3 Happiness Enhancing Activities With Evidence They Work
[Photo by Guccino]
The 'How to Be Happy' article has become a staple of newspapers, magazines, books and, increasingly, of websites. We should 'accept reality', or 'take a break', or 'be honest with ourselves', or 'surround ourselves with happy people'.These things are unlikely to do us any harm but that doesn't stop them reading like a list of platitudes - the kind that people are always doling out but never follow themselves.
We can all create our own lists of happiness enhancing activities and argue endlessly about which is better and for whom. While that's fun for a bit, I always want to ask: which activities have evidence to back up their claims for increasing happiness?
Psychologists have only started investigating this question relatively recently, so there's not a very long list and it is obviously far from exhaustive, but at least there's some research to back them up. The activities psychologists have investigated are gratitude, helping others, and firstly, visualising your best possible self.
1. Visualising your best possible self
Visualising your best possible self may sound like an exercise in fantasy but, crucially, it does have to be realistic. Carrying out this exercise typically involves imagining your life in the future, but a future where everything that could go well, has gone well. You have reached those realistic goals that you have set for yourself.
Then, to help cement your visualisation, you commit your best possible self to paper. This exercise helps draw on the proven benefits of expressive writing.
The effectiveness of this activity was tested in a study by King (2001). Students were asked to write about their best possible future selves for 20 minutes over 4 consecutive days. This group was compared with one writing on a neutral topic, one writing about traumatic life events and another writing about both traumatic events and their best possible future selves.
The results showed that those who had only written about their best possible selves showed greater improvements in subjective well-being compared to all the other groups. The benefits of the exercise could even be measured fully five months later.
Since the results were so encouraging after only a four-day exercise, two other studies have investigated longer periods. Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2006) and Dickerhoof et al. (2007) carried out studies over 4 and 8 weeks respectively. Both of these backed up the previous findings.
It's not hard to speculate on why this exercise might be effective, it probably helps to:
- Create a sense of efficacy, meaning and purpose.
- Foster optimism.
- Set written goals and plan means of achieving them.
2. Helping others
Even if you haven't come across the 'best possible selves' exercise, you'll almost certainly have heard the idea that helping others is beneficial to the self. Helping out at a soup kitchen, volunteering on a helpline, visiting shut-ins - all are certainly virtuous activities. But isn't helping others for no tangible personal benefit too much like self-sacrifice?
Actually, the research suggests there's a very good selfish reason to help others - it really does seem to make us happier. In one study students were asked to perform five acts of kindness each week for six weeks (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon & Schkade, 2005). These were things like writing a thank-you note, giving blood or helping a friend with their work. Students were told either to perform one act each day or all five acts on one day.
Both experimental groups showed a better outcome than the control group whose well-being declined over the six-week period (perhaps exams were looming!). Those who performed their acts of kindness each day showed a small increase in well-being.
But the highest well-being was seen in those students who carried out all their acts of kindness on one single day on each of the six weeks of the study. Their well-being increased by an impressive 40%.
Lyubomirsky, Sheldon and Schkade (2005) suggest the reason for the difference is that a single act of kindness each day doesn't make an appreciable difference to the everyday routine, especially as these were only small acts.
3.Practicing gratitude
I've already covered the third activity that has shown promise in increasing happiness: practicing gratitude. A study conducted by Emmons and McCullough (2003) found that sitting down weekly to write about five things we are grateful for increased happiness levels by 25%. If you're short of ways of practicing gratefulness, this list of ways to be grateful culled from Dr Emmons' book will be useful.
You might also be interested in my review of Dr Robert Emmons' book 'thanks!' which details his experiments and expands on practicing gratitude.
Reasons to be cheerful
I'm sure these are only a tiny subset of the ways we can increase our happiness. At the moment, though, these are some of the ones that have the research to back them up.
In many ways these findings are encouraging. None of these activities involves spending vast amounts of money (or any money really!), none take up that much time and they are all within almost everyone's reach.
The real challenge they present is in making changes to our daily routines, our standard ways of thinking and behaving. Compared to what we often perceive as a long and winding road to happiness, this trip looks like a doddle, if only we'd open our eyes and look.
» Discover more articles in this series on the new science of happiness.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
References
Dickerhoof, R., Lyubomirsky, S., & Sheldon, K. M. (2007). How and why do intentional activities work to boost well-being?: An experimental longitudinal investigation of regularly practicing optimism and gratitude. Manuscript under review.
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
King, L. A. (2001). The health benefits of writing about life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 798-807
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111-131.
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How to increase and sustain positive emotion: The effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible selves. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 73-82.
Tkach, C. (2005). Unlocking the treasury of human kindness: Enduring improvements in mood, happiness, and self-evaluations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Riverside.
Labels: Happiness, Positive Psychology
Being Happy: Enjoyable Activities Beat Improved Life Circumstances
[Photo by tookie]
Being happy and staying happy is all about our day-to-day activities according to this theory of sustainable happiness. Research suggests that the contributions to our happiness are 50% genetic, 10% from our life circumstances and fully 40% determined by our day-to-day activities. But what evidence is there for this theory?One prediction from this theory is that engaging in new activities should increase our happiness more than an improvement in our circumstances. This is exactly what Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2006) tested in three related studies.
New activities vs. new circumstances
Two different signs were put up around a university campus asking for participants. One asked for participants who had recently seen an improvement in their circumstances while another asked for those who had recently taken up a new activity.
The study also tested how much these changes had been affected by hedonic adaptation (see sustainable happiness post) and variety. This was to make the comparison fair, so that both groups had not yet adapted to their new circumstances or activity and it was still providing variety - both factors thought important in sustainable happiness.
The results showed that those who had recently engaged in a new activity felt happier than those whose circumstances had improved. This provides some preliminary evidence but data collected over a period of time (longitudinal) is more convincing, so that is what Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2006) did in their second study.
Here they recruited participants in the same way but this time measured their happiness at three time-points. The results again supported the theory with the effects of improved circumstances increasing happiness, but the boost from a new activity being more lasting. Finally a third study along the same lines also found similar results.
The power of randomisation
A problem with both these studies is that participants in both groups were self-selected. This creates problems for the interpretation of the results. For example, perhaps the type of people who take up new activities are also prone to stay happier for longer periods. If that is the case the results aren't really showing the benefits of activities over circumstances.
This is exactly why experiments using random allocation to groups are so useful for psychologists. Once people have been randomly allocated to groups, the counter-argument about self-selection is ruled out.
Sheldon and Lyubomirsky are, therefore, currently carrying out a study with random allocation which will soon be published (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2007). Early indications bode well for their theory as the results support their previous studies. So, it looks like their previous results are not the result of self-selection.
Activities win
These studies emphasise that new, enjoyable activities have more potential for making us happy than improvements in our circumstances. Indeed activities may have as much as four times more power to make us happy.
» Discover more articles in this series on the new science of happiness.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
Reference
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). Achieving sustainable gains in happiness: Change your actions, not your circumstances. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 55-86.
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). Activities last and circumstances fade: An experimental study of the effects of two types of life-change upon sustainable new well-being. Manuscript in preparation.
Labels: Happiness, Positive Psychology
Sustainable Happiness: Why It's All About the Day-to-Day
[Photo by tookie]
It's one of the great paradoxes of life that we all want to be happy, yet so few of us seem to know exactly where happiness comes from. Happiness itself can be defined in many different ways, it may have all kinds of components, it may be a life's work, or even no work at all, but we are, most of us, in pursuit of this elusive goal.Psychologists have good and bad news about our search for happiness. The bad news is that we have essentially no control over 50% of our happiness levels. Happiness, like many of our other attributes is partially set by our genes. While these do interact to a certain extent with the environment, on a day-to-day basis this 50% can be considered immovable.
What about the other 50%? This is the start of the good news (almost).
Happy circumstances
First there are the overall circumstances of our lives, our 'demographics'. This includes things like how much money we have, our education level, whether we live in rich or poor countries, how old we are, whether we are married or not and whether we are religious.
All of these factors have some relationship to happiness. For example, higher levels of education are associated with more happiness, as is higher age and even being married (I know, I know!).
These are all factors which, generally speaking, are difficult to change. Granted, it is easier to get married than it is to become younger, but they are both still relatively long-term circumstantial factors.
While circumstantial factors do matter, the surprise is how small a contribution they make to our happiness. Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2007) estimate it at only 10%. This is completely dwarfed by the genetic contribution to happiness.
So if we can't change our genes and we can't, broadly speaking, change our life circumstances, what on earth can we change?
Intentional activity
The only thing that is left is what we actually do every day. What Sheldon and Lyubomirsky refer to as 'intentional activity'. They see the activities we take part in as moving our happiness levels within the set range determined by our genetics and our life circumstances.
But which activities to choose, and how should we carry out these activities? Answering this question is all about understanding how quickly humans adapt to new and exciting experiences.
The first time we try something stimulating that we find enjoyable, it is likely to increase our happiness levels considerably. Whether it's that first parachute jump, the first kiss with our partner or just a new and exciting book we're reading. New experiences tickle our pleasure centres and we feel good.
Unfortunately when presented with that very same stimulus again and again we soon become used to it. This is what psychologists have called 'hedonic adaptation'. The amount of pleasure we can get from the same experience tails off with repeated exposure. The first chocolate tastes a damn sight better than the last.
This lead Lyubomirsky, Sheldon and Schkade (2005) to suggest that the activities we choose should have three characteristics:
- They should fit our needs and our personalities. E.g. If you don't crave excitement parachuting is unlikely to fit with your needs. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be perfect for someone else.
- Their content should vary. Do you always run around the same circuit? Or fly your kite on the same hill? Or walk the same route through the forest? Varying the routine is likely to minimise the effects of hedonic adaptation.
- Their timing should vary. This also helps to avoid hedonic adaptation.
Change of priorities?
When I think about the proportions which genetics, life circumstances and intentional activities contribute to happiness, it makes me think about our priorities in life. The genetic component is essentially a write-off - there's precious little we can do about this until gene therapy or some equivalent lets us adjust our pre-set happiness levels.
This means that our sustainable levels of happiness are down to our life circumstances and our everyday activities. But, crucially, our everyday activities are four times more important, in terms of happiness, than our life circumstances.
To provide a rather cliched example: consider whether it is better to be at work trying to get a promotion, to get a raise to increase your life circumstances or to be at home with your family (this presumes your family make you happy!).
Of course it's quite possible to get more pleasure out of being at work than being with your family - although not many will admit to it.
The here and now
There's another interesting implication from this finding about what contributes to our happiness. Some might say that this balance of 10% life circumstances to 40% everyday activities means that to be happy, long-term plans and goals should be ignored in favour of the here and now. After all, why bother to strive for a better job if it won't increase your happiness? Surely it's better to just do whatever makes me happy right now?
Long-term plans do, of course, contribute to our day-to-day happiness, but indirectly. A better job, leading to more money can mean we have more freedom to do those day-to-day things which we like. Life circumstances and day-to-day activities clearly interact. To talk of one without the other doesn't make sense in the real world.
These qualifications acknowledged, people often do place much more importance on their life circumstances to the detriment of everyday pleasurable activities. What the psychology research suggests is that it's those quotidian pleasures that have the power to make us happy and keep us happy, provided they hold enough variety.
» Discover more articles in this series on the new science of happiness.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
Reference
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111-131.
Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). Is it possible to become happier? (And if so, how?). Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 1-17.
Labels: Happiness, Positive Psychology
Advertising Psychology Satire by The Onion
Satirical website The Onion reports that:
Entertaining but strangely I couldn't laugh because everything was too true.
A television commercial for Nabisco's Fig Newton bars that debuted Friday preys on a wide range of innate human weaknesses, from greed and gluttony to the compulsive need for self-gratification in an otherwise cold and uncaring world, industry sources reported Monday.
"Flattery, pride, self-aggrandizement, fear of rejection: This latest Fig Newtons ad campaign fires on all cylinders," advertising executive and CNBC talk-show host Donny Deutsch said. "It has nothing but contempt for its target audience, its exploitative nature borders on the unethical, and it's one of the most brilliant marketing strategies in years."
[...]
Although the true effectiveness of the commercial has yet to be seen, early figures from Nabisco indicate a nearly 4 percent sales increase among many prized demographics, including unmarried women ages 18 to 37 who desperately wish to have a family, single men between the ages 25 and 40 who suffer from unresolved abandonment issues, and girls in the 7-10 age bracket who already possess debilitating body image concerns.
Entertaining but strangely I couldn't laugh because everything was too true.
A Psychic Dog?
[Photo by K iwi]
Back in 1994 a television company claimed a dog called 'Jaytee' could psychically sense when its owner returned home. And they had some evidence to back up their claim. One TV crew was sent out with Jaytee's owner while she walked around her home town and the other stayed at home with Jaytee. The cameras showed that just as the dog's owner turned to go home, Jaytee got up and went to the porch and remained there until she returned.
Perhaps this dog really was psychic.
Professor Richard Wiseman, our resident king of weird psychology studies, though, thought there were a number of alternative explanations (Wiseman, Smith & Milton, 1998). Could it be that Jaytee was responding to:
- Routine - has the dog learnt its owner's routine?
- Can the dog smell its owner at a distance?
- Is the dog picking up cues from those it is with?
- Does the dog just keep guessing, hoping it will get it right once, just like someone performing a 'cold reading'?
There's only one way to be sure:
Proper experiments
In four experiments carried out in 1995, Wiseman and colleagues set about testing Jaytee's abilities using the strictest controls:
- Jaytee's owner's return was randomly controlled by the random number generator on a Casio calculator.
- No one in the home was aware at what time Jaytee's owner would return.
- Jaytee's behaviour was videotaped.
- Jaytee's owner was not permitted to travel in her own car to avoid the possibility the dog could identify the engine approaching.
- The indication of psychic ability - a trip to the porch - was only considered successful if made within 10 minutes of Jaytee's owner's return.
- An independent judge viewed the tape of Jaytee's behaviour to decide if Jaytee was visiting the porch for some other reason - such as to stare at a passing cat.
Unfortunately for Jaytee with the experimental safeguards in place all four trials were a bust for the briefly famous dog. It seemed Jaytee didn't have a clue when his owner was coming home.
Attempts to reanalyse the results of the TV company's experiment were also unsuccessful as the tapes of Jaytee's behaviour had been lost.
It seems the investigation of canine psychic abilities follows exactly the same story arc as similar investigations into humans. Initial excitement and media interest is soon dampened by those plodding killjoys: scientists. Determined, as they are to wring all mystery out of the universe.
And thank goodness for that!
» Read more weird psychology studies.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
Reference
Wiseman, R., Smith, M., & Milton, J. (1998). Can animals detect when their owners are returning home? An experimental test of the'psychic pet'phenomenon. Br J Psychol, 89(Pt 3), 453-62.
Labels: Weird Psychology
Why We do Dumb or Irrational Things: 10 Brilliant Social Psychology Studies
[Photo by Ayres no graces]
"I have been primarily interested in how and why ordinary people do unusual things, things that seem alien to their natures. Why do good people sometimes act evil? Why do smart people sometimes do dumb or irrational things?" --Philip Zimbardo Like eminent social psychologist Professor Philip Zimbardo, I'm also obsessed with why we do dumb or irrational things. The answer quite often is because of other people - something social psychologists have comprehensively shown.
Over the past few months I've been describing 10 of the most influential social psychology studies. Each one tells a unique, insightful story relevant to all our lives, every day.
But, the question is which one has the most to teach us about human nature? Which one gives us the most piercing insight into how our thoughts and actions are affected by other people?
Have a read and then vote below:
» Read on about the halo effect -»
» Read on about cognitive dissonance -»
» Read on about Sherif's Robbers Cave experiment -»
» Read on about Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment -»
» Read on about Milgram's obedience studies -»
» Read on about the false consensus bias -»
» Read on about why groups and prejudices form so easily -»
» Read on about how communication and threats affect bargaining -»
» Read on about bystander apathy -»
» Read on about Asch's classic conformity study -»
Now vote for your favourite
Which study has the most to teach us about what it means to be human? Which one most encourages us to reflect on the effect other people have on our thoughts, feelings or behaviours? Cast your vote now and share your thoughts on any or all of these studies by leaving a comment below.
Malcolm Gladwell on the Art of Criminal Profiling
The New Yorker has a new article by Malcolm Gladwell on the art of criminal profiling:
As you'll gather, he's not that impressed.
The explanations for 'Jacques Statement' and the others are on page 5 of the article.
"The best minds in the F.B.I. had given the Wichita detectives a blueprint for their investigation. Look for an American male with a possible connection to the military. His I.Q. will be above 105. He will like to masturbate, and will be aloof and selfish in bed. He will drive a decent car. He will be a "now" person. He won't be comfortable with women. But he may have women friends. He will be a lone wolf. But he will be able to function in social settings. He won't be unmemorable. But he will be unknowable. He will be either never married, divorced, or married, and if he was or is married his wife will be younger or older. He may or may not live in a rental, and might be lower class, upper lower class, lower middle class or middle class. And he will be crazy like a fox, as opposed to being mental.
If you're keeping score, that's a Jacques Statement, two Barnum Statements, four Rainbow Ruses, a Good Chance Guess, two predictions that aren't really predictions because they could never be verified - and nothing even close to the salient fact that BTK was a pillar of his community, the president of his church and the married father of two."
As you'll gather, he's not that impressed.
The explanations for 'Jacques Statement' and the others are on page 5 of the article.
I Can't Believe My Eyes: Conforming to the Norm
[Photo by rickabbo]
Solomon Asch's classic top 10 social psychology experiment shows that many of us will deny our own senses just to conform with others.We all know that humans are natural born conformers - we copy each other's dress sense, ways of talking and attitudes, often without a second thought. But exactly how far does this conformity go? Do you think it is possible you would deny unambiguous information from your own senses just to conform with other people?
Have a look at the figure below. Compare the line on the left with the three lines on the right: A, B & C. Which of these three lines is the same length as the lonesome line on the left?
It's obviously C. And yet in a classic psychology experiment conducted in the 1950s, 76% of people denied their own senses at least once, choosing either A or B. What kind of strong-arm psychological pressure tactics made them do this?
The fascinating thing about this experiment was that its creator, renowned psychologist Solomon Asch, set out to prove the exact opposite. A previous experiment by Muzafer Sherif (see his well-known Robbers Cave experiment) had found that when people were faced with making a judgement on an ambiguous test, they used other people's judgements as a reference point.
This makes perfect sense. If I'm not sure about something, I'll check with someone else. But this is only when I'm not sure. The situation is quite different when I have unambiguous information, such as when I can clearly see the answer myself. Other people's judgement should then have no effect - or at least that's what Asch thought.
The experiment
To test his theory he brought male undergraduates, one at a time, into a room with eight other people who were passed off as fellow participants (Asch, 1951). They were then shown three lines with another for comparison, similar to the figure above. Participants were asked to call out which line - A, B or C - was the same length as the reference line. This procedure was repeated 12 times with participants viewing variations of the above figure.
What the participants didn't realise was that all the other people sat around the table were in on the game. They were all confederates who had been told by the experimenter to give the wrong answer. On half of the trials they called out the line that was too short, and on the other half the line that was too long.
The real experimental participant, who knew nothing of this, was actually the sixth to call out their answer after five other confederates of the experimenter had given the wrong answer.
Surprising findings
The results were fascinating, and not at all what Asch had been expecting:
- 50% of people gave the same wrong answer as the others on more than half of the trials.
- Only 25% of participants refused to be swayed by the majority's blatantly false judgement on all of the 12 trials.
- 5% always conformed with the majority incorrect opinion (we all know people like that, right?!)
- Over all the trials the average conformity rate was 33%.
Intrigued as to why participants had gone along with the majority, Asch interviewed them after the experiment. Their answers are probably very familiar to all of us:
- All felt anxious, feared disapproval from others and became self-conscious.
- Most explained they saw the lines differently to the group but then felt the group was correct.
- Some said they went along with the group to avoid standing out, although they knew the group was wrong.
- A small number of people actually said they saw the lines in the same way as the group.
The findings of this study were so startling they inspired many psychologists to investigate further. Here are a few of their findings:
- Asch himself found that if the participant only had to write down their answer (while others called theirs out) conformity was reduced to 12.5%.
- Deutsch and Gerard (1955) still found conformity rates of 23% even in conditions of high anonymity and high certainty about the answer.
- Those who are 'conformers' typically have high levels of anxiety, low status, high need for approval and often authoritarian personalities.
- Cultural differences are important in conformity. People from cultures which view conformity more favourably - typically Eastern societies - are more likely to conform.
A mixed blessing
The variations on the original theme go on and on, examining many possible experimental permutations, but the basic finding still remains solid. While there's no surprise that we copy each other, it's amazing that some people will conform despite the evidence from their own eyes. Imagine how much easier it is to encourage conformity when ambiguity levels are much higher, as they often are in everyday life.
Conformity itself is something of a mixed blessing. In many situations we need conformity. In fact, many aspects of our social lives would be much harder if we didn't conform to a certain extent - whether it's to legal rules or just to queuing in the post office.
The dangers of conformity are only too well-known, just take a look at the implications of Milgram's obedience experiments for a glimpse at what humans will do in the name of conformity. Sometimes it really is better if we think for ourselves rather than relying on what others say and do.
How does conformity affect us all?
It certainly bears considering how our own lives would be different if, one day, we decided not to conform, or even to suddenly start conforming. Would things get better or worse for you? Many people find their inability to conform is a real problem in their lives while others find it more difficult to break away and do their own thing.
» Read more of the top 10 social psychology experiments.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
Reference
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups, leadership, and men, 177-190.
Deutsch, M. & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 51, 629-36.
Labels: Social Psychology
Depression Lifted by Beethoven Piano Sonatas
The gigantic annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience is currently drawing to a close in San Diego, California with a reported 30,000+ neuroscientists in attendance. One study catching the eye of Scientific American reporters is from researchers at Alzahra University in Tehran:
By all accounts depression is not the only condition Iranian researchers have been targeting with the healing power of music. They have also been investigating its use in substance abuse, Alzheimer's, anxiety and strokes.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
...a group of researchers, noting that music therapy has already been shown to reduce pain, improve sleep quality, and improve mood in cancer patients undergoing therapy and multiple sclerosis patients, wondered if music might alleviate depression as well. It does. They took 56 depressed subjects, had them listen to Beethoven's 3d and 5th piano sonatas for 15 minutes twice a week in a clean, otherwise quiet room -- and saw their depression scores on the standard Beck Depression Scale go up significantly. [I'm sure he means down - otherwise their depression is worsening!]
By all accounts depression is not the only condition Iranian researchers have been targeting with the healing power of music. They have also been investigating its use in substance abuse, Alzheimer's, anxiety and strokes.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
Labels: Depression
Why We All Stink as Intuitive Psychologists: The False Consensus Bias
[Photo by Thomas Hawk]
Many people quite naturally believe they are good 'intuitive psychologists', thinking it is relatively easy to predict other people's attitudes and behaviours. We each have information built up from countless previous experiences involving both ourselves and others so surely we should have solid insights?No such luck.
In reality people show a number of predictable biases when estimating other people's behaviour and its causes. And these biases help to show exactly why we need psychology experiments and why we can't rely on our intuitions about the behaviour of others.
One of these biases is called the false consensus bias. In the 1970s Stanford University social psychologist Professor Lee Ross set out to show just how the false consensus bias operates in two neat studies (Ross, Greene & House, 1977).
False consensus
In the first study participants were asked to read about situations in which a conflict occurred and then told two alternative ways of responding. They were asked to do three things:
- Guess which option other people would choose,
- Say which option they would choose,
- Describe the attributes of the person who would choose each of the two options.
The results showed more people thought others would do the same as them, regardless of which of the two responses they actually chose themselves. This shows what Ross and colleagues dubbed the 'false consensus' bias - the idea that we each think other people think the same way we do when actually they often don't.
Another bias emerged when participants were asked to describe the attributes of the person who made the opposite choice to their own. Compared to other people who made the same choice they did, people made more extreme predictions about the personalities of those who made didn't share their choice.
To put it a little crassly: people tend to assume that those who don't agree with them have something wrong with them! It might seem like a joke, but it is a real bias that people demonstrate.
Eat at Joe's!
While the finding from the first study is all very well in theory, how can we be sure people really behave the way they say they will? After all, psychologists have famously found little connection between people's attitudes and their behaviour.
In a second study, therefore, Ross and colleagues abandoned hypothetical situations, paper and pencil test and instead took up the mighty sandwich board.
This time a new set of participants, who were university students, were asked if they would be willing to walk around their campus for 30 minutes wearing a sandwich board saying: "Eat at Joe's". (No information is available about the food quality at 'Joe's', and consequently how foolish students would look.)
For motivation participants were simply told they would learn 'something useful' from the study, but that they were absolutely free to refuse if they wished.
The results of this study confirmed the previous study. Of those who agreed to wear the sandwich board, 62% thought others would also agree. Of those who refused, only 33% thought others would agree to wear the sandwich board.
Again, as before, people also made more extreme predictions about the type of person who made the opposite decision to their own. You can just imagine how that thinking might go. The people who agreed to carry the sandwich board might have said:
"What's wrong with someone who refuses? I think they must be really scared of looking like a fool."
While the people who refused:
"Who are these show-offs who agreed to carry the sandwich board? I know people like them - they're weird."
We're poor intuitive psychologists
This study is fascinating not only because it shows a bias in how we think about others' behaviours but also because it demonstrates the importance of psychology studies themselves.
Every psychologist has, at some point, been driven to distraction when trying to explain a study's finding by one form of the following two arguments (amongst others!):
1. I could have told you that - it's obvious!
2. No, in my experience that's not true - people don't really behave like that.
As this social psychology study shows, people are actually pretty poor intuitive psychologists. One of the few exceptions to this is when the answer is really really obvious, such as asking people whether it is OK to commit murder. But questions we can all agree on are generally not as interesting as those on which we are divided.
People are also more likely to assume someone who doesn't hold the same views as them has a more extreme personality than their own. This is because people think to themselves, whether consciously or unconsciously, surely all right-thinking (read 'normal') people think the same way as me?
Well, apparently not. Although knowing that we don't know other people is a great start.
And that is one good reason why we need psychology studies.
» Read more of the top 10 social psychology experiments.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
Reference
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The false consensus phenomenon: An attributional bias in self-perception and social perception processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279-301.
Labels: Social Psychology
Why Groups and Prejudices Form So Easily: Social Identity Theory
Would you join this group? [Photo by raysto]
This classic social psychology experiment shows how little excuse people need to form into groups and start discriminating against others. People's behaviour in groups is fascinating and frequently disturbing. As soon as humans are bunched together in groups we start to do odd things: copy other members of our group, favour members of own group over others, look for a leader to worship and fight other groups. Just glance at Sherif's Robbers Cave experiment for proof of how easy it is to provoke war between groups.
But think about the types of groups you belong to, and you'll realise they differ dramatically. Some groups are more like soldiers in the same unit or friends who have known each other from childhood. Long-standing, tight-knit, protecting each other. Perhaps it's not surprising people in these groups radically change their behaviour, preferring members of their own group over others in many ways.
Other groups, though, are much looser. Supporters of a large sports club, for example, or work colleagues only together on a project for a few months or even a group of people in an art gallery appreciating a painting.
It seems impossible that people stood together for only 30 seconds to look at a painting can be said to form a group in any measurable way. Surely it's too fleeting, too ephemeral? This is exactly the type of question social psychologist Henry Tajfel and colleagues set out to answer.
They believed it was possible for a group, along with its attendant prejudices, to form at the drop of a hat. In fact they thought a group could form even when there was no face-to-face contact between members, none of the people knew each other and their 'group' behaviour had no practical consequences. In other words they had absolutely nothing to gain (or lose) from this barely existent group.
Forming a 'minimal group'
Tajfel and colleagues came up with a neat solution for testing their idea. Participants, who were 14 and 15 year-old boys, were brought into the lab and shown slides of paintings by Klee and Kandinsky. They were told their preferences for the paintings would determine which of two groups they would join.
Of course, this was a lie designed to set up the idea of 'us' and 'them' in their minds. The experimenters wanted two groups of boys with not the faintest idea who was also in their own group or what the grouping meant or what they had to lose or gain.
After this setup, the boys were taken to a cubicle, one at a time. Each was then asked to distribute virtual money to the other members of both groups. The only information they had about who they were giving it to was a code number for each boy and that boy's group membership.
There were a series of rules for the distribution of the money that were designed to tease out who the boys favoured: their own group or the other group. The rules were changed slightly in different trials so that it was possible to test a number of theories. Did the boys distribute the money:
- Fairly?
- To obtain maximum joint profit?
- For maximum ingroup (own group) profit?
- For maximum difference between groups?
- Using favouritism? This involves a combination of maximum ingroup profit and maximum difference?
Startling findings
From the way the virtual money was distributed, the boys did indeed demonstrate the classic behavioural markers of group membership: they favoured their own group over the other. And this pattern developed consistently over many, many trials and has subsequently been replicated in other experiments in which groups were, if you can believe it, even more minimal.
When I first came across this experiment, my first reaction was to find it startling. Remember, the boys had no idea who was in their group 'with them' or who was in the other group. But, the most puzzling aspect of this experiment is that the boys had nothing whatsoever to gain from favouring their own group - there didn't seem to be anything riding on their decisions.
Out in the real world there's a good reason to favour your own group - normally it is also advantageous to yourself. You protect yourself by protecting others like you.
Social identity theory
What Tajfel argued, though, was that there was something riding on the decisions the boys made, but it was something very subtle, yet incredibly profound.
Tajfel argued that people build their own identities from their group memberships. For example, think of each of the groups you belong to: say at work, or within your family. Part of who you are is probably defined by these groups. Putting it the other way around: the nature of your group memberships define your identity.
As our group membership forms our identity, it is only natural for us to want to be part of groups that are both high status and have a positive image. Crucially though, high status groups only have that high status when compared to other groups. In other words: knowing your group is superior requires having a worse group to look down upon.
Seen in the light of social identity theory, then, the boys in the experiment do have a reason to be selfish about the allocation of the virtual cash. It is all about boosting their own identities through making their own group look better.
Criticisms
No experiment can, or should, be automatically taken at face value. Questions have to be asked about whether it is really telling us what the authors claim. There are two criticisms often levelled at this experiment and its interpretation:
- The participant's behaviour can be explained by simple economic self-interest. But: in another experiment only symbols were used rather than 'virtual' money and the results were the same.
- The participants were responding to what they thought the experimenters wanted (psychologists call this 'demand characteristics'). But: Tajfel argues it is unclear to the participants what the experimenters wanted. Recall that the rules for distributing money frequently changed. Also, the participants were encouraged to think that choosing whose paintings they liked (the 'first' experiment) was unrelated to the allocation of virtual money (the 'second' experiment).
Despite these criticisms, Tajfel and colleagues' findings have stood the test of time. The experiment, or something like it, has been repeated many times with different variations producing much the same results.
Centrality of group membership
Social identity theory states that our identities are formed through the groups to which we belong. As a result we are motivated to improve the image and status of our own group in comparison with others.
Tajfel and colleagues' experiment shows that group membership is so important to us that we join the most ephemeral of groups with only the slightest prompting. We will then go out of our way to make our own group look better compared to others.
The simple fact of how important group membership is to us, and how easily we join groups, often without realising it, is both a subtle and profound observation about human nature.
» Read more of the top 10 social psychology experiments.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
Reference
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149-178.
Labels: Social Psychology
Use StumbleUpon to Find Great Psychology Content
Finding new, captivating psychological writing on the internet can be hard. There's Google, but how do you search for something you don't yet know exists? Some social networking sites, such as Digg, provide one way to find new content, but there isn't much taste for psychology amongst Diggers.
What would be better is a kind of special internet channel for psychology where people voted for content they liked. These votes would then help redirect others to the same content.
Just such a thing exists and it's called StumbleUpon.
StumbleUpon covers much more than just psychology - it's got, well, everything - but I've been playing around with it for a few months now and I've found it's excellent for our favourite topic.
Getting started only takes a few minutes and is very easy. You simply install a toolbar on your browser, register, then tell it what subjects your interested in. Tags you'll likely be interested in include psychology, cognitive science and neuroscience. After clicking the 'stumble' button a few times, I guarantee you'll find something of interest.
Here are some new websites I came across just now after hitting stumble a few times:
- Dr. Zimbardo's 20 Hints About Resisting Unwanted Influences On You
- Find out your Autism Spectrum Quotient
- Bottomless Soup Bowl Proves Eyes Are Bigger Than Stomach
Like any social networking site, StumbleUpon uses the power of crowds. What can emerge is that a large group of disparate people all start thinking the same thing. In this series of stumbles it was lucid dreaming all the way:
You can also stumble for videos from the toolbar. Just now I came across an excellent documentary I recommended last year called The Boy With The Incredible Brain about Daniel Tammet who is a (very) high-functioning autistic savant:
Once you get over the slightly random nature of stumbling, it's pretty addictive, so watch out!
» Get started with StumbleUpon.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
9 Propaganda Techniques in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11
Back in the Summer of 2004 outspoken documentary-maker Michael Moore brought out 'Fahrenheit 9/11', his personal view of how the terrorist attacks in the US were used by George Bush to pursue illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The response to the film was huge, but rarely ambiguous - audiences either loved it or loathed it.
Some saw it as a brilliant indictment of the lead-up to an unjust war. Others saw it as unfounded liberal/left-wing propaganda designed to give the Democrats a boost in the lead-up to the 2004 US presidential elections.
At the time Dr Kelton Rhoads, an expert in the psychology of persuasion, wrote a piece detailing the psychological techniques of persuasion used by Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11. Although I wrote a summary of Rhoads' article, due to website re-organisations it got lost so I'm reposting it here as it provides a good introduction to propaganda techniques.
Each psychological technique is explained with one example from the film. For a full explanation of the techniques and a fuller list of examples go directly to the document on his website.
Omissions
Psychology: One of the most obvious techniques of any propaganda is not presenting the whole truth. As Dr Rhoads points out, "What gives omissions their power is that often not recognised as missing by their audience." By leaving out important information people are allowed to jump to conclusions about the evidence that is presented. The propagandist has, at no point, failed to tell the truth, they've just failed to tell the whole truth.
Example: One of the largest omission is the failure to show footage of the terrorist hijacked planes hitting the twin towers.
Explanation: Showing this would have provoked the viewer's anger and turned their thoughts to retribution. Instead Moore shows the aftermath, which provokes the emotion of sorrow.
Contextualisation
Psychology: Moore is keen on juxtaposition. This uses an effect psychologists call 'structure activation'. Simply put if you feel sad at any particular moment, that tends to colour how you interpret whatever happens to you next. In propaganda this can be used by creating a bleed-through effect from one scene to another. The emotion from one scene is used to colour how you interpret the content of the next scene.
Example: Contextualisation often makes Bush look foolish
Explanation: First scene: we see the unbelievable grief and suffering of witnesses to 9/11. Second scene cut into this: we see Bush 'happy, smiling and confident'. How could he be smiling at a time like this? The answer is, of course, that he's not, it's just the way the film has been cut together to make him look foolish.
Ingroup/outgroup manipulations
Psychology: This comes down to preferring 'people like us' over 'people who aren't like us'.
Example: The Saudis are represented throughout the film as being part of the 'outgroup' along with Bush.
Explanation: Moore shows Bush to be close to the Bin Laden family by repeated association. Then he shows the Bin Laden family to be close to Osama Bin Laden again by association. Whether these associations are really this close is a point for discussion but the thing to notice is that the only connection is association. Because a policeman tends to be near criminals, does that make him a criminal?
Cynicism
Psychology: People tend to attribute selfish motivations to other people, and altruistic motivations to their own behaviour. On average we have a tendency to be cynical about the reason other people do what they do. It is easy to make people suspicious about someone's motivations by simply questioning them. Intelligence operatives have an acronym: 'F.U.D.' which stands for fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Example: Bush is acting in his own self-interest rather than in the interests of the US.
Explanation: Bush is shown sitting reading "My Pet Goat" to school children for seven minutes after the Secret Service operative has whispered the news of the terrorist attack into his ear. The cynical assumption is that he is possibly: confused, doesn't care, didn't know what to do, etc.. In reality any President movements are completely controlled by the Secret Service for security reasons. Presidents are trained to wait to be told where to go by them. In this situation Bush would probably have been told to stay put while they got information on the best place to go.
Traps
Psychology: Dr Rhoads refers to this as the E.W.Y.G.Y.S. effect or: Either Way You Go Your Screwed.
Example: Bush is presented both as a bumbling fool and as a master manipulator.
Explanation: Bush is shown primping his hair at the start of the film in the moments before broadcasting to the nation. Here he, and indeed the rest of the administration, are seen as master manipulators. The points in the film were he is made to look foolish are almost endless so take your pick.
Modelling the convert communicator
Psychology: People copy each other all the time, it's human nature. If you stand in the middle of the street and stare up at nothing, before long you will have gathered a small crowd of people all straining their neck backwards to see the object of your fascination. If you imagine this situation in terms of people's political point of view, then a similar transformation can be observed. If people are to watch someone else changing their point of view about something it influences them in the same fashion.
Example: One convert communicator in this film is Lila Lipscomb, a mother grieving for the loss of her son in Iraq. She appears to complete a full 180° turn in the course of the film, from supporting Bush to opposing him. From supporting the war in Iraq, to opposing it.
Explanation: Dr Rhoads uncovers evidence that there was no U-turn and it has been manufactured to aid our persuasion. She in fact voted for Al Gore in the last election and has been quoted as saying that: "Bush stole the presidency."
Pacing and distraction
Psychology: Dr Rhoads: "Distraction keeps us from thinking."
Example: It is difficult to process some parts of the film whereas others such as the parts with Lila Liscomb seem only too clear.
Explanation: Those parts of Moore's arguments that may be perceived as 'weaker' fly by with blaring music playing over the top. The strong parts of his argument (Lila Lipscomb) have no blaring music or fast cuts to cause distraction.
Associations
Psychology: This is an effect that psychologists often talk about in relation to Pavlov's dog. When Pavlov fed his dog, the dog salivated and he rang a bell. After a while the dog began salivating when he rang the bell, despite the fact there was no food in sight. So the dog associated the bell with being fed.
Example: Moore shows members of the Taliban visiting Texas. The automatic assumption is that he was invited by Bush.
Explanation: Bush is shown in association with the Taliban despite the fact that Bush hadn't in fact invited them to Texas. They were there to discuss an oil pipeline with the previous permission of the Clinton administration.
Numeric deceptions
Psychology: People like statistics, they sound good. It's been found by psychologists that people are happy to believe them and don't bother checking them. Sounds perfect for the propagandist doesn't it?
Example: Bush was on vacation for 42% of the time during his first 229 days in office.
Explanation: What the original statistics are referring to is the time that Bush spent not in Washington. And the implications is that, if he's not in Washington he's not doing any work and is therefore on vacation. Obviously not true. I'm sat at home in the UK, sitting back on the sofa as I write this so how can I be working? Perhaps I need to move to Washington for this to count as real work? This discussion is facile, but parts of Moore's arguments revolve on this pivotal point.
Dr Rhoads finishes his article by saying:
"...is Fahrenheit documentary, or is it propaganda? Call it as you will. For my part, I see a consistent, effective, and clever use of a range of established propaganda tactics. If only a few of these tactics were used, or if the attempt to deceive weren't as apparent, I might equivocate...I feel safe in applying the rule: if it flies, walks, swims, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."
But Bush still won in 2004!
So if Fahrenheit 9/11 was such a successful piece of propaganda, how come George Bush went on to win the 2004 presidential election? Dr Rhoads published an update on the apparently failed attempt to persuade the American public which I commented on here.
» You can buy Fahrenheit 9/11
which won the Palme D'Or at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival from Amazon.com, Michael Moore's latest film is 'Sicko
'.» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
Labels: Persuasion
World's Happiest Man: Joy Can Be Learned
Are your conditions for happiness primarily external? Biochemist turned Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard has a message for you. The Dalai Lama's right-hand man explains that the mind is malleable and happiness can be learned and measured:
He finishes with this quote:
» The Independent has a short article on Matthieu Ricard.
He finishes with this quote:
"Mind training matters. That this is not just a luxury, this is not a supplementary vitamin for the soul. This is something that is going to determine the quality of every instant of our lives. [...] We spend surprisingly little time taking care of what matters most: the way our mind functions, which ultimately determines the quality of our experience."
» The Independent has a short article on Matthieu Ricard.
Labels: Happiness
Are We Programmed to Laugh When Tickled?
[Photo by Xander]
Do we learn to laugh when tickled or is it an innate response? That is the question psychologist Professor Clarence Leuba set himself to examine using his own children, no less, as experimental subjects. In 1933 he decided that he would not laugh in the presence of his first child while tickling him (Leuba, 1941). Everyday life in the Leuba household, therefore, was devoid of tickling except for one special experimental period. During this period he would cover his own face with a mask while tickling his son so his facial expression was hidden.
Even the tickling was experimentally controlled. First he would tickle lightly, then more vigorously. First under the armpit, then the ribs, followed by chin, neck, knees and feet.
Mrs Leuba slips up
Reportedly all went well until late April 1933 when his wife suddenly forgot all the protocols. After her son's bath she accidentally administered a short bout of bouncing up and down on her knee with laughter while using the words: "Bouncy, bouncy"!
Was the experiment ruined? Leuba wasn't sure. But after seven months, with only one bout of laughter associated with tickling the results were in. His son happily laughed away when tickled. It appeared that laughing when tickled is an innate response.
Leuba wasn't satisfied with this, though, and set about carrying out the same test on his next child, a girl. This time the same experimental procedure was administered and Mrs Leuba's "Bouncy, bouncy" tendencies were apparently kept at bay for seven months. At the end Leuba got the same results - his daughter began to spontaneously laugh when tickled despite never having been shown how.
Tickling tips
But it wasn't all experimental procedures and faces hidden behind masks in the Leuba household, indeed Professor Leuba must have become an expert tickler.
He found the best way to make his children laugh was to tickle them along the ribs and under the arms. The element of surprise was also important in producing maximum giggling response. He observed that his children would control the level of tickling by holding his finger, but would then demand more tickling.
Who says science isn't a laugh?
» This experiment is included in a new book: 'Elephants on Acid: And Other Bizarre Experiments
' by Alex Boese.» Read more weird psychology studies.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
Reference
Leuba, C. (1941) Tickling and laughter: two genetic studies. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 58, 201-9.
Labels: Weird Psychology