University of California at Berkeley
[Photo by kitsu]
Psychology is now the third most popular subject at degree level in the UK. If you're thinking of studying for a psychology degree and you're not sure whether it's for you, then these free Psych 101 lectures from Berkeley are just the thing. The course covers some basic areas of psychology: learning, sensation, perception, personality and development. The instructor on this course, Professor John Kihlstrom, is a highly respected psychologist at Berkeley, so well worth listening to. You can download the courses to your computer or mp3 player to listen to on the move.
The only downside is that the quality of the recording is not the best and does become distorted a times. Considering these lectures are free it's not a major problem, but, before you download them all, do listen to a few to make sure it's not too irritating to your ears.
Don't forget to explore PsyBlog as well to get more of a flavour of what psychology is all about. Some of the subjects you'll study at degree level include social psychology, developmental psychology, the psychology of memory, personality psychology and perhaps even positive psychology. Also, have a look at the orange section on the right of this page which contains links to the most popular articles on PsyBlog.
Incidentally, like Professor Kihlstrom I highly recommend buying Morton Hunt's 'The Story of Psychology
' for a fantastic introduction to the history of psychology. I really can't recommend this book enough, crazy cover photo and all...» Psych 1 General Psychology by Professor John Kihlstrom.
» If you are feeling a little more unconventional then also check out the course on Buddhist psychology.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Practicing Gratitude Can Increase Happiness by 25%
[Photo by Morningstar Lee]
Psychological research finds that people's happiness levels are remarkably stable over the long-term. Whether you win the lottery or are paralysed from the neck down, after about three to six months you'll have returned to your usual level of happiness. While these findings are deeply counter-intuitive, they also raise a serious problem for those wanting to increase levels of happiness permanently. A possible answer comes from recent research in the psychology of gratitude. Yes, you read that correctly - being thankful might be the key to raising your happiness 'set-point'. And there is some good experimental evidence to back up this theory.
Counting blessings versus burdens
In his new book 'thanks!
', Dr. Robert A. Emmons describes research he carried out with three experimental groups over 10 weeks (Emmons & McCullough, 2003):- The first group were asked to write down five things they were grateful for that had happened in the last week for each of the 10 weeks of the study. This was called the gratitude condition.
- The second group were asked to write down five daily hassles from the previous week. This was the hassles condition.
- The third group simply listed five events that had occurred in the last week, but not told to focus on positive or negative aspects. This was the events or control condition.
The types of things people listed in the grateful condition included:
- Sunset through the clouds.
- The chance to be alive.
- The generosity of friends.
And in the hassles condition:
- Taxes.
- Hard to find parking.
- Burned my macaroni and cheese.
Before the experiment began participants had kept daily journals to chronicle their moods, physical health and general attitudes. These was then used to provide a comparison for after the experimental intervention.
Happiness up 25%
People who were in the gratitude condition felt fully 25% happier - they were more optimistic about the future, they felt better about their lives and they even did almost 1.5 hours more exercise a week than those in the hassles or events condition.
All this from reflecting on the pleasure of having seen the sunset through the clouds? Dr Emmons also expresses surprise at the findings of the study, partly because there are some reasons practising gratitude might not be so good.
For example, focussing on gratitude reminds us what we owe to others. This may in turn remind us of our dependence on others and reduce a sense of personal control. Thinking in terms of gratitude may also focus us on the debts we owe to others and, studies have shown, people don't enjoy feeling indebted to others.
Just the effect of positive comparisons, or really gratitude?
Yet, despite these reasons why gratitude might not increase happiness, it seems that it does. But does the benefit from the gratitude condition simply result from thinking about how we are better off than others?
In a second study, very similar to the first described above, Emmons and McCullough changed one of the control conditions. Instead of asking people to write down any events from the week, people were asked to list ways in which they were better off than others. The idea was that in this condition people are making positive comparisons but are not necessarily thinking gratefully (although it can't be ruled out!).
Again, though, the results showed that those in the gratitude condition were significantly happier than those making positive comparisons between themselves and others. Unsurprisingly those practising being grateful were also happier than those focussing on daily hassles.
Gratitude can help those with chronic health problems
A good criticism of the first two studies was that they were carried out in undergraduate students. It's all very well increasing the happiness of young, healthy college students, but what about people with serious, chronic health problems?
In a third study Emmons and McCullough recruited adults who had neuromuscular disorders, often as a delayed result of surviving infection by the polio virus. While not life-threatening the condition can be seriously debilitating, causing joint and muscle pain as well as muscle atrophy. People with this condition have a good reason to be dissatisfied with the hand life has dealt them.
In this study a gratitude condition was compared to a control condition in which participants wrote about their daily experience. After the 21 day study, participants in the gratitude condition were found to be more satisfied with their lives overall, more optimistic about the upcoming week and crucially, were sleeping better. Good sleep is important as it has been found to be a great indicator of overall well-being. People who sleep well are generally healthier and happier than those whose sleep is poor.
Practising gratitude
Even if gratefulness has benefits in the short-term, it still raises more long-term questions. What are the major obstacles to living a grateful life? Can gratefulness really increase happiness over a lifetime? Finally, how exactly can gratefulness be increased? It's this last question that I'll be addressing in the next post with Dr Emmons' top ten methods for practising gratitude.
» Discover more articles in this series on the new science of happiness.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Reference
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 377-389 [Full text PDF].
Labels: Grattitude, Happiness, Positive Psychology
Barry Schwartz on Why Too Much Choice is Bad for Us
Thanks to Olenka who pointed me to this great talk by Barry Schwartz on why too much choice is bad for us. Too many choices cause:
- Paralysis rather than liberation - people prefer to make no decision rather than make a complicated choice.
- Less satisfaction with decisions as people have greater reason to regret the decisions they have made.
- Unrealistic expectations.
- Self-blame - when experiences are not perfect, people blame themselves.
Schwartz also argues that in modern affluent societies, too much choice may be a significant contributor to depression. He is the author of 'The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less
'.» Also check out Dan Gilbert's talk on why we are poor at predicting our future happiness.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Labels: Decision-making, Depression, Happiness
The Impact Bias: Why We Are Poor at Simulating the Impact of Future Events
Here's a really fun lecture by psychologist Dan Gilbert of Stumbling on Happiness
fame. He explains why we're poor at simulating the effect future events will have on us. Time and time again research on gaining or losing romantic partners, passing or failing exams, winning or losing elections has found they have little effect on our long-term happiness. In fact, Gilbert quotes a recent study finding that almost anything that happened more than three months ago has no effect on our current levels of happiness.
Entertainingly, Dan Gilbert proposes the following secrets of happiness:
- Accrue wealth, power and prestige then lose it.
- Spend as much of your life in prison as you possibly can.
- Make someone else really, really rich.
- Never, ever join the Beatles
Find out what he's on about in this video of a presentation he gave at the Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) Conference.
» Check out why too much choice is bad for us.
» Discover more insights from positive psychology.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Labels: Happiness, Positive Psychology
Compliments Could Earn Hairstylists Thousands More in Tips
[Photo by suzun]
A new experiment finds that hairstylists who compliment their customers earn one third more in tips - which could mean thousands more over a year.John Seiter and Eric Dutson of Utah State University, recruited two hairstylists who, after cutting their customer's hair, randomly pulled one of three pennies from their pocket. This was to ensure that customers were not treated differently during the haircut itself.
If the penny was marked with a 1, they gave the customer no compliment. If it was marked with a 2 they told the customer: "Your hair looks terrific". If it was marked with a 3 they said: "Any hairstyle would look good on you." The amount tipped by each customer was then recorded by the hairstylist.
To be able to compare across differently priced haircuts, the tips were converted into a percentage of the total price for the haircut. Here are the average tip percentages in each condition:
- "Your hair looks terrific." - 12.83% tip
- "Any hairstyle would look good on you." - 12.51% tip
- No compliment - 9.14% tip
As you can see the average tip percentages are one third higher in the compliment conditions than the no compliment condition. Over the months and years this can add up to a substantial difference.
This is a good practical demonstration that a simple method of ingratiation - a compliment - can actually have a persuasive, and easily measurable effect on people. Indeed, this finding could well be applicable across a wide range of service-related jobs. But I'm sure I don't need to remind such intelligent, discerning readers as yourselves of that, do I?
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Reference
Seiter, J. S., & Dutson, E. (2007). The Effect of Compliments on Tipping Behavior in Hairstyling Salons. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(9), 1999-2007.
Labels: Persuasion
Instruction Manual for Psychological Torture Now Online
The Manipulation of Human Behavior, published in 1961, contains techniques for interrogation and brainwashing. The book's publication was sponsored by the US Air Force who were worried about what psychological techniques prisoners-of-war might face behind enemy lines. It contains chapters on:
...and plenty of other fun subjects.
The book itself actually only contains reviews of the publicly available psychological literature on each of these gruesome techniques. The authors do point out, however, that it is likely that parallel, secret investigations have been carried out by police and intelligence agencies.
In terms of content it varies widely, starting out with a psychoanlytical meditation on people's interest in psychological torture:
While later we read the following hard-headed passage:
It would sure be interesting to see the up-to-date equivalent of this 'manual'.
The complete text can be downloaded for free.
There's more discussion at Daily Kos.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
- The Use of Drugs in Interrogation
- The Potential Uses of Hypnosis in Interrogation
- Countermanipulation through Malingering
...and plenty of other fun subjects.
The book itself actually only contains reviews of the publicly available psychological literature on each of these gruesome techniques. The authors do point out, however, that it is likely that parallel, secret investigations have been carried out by police and intelligence agencies.
In terms of content it varies widely, starting out with a psychoanlytical meditation on people's interest in psychological torture:
"The profound fascination of the topic under consideration may stem from the primitive, unconscious, and extreme responses to these problems, which gain expression in myth, dreams, drama, and literature. On the one hand, there is the dream-wish for omnipotence; on the other, the wish and fear of the loss of self through its capture by another. The current interest in problems of manipulation of behavior involves basic ambivalences over omnipotence and dependency, which, if projected, find a ready target in the "omniscient" scientist."
While later we read the following hard-headed passage:
"...a constant supply of oxygen must be brought to the brain by the blood in the amount of approximately 50 cc per minute (40, 66, 102). The most common way by which the brain becomes deprived of oxygen is by failure of the circulation (65), which may be brought about by loss of blood from hemorrhage, by shock resulting from injury..."
It would sure be interesting to see the up-to-date equivalent of this 'manual'.
The complete text can be downloaded for free.
There's more discussion at Daily Kos.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Labels: Weird Psychology
Our Dark Hearts: The Stanford Prison Experiment
[Photo by gluemoos]
"The vilest deeds like poison weeds bloom well in prison air" - Oscar Wilde. The best psychological experiments ask timeless questions about human nature, like what makes a person evil? Can a good person commit evil acts? If so, what can make people cross the line? Is there some set-point which when crossed unleashes the evil? Or is it something about the situations in which people are placed that determines our behaviour?
This nomination for the best social psychology research - the famous 'Stanford Prison Experiment' - argues a strong case for the power of the situation (Zimbardo, 1971). Not only that but the experiment has also inspired a novel, two films, countless TV programs, re-enactments and even a band. More on that later, first the experiment.
Prisoners and guards
The idea was simple: to see how ordinary men, chosen to be the most healthy and 'normal' would respond to a radical change to their normal roles in life. Half were to become prison guards, the other half their prisoners. In this experiment there were no half-measures, for it to be effective it had to closely approximate the real experience of prisoners and guards. These participants were in for the ride of their lives.
'Prisoners' were 'arrested' by a police car with sirens wailing while they were out going about their everyday business. Then they were fingerprinted, blindfolded and put in a cell, then stripped naked, searched, deloused, heads shaved, given a uniform, a number and had a chain placed around one foot.
The other participants were made into guards who wore uniforms and were given clubs. A prison was mocked up in the basement of a Stanford University building.
And so the experiment began.
Rebellion crushed
All was quiet until the second day when the 'prisoners' rebelled against their incarceration. The guard's retaliation was swift and brutal. Guards stripped the prisoners naked, removed the beds from the prison, placed the rebellion's ringleader in solitary confinement and began harassing all the 'prisoners'.
Soon the 'prisoners' began behaving with blind obedience towards the prison guards. After only a few day's realistic role-playing participants reported it felt as though their old identities had been erased. They had become their numbers. So too had the 'guards' taken on their roles - taunting and abusing their prisoners.
Experimenters sucked into their own experiment
Even the lead researcher, Philip Zimbardo, admits he became submerged in his role as the 'prison superintendent'. In fact, Zimbardo believes the most powerful result of his experiment was his own transformation into a rigid institutional figure, more concerned with his prison's security than the welfare of his participants.
Other members of the experimental team became engrossed in their new role. Craig Haney, like Zimbardo, explained he became completely engaged in the day-to-day crises they were facing in running the 'prison' and forgot about the aim of their experiment.
Playing the roles
It was only when one of his colleagues intervened that the experiment was finally stopped. In total it only lasted six of the planned 14 days. Young men previously found to be pacifists were, in their roles as guards, humiliating and physically assaulting the 'prisoners' - some even reported enjoying it. The 'prisoners', meanwhile, quickly began to show classic signs of emotional breakdown. Five had to leave the 'prison' even before the experiment was prematurely terminated.
The psychological explanation for the participant's behaviour was that they were taking on the social roles assigned to them. This included adopting the implicit social norms associated with those roles: guards should be authoritarian and abuse prisoners while prisoners should become servile and take their punishment.
Inevitably the experiment has attracted criticism for being unethical, involving a small sample size, lack of ecological validity and so on. Despite this it's hard to deny that the experiment provides important insights in to human behaviour, perhaps helping to explain the abuses that occurred in situations like the Abu Ghraib Prison.
Rikers Island
Does this experiment mirror what occurs in real prisons? Probably. Writing in Inside Rikers: Stories from the World's Largest Penal Colony
Jennifer Wynn interviews prison guards from New York City's largest penal colony, Rikers Island. One captain explained that guards easily become used to the level of violence inflicted on inmates - it's part of the job and they soon become immune. Some can't understand how they become different people at work. Levels of violence against prisoners were so bad in one unit, called the 'Central Punitive Segregation Unit' of Rikers', that almost a dozen guards were officially charged with assaulting inmates in 1995. Eventually the inmates won $1.6 million dollars in compensation. This is just one example.
Popular culture and the Stanford Prison Experiment
The study is now so well-known it has crossed over into popular culture. It has inspired a novel, Das Experiment
by Mario Giordano, which was later filmed, and a new movie by the writer of the Usual Suspects is slated for filming. The experiment has also been covered or recreated in countless TV shows, most notably on the BBC. Not only this, but the experiment has even inspired the name of a band. 'Stanford Prison Experiment' released their first eponymously titled album
in 1994, following up a year later with 'The Gato Hunch'. What other psychology study can say it's got a band named after it? Watch the experiment
Here's a short video of the experiment:
» Read more of the top 10 social psychology experiments.
The Stanford Prison Experiment website also has videos.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Reference
Zimbardo, P. G. (1972). The Stanford Prison Experiment a Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment. Philip G. Zimbardo, Inc.
Labels: Social Psychology
Nominate Your Favourite Social Psychology Studies
[Photo by striatic]
In my countdown of the top ten psychology studies of all time, in which 588 votes have been cast, the clear front runner is former Yale and Harvard social psychologist, Stanley Milgram. His series of experiments on obedience to authority are amongst the best known in psychology. They have such clear implications for our view of human nature that they are impossible to ignore. The very idea that we so readily obey others is at once both a powerful insight and deeply disturbing.Also amongst the top ten psychology studies is the personality psychologist Walter Mischel. Mischel is well-known for putting forward the idea that, in studying behaviour, the effect of the situation on a person is more powerful than that of personality.
What both of these psychologists demonstrate is a founding principle of social psychology. An idea that is so simple, yet has almost limitless implications: that people are fundamentally affected by other people and no complete description of human behaviour can ignore this simple fact.
In decades of research social psychologists have repeatedly shown how our cognitions, emotions, attitudes, prejudices, interpersonal attractions and group performance are influenced by other people. But which one of these studies best shows how other people influence us?
To reveal your favourite I'll be listing ten great social psychology studies, culminating in a vote. But I want to hear which ones you'd like to see in the top ten.
Nominate your favourites
Nominate your favourite social psychology studies either by commenting below or by emailing me directly. Can't wait to read your suggestions!
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Labels: Social Psychology
Kissing Secrets: Why Men Prefer More Saliva (And Other Revelations)
[Photo by johncarleton]
Susan Hughes and colleagues know how to spice up an academic paper:"Kissing between sexual and/or romantic partners occurs in over 90 percent of human cultures [...]. Even in cultures where kissing is nonexistent or condemned, sex partners may blow in each other's faces, lick, suck, or rub their partner's face prior to intercourse." (Hughes, Harrison & Gallup, 2007, p.612).
Now, strangely, we all want to know more, so let's explore their study's results question and answer style...
Would you have sex without kissing?
Yes said around 50% of men, but only around 10% of women - meaning, of course 90% of women would not have sex without kissing.
How important is kissing before, during and after sex?
Kissing seems to reduce in importance from before to during then to after, but overall it's generally more important for women in this situation.
How important is kissing as a relationship goes on?
For our male participants it became less important as a relationship went on, but for our female participants it became more important.
How wet and how much tongue?
Overall men preferred wetter kisses and more tongue. Still, both sexes preferred more tongue with a long-term partner. The only gender difference was that men preferred more tongue contact with a short-term partner.
Why might men prefer more tongue and saliva?
Evolutionary psychology suggests kissing may provide important information about mate quality. Unfortunately men are, on average, not so gifted in the saliva-tasting department (technically men have 'reduced chemosensory detection'). Because of this they need more juice before they can decide.
Would you have sex with a bad kisser?
Only maybe baby, but women were only half as likely as men to have sex with a bad kisser.
What makes you want to kiss a person?
Men based their decision more on facial attractiveness while women were focussing on the teeth.
So, can a kiss kill the romance?
Yes, a previous study found that 59% of men and 66% of women have been put off by a potential partner's kiss.
Limitations
This study only covered those who 'only' or 'mostly' kissed the opposite sex. You same sex kissers will have to wait for future work to get the facts.
And as Dr Boynton points out it's only undergraduate students of roughly the same cultural background. Practices will probably vary considerably across different cultures.
» Discover more about the psychology of relationships.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Reference
Hughes, S.M., Harrison, M.A., and Gallup, G.G. Jr. (2007) Sex differences in romantic kissing among college students: An evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary Psychology 2007. 5(3): 612-631 (Full text PDF)
Labels: Relationships
Why Attempt Suicide? Evidence from the Poetry of Suicidal Poets
[Photo by acme]
Hollywood actor Owen Wilson's recent suicide attempt once more raises the question of what leads people to take their own life. Research into suicidal poets provides some clues.This week it was confirmed that Owen Wilson, the Hollywood actor, attempted suicide. The question 'why?' naturally arises in these circumstances. While people's specific reasons vary greatly, psychologists are, of course, interested in the general factors that lead to suicidal behaviour. Some fascinating evidence about what these general factors are comes from a study on poets, who appear particularly prone to suicide.
The study by Shannon Wiltsey Stirman and James Pennebaker from the University of Pennsylvania, used a text analysis program to examine poetry written over poets' lifetimes (Stirman & Pennebaker, 2001).
They looked at 300 poems written by 20 different poets, half of whom eventually committed suicide. The linguistic features of these poems were then compared with poets who were not suicidal. Suicidal poets whose poetry was analysed included Sylvia Plath and John Berryman. Non-suicidal poets included Robert Lowell and Denise Levertov.
Poems were analysed to look at the specific features of the language to search for evidence for one of two well-known explanatory models of suicide:
- Hopelessness
The more traditional view of suicide is that people enter an extended period of desperation and sadness which leads to a complete breakdown in hope. Once hope is gone, suicide becomes a real possibility.
If this theory is correct it suggests poets would tend to use more words about death in their poetry, and more references to negative emotional states like anger and sadness. - Social disengagement
Another model of suicide is suggested by the eminent French sociologist, Emile Durkheim. Durkheim argued people become suicidal primarily because they become more obsessed with themselves, detached from social relationships and withdrawn from the social world generally.
Fame can, in some ways, hasten these processes. Poets and actors, for example, are encouraged to focus on themselves and become more detached from social reality.
If this theory is correct, suicidal poets should use more references to the self and fewer references to communication with others.
Self-centred poetry, sex and death
Analysis of the poems did provide some limited support for the social disengagement theory. Suicidal poets were more likely to use the first-person singular (I, me, my) than non-suicidal poets.
On the other hand, no support was found for the hopelessness theory as suicidal poets were no more likely to use negative emotion words or talk about death than were the non-suicidal poets.
Having tested their original theories, the authors found that suicidal poets seemed more preoccupied with sex than non-suicidal poets. Indeed there was stronger evidence for a focus on sexual matters than on death itself in the suicidal poets.
Limitations
The authors of the study are the first to admit their research is exploratory - the main problem with it being the small sample size. They did also look for changes in language use over the poets' career but didn't find any results that provided support for either theory.
Self-centred
Despite these limitation, this study is very creative. It provides a useful way of investigating the factors relevant to suicide and how these are manifested in text. It also highlights the fact that a preoccupation with the self and withdrawal from social contact may well be central components in suicidal behaviour.
Perhaps this was a factor in what happened to Owen Wilson. It is certainly ironic that the film he pulled out of as a result of his suicide attempt is Tropic Thunder in which he was due to play a narcissistic Hollywood actor.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Reference
Stirman, S. W., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2001). Word use in the poetry of suicidal and nonsuicidal poets. Psychosom Med, 63(4), 517-22. (Full text)
Labels: Depression, Suicide