Venting Emotions After Trauma Predicts Worse Outcomes
The hydraulic theory of the emotions is a misleading metaphor.
That's the question Dr Mark Seery from the University of Buffalo and colleagues ask in a study that examined how people coped with the aftermath of the '9/11' terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York.
The answer to this question is particularly pressing now as the recent earthquake in China has left huge numbers both physically and psychologically traumatised. The Chinese government clearly thinks that psychological intervention is useful as they have launched their biggest ever programme of counselling for those affected.
Yet the new research, to be published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, suggests that talking about thoughts and feelings after a trauma may not help. Worse, it may be psychologically damaging (Seery et al., 2008).
A collective trauma
This study's first set of data was collected on the day of September 11th 2001. As people sat at home trying to digest the shocking events of the day, 36,000 people were contacted through the internet. These people were part of a pre-selected nationally representative sample of participants who had already agreed to receive regular requests for surveys.They were simply prompted to express whatever thoughts and emotions were currently on their minds, should they choose to do so. Of all these people, 2,138 people were followed up over a period of two years after 9/11 to see how they coped with the collective trauma.
The aim of the researcher's prompt was to make it similar to a psychologist asking someone to share their experience after they witness a traumatic event. Naturally some people choose to share and others don't. In this study 1,559 chose to respond while 579 remained silent.
The results make surprising reading.
What they found was that choosing to respond to the prompt was a significant predictor of suffering post-traumatic stress (PTS). What's more, the longer the response, the greater the level of subsequent PTS.
This suggests that, contrary to popular expectations, expressing thoughts and emotions soon after a traumatic event - 'letting off steam' or 'venting' - might actually predict a worse psychological outcome.
Alternate explanations
Although this is a strong finding in a large nationally representative sample, some alternate explanations are possible. Here are the main ones the authors consider:- Did those who didn't respond to the prompt express themselves elsewhere? Probably not: other measures suggested that those who didn't respond naturally stayed quiet in these situations.
- Did those who did respond do so because they couldn't talk to anyone else? Probably not: having fewer social networks was not associated with a greater chance of responding to the prompt.
- Were those who responded already more traumatised? Probably not: there was still a relationship between responding to the prompt and PTS symptoms even when lifetime trauma was taken into account.
It's important to note that this study is NOT strong evidence that talking about an event actually CAUSES a worse psychological outcome, just that remaining silent isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Junking the hydraulic metaphor
If accurate these results stand in stark contrast to what has become the accepted wisdom. Offering psychological counselling in the aftermath of traumatic events has now become a normal, automatic official response. Popular techniques include 'Critical Incident Stress Debriefing' which is thought to reassure trauma sufferers that their responses are normal and help reduce the chances of PST.These techniques are in line with the 'hydraulic theory' of the emotions - a popularly held view of how the emotions work. In this view, people's emotions work in the same way as a pressure cooker. Emotions build up inside until the mind can no longer contain the pressure. Then steam is 'let off', releasing the pressure inside and improving the mood.
People who choose not to let off steam in this way are popularly seen as being in denial, and this denial is often seen as pathological.
In recent years, however, the hydraulic metaphor and the therapies that implicitly rely on it have been seriously questioned. Studies on 'Critical Incident Stress Debriefing' have not only found that the technique may provide no benefit to trauma sufferers, but that it also may be harmful.
The strong silent type
Dr Seery's study extends these criticisms to attack the broader idea that talking about a traumatic event soon after it has occurred is usually beneficial. Mounting evidence suggests that those who do not talk about a traumatic event are simply more resilient, rather than being in a state of pathological denial.This study is also backed up by previous work carried out by Professor Bernard Rime from the Universite Catholique de Louvain. Rime and colleagues have found that despite the fact that people are likely to share their feelings after an emotional event, this sharing does not promote recovery.
So it's time to throw out the old hydraulic metaphor and its attendant rapid intervention therapies. Just because some people prefer to deal with a trauma quietly on their own doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them. While most people do choose to share with others, this immediate sharing probably isn't a major contributor to psychological recovery.
» Related: Rime's work on social sharing of emotions and how it ties in with the potential benefits of expressive writing.
[Image credit: assbach]
References
Seery, M. D. et al. (2008). Expressing Thoughts and Feelings Following a Collective Trauma: Immediate Responses to 9/11 Predict Negative Outcomes in a National Sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
Labels: Emotion
Money and Self-Control: The Battle Between Thoughts and Emotions
There are two sets of answers to the question of how we decide whether to spend or save, hoard or splurge. In the first set of answers humans are seen as rational, logical creatures who make decisions about money by carefully weighing up the present against the future. People try to balance how useful it is to spend the money now, compared to how useful it will be to spend the money later.
And for the phrase 'how useful' you can substitute, say: 'how happy it makes you/someone else' or 'the financial advantage you would gain'. It's all about trade-offs in current emotional, financial or other states in the moment compared to how you imagine the future.
This view of people exercising the wisdom of Solomon is dying fast.This view of people exercising the wisdom of Solomon is dying fast. This is simply because it doesn't fully explain how people actually behave. Nowadays amongst researchers there's much less emphasis on people calculating usefulness - either in the moment or future usefulness - and more on how our self-control and emotions interact at the actual moment of decision-making (Camerer, Loewenstein & Prelec, 2005).
Reason versus emotion
New perspectives on how our self-control interacts with our spending see a battle between impulsive, emotional processes and far-sighted planning processes. One part of us is saying: "Buy it, you'll feel real good!" and another part is saying: "No, we need that money to pay the rent!"
Findings from this type of research are only just starting to emerge, but here are some fascinating highlights on how our self-control works:
- Increased cognitive load decreases self-control. This is something marketers are well-aware of: distracted people are more likely to spend money. Most shops are filled with shiny, complicated distractions - bright colours, music and 'incredible offers' - designed to confuse us and open our wallets.
- Our supply of self-control is limited. Studies show that our self-control is actually sapped each time we use it (Baumeister & Vohs, 2003). It's also sapped, predictably, by alcohol, lack of sleep and stress.
And how our self-control is affected by our emotions:
- Sadness makes us want a change (any change). Sadness may well increase the chance we want to spend. One study found that those who are sad are more likely to want to sell at a lower price and buy at a higher price (Lerner, Small & Loewenstein, 2004).
- Disgust makes us want to get rid of everything. When we're disgusted we want to get rid of the things we have and don't want to buy anything.
- Anxiety makes us want to reduce uncertainty. Anxiety makes us prefer low-risk options (Raghunathan & Pham, 1999).
How to make better decisions with money
At this stage relatively little is known about how our monetary self-control and our emotions interact. Nevertheless there's already some clear practical messages about how to make better decisions about money from these results:
- Self-imposed limits. Research by Professor Dan Ariely (reported in his book Predicatably Irrational) suggests that self-imposed limits can help to increase self-control. Telling other people about these limits will tend to increase our adherence to them. Professor Ariely even suggests a special credit card which only lets you spend money on certain categories of goods (e.g. groceries) up to a certain pre-set limit, then it warns of overspending. Unsurprisingly credit card companies haven't taken up the idea, good though it is.
- Cooling-off periods. Take time to decide about a purchase, especially anything expensive. Not just a few minutes - more like a few hours or days. Many people already do this and it's an extremely effective method of financial decision-making. Emotional states are likely to affect our self-control in all kinds of complicated ways. Sadness may make us more likely to spend, anxiety can make us avoid risks (perhaps risks we should take). Plus our emotions probably have many other effects which remain a mystery.
- Monitor your self-control. The fact that self-control seems to run-down with use suggests we need to monitor its levels. Have you used a lot of self-control recently? Are you tired? Are you about to snap? Again, it might be better to wait until your self-control tank is refilled.
The emotional spender
So it's another nail in the coffin for the rational view of humanity, that we think carefully and logically about the decisions we make with money. Of course we try to do that (sometimes), but we would do better to acknowledge the effect that strictly irrelevant thoughts and emotions can have on us.
However, given how little insight we often have into our own underlying cognitive processes, actually being conscious of our self-control and emotional response is likely to be tricky. In the end we have to fall back on rules of thumb like self-imposed limits and cooling-off periods otherwise our self-control is likely to go out the window.
» Read more on the psychology of money.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
[Image credit: The Queen of Subtle]
References
Baumeister, R. F. & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Willpower, Choice, and Self-control. In: G. F. Loewenstein, D. Read & R. F. Baumeister, (Eds). Time and Decision: Economic and Psychological Perspectives on Intertemporal Choice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(1), 9-64.
Lerner, J. S., Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Heart Strings and Purse Strings. Carryover Effects of Emotions on Economic Decisions. Psychological Science, 15(5), 337-341.
Raghunathan, R., & Pham, M. T. (1999). All negative moods are not equal: Motivational influences of anxiety and sadness on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 56-77.
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.
How to Improve Mood, Raise Energy and Reduce Tension
[Photo by eschipul]
What strategies do you use to make yourself feel better, increase your energy levels and reduce your tension? That's the question Robert Thayer and colleagues at California State University were motivated by in looking for the strategies people use and find effective (Thayer, Newman & McClain, 1994). There's no revelations in the results but the fact that the same three main strategies were useful in changing mood and reducing tension and raising energy speaks volumes:- Exercise: rated as the most effective for changing a bad mood, also good for raising energy and reducing tension.
- Music: rated the second most successful way to change a bad mood, and raising energy and reducing tension. This may be a surprising finding for some people.
- Social interaction: good for changing a bad mood and reducing tension although not necessarily so good for raising energy.
Apart from these main categories that were good across the board, there were other strategies that worked in a more selective fashion:
- Pep talk: this was rated as most successful for energy enhancement - above both exercise and music.
- Distractions (like shopping, reading, chores and hobbies): seen as useful for changing a bad mood.
At the other end of the scale, the things people rated as relatively less successful were:
- TV: less effective for reducing tension
- Eating: also less effective for reducing tension.
- Coffee: not that good for raising energy, relative to the other categories.
Gender differences were also seen. Men are more likely to try and distract themselves or seek pleasure, while women are more likely to seek social support.
One surprising finding from this study is how successful music is in all three categories of mood regulation, energy raising and tension reduction. In fact I've written before about the seven ways music influences mood.
I know the findings from this study are mostly pretty obvious but intellectually knowing what is good for us can be a world away from actually doing it.
» Read more from PsyBlog on the power of positive psychology.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Reference
Thayer, R. E., Newman, J. R., & McClain, T. M. (1994). Self-regulation of mood: Strategies for changing a bad mood, raising energy, and reducing tension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 910-925.
Labels: Emotion, Music, Positive Psychology
Music + Body Language = More Excitement
[Photo by elstonndanger]
Seeing a band live is a much more engaging experience than listening to a recording at home. But it's not just the atmosphere of a live event, it's also the singer's facial expressions and gestures which enhances our emotional experience. It's a rare singer whose face remains impassive as they sing. Think of jazz greats like Ella Fitzgerald, blues artists like B. B. King or pop acts like Michael Jackson. As they sing, their faces are conveying the emotion in the music, sometimes it seems, even struggling with the emotions. Part of the beauty of a live performance is seeing singers' faces as they interact with both the music, the other musicians and the audience. Their facial expressions often seem part of the music itself.
Facial expressions affect perception of music
In what way, then, do facial expressions while singing affect the perception of the music? There is a well-known phenomenon in psychology called the McGurk effect. This demonstrates that what listeners hear is profoundly affected by what they see. This suggests that singers' facial movements may have large effects on how we perceive music.
In a series of simple experiments, Thompson, Graham and Russo (2005) showed just how important the McGurk effect is when we are looking at singers, compared to when we only have the sound to go on.
Experiment 1: Some participants listened to blues legend B. B. King audio only, while others listened and watched him. Those who had both video and audio channels rated the level of 'dissonance' (when the music was negative or discordant) higher at points in which B. B. King winced his eyes, rolled his head back and shook his upper body.
Experiment 2: When trying to judge the pitch changes between notes, participants watching only the video almost did as well as those only listening to the audio. This is pretty impressive.
Experiment 3: Here some participants saw facial expressions relating to pitch changes that matched the audio, while others saw facial expressions that didn't. When the video didn't match the audio people were less accurate at judging pitch.
This is like an auditory McGurk effect. Because the video is suggesting the pitch goes down, people's average ratings of the pitch is lower despite the fact they can hear exactly how much the pitch is going up.
Experiment 4: This experiment used the fact that sung major intervals (series of notes) sound 'happy' and minor intervals sound 'sad'. In some conditions participants heard a 'happy' series of notes but saw a seemingly unhappy singer. In other conditions intervals were consistent with facial expressions. Participants rated the emotional component of the intervals more highly if audio and video were congruent.
Experiment 5: This time participants heard real musical performances, some while watching the accompanying video, some without. Here it was found that sometimes the visual channel added to the performance, and sometimes it reduced it.
These experiments are showing a variety of basic ways in which the facial expression of a performer can have a great influence over our perception of music. Facial expressions and body movements can change the pitch we hear, how much emotion we experience and can interact with the music in surprising ways.
That said, it's clear that not all the visual aspects of musical performance are good. Some body language that performers use may actively reduce our enjoyment of the music.
Culture and music
Modern technological innovations like the iPOD have further reinforced that separation. The coming of pop videos has created another layer of visual meaning to music. This layer, however, often has little to do with the facial expressions and hand gestures of the artist and more to do with the vision of video producers and directors. It's not often that a music video is a straight film of the band performing the track.
Not just listening, but also watching music
But perhaps we are turning the corner? With the iPOD video singers' visual performance has the potential to be reunited with the aural experience of music. Will people return to not just listening to music, but also watching it?
Certainly nowadays many musicians make the majority of their money from live performances of their music rather than from sales of their albums. Indeed some of them are even giving their albums away for free.
This may be part of a cultural recognition that music is more than just sound, it is an interaction between singer and audience, a big bit part of which is the artist's facial expressions and gestures. It's this interaction on which we are beginning to place a higher value.
» Read more from PsyBlog on the psychology of music, on the ways music influences mood and the personality secrets hidden in your MP3 player.
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Reference
Thompson, W.F., Graham, P., & Russo, F.A. (2005). Seeing music performance: Visual influences on perception and experience. Semiotica, 156, 203-227. [PDF of full article]
What is Guilt For?
[Photo by randysonofrobert]
A new experiment suggests the function of guilt is both to punish the self and encourage us to make amends.At school my good friend Dave and I used to sit together in Biology classes. One day we were there as usual trying to get our heads around the metamorphosis of tadpoles, or something similar.
We were perched on high stools next to high wooden lab benches, the kind with generations of pupil's engravings underneath the varnish. Good solid science benches.
I stood up to talk to someone behind me, not moving far from the stool on which I was sat - I knew it was right behind me. Then, when I went to sit back down, I suddenly heard myself cry out in pain. Next thing, I was sitting on the floor, something warm oozing from the back of my head. Everyone was staring at me but I had no idea what was going on.
It was only on the way to the doctor I pieced together what had obviously happened. Dave had whipped the stool away and I'd fallen backwards, catching my head a glancing blow on the bench.
A couple of stitches
It wasn't a bad injury, I had a couple of stitches; no real harm done - except to my relationship with Dave.
What was interesting was that although I told him it was no big deal, in the years following he barely spoke ten words to me. We certainly didn't sit together in Biology any more.
I always found this puzzling. It was Dave that caused the accident, I had told him we were cool so what was the problem? I never found out directly from Dave - it's possible he didn't even know himself why he was avoiding me.
The only really plausible explanation I've been able to come up with is that he simply felt so guilty he couldn't face me. If I was around it just reminded him of what he had done. And that was too much for him so he preferred to avoid me.
If my explanation is right, then it not only shows how powerful guilt can be but also how it can promote avoidant behaviour. But does guilt always encourage this kind of avoidant behaviour or is it a more sophisticated emotion with complex effects on motivation? In short: what is guilt for and what does it make us do?
Theories of guilt
Freud thought guilt served to effectively regulate social behaviour. If people didn't feel guilty, so the argument goes, they'd be much less likely to care about hurting other's feelings or damaging their property. This is all very well, but what exactly is guilt's function, what does it motivate us to do?
One theory has it that guilt is all about punishing the self, another has it that it encourages us to try to heal the social damage we've done. Still another suggests we are only motivated to act in order to make ourselves feel better about our transgression.
In a new study published in Psychological Science, Amodio & Harmon-Jones (2007) argue the first two theories are compatible. Guilt, they argue, acts both to punish the self and to help us heal the damage we've done. And they use a thorough experiment involving measuring behaviour and electrical activity in the brain to provide evidence for their view.
Inducing White guilt
Experimentally, the first problem is making people feel guilty in the lab. Here's what the authors came up with. Participants are brought in, have an EEG cap put on their head to measure electrical activity in the brain, and then they are told to watch a series of faces appearing on the screen.
Some of the faces are White, some Black and some Asian. They don't have to do anything other than look at the faces. The participants have been specifically chosen because they are themselves White but have expressed positive views of Blacks. The researchers have to avoid recruiting racists otherwise the experimental results will be difficult to interpret.
Afterwards the participants are shown bar graphs supposedly interpreting measurements of the electrical activity in their brains. These indicate that while the participants reacted positively and neutrally to White and Asian faces, they reacted negatively to Black faces. The 'results' seem to show that our liberal participants are somewhat racist - whether consciously or unconsciously.
These graphs are, of course, just made up.
Participants are then told the first experiment finished early so would they mind taking part in a different experiment. The second, apparently unrelated study, is actually still part of the first. In this participants choose which of 19 different magazine articles they find the most interesting. Three of the articles are about reducing racial prejudice.
I wish the ground would swallow me up
As you'd expect participants felt guilty about apparently being racist - this was measured in two ways. First they indicated in self-report measures they felt guilty. Second the EEG measures showed a significant reduction in left-frontal activity. This reduction in activity is associated with decreased 'approach motivation'. In other words they just wanted the ground to swallow them up.
Then when choosing the magazine article they were more likely to choose the article about reducing racial prejudice. At the same time the EEG recording showed a shift of activation onto the left side of the brain. This indicates an increase in approach behaviours. So now they were motivated by their guilty feelings to try and make amends.
Guilt is a complex social emotion
One of the reasons this study is really interesting is that it shows the complexity of the interplay between guilt and motivation. Previously psychologists have tended to see emotions in terms of having one particular purpose or effect. For example, happiness motivates people to approach others while sadness causes people to withdraw.
Guilt can, however, cause a more complex pattern of behaviours: first withdrawal, then approach. It's this dynamic model that provides a much better way of analysing how guilt affects our behaviour.
One limitation of this study, however, is that the results may only be applicable to prejudice. We will have to wait for future research to confirm if this dynamic model is seen in other guilt-inducing situations.
Dave and I
Nevertheless, applying the results of this study to what happened between Dave and I makes me wonder if it really was all about guilt. After all, he never really tried to make amends, he just hid his head in the sand. For good.
I suppose I will never know the truth.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Reference
Amodio, D.M., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2007). A Dynamic Model of Guilt: Implications for Motivation and Self-Regulation in the Context of Prejudice. Psychological Science, 18(6), 524-530
Labels: Emotion
Empathy Causes Facial Similarity Between Couples to Increase Over Time
Would you believe that people who live with each other for 25 years actually develop similar facial features? I don't just mean that people tend to choose partners who resemble them, rather that over time together couple's features actually converge. It's weird, but there's evidence for it from a singular study carried out by the noted psychologist Robert Zajonc and colleagues.
Here's what they did.
110 participants were shown photographs of men and women in their first year of marriage and of the same couples after 25 years of marriage. Then they were asked to judge their resemblance along with the chance that any man and woman were married to each other. The researchers went to a lot of effort to remove extraneous info and crop photos so that only faces could be seen.
The types of choices the participants made indicated the perception was that couples became more facially similar after 25 years together. The results could not be explained by people simply all looking the same as they got older. Also, data from a control group indicated participants were indeed making judgements on the basis of facial features rather than any other criteria.
So this means if you stick around with your partner, you'll end up looking more like them after a couple of decades. Which naturally raises the question: why?
Here are the possible explanations the authors suggest:
1. Diet. If you share your diet with another person it's possible this is the cause. For example if both partners eat a high fat diet, both their faces will tend to look chubby. The authors, however, ruled this out using an additional small study.
2. Environment. It could be that it's because couples live together in the same area. This means that environmental factors such as sunshine and so on affect the skin in similar ways. The authors rule this one out as well because all their married couples came from the same part of the US Midwest and were matched on a number of other socioeconomic variables.
3. Predisposition. This is the idea that people are more likely to choose partners who will grow to look like them. E.g. depressed people are attracted to each other, so end up looking depressed. The authors give this one a maybe, although it is not their favourite option.
4. Empathy. This is the theory the authors like - and so do I. People grow to look similar because they are empathising with each other and so copying each other's facial expressions. Over time because of all the empathising they are doing, their faces come to look more similar. For example, if one partner often smiles in a particular way, the other is likely to copy it - so creating similar patterns of wrinkles and furrows on the face.
Because they liked theory number 4 the authors had another thought. Why not see if those who grow to look most like each other are the happiest couples? Presumably, then, those who get on better, empathise with each other to a greater degree and therefore go on to look more similar. Unfortunately, this test failed to reach statistical significance, so this study doesn't give us enough evidence to say whether or not it is true.
A straw poll of people I've talked to about this research reveals a polarised reaction. Some think that growing to look more like your partner is an horrific idea. Others, though, think there's something very sweet and romantic about it. I think I'm in the latter camp.
There is one worrying possibility this study suggests. It is said if you want to find out what your partner will look like when they're older, you should look at your partner's parents. Perhaps a glance at your partner's parents might also reveal what you will look like in a couple of decades. Truly scary stuff!
» Related: find out whether dogs really resemble their owners.
» Read more weird psychology studies.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References
Zajonc, R.B., Adelmann, P.K., Murphy, S.T., & Niedenthal, P.M. (1987). Convergence in the physical appearance of spouses. Motivation and Emotion, 11(4), 335-346.
Here's what they did.
110 participants were shown photographs of men and women in their first year of marriage and of the same couples after 25 years of marriage. Then they were asked to judge their resemblance along with the chance that any man and woman were married to each other. The researchers went to a lot of effort to remove extraneous info and crop photos so that only faces could be seen.
The types of choices the participants made indicated the perception was that couples became more facially similar after 25 years together. The results could not be explained by people simply all looking the same as they got older. Also, data from a control group indicated participants were indeed making judgements on the basis of facial features rather than any other criteria.
So this means if you stick around with your partner, you'll end up looking more like them after a couple of decades. Which naturally raises the question: why?
Here are the possible explanations the authors suggest:
1. Diet. If you share your diet with another person it's possible this is the cause. For example if both partners eat a high fat diet, both their faces will tend to look chubby. The authors, however, ruled this out using an additional small study.
2. Environment. It could be that it's because couples live together in the same area. This means that environmental factors such as sunshine and so on affect the skin in similar ways. The authors rule this one out as well because all their married couples came from the same part of the US Midwest and were matched on a number of other socioeconomic variables.
3. Predisposition. This is the idea that people are more likely to choose partners who will grow to look like them. E.g. depressed people are attracted to each other, so end up looking depressed. The authors give this one a maybe, although it is not their favourite option.
4. Empathy. This is the theory the authors like - and so do I. People grow to look similar because they are empathising with each other and so copying each other's facial expressions. Over time because of all the empathising they are doing, their faces come to look more similar. For example, if one partner often smiles in a particular way, the other is likely to copy it - so creating similar patterns of wrinkles and furrows on the face.
Because they liked theory number 4 the authors had another thought. Why not see if those who grow to look most like each other are the happiest couples? Presumably, then, those who get on better, empathise with each other to a greater degree and therefore go on to look more similar. Unfortunately, this test failed to reach statistical significance, so this study doesn't give us enough evidence to say whether or not it is true.
A glimpse of the future?
A straw poll of people I've talked to about this research reveals a polarised reaction. Some think that growing to look more like your partner is an horrific idea. Others, though, think there's something very sweet and romantic about it. I think I'm in the latter camp.
There is one worrying possibility this study suggests. It is said if you want to find out what your partner will look like when they're older, you should look at your partner's parents. Perhaps a glance at your partner's parents might also reveal what you will look like in a couple of decades. Truly scary stuff!
» Related: find out whether dogs really resemble their owners.
» Read more weird psychology studies.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References
Zajonc, R.B., Adelmann, P.K., Murphy, S.T., & Niedenthal, P.M. (1987). Convergence in the physical appearance of spouses. Motivation and Emotion, 11(4), 335-346.
Labels: Emotion, Weird Psychology
Ageing and the Positivity Effect
[Photo by Mike Fischer]
Cognitive decline with age is not the whole story: recent research is suggesting older adults are more likely to notice positive emotional stimuli like happy faces in addition to experiencing less anger and regulating emotions more effectively.As we get older lots of depressing things start happening to our brains. We can't simultaneously manipulate as many items as we once could. We find it more difficult to retrieve memories. Our attention degrades, and so on. Essentially our brains are slowing down, just like the rest of our bodies. But, in this discouraging picture, there is one ray of hope: our emotions.
Noticing a happy face
A series of studies carried out by Professor Laura Carstensen from Stanford University and colleagues, has revealed that we may actually preserve our ability to process emotions as we get older. But this is not just the preservation of all emotion processing, rather it may just be positive emotions. This has led them to propose a 'positivity effect' - the idea that as we get older we tend to process positive emotions better than negative.
The evidence for this claim comes from cognitive psychology. A good example is a study carried out by Mather and Carstensen (2003) which involved the use of the 'dot-probe paradigm'. This name may sound terribly complicated (or perhaps even unnecessarily invasive!) but it's actually deceptively simple.
You sit in front of a computer on which a pair of human faces are shown for 1 second - one of these faces is neutral and the other is either happy or sad. After the faces disappear a small grey dot is shown in the place of just one of the two faces. Your task is simply to identify behind which face the dot has appeared. The experimenters then measure your reaction time.
If you are randomly attending to the faces - sometimes looking at the positive, sometimes the negative and sometimes the neutral - then there should be no difference in your average reaction time to different faces.
And indeed that's what Mather and Carstensen found for younger adults. On average the chances were about even as to which face they were looking at, as measured by reaction times.
Accentuate the positive
But for older adults there was a different pattern of responses. According to the reaction times, older adults were more likely to be looking at the positive face over the negative face, the positive over the neutral and the neutral over the negative. In other words, older adults were more likely to be looking at the happier of the two faces.
This experiment only examines attention but there are also similar findings for other areas of brain function. Another experiment compared the visual working memory of older and younger adults. Sure enough, the older adults were better than the younger at processing positive emotional stimuli.
While these experiments are all very well, they're a little abstract. Photos of faces and dots appearing - does this translate to any advantage for older people in reality?
Real world problem solving
Dr Fredda Blanchard-Fields at the Georgia Institute of Technology has looked at how older adults fare in everyday problem solving (Blanchard-Fields, Stein & Watson, 2004). Her research helps answer the question of whether these advantages in emotion processing confer any practical benefits for older adults over younger adults.
In a series of studies Blanchard-Fields and colleagues have examined how people of different ages approach practical everyday problems. In one study, people ranging in age from 15 to 84 were asked to think of a problem they had faced in the past and how they had tried to solve it.
The results of this analysis suggested older adults may be better at solving problems of a social nature. In addition, older adults were likely to use more diverse strategies and understand more clearly when to do something, when to leave well alone or what combination of these was most effective.
The question remains, though, of specifically how the positivity effect might benefit older adults in everyday situations. After all, these advantages in problem solving could simply be the result of experience.
Benefits of age
In two more study Blanchard-Fields and colleagues again asked people of different ages to think about interpersonal problems and how they had regulated their emotions in these situations. These interviews were then coded for the specific types of emotions experienced in the problem situations.
They found that older people were more likely to use passive rather than active strategies for regulating their emotions. Passive strategies include approaches such as suppressing emotions, or intentionally redirecting thoughts. Active strategies include expressing the emotion or seeking help from others.
Older adults were also less likely to report feeling angry. The authors argue this might help explain why they were less frequently required to use active strategies to regulate emotions.
With age comes wisdom
The message coming from this research is that older adults are:
- More likely to attend to and remember positive emotional stimuli.
- Less likely to experience anger.
- More likely to use diverse strategies to solve interpersonal problems.
- More likely to understand when to use particular problem-solving strategies.
These differences might not just be from accumulated experience, but rather result from changes in the way emotions are processed. While simple cognitive processing measures such as those of memory and attention might decline with age, it seems that everyday problem solving does not.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References
Blanchard-Fields, F., Stein, R., & Watson, T.L. (2004). Age Differences in Emotion-Regulation Strategies in Handling Everyday Problems. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 59(6), 261-269.
Mather, M., & Carstensen, L.L. (2003). Aging and attentional biases for emotional faces. Psychological Science, 14, 409-415.
Labels: Development, Emotion
Frown and the Net Frowns With You, But Smile and You Smile Alone
[Photo by / M /]
That's according to a study which assessed the effects of smileys :) and frownies :( as I'm now calling them. Walther and D'Addario (2001) found that while smileys had no effect on the way a message was interpreted, frowns did reduce the positivity of positive messages. Overall, though, the effect of emoticons was relatively small. These results don't seem to tie up with a study I reported recently about the effects of emoticons and capitalisation on how email is perceived which did find a positive effect for smileys. But this study used different measures along with taking into account personality variables. Plus it compared a smiley emoticon with no emoticon, rather than with a frowny emoticon as did Walther and D'Addario (2001).
Time of day and delay
But emoticons and capitalisation are not the only nonverbal cues that have been studied in 'computer mediated communication'. Time of day and delay before replying are two key nonverbal cues in email.
Walther and Tidwell (1995) looked at both of these. Work emails sent at night received the higher ratings for dominance when compared with the same email sent during the day. The opposite was seen for social emails, where more dominance was attributed to emails sent during the day.
Looking at the delay in replying to emails, affection towards work email replies was highest when quick during the day, while lowest when they were quick at night. The reverse findings were seen for social messages with quick replies at night attracting the most affection.
Avatars
A few studies have also examined choice of avatars. These are images people chose to represent themselves in online chat or in online games. Contrary to expectations, one study found that generally the more abstract and less human-like an avatar was, the more likely it was to provoke interest (Nowak & Biocca, 2003).
Another study has found that when avatars with facial expressions are used, these are communicated to humans, although only to a limited extent (Ku et al., 2005).
Masters of meaning
All this research shows it's amazing how much we can infer from so little information. You'd be forgiven for thinking that nonverbal behaviour in emails or instant messaging or even avatar choice was non-existent, and what there was didn't make much difference. But this research just goes to show humans are masters at squeezing every last ounce of meaning from everything we're presented with, even it's only a colon followed by a left bracket.
» This post is part of a series on nonverbal behaviour.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityWhich Culture Most Controls Their Facial Emotions?
[Photo by Ivan Castell]
According to some research it's Russians! And the least control over facial emotions? Americans. These are just two relatively new findings to emerge from studying cultural differences in nonverbal behaviour. Perhaps the best known findings about differences between cultures relate to interpersonal space. Arab males sit closer than American males. Indonesians interact more closely than Australians. Italians more closely than Americans or Germans, Columbians closer than Puerto Ricans. Despite these differences, there are also surprising commonalities.In fact some major aspects of nonverbal behaviour are stable across cultures (Matsumoto, 2006). Facial expression of emotion is a good example. Painstaking work by researchers like Paul Ekman has brought solid evidence for the universality of basic facial expressions. But out of studying these commonalities has come a greater understanding of the subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, differences between cultures.
Cultural display rules
Differences in facial expressions between cultures have been termed cultural display rules. We learn these types of rules as we grow up from those around us. Different cultures have developed subtly different rules.
One useful distinction in these rules is made between cultures which are considered generally 'collectivist' such as the Japanese and cultures considered 'individualist' such as Americans. Collectivist cultures tend to prize 'fitting in' and homogeneity and getting along with others, while individualist cultures tend to emphasise the importance of individual autonomy and power. Studies have found that those from collectivist cultures are more likely to mask negative emotions with smiles - but only do this when in the presence of others, not when they are alone.
Controlling facial emotion
Recent work has looked at the levels of control exerted over different emotions across different cultures (Matsumoto, 2006). This has found it is Russians who most tightly control the display of their emotions, closely followed by the Japanese and South Koreans. On these measures, Americans displayed the least control over their facial expressions. The same study also uncovered significant sex differences. Men are more likely to hide surprise and fear while women control disgust, contempt and anger and many other emotions.
But it's not just the type of expression we display that differs across cultures, it's also the way these expressions are interpreted. In the intensity of emotions, for example, it has been found that Asians tend to judge displayed emotions as less intense than non-Asians.
So, given these differences, what happens when we interpret the facial expressions of someone who isn't from our culture? Are we more likely to hash it up? Recent, still relatively controversial findings, suggest people are actually better at understanding facial expressions of those from their own culture.
Overall, then, the basic nonverbal behaviours are surprisingly similar across cultures. There are, however, many differences which research has only just begun to uncover. Facial expression of emotion is just the tip of the iceberg.
» This post is part of a series on nonverbal behaviour.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityMatsumoto, D. (2006). Culture and nonverbal behaviour. In: V. L. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Nonverbal Communication. SAGE.
How do Emoticons and Capitalisation Affect Perception of Email?
[Photo by Violator3]
Compared with face-to-face communication, nonverbal cues in email are lacking. But humans are fabulous at generating meaning even when cues are sparse. Psychologists have theorised our motivation for generating meaning is reducing levels of uncertainty and helping predict other people's behaviour. This might explain how, in emails, even two simple things like capitalisation and emoticons can have important effects on reader's perceptions. People want to predict our behaviour, and we theirs. Personality, emoticons and capitalisation in email
The research on nonverbal behaviour in emails is not as simple as emoticons are good while capitalisation is bad. It seems both capitalisation and emoticons can evoke polarised responses. Perhaps less polarised for capitalisation which is normally considered a no-no in emails. Although capitalisation can also communicate excitement and not just senseless shouting.
For emoticons, there is some research finding they can take the sting out of a flame (a message with negative content), while others find it doesn't. Perhaps some of this variability in the perception of capitalisation and emoticons comes down to personality?
The study
Byron and Baldridge (2007) researched this by asking college students to fill in a personality questionnaire and then read emails from an unknown person. These were simple requests for copies of academic papers or information about the university. Each student was randomly assigned to read two of four differently presented emails. Some of the emails were all capitalised, others included emoticons and the rest neither, so the researchers could compare responses. The students then rated the sender's likeability.
They found that, sure enough, using correct capitalisation and emoticons tended to make a better impression on readers. The reader's personality also influenced how emoticons and capitalisation were perceived. Readers high in both extroversion and emotional stability were likely to rate sender's emails as more likeable if they had correct capitalisation. As for emoticons, readers higher in emotional stability were likely to rate sender's emails more likeable if they used emoticons.
The opposite was also true. This meant that for the introverted and emotionally unstable, correct capitalisation tended not to affect the sender's likeability, perhaps even lowering it. Similarly, emoticons had little effect on the emotionally unstable.
More questions than answers
These results are interesting but they also raise loads more questions. Emoticons may make the sender appear more likeable, but do they also make them seem less professional? Can emoticons really take the sting out of a flame? In this study, they only used a smiley face :-) but what about all the other emoticons? And what if you're using emoticons other people don't understand?
These questions are multiplied if more advanced ways of communicating emotion in email become a reality. Researchers are currently working on electronic mail systems which involve expressive typography, graphical components as well as old fashioned words to convey emotion. Whether this will provide a significant and useable step forward in email over punctuation, italicisation and capitalisation, we shall have to wait and see. Until then, WE'VE GOT QUITE ENOUGH QUESTIONS TO ANSWER ABOUT EMAIL JUST AS IT IS :-)
Sorry.
» This post is part of a series on nonverbal behaviour.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityLabels: Email, Emotion, Nonverbal, Personality
A Slow Smile Attracts
[Photo by kalandrakas]
Psychology research is not generally very good at capturing change. Measurements tend to be fairly static, either looking at one slice of time or asking participants to average over a period. Which is why this research on smiling is so unusual. Some of the best known research on smiling is about how people judge an authentic smile - the so-called 'Duchenne smile' or the 'crinkly-eyed smile'. What this research asks, though, is how does a smile's speed in combination with head-tilt and gender affect its perception.In this experiment, one hundred participants, half men half women, were sat in front of a monitor to judge the smiles of synthetic faces (Krumhuber, Manstead & Kappas, 2007). They watched the faces smiling - some whose smile appeared in just over 0.1 of a second, and some whose smile appeared in just over 0.5 of a second. At the same time, some of the heads were tilted to the left and some to the right. Participants then had to judge the smiles on how trustworthy, attractive, dominant, fake and flirtatious they made the faces seem.
Results
The study replicated a previous finding that a long-onset smile (0.5s onset) is seen as more authentic and flirtatious. On top of this, the researchers found long-onset smiles were perceived as more attractive, more trustworthy and less dominant. Head tilting also increased attractiveness and trustworthiness but only if the head was tilted in the right direction. In this case, the right direction was the same way as eye orientation or towards a partner.
Gender
There was also evidence that smiles are perceived in different ways depending on the gender of both the target and the observer. Previous research has found that smiling is associated with attractiveness in women, but dominance in men. These are probably a result of gender stereotypes. One finding in the present study was that women's smiles were judged less authentic than men's. Krumhuber et al. (2007) speculate that this is because women tend to smile more than men, so their behaviour is seen as more usual and therefore less informative. The reverse may be true for men.
While women's smile were more likely to be discounted, it seemed women were generally better at detecting the difference between short- and long-onset smiles. The differences found in this study, therefore, were mostly due to female participants rather than the men. Krumhuber et al. (2007) suggest this ties in with findings men are more likely to interpret ambiguous or inauthentic signals (short-onset smiles) as flirtatious behaviour. They can't (or won't) tell the difference.
And finally...
I've discovered that psychologists studying nonverbal behaviour have the most fantastic terminology. This study is about the 'Temporal Dynamics of Smiling' and I also came across one titled 'Spontaneous vs. posed facial behavior: automatic analysis of brow actions' (think Groucho Marx). This one is particularly intriguing: 'Head Canting in Paintings: An Historical Study' - I may just give that a read.
Perhaps I'm weird, but those titles really tickle me.
» This post is part of a series on nonverbal behaviour.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibilityLabels: Emotion, Nonverbal, Relationships
Take Part in Research on the Emotions - Online Questionnaire
After your excellent response to the research on music and personality (231 participants), I'm carrying out some new research on the emotions. So, I'm asking for your help again with an online multiple-choice questionnaire. The research is completely anonymous, carried out as part of an MSc course at a reputable university and is supervised by Professor Adrian Furnham.
As before, more information about the results of the study will be posted here on PsyBlog soon after the analysis is completed and results written up.
This study is now closed, thanks to everyone who took part. Results will be available in a month or two.
As before, more information about the results of the study will be posted here on PsyBlog soon after the analysis is completed and results written up.
This study is now closed, thanks to everyone who took part. Results will be available in a month or two.Labels: Emotion
Seven Ways Music Influences Mood
Good music has direct access to the emotions. As such it's a fantastic tool for tweaking our moods. Saarikallio and Erkkila (2007) investigated the ways people use music to control and improve their mood by interviewing eight adolescents from Finland. The participants may be a small, very specific group, but they actually present a really useful list:
- Entertainment - At the most fundamental level music provides stimulation. It lifts the mood before going out, it passes the time while doing the washing up, it accompanies travelling, reading and surfing the web.
- Revival - Music revitalises in the morning and calms in the evening.
- Strong sensation - Music can provide deep, thrilling emotional experiences, particularly while performing.
- Diversion - Music distracts the mind from unpleasant thoughts which can easily fill the silence.
- Discharge - Music matching deep moods can release emotions: purging and cleansing.
- Mental work - Music encourages daydreaming, sliding into old memories, exploring the past.
- Solace - Shared emotion, shared experience, a connection to someone lost.
Many of Saarikallio and Erkkila's findings chime with previous research. For example, distraction is considered one of the most effective strategies for regulating mood. Music has also been strongly connected with reflective states. These tend to allow us greater understanding of our emotions.
One of the few negative connections Saarikallio and Erkkila consider is that sad music might promote rumination. Rumination is the constant examination of emotional state which, ironically, can lead to less clarity. On the contrary, however, Saarikallio and Erkkila found that music increased the understanding of feelings, an effect not associated with rumination.
Over to you...
Perhaps the way we use music varies with factors like age and culture. Do these adolescent's experiences ring true for you? If not, what would you add to the list?
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
References - Click here to toggle visibility Euphoria Induced by Experimental Trickery
To illustrate this nomination for my top ten psychology studies I'd like to tell you a story. Imagine it's the 1960s and you're a first year psychology student at the University of Minnesota. Being a brave soul, along with wanting a better final grade, you've agreed to take part in a psychology experiment.
You've heard that it involves testing a new vitamin injection but that hasn't put you off. These are the days when men are real men and psychology experiments are real psychology experiments. Innocent days before ethics committees and lawyers took over and stopped psychologists injecting people and lying about their motives in the name of understanding human behaviour.
So you turn up to the lab where a white-coated man tells you they are testing the effects of a vitamin injection on vision. You roll up your sleeve and concentrate on those extra marks you're going to receive as result of participating in this experiment.
Messing around
Soon after the injection you are taken to different room where another student who has also just had the injection is waiting. The other student, who nods and smiles when you come in, is scribbling on pieces of paper and seems full of energy. His energy is infectious; soon the two of you are playing catch and flying paper aeroplanes around the room. Your childish enjoyment of just messing around increases. You help the other student build a tower from a pile of folders lying around in the room, then try to shoot it down with elastic-band powered paper balls.
A few hours later, after your involvement in the experiment has finished, you bump into a friend who also did the experiment. When he relates what happened to him, you can hardly contain your amusement at the clever subterfuge.
Unlike you, your friend was told the vitamin injection had some side-effects including a raised heart-rate, trembling hands and a flushed face. Like you they were shown into a room after the injection with the over-excited fellow student. Unlike you, after interacting with them, they didn't experience the same high level euphoria and excitement. What's going on?
The explanation
As you learned from the experimenter after it was finished, you were actually given a shot of adrenaline, not a vitamin preparation. This increases your heart-rate, makes you hands tremble and flushes your face. But as you weren't expecting this to happen, to what do you attribute these changes in your body's state? Quite naturally, as it turns out, you think the physiological changes you're experiencing are from playing with a the student. In fact the fellow student is in on the experiment. He's been instructed to act in this manner in a certain manner with the participants.
A beautiful manipulation
I've described two conditions from Schacter & Singer's (1962) landmark study. They also controlled for elements such as the stimulating effect of having an injection and the suggestion effect of telling people what to expect from the injection. Without knowing about these, you can still see the simple beauty of the experimental manipulation. The only difference between you and your friend's experience was what you were told to expect. Your emotional response flowed from there.
Ultimately Schachter & Singer (1962) were trying to understand how cognitions influence emotion. In this they were successful to a certain extent. Their study clearly illustrates the importance of how you interpret your physiological states, which themselves form an important component of your emotions. Also, their cognitive theory of emotional arousal dominated for two decades.
No study is perfect, of course, and this one had some flaws. It was criticised on two main grounds:
Find out more about appraisal theory.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Now Vote!
All the nominations for the top ten studies in psychology are now in. It's time for you to vote for your favourite. Which one most captures your imagination? You can recap the runners and riders here, where you can also vote.
References
Schachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69, 379-99.
You've heard that it involves testing a new vitamin injection but that hasn't put you off. These are the days when men are real men and psychology experiments are real psychology experiments. Innocent days before ethics committees and lawyers took over and stopped psychologists injecting people and lying about their motives in the name of understanding human behaviour.
So you turn up to the lab where a white-coated man tells you they are testing the effects of a vitamin injection on vision. You roll up your sleeve and concentrate on those extra marks you're going to receive as result of participating in this experiment.
Messing around
Soon after the injection you are taken to different room where another student who has also just had the injection is waiting. The other student, who nods and smiles when you come in, is scribbling on pieces of paper and seems full of energy. His energy is infectious; soon the two of you are playing catch and flying paper aeroplanes around the room. Your childish enjoyment of just messing around increases. You help the other student build a tower from a pile of folders lying around in the room, then try to shoot it down with elastic-band powered paper balls.
"You are enjoying yourself. Your heart-rate is higher, your face flushed, hands trembling."
You are enjoying yourself. Your heart-rate is higher, your face flushed, hands trembling. After a while the experimenter returns and asks you to fill out a questionnaire about your mood. You indicate exactly how feel: euphoric, full of energy, ready for mischief. A few hours later, after your involvement in the experiment has finished, you bump into a friend who also did the experiment. When he relates what happened to him, you can hardly contain your amusement at the clever subterfuge.
Unlike you, your friend was told the vitamin injection had some side-effects including a raised heart-rate, trembling hands and a flushed face. Like you they were shown into a room after the injection with the over-excited fellow student. Unlike you, after interacting with them, they didn't experience the same high level euphoria and excitement. What's going on?
The explanation
As you learned from the experimenter after it was finished, you were actually given a shot of adrenaline, not a vitamin preparation. This increases your heart-rate, makes you hands tremble and flushes your face. But as you weren't expecting this to happen, to what do you attribute these changes in your body's state? Quite naturally, as it turns out, you think the physiological changes you're experiencing are from playing with a the student. In fact the fellow student is in on the experiment. He's been instructed to act in this manner in a certain manner with the participants.
"Your friend had the same experience as you in all but one respect."
Your friend had the same experience as you in all but one respect. Crucially, he was told to expect the physiological changes as a result of the injection. Instead of interpreting the physiological changes as excitement, your friend already has an explanation for the sensations. You, on the other hand, had no other explanation for the physiological changes than the fun you were having. So, in effect, you 'explained' your feelings in terms of being euphoric when your physiological reactions had actually been manipulated by the injection. In other words you thought messing around was much more exciting than it actually was.A beautiful manipulation
I've described two conditions from Schacter & Singer's (1962) landmark study. They also controlled for elements such as the stimulating effect of having an injection and the suggestion effect of telling people what to expect from the injection. Without knowing about these, you can still see the simple beauty of the experimental manipulation. The only difference between you and your friend's experience was what you were told to expect. Your emotional response flowed from there.
Ultimately Schachter & Singer (1962) were trying to understand how cognitions influence emotion. In this they were successful to a certain extent. Their study clearly illustrates the importance of how you interpret your physiological states, which themselves form an important component of your emotions. Also, their cognitive theory of emotional arousal dominated for two decades.
No study is perfect, of course, and this one had some flaws. It was criticised on two main grounds:
- The size of the effect seen in the experiment was not that large.
- Other researchers had difficulties repeating the experiment.
Find out more about appraisal theory.
Subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS)
Now Vote!
All the nominations for the top ten studies in psychology are now in. It's time for you to vote for your favourite. Which one most captures your imagination? You can recap the runners and riders here, where you can also vote.
ReferencesSchachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69, 379-99.
Labels: Emotion, Top Ten Studies
Is Life Passing You By?
Since the rise of ever more effective technologies for recording and archiving moments in our lives, the present moment is dying. Photography is a good example. Everyone has been to a party where there's someone flitting around in the background with their camera while never really taking part in what is going on. We've all done it in one way or another. Holiday-makers spend all their time taking photos; documenting every meal, building and beach as though for a museum exhibition. Why? What for? Well the reasoning appears sound enough: I want a keepsake. But there's one thing that current technology cannot capture: our emotional states. And our emotional states are important. They are what make us human.
An emotional animal
For thousands of years we have thought ourselves largely rational beasts, occasionally beset by emotional outbursts, but ultimately still relying on logic and reason to survive. For decades cognitive psychologists have implicitly supported this picture by producing reams of research about thought processes. How we solve problems, what we pay attention to, how our brains build the waves of data from our senses into our realities.
"Our emotions are constantly interacting with our thoughts."
That has begun to change. Psychological research is now suggesting a quite different picture. Our emotions are constantly interacting with our thoughts. One recent example discussed here is the effect of emotions on our perception. A study found our perception of visual contrast can improve in fearful situations. Emotion can actually improve your eyesight. This is only one of many examples that include everything from relatively minor effects on our attention to moulding our whole experience of the world.Recording culture
To understand what this might mean for our recording culture think back twenty generations. Two hundred years ago music only existed in that one moment: when it was played. After that it was gone. It didn't matter if you went to a concert, or sat down to listen to a friend play the violin. However good the musician, it would only be played exactly that way once. Two hundred years ago if someone played, you listened. Carefully.
"It's only natural for us to feel the past can be electronically captured and carried into the future."
Back in the present our lives are quite different. Recording technology allows us to listen again and again to our favourite music, pause movies while we make tea and, of course, freeze those precious holiday moments in two-dimensional form. It's only natural for us to feel the past can be electronically captured and carried into the future. But recording technologies are only a poor substitute for reality. Looking at a photograph helps bring back thoughts and feelings from when the image was taken. That's why looking at someone else's photographs is often such a tedious activity. There are no thoughts or feelings attached to these pictures, there is nothing but the image itself. What if we sail through our own lives without paying attention to our thoughts and feelings? When we look back on today, yesterday, last year, what do we remember?
Whether we realise it or not, our emotions are continually operating to affect the way we see the world. This is happening even when we don't specifically feel any emotions. A recording can never match the experience of being fully present: something our culture does not often recognise.
Mindfulness
Eastern philosophies have long recognised the importance of living in the moment. Buddhism teaches a way of life called 'mindfulness' which is essentially a way of battling the continuing obsession for both the past and the future to the detriment of the present. While Buddhist learning is certainly important and has much to teach us, it is difficult to understand in the Western world simply because our cultural history has moulded our consciousness in a different manner.
Instead we look to science to explain our lives. Explanations of our daily malaises need to be described to us in terms we Westerners can understand. Unfortunately, when compared to philosophy, modern science, especially psychology, has had little time to provide evidence for the kind of universal insight already available in Buddhist teachings. This is probably why ideas such as mindfulness are becoming fashionable despite scientific psychology still retaining a relatively cool attitude.
Live rather than record
"Millions watch 'reality TV' which no more represents their reality than a stranger's holiday snaps."
The recording culture is only one facet of modern life, although in many ways it is so pervasive that it provides the perfect metaphor. Is it marketing that's turned us into such freaks for recording? The fetishisation of technology has certainly helped but these are only manifestations. It has more to do with the age we live in. We are continually bypassing the present in favour of imagined futures or the lives of others. Time is converted to money to be 'spent' at a later date. Millions watch 'reality TV' which no more represents their reality than a stranger's holiday snaps.So take pictures, record videos, watch reality TV but don't forget life is for the living, emotionally, not for recording. Be warned though: really living is much harder work than simply recording and watching.
For a more academic treatment of the emotions, follow my search for emotional truth from the start.Labels: Emotion, Mindfulness, Recording
Emotion Processing in Autism Spectrum Disorders
Like alexithymia, those with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are also known to have problems processing emotional information. This may at least partially account for some core features of autistic behaviour: especially problems in social interactions. After all, ordinary social interactions contain considerable emotional components. This post looks at studies which have examined how those with ASDs may have deficits in the automatic processing of emotions.
Hill and Frith (2003) describe three main cognitive theories of autism. Of these the one that has the clearest parallels with emotional processing theories is Baron-Cohen's 'mindblindness' hypothesis. In this theory, those with ASDs are thought to have problems intuitively understanding the minds of others. But, this does not mean that individuals with autism cannot understand the mental states of others - it's just that they have to explicitly work it out rather than the knowledge being processed implicitly.
Hill, Berthoz and Frith (2004) found problems in the cognitive processing of emotions in individuals with ASDs. They were also seen to have higher levels of depression than both a control group and a group of relations of the individuals with ASDs.
So this give us some general evidence of emotion processing problems in ASDs, but what about the dual process model of appraisal? Some exciting new evidence comes from McIntosh, Reichmann-Decker, Winkielman and Wilbargeret (2006) who examined the way adults and adolescents with ASDs mimic facial expressions.
Copying facial expressions
The mimicking of other people's facial expression is something that we all do naturally. It oils the wheels of social interaction. We perceive the facial expression of others, then quickly and effortlessly flex corresponding muscles in our own faces to reflect the feeling back. McIntosh et al. (2006) contrast this type of automatic mimicry with the slow effortful mimicry we carry out when consciously trying to copy another's expression.
McIntosh et al. (2006) compared the automatic responses of a control group with individuals with ASDs by using facial EMG to measure movement of the major cheek and brow muscles. There were two phases to the experiment, in the first participants simply watched a screen on which were displayed different pictures of happy and sad faces. In the second, participants were asked to copy the expression they saw in the picture.
The results showed that individuals with ASDs did not automatically mimic facial expressions they saw in the pictures, as did the control group. On the other hand, they had no problem imitating facial expression explicitly, indeed they were better at imitation than the control group. McIntosh et al. (2006) argue that this fact rules out alternative explanations of their results which include the individuals with ASDs having problems in perceiving the faces, praxis, or understanding the task they were carrying out.
Mimicry in the brain scanner
From a study carried out by Dapretto, Davies, Pfeifer, et al. (2006) we even have information about the neurological basis for these behavioural findings. In this study participants carried out a task similar to that used by McIntosh et al. (2006) but this time inside an fMRI scanner.
The major difference found in brain activation between the groups was that the individuals with ASDs showed no activation in the so-called 'mirror neuron system'. The mirror neuron system is hypothesised to be involved in understanding the thoughts and actions of others, along with many other functions! If you're new to mirror neurons then start with Mixing Memory's posts here, and here.
Again, individuals with ASDs showed no difference to the control group in imitating faces, and no differences were seen by eye tracking equipment. In other words, both groups were looking at the photos in a similar way. Those with ASDs did, however, show differences in brain activation when they attempted to imitate the face in the photo.
Dapretto et al. (2006) speculate that those with ASDs have deficits in automatic processing through the mirror neuron system, for which other parts of their brains compensate when imitating facial expressions.
ASDs and alexithymia
Both of these imitation studies provide some evidence that individuals with ASDs suffer deficits in their automatic processing of emotions, but are quite capable of imitating emotions consciously. This provides a clear parallel with the studies carried out on people with alexithymia, who also have problems with the automatic unconscious processing of emotions but can clearly describe emotions that are in focal awareness.
ReferencesDapretto, M., Davies, M., Pfeifer, J., et al. (2006). Understanding emotions in others: mirror neuron dysfunction in children with autism spectrum disorders. Nature Neuroscience, 9(1), 28-30.
Gillberg, C., & Rastam, M. (1992). Do some cases of anorexia nervosa reflect underlying autistic conditions? Behavioural Neurology, 5, 27-32.
Hill, E., Berthoz, S., & Frith, U. (2004). Brief Report: Cognitive Processing of Own Emotions in Individuals with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and in Their Relatives. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 229-235.
Hill, E., & Frith, U. (2003). Understanding autism: insights from mind and brain. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 358(1430), 281-289.
McIntosh, D., Reichmann-Decker, A., Winkielman, P., Wilbargeret, J. L. (2006). When the social mirror breaks: deficits in automatic, but not voluntary, mimicry of emotional facial expressions in autism. Developmental Science, 9(3), 295-302.
Labels: Autism, Emotion, Neuroscience