Liberals and Conservatives Have Quite Different Cognitive Styles, Psychology Study Finds

Both groups solved the same number of problems, but in different ways.

Both groups solved the same number of problems, but in different ways.

The way liberals and conservatives go about solving problems is quite different, a new study finds.

In tests of verbal problems, liberals tend to rely more on sudden insight, while conservatives rely more on analytic thinking.

Both groups, however, solved the same number of problems.

Dr Carola Salvi, who led the study, said:

“Liberals have a less structured and more flexible cognitive style, according to those studies.

Our research indicates that cognitive differences in people with different political orientations also are apparent in a task that some consider to be convergent thinking: finding a single solution to a problem.

[…]

This view is consistent with similar results from other labs across behavioral, neuroscientific and genetic studies, which converge in showing that conservatives have more structured and persistent cognitive styles.”

The research involved students who were divided into three groups: conservative, liberal and neutral.

The people who scored neutral were excluded.

They had to answer problems from a classic problem-solving test.

Here is an example: what single word can be added to all of these three words ‘pine’, ‘crab’ and ‘sauce’ to produce a compound word or phrase?

I have put the answer right at the bottom of the post in case you want to try solving it yourself.

Professor Mark Beeman, another of the study’s authors, said:

“It’s not that there’s a different capacity to solve problems.

It’s more about which processes people end up engaging in to solve the problem.”

In life we need both analytical and insight-based approaches, Dr Salvi said:

“Liberals tended more than conservatives to use insight to solve verbal problems in which you have to ‘think outside the box’.

Everyday life presents us with a variety of scenarios where we are asked to solve problems analytically, others only with a spark of insight, most of them can be solved either way.

In this last case, liberals are more likely to achieve the solution with an ‘Aha!’ moment, whereas conservatives’ problem solving approach does not prefer one style or the other.”

** The answer is ‘apple’.

The study was published in The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (Salvi et al., 2016).

Politicians image from Shutterstock

Video Games: 3 Psychological Benefits You Never Would Have Guessed

Three positive mental aspects of playing video games.

Three positive mental aspects of playing video games.

Video games are linked to higher intellectual functioning in children, new research finds.

In addition, the more children played video games, the better adjusted they were at school.

The findings come from a study of children aged 6-11.

Researchers found no link between mental health and video game use.

They did find, however, that video game use was linked to better relationship with their peers.

Dr Katherine M. Keyes, one of the study’s authors, said:

“Video game playing is often a collaborative leisure time activity for school-aged children.

These results indicate that children who frequently play video games may be socially cohesive with peers and integrated into the school community.

We caution against over interpretation, however, as setting limits on screen usage remains and important component of parental responsibility as an overall strategy for student success.

Naturally, an association cannot show that computer games have a causative effect. Future research is required…

The study was published in the journal Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (Kovess-Masfety et al., 2016).

Video games image from Shutterstock

The Reason You Should Never Use The Term ‘The Mentally Ill’

Why labels matter so much for people with mental illlness.

Why labels matter so much for people with mental illlness.

People show less tolerance to those referred to as ‘the mentally ill’, new research finds.

The better terminology to use is “people with mental illness”.

The emphasis, then, is on the word ‘people’ rather than the label of mental illness.

Mr Todd Gibbs, who co-authored the study, said:

“Person-first language is a way to honor the personhood of an individual by separating their identity from any disability or diagnosis he or she might have.”

The study found that even experienced counsellors were more likely to be prejudiced against those referred to as ‘the mentally ill’.

Professor Darcy Haag Granello, who co-authored the study, said:

“This isn’t just about saying the right thing for appearances.

The language we use has real effects on our levels of tolerance for people with mental illness.

When you say ‘people with a mental illness,’ you are emphasizing that they aren’t defined solely by their disability.

But when you talk about ‘the mentally ill’ the disability is the entire definition of the person.”

Incredibly, it’s been 20 years since ‘person-first’ language was suggested, but no one has formally tested the effects until now.

Professor Granello said:

“It is shocking to me that there hasn’t been research on this before.

It is such a simple study.

But the results show that our intuition about the importance of person-first language was valid.”

The research involved students, professional counsellors and counsellors in training, who also succumbed to the bias.

Professor Granello concluded:

“I understand why people use the term ‘the mentally ill.’

It is shorter and less cumbersome than saying ‘people with mental illness’.

But I think people with mental illness deserve to have us change our language.

Even if it is more awkward for us, it helps change our perception, which ultimately may lead us to treat all people with the respect and understanding they deserve.”

The study was published in the Journal of Counseling & Development (Granello & Gibbs, 2016).

Label image from Shutterstock

The Reason Some People Can’t Hold Their Drink

It’s true: some people really can’t hold their drink.

It’s true: some people really can’t hold their drink.

A gene has been identified which may help to explain why some people can’t hold their drink.

Most people know someone who only has to have a little alcohol to make them start acting very strangely.

The genetic mutation, which affects a receptor called serotonin 2B, has been identified by Finnish researchers.

Dr Roope Tikkanen, who led the research, said:

“The results also indicate that persons with this mutation are more impulsive by nature even when sober, and they are more likely to struggle with self-control or mood disorders.”

The serotonin 2B receptor is thought to be linked to impulsivity.

The mutation is present in around 2.2% of people.

Dr Tikkanen said:

“The impact of one gene on complex phenomena is typically minor.

But it is possible to identify the impact of such a genetic mutation in the Finnish population, as our historical isolation has led to a relatively homogenous gene pool.”

The study was published in the journal Translational Psychiatry (Tikkanen et al., 2015).

Drunk image from Shutterstock

This Common Belief About Male/Female Brains Is Wrong

Are men and women’s brains really that different?

Are men and women’s brains really that different?

The brains of men and women are, on average, not that different, a new study finds.

The research focused on a brain structure called the hippocampus.

The hippocampus — which is vital for memory and other functions — was thought to be bigger in women than men.

A larger hippocampus was thought to explain why women have:

  • better verbal memory,
  • stronger interpersonal skills,
  • and greater emotional expressiveness.

Men and women’s hipppocampi are a similar size, however, a team at the Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine in the US has found.

The study follows from others which have debunked other supposed differences between the brains of men and women:

  • The corpus callosum — a structure which connects the brains’ two hemispheres — was thought to be different in men and women.
  • The two hemispheres were thought to process language in different ways in men and women.

Both these claims have since been debunked.

Dr Lise Eliot, who led the study, said:

“Sex differences in the brain are irresistible to those looking to explain stereotypic differences between men and women.

They often make a big splash, in spite of being based on small samples.

But as we explore multiple datasets and are able to coalesce very large samples of males and females, we find these differences often disappear or are trivial.”

The study — a ‘meta-analysis’ — looked at 76 published papers which included results from over 6,000 people.

Dr Eliot continued:

“Many people believe there is such a thing as a ‘male brain’ and a ‘female brain.’

But when you look beyond the popularized studies — at collections of all the data — you often find that the differences are minimal.”

The study was published in the journal NeuroImage (Tan et al., 2015).

Wrong image from Shutterstock

Two Human Brains Directly Connected To Play Parlour Game Over The Internet

People played ’20 questions’ using direct brain-to-brain connection.

People played ’20 questions’ using direct brain-to-brain connection.

Two human brains have been directly linked to play a game over the internet for the first time.

The experiment, carried out at the University of Washington, allowed people to send signals directly from one brain to the other over the internet.

Dr Andrea Stocco, the study’s first author, said:

“This is the most complex brain-to-brain experiment, I think, that’s been done to date in humans.

It uses conscious experiences through signals that are experienced visually, and it requires two people to collaborate.”

For the research, two people played a game similar to ’20 questions’ — a parlour game where you have to guess what object the other person is thinking of.

One person wore a cap measuring their brainwaves (EEG) and looked at a screen, on which was displayed an object, such as a dog.

They then responded to questions by focussing on one of two flashing LEDs.

Each were flashing at a different frequency and produced different types of brain waves.

When the sender looked at the ‘yes’ LED it activated (via the internet) a magnetic coil behind the receiver’s head.

This induced a phosphene — a line, wave or blob in the receiver’s visual field.

The results showed that in control experiments receivers guessed the correct object only 18% of the time.

But, when their brains were connected via the internet, the rate jumped to 72%.

The team are now working on the idea of sending whole brain states from one person to another.

For example, it may be possible to send signals from a healthy brain to someone who has suffered brain damage or has a developmental problem.

Dr Stocco said:

“Evolution has spent a colossal amount of time to find ways for us and other animals to take information out of our brains and communicate it to other animals in the forms of behavior, speech and so on.

But it requires a translation.

We can only communicate part of whatever our brain processes.

What we are doing is kind of reversing the process a step at a time by opening up this box and taking signals from the brain and with minimal translation, putting them back in another person’s brain.”

The study was published in the journal PLOS ONE (Stocco et al., 2015).

Network brain image from Shutterstock

Quantum Cognition Could Predict ‘Irrational’ Human Behaviour

People’s behaviour seems irrational but is governed by quantum principles.

People’s behaviour seems irrational but is governed by quantum principles.

The brain may behave like a quantum computer to help us cope with the complexities of life, a new theory argues.

Quantum cognition may help explain why people’s behaviour can often seem so irrational.

Dr Zheng Joyce Wang, one of the study’s authors, said:

“We have accumulated so many paradoxical findings in the field of cognition, and especially in decision-making.

Whenever something comes up that isn’t consistent with classical theories, we often label it as ‘irrational.’

But from the perspective of quantum cognition, some findings aren’t irrational any more.

They’re consistent with quantum theory — and with how people really behave.”

Some researchers are focusing on the idea that the brain is a kind of quantum computer.

Dr Wang and others, though, are taking a different approach.

They want to test whether the way people think has some similar patterns to those found in quantum mechanics.

For example, when we are trying to decide between two options, we see them in our mind at the same time.

Each one has all kinds of pros and cons attached to it — all sorts of probabilities about what might happen if we follow each path.

When we choose one, though, all these possibilities collapse into themselves.

Dr Wang explained:

“Our brain can’t store everything.

We don’t always have clear attitudes about things.

But when you ask me a question, like ‘What do you want for dinner?” I have to think about it and come up with or construct a clear answer right there.

That’s quantum cognition.”

It is reminiscent of the famous quantum mechanical thought experiment ‘Schrödinger’s cat‘.

Both quantum mechanics and quantum cognition are all about probabilities, but:

  • Quantum physics deals with ambiguity in the physical world.
  • Quantum cognition is about how our brains cope with ambiguity mentally.

In quantum mechanics it’s the probability that a particle will be in a particular place at a particular time, for example.

In quantum cognition it’s about the probability that we’ll make certain decisions.

Dr Wang said:

“In the social and behavioral sciences as a whole, we use probability models a lot.

For example, we ask, what is the probability that a person will act a certain way or make a certain decision?

Traditionally, those models are all based on classical probability theory — which arose from the classical physics of Newtonian systems.

So it’s really not so exotic for social scientists to think about quantum systems and their mathematical principles, too.”

Quantum cognition may explain some curious behaviours psychologists regularly see in their research, the researchers argue.

The theory is published in the journals Current Directions in Psychological Science and Trends in Cognitive Sciences (Busemeyer & Wang, 2015; Bruza et al., 2015).

Brain illustration image from Shutterstock

The Neurons That May Cause Alcoholism

Alcohol changes the physical structure of certain neurons, neuroscientists find.

Alcohol changes the physical structure of certain neurons, neuroscientists find.

Neuroscientists have found a group of neurons which influence whether a couple of drinks turns into too many.

The discovery could be an important step forward in the fight against alcoholism.

The neurons — in part of the brain called the dorsomedial striatum — are vital to goal-directed behaviour.

Researchers found that alcohol changes the physical structure of these neurons.

Large amounts of alcohol, drunk periodically, activate dopamine receptors in this region, making them much more excitable.

Dr Jun Wang, the study’s lead author, said:

“If these neurons are excited, you will want to drink alcohol, you’ll have a craving.”

Activation of these neurons can motivate more drinking.

This in turn leads to the neurons being more sensitive.

So, it’s a vicious circle that’s difficult to escape from.

Neuroscientists reached these conclusions by carrying out experiments on mice.

They found that critical changes in so-called “D1 neurons” led to the mice consuming more alcohol.

Dr Wang said:

“Even though they’re small, D1 receptors are essential for alcohol consumption.

If we suppress this activity, we’re able to suppress alcohol consumption.

This is the major finding.

Perhaps in the future, researchers can use these findings to develop a specific treatment targeting these neurons.

My ultimate goal is to understand how the addicted brain works, and once we do, one day, we’ll be able to suppress the craving for another round of drinks and ultimately, stop the cycle of alcoholism.”

The research was published in the Journal of Neuroscience (Wang et al., 2015).

Alcoholic image from Shutterstock

The Unexpected Effect of Food On Women’s Romantic Feelings

Scientists were surprised by an unexpected effect of food on women’s romantic feelings.

Scientists were surprised by an unexpected effect of food on women’s romantic feelings.

Women feel more romantic after a meal than beforehand, a new study finds.

The results surprised researchers as typically people are more motivated when they are hungry.

Scientists scanned women’s brains when they were hungry and after they’d eaten.

During both scans women were shown ‘romantic images’.

Dr Alice Ely, the study’s first author, said:

“We found that young women both with and without a history of dieting had greater brain activation in response to romantic pictures in reward-related neural regions after having eaten than when hungry.

…eating may prime or sensitize young women to rewards beyond food.

It also supports a shared neurocircuitry for food and sex.”

People who have been on diets in the past are even more sensitive to rewards after eating.

Dr Ely said:

“In the fed state, historical dieters had a greater reaction in the reward regions than the other two groups to highly palatable food cues versus neutral or moderately palatable cues.

Based on this study, we hypothesized that historical dieters are differentially sensitive — after eating — to rewards in general, so we tested this perception by comparing the same groups’ brain activation when viewing romantic pictures compared to neutral stimuli in a fasted and fed state.

The pattern of response was similar to historical dieter’s activation when viewing highly palatable food cues, and is consistent with research showing overlapping brain-based responses to sex, drugs and food.”

The study was published in the journal Appetite (Ely et al., 2015).

Chilli mouth image from Shutterstock

How To Read Someone’s Emotions With 90% Accuracy

How neuroscientists are learning to predict emotions with increasing accuracy.

How neuroscientists are learning to predict emotions with increasing accuracy.

Brain scans can read human emotions with 90% accuracy, a new study finds.

Researchers have been able to predict the intensity of negative emotions to evocative images.

They found that negative emotions have a ‘neural signature’ which a computer could learn.

Dr Luke Chang, who led the study, said:

“This means that brain imaging has the potential to accurately uncover how someone is feeling without knowing anything about them other than their brain activity.

This has enormous implications for improving our understanding of how emotions are generated and regulated, which have been notoriously difficult to define and measure.

In addition, these new types of neural measures may prove to be important in identifying when people are having abnormal emotional responses — for example, too much or too little — which might indicate broader issues with health and mental functioning.”

For the research, 182 people looked at photos designed to elicit a negative response.

These included pictures of physical injuries, hate groups and acts of aggression.

Using brain scans, a computer was able to learn the ‘neural signature’ of negative emotion.

Dr Chang said:

“We were particularly surprised by how well our pattern performed in predicting the magnitude and type of aversive experience.

As skepticism for neuroimaging grows based on over-sold and -interpreted findings and failures to replicate based on small sizes, many neuroscientists might be surprised by how well our signature performed.

Another surprising finding is that our emotion brain signature using lots of people performed better at predicting how a person was feeling than their own brain data.

There is an intuition that feelings are very idiosyncratic and vary across people.

However, because we trained the pattern using so many participants — for example, four to 10 times the standard fMRI experiment — we were able to uncover responses that generalized beyond the training sample to new participants remarkably well.”

The study was published in the journal PLOS Biology (Chang et al., 2015).

Crying image from Shutterstock