![]() |
Source |
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
There's nothing wrong with turning red: The social functions of embarrassment
Posted by
Juli
Monday, October 17, 2011
Good food, bad food: The psychology of nutrition
Posted by
Amie
![]() |
Source |
Imagine you
are alone on a desert island for one year and you can have water and one other
food. Pick what food you think would be best for your health (never mind what
food you would like).
Corn
Alfalfa
sprouts
Hot dogs
Spinach
Peaches
Bananas
Milk
chocolate
Paul Rozin, a
psychology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, asked people this same
question and found that 42% of people chose bananas, 27% spinach, 12% corn, 7%
alfalfa sprouts, 5% peaches, 4% hot dogs, and 3% milk chocolate. Only seven
percent of people chose a food that could actually offer them enough calories
and all the nutrients they needed for long term survival. No, not alfalfa sprouts
(not nearly enough calories): hot dogs and milk chocolate. These two animal
products (the milk in milk chocolate) provide protein and fat, two necessary
nutrients that would be deficient in the other foods. Overall, hot dogs would
provide all necessary nutrients, sufficient protein, and a more optimal amino
acid balance, suggesting they would be best suited to help you survive for a
year.
So why is
this psychology professor asking people what type of food they’d want to have if
they were stranded on a desert island? Rozin found that people’s beliefs about
what makes up a healthy diet is heavily influenced by psychology. In this
particular paper (Rozin, Ashmore, & Markwith, 1996), he and his colleagues
researched whether people’s views about a healthy diet were biased by something
termed “dose insensitivity.” Before I describe what that is, let’s try out a
few more of the questions that he asked people.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Friday Fun: Our first readership poll
Posted by
Amie
![]() |
Everyone loves a Friday Fun Poll! |
Poll results...
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Want to become a wizard? Just read Harry Potter
Posted by
Anna Luerssen
![]() |
source |
I will never forget when the final installment of the Harry Potter series came out. Myself and a few of my closest friends from college, all big HP fans, were spending the weekend at my Mom’s house. Although I hadn’t seen these friends in 6 months, although there were a ton of activities to do in that region of upstate NY, although we were twenty five years old - we could not wait to see how J.K. Rowling was going to wrap up the series. The second we picked up the Deathly Hallows, we literally did not stop. We lounged around all day, moving from the sun chairs outside, to the porch, to our beds, and back. We ate, we drank, we read. We barely talked. Parmita and I, the most determined, read straight through the night – 759 pages in total. It was a marathon, and let me tell you, it was well worth it.
Though the power of a good book is undeniable even to the lightest of readers, researchers have discovered some unexpected benefits from an engaging narrative. For example, people tend to feel less lonely after reading a familiar narrative, and even seek out comforting books after experiences of social rejection (Derrick, Gabriel, & Hugenberg, 2009). Narratives have been found to help develop social skills – they teach us rules that govern social interactions and help us to cultivate empathy (e.g. Mar & Oatley, 2008). In an interesting study published recently in Psychological Science, Shira Gabriel and Ariana Young even found that we actually feel like, or become, the characters of the book, and that this assumption of the characters’ identities makes us feel happier and more satisfied with our own lives. Here's the study...
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Class Warfare
Posted by
Unknown
"I think it's dangerous, this class warfare." -- Mitt Romney (2012 presidential candidate)
In the last week or so, everyday Americans have taken to the street, Wall Street to be exact, to express their discontent with the current economic climate. In short, the bottom 99% of Americans are upset about economic inequality, and rightly so. After all, American economic inequality is worse than every other developed country (we've discussed this inequality here and here). In particular, there seems to be striking inequality in salary between average workers and corporate CEOs (262:1 and rising).
Of course, not everyone is supportive of movements like these, which seek to diminish the pay disparities between the wealthy and the less-so. For instance, Herman Cain, the godfather of pizza (now current republican presidential candidate) said this about the protestors: "Don't blame Wall Street, and don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and are not rich, blame yourself." Apparently, a portion of people out there believe that people have personal responsibility for the amount of money they make and that wealth is gained through hard work, ability, and talent. But who exactly are these people?
In the last week or so, everyday Americans have taken to the street, Wall Street to be exact, to express their discontent with the current economic climate. In short, the bottom 99% of Americans are upset about economic inequality, and rightly so. After all, American economic inequality is worse than every other developed country (we've discussed this inequality here and here). In particular, there seems to be striking inequality in salary between average workers and corporate CEOs (262:1 and rising).
Of course, not everyone is supportive of movements like these, which seek to diminish the pay disparities between the wealthy and the less-so. For instance, Herman Cain, the godfather of pizza (now current republican presidential candidate) said this about the protestors: "Don't blame Wall Street, and don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and are not rich, blame yourself." Apparently, a portion of people out there believe that people have personal responsibility for the amount of money they make and that wealth is gained through hard work, ability, and talent. But who exactly are these people?
Friday, October 7, 2011
Friday Fun: Breaking News! Correlation Does Not Equal Causation
Posted by
Unknown
![]() |
Man and IPhone pictured in loving embrace (source) |
It's too bad that some journalists (and to be fair, even some scientists) forget this lesson.
Just for fun, I gave out extra credit this week to any student who could find a news article claiming causation from correlation. I gave my students a 6 hour time window to complete this assignment. Not surprisingly, half my class of 60 students came back with a unique example (for those keeping score at home, that's 30 news articles that inappropriately infer cause from correlations)! Below, I summarize my three favorites:
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Would you eat the worm?
Posted by
Juli
![]() |
Source |
Next, after doing a neutral task where you assess the weights of the covered cups, the experimenter tells you that you have been randomly assigned to an experimental condition where you will be asked to eat the worm. You then wait for ten minutes while the experimenter goes to do something in another room, during which time you are left to anticipate your upcoming worm-eating experience. When the experimenter returns, he or she says, "Oh, an error has been made. You weren't exactly assigned to the right condition. You actually are supposed to choose which task you will perform, between eating the worm or discriminating the weights."
What do you decide? Do you eat the worm even though you no longer have to?
Monday, October 3, 2011
Experiential versus material purchases: Science says that buying new shoes won’t make me happier
Posted by
Amie
![]() |
Material purchasing at its finest |
Last weekend I went to the mall in search of a new pair of
tennis shoes since I’ve run the life out of my current pair, and while I was
there, I continued my never-ending quest to find the perfect pair of boots
(just ask my husband – I’ve been on this quest for years). When I arrived at
the mall, the parking lot was so full that I had to circle around before I
could find a spot. The stores were equally crowded inside. Apparently none of these shoppers had read Leaf Van Boven’s
2005 review article highlighting the benefits of spending money on experiences over
material goods. Juli first mentioned this finding in her post on the four ways to buy happiness, and I
wanted to spend some more time on the topic since I still have a bit of trouble
accepting the findings, particularly when I’m on a quest for a material good
that I’m sure will change my life (spoiler alert - I did buy a pair of boots,
though I’m not sure they’re “the ones”).
When
surveying various cultures to determine what makes people happy, researchers
kept stumbling upon the finding that having more didn’t equate to being
happier. And people who aspire to have more are, in fact, less satisfied. For
example, the more that people endorse the statement “Buying things gives me
pleasure” the less satisfied they are with their lives. But, it seems, this is
only true if you are spending your money to buy “things” rather than
“memories.” Whether people are asked to directly compare experiential versus
material purchases or to simply write about or reflect on a specific recent purchase,
they report that the experiential purchase made them happier, contributed more
to their overall happiness, and was “money better spent.” In the moment, Recalling
their most recent vacation seems to put people in a better mood than recalling
their last shoe purchase.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)