I'm great. fact.

Compared to most other people, how intelligent do you think you are? Or how attractive do you perceive yourself to be? The overwhelming majority of individuals would answer these questions with a great deal of optimism. Most think they are cleverer and more attractive than the average man or woman. This blog discusses research that shows people tend to have a very positive view of themselves and what the implications of this bias towards liking oneself may be.

The opening questions are a good example of what is known as ‘the above average effect’. Reseachers ask people a question like ‘Compared to other college students, how clever do you think you are?’ and get them to rank themselves into a percentile category. Essentially, do you think you are about average intelligence (50%)? Very clever (77%)? Or plain stupid (5%)? What do people think? Westerners tend to rate themselves well above average. Some obviously will be above average for looks or intelligence, or maybe even both (Greg Moorlock), but not everybody can be. Life isn’t fair like that. So a lot of people are conning themselves and think they are better than they actually are. This effect is well replicated; University lecturers think they do more work than their peers, drivers think they are much better motorists than they are and so on.

The question that stems from this is whether people do actually believe they are that good. Or when asked such questions, do they just give themselves the benefit of the doubt and rate highly for the sake of it. A study by Williams and Gilovich (2008) suggests people really do believe in it and are willing to bet on it. The researchers first asked participants to rate their creativity, maturity, intelligence and positivity. As you’d expect, participants tended to rank themselves a lot higher than the average. Next, participants were given some money and asked to partake in some gambling on a mock lottery draw and to win as much money as possible. The method is fairly complicated to explain here, but in part of the experiment participants were asked to gamble on the likelihood of a randomly drawn student being above them on the 4 traits they had rated earlier. If we really do believe that we are above average then we would expect to see participants using this belief when trying to take home as much money as possible. Participants tended to behave in this way. They consistently bet that the random student would be less clever, mature, intelligent or positive.

What this shows is that a) people probably really do believe they are better than most people in a lot of things, and b) this belief is likely to influence behaviour. Generally this probably isn’t a bad thing, as confidence can be useful. But there are times when individuals probably do grossly over-estimate their abilities and this has negative consequences. Trying to wing exams or presentations because you think your intelligence will pull you through is a fairly good example. A slightly different example is how we can often feel hard done by in life because we didn’t get what we deserved; we believe we worked harder than others on a project for example.

The above average effect can be described as a form of self serving bias. In the sense that it allows us to see ourselves in a positive light. A further example of a self serving bias is the tendency to attribute success to our own abilities or effort and failure to external factors like chance or other people. If you do well in an exam you think it is because you prepared well. If you do badly in the next one, all of a sudden it is more likely to be because it was a particularly hard one and not your preparation that was important. Mezulis et al. (2004) took a look at all the studies that examined this attribution bias and came to the conclusion that it clearly exists and it is a very strong effect. Everybody seems to do it. All across the globe individuals tend to attribute success to themselves, but then shy away from responsibility when things don’t turn out quite so rosy.

Furthermore, some argue it is a very adaptive bias to possess. Perhaps if we were too realistic about how good or bad we really are it would all be a bit depressing. Interestingly, in Mezulis’s review the researchers found that the self serving attribution bias was smaller in depressed participants than non depressed. Researchers have also shown that the size of this bias is associated with greater happiness, lower rates of depression, as well as health implications in the form of immune system function and even life expectancy. Being a bit big headed isn’t all that bad then as it probably makes us feel like coherent, successful and likeable people who are doing well in life.

Yet, this liking for oneself obviously can hit snags. Not knowing when you are in the wrong or being unfair seems to be one of mans great fortays. We all have friends or colleagues who just seem to think too much about themselves, never able to be humble or put their hands up and say they are wrong. They take themselves too seriously and because of it they are annoying and if only they could see this they would probably have better friendships and lead happier lives. If only.

Such people are testament to how the self serving bias is also likely to be particularly troublesome when individuals are in need of settling arguments or negotiating. George Lowenstein and colleagues have shown that when arguing we process and use information for our own needs, we are terribly biased towards our own point of view and because of this co-operating or settling disputes with others can be difficult sometimes. For example, if evidence backs up our claims we believe it’s source is more reliable than if it counters our argument and we generally think our points of view hold more validity than others. And of course, all of this is far from ideal when trying to settle disagreements or disputes.


Application

Knowing all of this is interesting, but knowing how we can avoid being so biased may be even more useful. Lowenstein et al. report that after informing their participants about these types of biases and then asking them to write about weaknesses in their arguments, individuals were more likely to behave in a co-operative manner. So, every time you have an argument; attend a lecture on self serving biases and write an essay about the weaknesses it posseses. Alternatively, having now read this blog, in the future try to consider both sides of the coin and others points of view more….

Know your limitations, weaknesses and be prepared to accept you might have failed and it is your fault. People that don’t have these qualities are really annoying.

If your friends think they are attractive but they blatantly aren’t, then please tell them the truth and help to put a stop to this above average delusion.

I can't be alone

I feel so sad today.... just want to be loved...and feel so alone, do you ever feel this way?? San. Extract taken from internet forum, answerbag.com

The answer to San’s question for most people would be yes. Feeling alone is common and is not enjoyable and because of this we strive to belong, to make friends and to form meaningful relationships with others. To some, San’s declaration of loneliness and such a need to belong might be perceived to be over the top. Yet, this blog discusses how such a need to belong is probably underestimated by many. This drive or ‘need to belong’ shapes who we are and how we live.

I (and academics) argue that this need is an exceedingly strong drive and is up there with other biological drives such as hunger and thirst. Why would we have to strive to belong? Evolutionary explanations are always popular when it comes to explaining human behaviour and forming tight knit social relationships and having friends does make some sense in terms of promoting survival. Such close relationships would be likely to be beneficial to both our own and our off-springs wellbeing. So, if there is good reason for such a drive to exist, what is the evidence for it? In this blog we will look at four lines of evidence. The first is the notion that we prefer those we have bonded with in order to maintain the feeling of belonging. The second is we are often extremely hesitant to break any bonds that fulfil this need. The third is that a failure to belong is damaging (which therefore promotes our desire to belong) and the fourth and final line of argument is that we rapidly attempt to replace bonds or attachments if we lose one. Then we will think about how the need to belong can backfire and not serve us well in life.

1) We prefer those we have bonded with in order to continue to be liked and maintain the feeling of belonging. Numerous studies show that if we feel attached to a person or we feel we belong to a similar cause (i.e. we see ourselves as part of a group), we are more likely to treat them well or help them out. For example, the bystander effect is a phenomena whereby individuals have the tendency to ignore others in need when part of a large group (‘surely somebody else will help?’). However, if we identify with the person in need the chances of ignoring their peril are significantly reduced. Another study that shows this preference is a somewhat unethical one by Masserman and colleagues (1964). The researchers taught monkeys that pulling a chain would provide them with food but also administer an electric shock to a nearby monkey friend. When a monkey had been cage mates with the poor monkey getting shocked, they would refrain from pulling the chain, to the extent that they would starve themselves for several days to avoid harming their monkey friend. It would appear that both we and monkeys want to maintain social relations and are more than happy to put ourselves out to do so.

2) We avoid breaking social bonds in order to feel as though we belong. The fact that most of us have friends that we find annoying is quite good evidence, but not very scientific. Kunz & Woolcott (1976) report a nice study that sums up this avoidance of breaking bonds. The researchers sent Christmas cards to would be participants. However, the cards were written by fictional people, who couldn’t possibly have been friends with participants in this study. What happened? A large proportion of participants sent cards back! Even when we aren’t sure whether people really are our friends, we appear to be motivated not to break bonds through the dreaded ‘you’re off my Christmas card list’. A less humorous example is provided by Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary (1995). Through surveying the literature they suggest a likely mechanism by which victims of domestic violence fail to abandon their abusers is because of the need to belong. They suggest that ‘the fact that people resist breaking off an attachment that causes pain attests to how deeply rooted and powerful the need to belong is’. We can therefore be mistaken in striving to maintain bonds even if they aren’t necessarily good for us.

3) If the need to belong really is a strong evolutionary drive then failure to achieve belonging should have negative consequences. This again is another well supported argument. In reviewing the empirical findings concerning this, Baumeister & Leary (1995) conclude that individuals who have strong emotional bonds compared with those that don’t, i.e. married or in a relationship vs. divorced, widowed or single, are less likely to experience psychological or health problems. Furthermore, 'alone' individuals tend not to live as long and these effects are further supported by findings that suggest remarrying (fulfilling the need to belong) reverses some of these negative consequences. In addition, perceived loneliness (failure to achieve belonging) has been dubbed as the most direct antecedent of psychopathology. If we don’t belong then things aren't great, which makes trying to belong something of a need.

4) We attempt to replace bonds or attachments if we lose one. This line of evidence I particularly like, as there are so many everyday observations of this. My favourite; A friend who disappears into the wilderness and makes little effort with their friends when in a romantic relationship, but then come crawling back wanting to catch up when it all goes down hill. It isn’t just my opinion that qualifies this argument either. Vaughan (1986) observed that when marriages are on the rocks and soon to be done and dusted, individuals begin to actively seek out new friendships and relationships. In addition, it is also likely that people are more likely to leave a relationship if they have some prospect of forming another one soon. Knowing there are plenty more fish in the sea is comforting, but knowing you will probably be able to catch one (and fulfill your need to belong) is even more persuasive to end a stuttering relationship.

It appears that there is good evidence for a strong need to belong - loads of it in fact. But how is it relevant? I would suggest it is very relevant as this need drives behaviour and can change the way we might behave. For example, a study by US researchers shows that individuals with a high need to belong are more likely to copy how much and how quickly a drinking partner is drinking. Although drinking a little more isn’t the end of the world, in the long run it is likely to be damaging. There are lots of other examples of how this need can make individuals follow the behaviours of groups in order to belong. Yet, these copied behaviours may well be at odds with our well being. Furthermore, the need to belong is likely to have driven individuals into bad relationships, caused poor decision making and made life harder for some. There is no avoiding it; we all want to fit in.

Perhaps the ultimate examples of the need to belong backfiring are religious cults. Such cults are thought to often prey on isolated individuals or families, possibly because being valued as an important member of a group that offers unconditional love and an identity helps to satisfy needs to belong. Yet, religious cults aren’t just a bit of a laugh. November, 1978; the ‘People’s Temple’ cult orchestrated a mass suicide in Jonestown, involving over 900 civilians, which included close to three hundred children.

Application

Turn old friends away when they come crawling back after having been dumped. They don’t like you, they just like the feeling that they belong.

If you are struggling to make friends, befriend a monkey. They are adorable, but more importantly, value friendship dearly and would probably give up their lunch for you.

Attention! Middle aged people – are you really married because they always have and will be ‘the one’ or is it because you are oh so afraid of waking up and feeling completely alone in the world?

Fickle Me

“I look in the mirror each day & feel different about the way I look... 1 day I feel I look pretty another day comes and I feel ugly! Why is it like this?” - sotchick. Extract from funadvice.com internet help forum.

Sotchick is confused by what she really thinks of her self. One day she holds one attitude but the next day her attitude is entirely different. It might be enough to make Sotchick question who she really is. If today you have the sense of being someone completely different to the person you were yesterday, which day matters more? Which is the ‘real you’?

A friend of mine was in a similar situation some time ago. He suffered from switching from truly believing his relationship with a girlfriend was great and so was she, to wanting to break it all off completely. This looked as though it could happen in a matter of hours. So, how should he decide which is his real belief or attitude and what should he do? This blog will discuss how the world can seem completely different from one day to the next and how it may be relevant in the long term.

To suggest that we can be completely different from one day to the next is something of an exaggeration. Our personalities and traits don’t normally change from day to day. In general, extroverts will be outgoing on Wednesdays as well as Saturdays and, if you’ve got plenty of self esteem, you will probably believe in yourself regardless of whether it is raining or snowing. Yet, the examples outlined earlier underline how the effect of the moment can be somewhat disconcerting. Such ambivalence and flipping to and from different beliefs and behaviours can make us question the coherent view we have of ourselves.

Mood is one of the reasons why we can feel differently from moment to moment. Obviously when in a good mood you feel rather happy and in a bad mood you feel the inverse. Yet, the indirect effects that mood can have can be particularly important. For example, there is good evidence of mood-congruent memory retrieval.

Studies examining mood-congruent memory test the speed at which, and the number of positive or negative memories that participants recall when made to feel in a pleasant or unpleasant mood. To evoke these changes in mood the researchers normally have participants watch a pleasant or unpleasant film or piece of music etc. The general findings are that when in a positive mood, positive memories are recalled much quicker and in greater number.

These effects are well replicated; when in a bad mood we almost automatically retrieve negative memories and also react to events more negatively. Thus, if you happen to be evaluating whether your job is what you really want to be doing when in a particularly good mood, there is a chance your evaluation will be different to another day’s evaluation. Positive thoughts about your job come more easily and are factored into the decision making process. This could prove problematic if you make the decision there and then, as it may not be the most representative evaluation. The converse can be said about trying to work out things when in a low mood; it can all seem impossible.

A more level-headed approach, evaluating important decisions across several times, would seem most sensible. But it can often be all too easy to make rash decisions based on present thoughts. Especially when you have an erection.

The worrying amount of sexually transmitted diseases is a good example of this. People meet and things get heated, but don’t end up using a condom. The moment is too passionate and although when asked outside of the bedroom whether they think using condoms are a good idea they will say ‘‘yes’’ and that they intend to do so, in the heat of the moment they choose not to. Indeed, there is good reason to believe our attitudes can be very different in and out of bed.

M.I.T.’s Dan Ariely reports interesting study concerning how people can differ from moment to moment, with potentially disastrous consequences. Participants answered a series of questions across two sessions: in the first session (the ‘cold session’) they were asked to imagine themselves sexually aroused and then answer questions on a laptop such as ‘Would you keep trying to have sex with your date after they say “no”?’ and ‘Would you always use a condom if you didn’t know the sexual history of a new sexual partner?’. Here comes the fun part - in the second session (the ‘hot session’), the male participants were asked to take home the laptop and complete the same questions, but whilst masturbating to pornography provided by the researchers. This is psychology at its best and if you doubt it, this is a very real study (published in The Journal of Behavioural Decision Making).

Desires to partake in these dangerous sexual activities were dramatically higher when in an aroused state. Furthermore, even though participants answered the questions imagining being aroused in the ‘cold state’ there was still a massive discrepancy between answers in the two sessions. This suggests that a) our current state has a big influence on us and b) we underestimate the effect of current state.

So what is the significance of all this? First of all, there is good reason to believe that from moment to moment our attitudes and behaviour can differ. In the case of serious decisions and actions that will have long term implications, perhaps we should evaluate and make judgements over several occasions before making any decisions.

Furthermore, perhaps considering whether we would feel similarly happy about a decision or action on another day before acting would result in better decision-making.

For much of life the effect transitory feelings probably isn’t a real problem. For example, you have to make quick decisions when in a restaurant and it would not be convenient to wait and decide on the basis of several inferences whether ordering a starter is a good idea. Yet, when the stakes have longer term implications (i.e. disease) and we think current state might be playing a role (i.e. her hand is on my crotch), then consideration probably is needed.

Not particularly useful or serious application:

Sleeping on important things is a good idea after all.

Be aware how mood or current state can affect judgement, and make use of it:
Wait for friends to be in a good mood before asking for help.

Don’t make major life decision whilst masturbating.

Sotchick – You are beautiful to all of us.

Show Me The Money

Money is fairly important, so much so that we normally have to dedicate eight hours a day of our life to get hold of it. It is a major shaping force in our lives. More is generally perceived as better and whilst a lot can buy nice holidays, cars and gifts, a lack of it can also cause jealousy and annoyance. It isn’t uncommon to overhear all sorts of people suggesting that, ‘if I just had a bit more money, life would be a lot better’. But is money and wealth all that good? In a lot of situations the answer is obviously yes. You couldn’t function without food, water, the internet or designer clothes. And money buys all these things. But the question of whether money can buy happiness is more interesting (or at least I think it is). Depending on your view point you may believe it does or you may buy into the age old cliché that money can’t buy you happiness and because of it the world is full of Ebenezer Scrooge characters. However, both are somewhat off the mark. This blog discusses what research tends to shows concerning money and happiness and how we might be able to make the most of our earnings.

There has been a fair amount of research examining the relationship between wealth and life-satisfaction. It has generally come to rather unimpressive conclusions. In developed countries, income only tends to explain 2-5% of variance in individuals ratings of wellbeing (measures of well being tend to ask individuals how satisfied they are with life or what their ‘general happiness’ is). This really isn’t very much and what this suggests is that income may play only a very small role in shaping happiness. Furthermore, there is some suggestion that these small effects are largely the result of the very poor being very unhappy because of bad living conditions. So, when you have enough money to live comfortably (i.e. being able to afford to read blogs on the internet) the effect money has on happiness gets tiny; A 40k a year job being no better than a 55k job in terms of promoting greater life satisfaction and happiness.

If massive increases in happiness are unlikely to follow an increase in bank account size, then why do people work themselves into the ground? A 2003 survey commissioned by Boys and Girls Clubs of America found that the majority of parents surveyed had little or no time, or wished they had more time to spend with their children. The major reason given for this was their work schedules. In addition, a study by Kahneman and colleagues (2006) showed that individuals with higher incomes do not spend more of their day partaking in enjoyable activities anymore so than individuals with lower incomes. The two did however differ in the amount of stress they tended to experience during the day, with the higher earners feeling significantly more stressed out.

Esteemed research psychologist Martin Seligman also cites research that shows, although lawyers (who work notoriously long and hard hours) are one of the best paid professions in the US, they are also one of the unhappiest. With one of the highest depression rates of all professions and significantly more alcohol and family problems than non lawyers. Thus, as well as doing little for us in terms of happiness, in some instances our drive for money may even encourage unhappiness.

Now we know that money is unlikely to provide us with everlasting happiness, two potentially even more interesting questions that follow on from this are:-

a) why do we continue to chase it regardless?
b) is there anything we can do with it to make us happier or more content with life?

One obvious reason as to why we may continue to chase money is that we are simply mistaken and believe that more money = more happiness. But it is probable that there are also other things going on. Another explanation is that we are trying to satisfy other needs with money. Our need for social approval and status may be particularly relevant. Advertisements are everywhere and generally teach us that money is normally associated with respect from peers and a symbol of success. Our heroes and role models in society don’t tend to be working in Somerfield and tend to wear quite expensive clothes. It is therefore likely that an implicit association between money, power, success and respect can’t help but be formed. These desires are strong; everybody likes to be seen as someone important and valued, and earning high wages is a way to achieve this. The way this may work is akin to the fashionable status of obesity during the reigns of the likes of Henry VIII. A bulging waist line was a sign of wealth and thus revered. Today, earning lots of money is associated with success and importance and therefore likely to be similarly revered.

But can we make any use of the money we have or should we just throw it all away then? The fact that money has been shown to have a small influence on life satisfaction would suggest that if used wisely, maybe it can enrich our lives. Luckily there is evidence of this; Gardner & Oswald (2007) followed UK citizens that were lucky enough to win between £1000 and £120,000 in lottery draws. Compared to control groups these winners showed a greater improvement in mental wellbeing 2 years later at follow up. So how did they do it? Regrettably the study can’t answer this question because they only tracked mental well being and not what they actually did with the money. But work by University of Columbia’s Elizabeth Dunn may provide some clues as to how money could be used to promote well being.

What would make you happier? Spending money on yourself or others? In a 2008 study Dunn gave participants $5 or $20 in the morning and asked to either spend the money on themselves or someone else/a worthy cause. Their happiness was then measured later on in the day. The findings were encouraging for those that are kind hearted. Spending the money on others resulted in individuals feeling much happier at the end of the day and even more interestingly the amount spent had little effect on mood. Spending $20 dollars on your self is seemingly no more rewarding than spending $5. Dunn also reports data that suggests individuals that have a habit of spending money on others tend to be happier than their miserly counterparts. Using ones money for good seems even more appealing now.

Application

Quit your grad schemes with Price Waterhouse Coopers and do something worthwhile with your life.

Feel sorry for lawyers; they may be rolling in money, but they are miserable alcoholics with failing families.

Find a job you feel enriched by and you value as important. This is far more likely to be satisfying than whatever career happens to currently be bringing in big bucks.

Feel there is now good reason to help starving children in Africa or to buy family members birthday presents.

Pick Your Friends Carefully (they may carry viruses)

We are hugely social animals and spend much of our time around others. Our nine to five jobs, our family, choice of friends and our choice of spouse mean that we spend a lot of time in the company of the same people day in and day out. It is almost unavoidable not to be surrounded by others. But why? Aside from the way the modern world is set up, there is also some strength in an evolutionary approach that would suggest we are social because it has served us well in the past. Avoiding sabre tooth tigers, hunting and raising young are probably a little easier with social support.

This blog will discuss a side effect of being surrounded by the same people everyday. The side effect is almost Hollywood in its nature and implies that to some extent, we might be able to ‘catch’ depression or obesity from those around us. An infamous study of health and well being is known as the Framington Heart Study and the set up of this piece of research allowed the investigators to track the mental and physical health of extremely large numbers of individuals over 20-30+ year time frames. It is a gold mine for evaluating and assessing how behaviour and people change over time. Furthermore, researchers have access to similar information for spouses, friends and neighbours. Therefore, using longitudinal statistical methods it is possible to examine some quite interesting research questions.

Does your spouse or sibling gaining weight increase your chance of becoming obese? Does the happiness of those around us make us happy and optimistic people too? These questions have been addressed by Harvard researcher Nicholas Christaki & University of California’s James Fowler. The effects are interesting to say the least. For example, data appears to suggest that having a friend close to us who becomes happy greatly increases the likelihood of the level of our happiness also shooting up in the near future (as is the case with neighbours and spouses). What’s more, in one study the researchers report that having a friend that has become obese greatly increases your chances of becoming obese (an alarmingly big 50% increase). Furthermore, data is suggestive that depression may also work similarly. A now dated study from the 80’s supports this premise by showing how being assigned to a university dorm with a roommate that was mildly depressed resulted in increased depressive symptoms over several months.

The analysis is also interesting because in some of the studies we see that such social spreading of emotions or weight are dependent on gender. In that you are much more likely to be affected by a person if they are of the same gender. There is also suggestion that it isn’t simply a case of people surrounding themselves with others who are similar. (E.g. two friends happiness could be similar not because ones mood has made the other happier, but because both only tend to associate with happy people) Because the data analysis can help to control for this and track individuals over time, the researchers suggest that things like happiness or obesity can ‘spread’ through social networks, almost akin to a computer virus.

If this is really happening then how can it be explained? One such mechanism is social norms. We look out to those around us to help us define what is normal and acceptable. Therefore, if our friends around us are splitting up with husbands and wives we consider this option too. This may be particularly important when considering the possible spread of obesity. Could having friends that eat a lot result in us eating a little bit too much on a regular basis? In a study with University of Birmingham students, our laboratory has presented some results that back this idea up. Leading participants to believe that ‘previous participants’ had either eaten a lot or eaten very little during our experiment greatly influenced the amount of snack food the participants decided to eat later on in the session. A problem with this social norm idea is that it probably can’t fully account for happiness or depression. It doesn’t seem quite right that somebody may become depressed because it seems the normal thing to do.

One explanation may be quite direct; seeing someone happy is quite nice and one can’t help but smile. Yet, there is a further and perhaps more intriguing explanation. A large amount of research has shown that we have a tendency to unconsciously mimic the actions and facial expressions of others. It could be thought of as a form of social ritual and there is some suggestion that this takes place to ease social relations. Indeed, people do tend to like those that are similar to them. A study reported by Rick van Baaren and colleagues in 2004 has shown that mimicry can lead to advantages. Researchers instructed a waitress to either mimic customers and repeat their order or stay quiet. The mimicking waitresses ended up being awarded significantly more tips! In addition, we are more likely to mimic facial expressions of people we view as part of our group and similar. So, this natural inclination to mimic those around us may result in us copying their expressions and behaviours, which over time could be for the good or the worse. Fingers crossed your friends smile a lot then.

Findings concerning the impact on (effects) those around us have on us raise some interesting questions. If these results hold up then it is conceivable that previously a husband will have completely unintentionally tipped a wife into a series of depressions. If they were to become aware of this then what would they do? Is it right to cut off people that make us unhappy? Secondly there are also parallels to passive smoking. Because the habits of smokers result in adverse health effects we now see a nationwide ban on smoking in public places. Using the same logic, should we be making depressed people huddle together outside nightclubs and bars? Or have separate sections for obese people in restaurants? Both depression and obesity have been associated with a variety of illnesses and reductions in life expectancy…..

Pay Attention

Over 60% of America is overweight or obese and the UK isn’t trailing too far behind either. Furthermore, depending on which statistics you choose to look at there are projections that near enough everybody will be obese in the not too distant future. So why is everybody so fat? The obvious answer is that energy intake (how much food you eating) and energy expenditure (how many calories you are burning) are imbalanced. Which is a shame because obesity is quite a big health problem. With it often comes heart problems, type two diabetes or even an early grave. Additionally, even if you aren’t obese, sitting next to a very large person on a long distance flight is unpleasant. Nobody is a winner when it comes to obesity. Although there are many mechanisms by which people end up over eating this blog will describe some research that suggests that a lack of attention and failing memory may be contributing to bigger waist sizes and broken scales.

A study by Wansink and colleagues (2006) helps to underline one of these ideas well. During the Superbowl the researchers invited some university students to a free Superbowl party (very kind). At the party was of course a big screen with the game on, but also free drinks and a chicken wing buffet. Participants were invited to go to the buffet as many times as they liked, pick up some wings and then return to their tables to enjoy the game and food. However, there were also some waitresses involved. Tables of participants were assigned to one of two conditions. In the first condition the waitresses would clear the plates of chicken wing bones as they mounted up. In the second condition the waitresses were instructed to leave the plates on the table. So half the participants were surrounded by evidence of the amount of food they had eaten (in the form of bones) and the other half were reliant on their memory of how much they had eaten. Why do this? The idea here was that by leaving the bones on some tables this would direct attention towards how much each individual had eaten. Whereas, constantly clearing the plates has essentially the opposite effect.

The difference this made was fairly substantial. Having the bones as a reminder of food intake resulted in these participants consuming around a third less than participants that had their tables continuously cleared. The dirty plates appeared to serve as a record of how much had been eaten and informed participants whether to over eat and go back for more. Thus, having reminders of what food we have eaten might be rather useful, as our memory for fine detail can be questionable. For example, buffet style restaurants evoke a tendency to horrendously over-eat. Although greed probably has something to do with it, a failure to recognise and register how many of those very average tasting prawn crackers you’ve already put away may also be fuelling further overeating.

Television viewing also appears to be a bit of a problem in relation to obesity. Watching TV doesn’t burn many calories but there are further problems, especially if you are eating whilst channel surfing. An ample number of studies have shown that putting a bowl of M&Ms or popcorn in front of a person watching TV is a bad idea. Watching television serves as a distraction from eating. You aren’t monitoring what you are eating and because of this intake will tend to increase dramatically. Attention is on the television screen and not to how much you’ve eaten or how hungry you are. But the effects don’t end there. Watching TV whilst eating lunch at midday may even cause a degree of over eating later on in the day. Dr Suzanne Higgs (my PhD supervisor and very nice person) devised a clever experiment underlining this point. Participants came into the lab and ate a standardised lunchtime meal. Some ate the lunch and watched TV, others ate in the absence of TV. Later on in the afternoon all participants returned and were asked to take part in a mock ‘taste test’ which would involve tasting some cookies and making ratings about them. Luckily there were a lot of cookies and participants were told that after completing the ratings they could eat as many of them as they liked. Of course, there was more to it than that. The taste test was a cover story and what the researchers were really interested in was how many of the cookies participants chose to eat.

The results indicated that participants that had eaten the lunchtime meal whilst watching TV ate significantly more cookies than those who ate in the absence of TV. Why? The likely explanation is memory. The theory being that participants who had watched TV would have paid little attention to the meal and therefore have a reduced recollection of how much they’d actually eaten at lunchtime. This in turn resulted in participants overeating later on because when making decisions about how much we should eat we are reliant on our memory of recent intake. Yet, if that memory is not particularly accurate then we end up eating more than we would normally

Paying attention to what one is eating would therefore appear to be important in both the short term (how many times have I been up to the buffet?) and perhaps more unexpectedly the long term too (how big was that cake I had at lunch?).

Application

Be mindful about what you are eating.

Sense Making

Often in life things happen that make us extremely happy or extremely sad. But even sudden and unexpected occurrences such as receiving a pay rise because you have been great at work, or news that one of your friends has been saying nasty things behind your back don’t take a hold of us forever. The effects eventually wear off and often a lot quicker than we expect. But why and how does this occur? Why do we move on past great disappointments and why does thinking about our promotion at work have less ‘fuzziness’ over time?

This blog will provide one likely explanation.

One area of psychology that has received a fair amount of attention is known as the ‘expressive writing paradigm’. The basic gist of this is that researchers get participants to write about a previously traumatic or upsetting life experience on a regular basis for a few weeks or so and see what effects such a task may have. One could be forgiven if they guessed that writing about the bad times might actually make you feel more depressed over time, but this doesn’t seem to be the case. Harris (2006) pooled together all of the studies that had examined the expressive writing paradigm in normal run of the mill participants. The results suggest a very positive effect, in the form of reducing the amount of health care participants needed in subsequent follow ups weeks or months after the study had finished. Similar findings of increased happiness and life satisfaction have been reported from other studies too.

An interesting question is why? Luckily a further set of studies by Lyubomirsky et al. (2006) can help to shed some light on this. Psychologists have theorised that the expressive writing paradigm may produce such beneficial effects because instructing individuals to write about painful past experiences helps them come to understand and make sense of what happened and why. Hence, once an explanation has been provided and individuals feel as though they understand the experience and it eventually becomes just another past event in their life, becoming less inclined to think about it. This type of idea is backed up by other research that has shown that spouses that lose a loved one tend to recover better if they can come to terms with what has happened and give meaning or understanding to it.

The Lyubomirsky studies tested this kind of prediction. In one study they had participants partake in the usual expressive writing programme or instead of writing, instructed some participants to only think about the past negative experience. The theory was that because whilst writing is especially conductive for structure, organisation and thus sense making, thinking can be more difficult and thoughts can often become repetitive and go round in circles. Thus, participants assigned to the writing condition were hypothesised to show greater benefits in a follow up. This was the case, with the writing condition reporting greater psychological well being at follow up.

In a further study the researchers addressed the question even more directly by manipulating how participants wrote about their past experiences. In one condition participants were encouraged to analyze and find meaning from the negative event, whilst in the other they were guided to repeat and rehearse the experience. Those analyzing and finding meaning again tended to come off better than those instructed to replay the negative event over and over again.
Such studies are interesting and may even be useful if one faces something nasty in life. They suggest that by providing an explanation to, and understanding a past experience that evoked great emotion we make it more normal and this results in it invoking less of an emotional reaction. But what about the flip side of the coin? Should we analyze the good times too? Wilson & colleagues (2005) answer this question in a number of studies and the take home message would appear to be that one should be careful when thinking about the good times.

In one study participants were approached on campus and given a small card with a free dollar attached to it. Receiving a free gift is always mood lifting. But the researchers manipulated the message on the small card so that participants received one of two cards. The first card provided very general information with no real explanation, whilst the second type of card appeared to explain why the coin had been given away (without actually providing much more detail) Posing to be part of another study a different researcher then returned 5 minutes later and asked participants to fill out a mood questionnaire. The results showed that participants that believed they had an explanation to the random act of kindness actually felt less happy than those who were still unaware as to why they had received the gift.

The explanation here is that whether positive or negative, by making sense of a past experience we ‘normalize’ it, making it more like any other run of the mill event in life, effectively reducing its emotional value. Blissfully ignorance might not be such a bad thing after all at least when it comes to thinking about past triumphs or good news.

Application

Writing or trying to explain and understand a hurtful experience may at first be painful but in the long rather adaptive.

Unless one is searching for meaning or understanding, mentally replaying bad experiences is probably a bad idea.

Thinking about how and why your friend was able to pick out such an amazing birthday present may actually be a good idea if you don’t want that mood to fade.