Arguing & Complaining

Arguments and disagreements often don't work out all that well. Even if to you your point is painstakingly as clear as day and is irrefutable, this rarely ever means that somebody else will also see it that way. Of course a lot of people can have minor disagreements and get on with things soon after, but this is far from the case all of the time. Siblings shun each other and vow never to speak again, marriages end as a result of constant bickering and on a more grand level, political hostilities can be fuelled by disagreements and failed negotiations. One probable reason arguments so often seem doomed is because people can be very easily offended and if anything they stand for is challenged or questioned, they decide to go on the offensive. Few of us like being directly challenged and one can often feel hostile because of it.

However, this alone doesn't seem to explain what is going on with our failed and frustrating discussions and disagreements. What I (and many others) suggest is that there is a more fundamental and powerful reason; individuals tend to approach arguments in a magnificently biased manner and typically we aren't aware of this. For want of a better saying, when we jump into arguments we can't see the wood for the trees, we don't realise that our perception is massively biased by our own personal beliefs and motivation to prove ourselves right. This blog discusses some of the ways in which we act so biased and why it is problematic.

When we assess others points of view we are strongly influenced by our beliefs. A US study by Cohen (2003) nicely underlines this tendency and hints at how this might become problematic. The researchers took students who were either supporters of the Democratic or Republican parties.Democrats and Republicans have rather divergent policies and belief systems about how to govern. Using a cover story, the researchers then had the participants read a news story concerning proposed welfare cuts and manipulated the newspaper to lead participants to believe one of two things: either the cuts were proposed by the Democratic party or the Republican party. Shortly afterwards, the researchers then asked participants to indicate whether they thought the policy was a good idea or whether they opposed it.

The effects were very clear. If participants believed that the policy came from their opposing party, they tended to disagree strongly with the policy. But if they were led to believe it was in fact their party, they thought the policy was a great idea. Participants' opinions were being shaped not by the relative credits of the policy, but by their perception of whether it came from someone on 'their side' or the opposition. What this study suggests is that we tend to be very biased when evaluating our opponents views or suggestions. Even if an opponent puts together a great argument, we have a tendency to evaluate it in a more negative way than perhaps it should be. Yet, our bias doesn't stop at argument evaluation, we also seem to try and ignore arguments and evidence that counter our beliefs.

Frey & Stahlberg (1986) report a clever study in which they gave participants a mock IQ test and then led some participants to believe that they had scored rather dismally or very well on the test. The interesting part is what they did next: they set the experiment up so that participants could later peruse newspaper articles about how reliable or valid IQ tests are. Some articles championed the IQ test, others questioned their reliability. The researchers timed how long participants spent looking at the different articles. If participants had been led to believe they'd done badly, they then spent far more time reading articles that suggested IQ tests aren't great measures of intelligence after all. Thus, it appears as though we tend to search for and pay more attention to information and evidence that bolsters our views. If it doesn't, it seems a lot easier to turn a blind eye. If on

e is aware of this tendency, what can be done? Perhaps we should spend more time consciously looking for information that counters our arguments rather than confirm them, if we really want to gain anything from debates and discussions.

You get into an argument with a house mate and you suggest that you take the rubbish out all the time inthe house. Furthermore, you can easily recount many instances of you doing so. Yet, when confronted, he/she doesn't seem to take to this very well and suggests otherwise. What is going on? It may well be that your 'belief bias' filter is acting on memory. If we are arguing for one proposition, memories that support this idea can spring to mind very easily as memory can be belief or desire driven. For example, in a study by Sanitioso et al. (1990) some participants were led to believe that individuals high in the characteristic of extroversion (being socially outgoing) are more likely to be successful in life. After this, participants were then asked to recall memories of their past behaviour in order to help the researcher determine whether they were extroverted or introverted. The result? Driven by the desire to view oneself as an extrovert, participants were far more likely to recall memories of extroverted like behaviours. Who doesn't want to succeed in life?

The heat of arguments can also be problematic. The ease with which we find confirmatory information for a point of view seems to be very important in whether we decide that point of view holds any validity, perhaps even more important than the amount of evidence. Some classic, yet seemingly paradoxical studies by Schwarz et al. (1991) underline this well. Here participants are asked to either list 6 or 12 examples that would confirm an argument. For example, it could be 6 or 12 examples of generous thing you did in the last week. With this information you could then conclude whether you really are all that generous. What happens here is that participants in the 6 example group can come up with these 6 examples fairly quickly. Whereas the 12 examples group have to think harder for all of their examples and might fall short at 10 and then give up.

What happens when each group later judge whether they are generous? Even though the 12 example group might have more examples of generosity in the last week than the 6 example group, because they found it more difficult, they would be less convinced of their generosity. This of course seems slightly illogical, as the 12 example group actually possess more evidence for their generosity. It appears as though the ease at which information springs to mind is important in shaping how valid we believe our arguments to be. Thus, when we are arguing and actively searching for information that supports our beliefs (good old belief bias), evidence can easily be found, and this results in us becoming even more swayed into believing our point of view is definitely the correct one. The only problem is that everybody else believes that too.

What these studies suggest is that when we find ourselves in arguments we probably don't treat others points of views and arguments fairly or objectively. We favour our own and reason in a biased way. We seem to lack perspective and generally appear to believe that our perception of reality is right. Yet, this obviously can't always be true, as everybody must be wrong sometimes. Perhaps we need to be more forthcoming in deliberately attempting to take other persons' perspectives, or consciously search for reasons as to why our view point might be flawed. Perhaps if we all did this it would be easier to meet in the middle. Although this is all probably easier said than done, there is evidence that individuals with a tendency to take others' points of view (perspective takers), do tend to have better social relations (Davis, 1983). Yet, perspectives may not be enough - if we want to settle disputes or get to the truth we really must be aware of our overwhelmingly strong biases and blind spots.

A final point of consideration is whether we should find ourselves in arguments to start with. Constant arguments can damage friendships or relationships. Companionship is good for many reasons and we all like our friends. Furthermore, science backs this up – feelings of social connectedness are associated with all sorts of important things, like life satisfaction, happiness and even our physical and mental health. In addition, the common myth that a good argument can 'get it all out of our systems' through some form of catharsis is extremely questionable. So perhaps we should be choosing our arguments and complaints more wisely. Some issues are of importance, and long lasting positive changes can occur as a result of discussion. Yet, so often they don't. Awareness of whether new or old ground is being covered is probably of importance. For example, if we hear ourselves having the same arguments with friends or partners, it seems unlikely things are going to change any time soon, as surely they would have previously? If a friend is constantly letting us down, should we continue to complain ? Or should we reconsider whether it is wise to continue to put ourselves out there to be let down by them again?

Application

Don't argue about anything. Let it all boil up inside and then eventually go absolutely insane.

Or, try and be aware of the pitfalls of complaints, disputes and arguments and be a more reasoned and all around good person.

Don't continue to have the same complaints about horrific boyfriends or terrible friends. Ditch them, forget about it, move on. Find better ones. Join a salsa class.

Snobbery

What is snobbery? And why is it such a problem? When one pictures a snob they imagine a person acting condescendingly to another, turning their noses up at the choices and behaviour of others. Yet, this isn't the complete story. Snobbery has a lot to do with how individuals live their lives; life style choices. A snob sees their own choice/view point or way of living as superior to how others behave and they are often at odds with the majority's preferences. Snobs are normally extremely annoying. Considering what the problems with snobbery are and trying to understand why we feel it to be inherently wrong might be fun exercises in themselves, but they may also help us to avoid making similar mistakes ourselves. This blog attempts to do something along those lines.

Snobbery in itself is annoying because snobs often act condescendingly and are rude to others, who have what they would class as 'less cultured' views or ways of living. Snobbish behaviour and being looked down upon is unpleasant. Most members of society subscribe to the maxim of 'do unto others as you would have done unto yourself', which seems like a fair rule to follow in life. Thus, causing others to feel discomfort or annoyance in itself is a reason why snobbery is a problem. However, there is more than one victim when we consider why snobbery is a problem. Rather than musing about the many examples of snobbery and how snobs can be annoying, in this blog I will look further afield to what is inherently wrong about snobbery and why it can be problematic. First of all, the views that a snob subscribe to can be massively inaccurate, which is problematic if you believe that ignorance is undesirable. Secondly, if one falls foul of snobbery (we all probably have and will), this may lead us to make misinformed choices in life.

What is often annoying about snobs is their ignorance. For many things in life there is good reason to believe that certain products or choices are superior to another. If one has dry skin, then choosing to use a moisturiser over plain old water truly is a superior choice. But the problem with snobbery is that the conclusions drawn about what choice or decision is superior, are often misguided. A fine example is the recent rise in popularity of organic food produce. Organic is cool and a bit of an exclusive club. Because of these things it isn't odd to hear these words uttered from the wife of an upper-middle class investment banker or accountant; “I simply won't buy non-organic fruit and veg, organic is so much tastier and healthier”. Food snobs are common, and organic is the new cool when it comes to food snobbery. Indeed it is far more expensive than non-organic food and therefore an exclusive club. But what it isn't, is healthier or tastier than non-organic.

Basker (1992) fed groups of participants non-organic and organic samples of loads of different fruits and vegetables and measured participants preferences. The important thing in this study was that the participants were blind to which sample was organic or non-organic. The results : no significant difference in preferences between organic and non organic produce. In some instances, participants even tended to prefer the conventional products over organic. Furthermore, no decent research to date has shown clear results that suggest organic really is better off for one's health. Snobs often believe their choice is superior to the masses, but often this simply won't be the case.

Perhaps what is more interesting is how this type of misguided snobbery occurs. The relationship between expectations and experience is one likely candidate. Although organic is unlikely to be tastier than non-organic, individuals expectations about the taste experience may shape their actual enjoyment. A nice study by Wilson et al (1989) underlines this idea. The researchers showed participants a series of cartoons. The first half of the cartoons were funny and the other half not very funny at all. When participants looked at the cartoons without any prior expectations they reported exactly that; funny first half, not very funny second half. However, the researchers also led some participants to believe that previous participants had found all of the cartoons extremely funny. The result: these participants also reported that the three not particularly funny cartoons were a hoot. Furthermore, they didn’t only just report they were funnier but their facial expressions followed suit too.

This type of expectation effect on actual experience is well replicated in food studies – a nice label makes a cheap wine elegant and enjoyable and a sophisticated sounding dish is far more enjoyable when dining out at a restaurant. Thus, when one expects something to be enjoyable this influences their online experience to be more enjoyable than it would be without such positive expectations. So snobs really do believe the hype and end up living it too.

A type of snobbery we may all be guilty of is an avoidance of cheaper value products. When faced with several products it is

common to pick one priced somewhere in the middle and avoid the cheapest, as we expect it to be nasty tasting or of poorer quality. Yet, this obviously isn't always the case. With many products, it is the label that is the selling point. Although not a published empirical study, of late we have been doing some experiments that require participants to have a disappointing taste experience ce with a food they normally enjoy eating. For example, eating a bar of milk chocolate and finding it to be rather un-enjoyable. To do this I searched Sainsbury's basics range for snacks foods. Although I eventually found some products that participants did enjoy less than the upper end products, the overwhelming majority of value products produced extremely pleasant experiences for my participants. A victory for JB Sainsbury's and an overwhelming failure for snobbish attitudes to cheaper value products.

Another reason one may continue to exhibit such snobbish behaviour is worry of appearing cheap or lacking in 'culture' or 'class' to those around them. One may avoid trying slightly less cool hobbies and pursuits in life. One may be embarrassed to buy cheap products. But if one assumes that when shopping we aim for some kind of balance between quality of product and price, and much of the cheaper brands are no lesser in quality than their fancy labelled and expensive counterparts, perhaps we should shun such embarrassment and use our saved money on other things that might be more enriching in life.

A final observation on snobbish behaviour is the tendency for snobs to avoid mainstream pursuits. Everyone has a friend who only listens to unsigned bands. But the mere fact that something is extremely popular suggests snobbish avoidance of it might be rather irrational. Although hype around popular music or film may sometimes be over the top, the quality of music a band produces is probably strongly related to the chances of them being signed and their popularity. The desire to come across as individualistic and edgy surely must have something to do with all of this. The irony is of course is that such behaviour isn't individualistic at all, as hundreds of other snobs are behaving in just the same way.

What this all suggests is that we should be more careful and examine whether our preconceptions are always correct. The preconceptions concerning taste quality that drives many people to buy organic don't appear to be accurate at all. The snobbish wine lovers avoidance of anything priced under £30 is likely to be similarly inaccurate. The ignorance of snobbish behaviour is in itself a crime. A lack of open mindedness to less fashionable or cheaper options in life may end up to be costly, as individuals might end up missing out on all sorts of hidden joys in life and paying for labels and marketing rather than actual quality.

Application

Try cheaper, more mainstream or uncool stuff with an open mind; you might really like it.

Snobs are annoying and by nature closed minded and ignorant. None of this is good.

Don't buy organic vegetables. EVER.

.............Bad Memes .............

In the last blog I talked about how we sometimes have goals in life that aren't necessarily 'good for us' so so to speak. Some of these goals naturally occur because of our evolutionary heritage. The poor pacific salmons quest to reproduce, which ultimately results in rapid deterioration and death is an extreme example of this. A less extreme example in humans is the finding that having children makes people seemingly less satisfied and happy in life, during child rearing years. This blog discusses similar goals or ways of living that won't necessarily be good for us, but for some reason we have acquired and believe in. The difference is that these ways of living or ideas are determined as a result of cultural transmission. We learn them through our experiences in the world, rather than being born with them. In popular psychology and science they are also sometimes described as 'memes'.

Memes are numerous and all around us. An example of one that a significant proportion of people adhere to is the idea of 'a healthy body houses a healthy mind'. This is an idea or way by which we should live life that has been culturally transmitted. It's first appearance dates back to a philosopher/poet of ancient Rome (Juvenile). Thus, over the centuries, individuals have donned spandex and ran around quite a lot. This turns out to be a pretty accurate meme. Exercise is thought to be preventative in developing depression and as early as 1984, McCann & Davis reported findings from a large scale clinical trial that indicated enrolling in intensive exercise classes can be rather useful in combating depression.

But there are of course memes aren't always entirely accurate. A good example is the idea that eating lots of fruit will reduce the risk of you catching flu, because of all the lovely vitamin C inside of it. For the royal college of GP's, Joshi (2007) reviewed studies involving around 11, 000 participants and the data indicated that regular consumption of vitamin C had no effect on common flu incidence. What was found was that a large daily dose of vitamin C could have a very small effect on the length of a cold once you've got one, but it certainly doesn't look like it can prevent flu and nor is it a cure.

The vitamin C is a good example, because many common beliefs about illness and health are confused or just complete rubbish (carrots and night vision for example). But are these really a problem? Unless you are paying big money for vitamin C, these probably aren't real problems for people like me. There are some terrible reports from Swaziland concerning a belief that blood or body parts coming from an albino person can cure HIV. This is a super bad meme; both in terms of its accurateness and effect it has had on innocent people who happen to lack skin pigment. This blog will instead talk about one meme that we, as well off middle class and educated white westerners are more likely to come across in life. My main focus is modern day religion.

The problems with most modern day religions are numerous. First of all; which to choose? They can't all be right, and some of the practises in one directly disobey practises of others. Secondly, things often don't addup. Catholicism and Christianity adhere to the gospel and although it is a lovely little book, it doesn't match up to reality. We know a fair amount about our past in terms of the age of the Universe and earth and there also appears to be strong evidence for an evolutionary account in explaining how we got to where we are today. Unless somebody made a lot of copying and pasting errors, the bible is just wrong on many things; the age of the earth is ridiculously wide of the mark. Nor can it account for evolution. Furthermore, should we base our entire lives on a collection of stories that were written by numerous different authors, at different points and such a long time ago? How do we know it is accurate? What we do know is that a lot of it is inaccurate.

There are many arguments as to why you should believe in a god or somekind of higher transcendence and I am still to come across a good one. You will sometimes hear 'how could there be so much beauty without a creator?' as an argument. One obvious reply is how can there be so much misery and pain? Another is that things happen by chance, but us humans don't much seem to like the idea of chance and randomness. Occasionally the condensation on my window makes a pretty picture. I rarely find myself wondering how could something so beautiful occur without a creator.

If people really want to be religious regardless then fair enough. There is good reason probably. Religion can give structure and meaning in life. These are the types of things that make people happy. Religion can also help us avoid worrying questions about what happens after death. Religion often results in strong social networks and support groups, which are again useful. Yet, if one thinks about things rationally and not driven by 'faith' then there is surely only one real answer to whether any of the modern day religions stand up to the test. Religion is a 'bad' meme in the sense that it's fundamental preachings are very unlikely to be true. In many ways religion does possess strong and valiant messages; love thy neighbour, be a good Samaritan and so on. Generally speaking these are 'good'. But do we need religion to lead prosperous, satisfying and 'good' lives? I think we don't and I also think living ones life to a lie feels wrong.

Most religions instruct us to live our lives in certain ways. Catholicism hasn't liked condoms for a very long time and condemned the use of them. Catholicism was and is quite widespread in Africa. As is HIV. The bible directly promotes homophobia - "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.". Jewish religious law prohibits eating of a whole host of foods. Sausages taste nice. My mother remembers moments of her childhood when she couldn't sleep at night because she was struck with worry that her father wouldn't get into heaven, as he didn't attend church on a Sunday regularly. This is a bit cute, but still wrong. There are enough real worries in the world we have to tackle. The list of laws by which religions instruct people the correct and incorrect ways to live are endless.

Thus, religion really is the super meme. What it promises and preaches just isn't accurate. Attending church services regularly increases the chance of eternal life to a similar degree to regular attendance of neo-nazi white power rallies. One might argue that unless religious people are less happy than non religious people, then it isn't a bad meme after all. But living ones life by what seems most likely to be a lie doesn't seem right. Truth feels important in life.

Although religion probably helps to provides strong social support and structure and meaning in some cases, these can be achieved elsewhere in pursuits that aren't shrouded in falsehoods. One can find social support and make close friends though a shared interest for example. One can find meaning through belief in their job. If one loves teaching or caring for others, then one can form meaning and value in life from the belief that what they are doing is inherently right. Furthermore, education and nursing don't condone homophobia and don't arbitrarily denounce all manner of other seemingly inoffensive behaviours.

If the ideas in this blog are interesting, then I think it is because they introduce the idea of the meme and might make us think more carefully about what we do and don't subscribe to in life. As the study of human behaviour and emotions, psychology should be able to highlight what memes may let us down, so to speak. For example, the meme that lots of money will make us happier in life is very questionable (http://psychologyshared.blogspot.com/2010/09/show-me-money.html), but is nevertheless believed by some and will shape the way those people choose to lead their lives, maybe for the worse. So how can one spot a meme? A lot of memes sound fairly convincing and perhaps because of this they are even more likely to be believed; as one feels less compelled to test or question their credibility. Careful evaluation and consulting science when possible (now highly accessible on the web), would seem like good places to start.

Overcoming Evolution

If one is to lead a ‘good’ or ‘successful’ life and achieve whatever it is one wants from life, then understanding what causes us to behave the way we do would seem like a good place to start. This blog discusses some causes of behaviour that we are thought to have acquired as a result of our evolutionary heritage. Generally speaking, evolution is a well supported theory that tells us how we got to where we are today. Perhaps the major point of interest for this blog is that we have developed certain behaviours and traits because they were adaptive for the replication of our genetic make up. They did the job, so to speak, and were advantageous for the survival of our genes.

Yet, genes essentially use human bodies as a form of vehicle in which they can travel and replicate. Certain behaviours or traits are useful in ensuring gene replication (i.e. through sex or looking after our children) and when we reproduce they appear in future generations. The key idea here is that our evolutionary history produces behaviours that are ‘good’ for our genes, but not necessarily for our happiness or life satisfaction. A very good example of how genes could be described as ‘selfish’ is the pacific salmon.

The pacific salmon has a relatively short life and at the tender age of 4 it embarks on a monumental journey to mate, because they are hard-wired to do so as a result of their genetics. Over several months they travel 3000 miles in an attempt to return to mate in the fresh waters in which they were hatched. Although this sounds romantic, it really isn’t. The course of their journey leads millions to be killed by killer whales, stella sea lions, salmon sharks and bald headed eagles. If they are lucky enough to make it to fresh waters, then the risk of parasites and infections is huge, even in the fresh waters they battle against powerful torrents before reaching the spawning ground.

When they finally arrive they are tired and their battered bodies are easy prey for patrolling bears, but their hard wired behaviour means they won’t leave the spawning area until they have mated. Yet, the very water which they are drawn back to will eventually kill them. Kidneys and organs adjust to lack of salt water, resulting in a physiological response which renders appetite obsolete. After eggs are laid and fertilized, most salmon have (at the most) two weeks of rather uncomfortable life left in them, before their bodies which have been rapidly deteriorating for weeks, finally give up on them.

To me, this is a bit of a sad story. Genetic drives cause these salmon to undergo what would seem like tremendous suffering if human. I in no way think that salmon have thoughts and feelings, so maybe it isn’t all that sad. But we too are like salmon, in the way that often of our life can be driven by behaviours that might be useful for our genes, but not necessarily ‘us’. Many modern thinkers have described our genes as ‘selfish’, as they don’t really care about our happiness or life satisfaction and as the case of the pacific salmon underlines, they would happily cause much suffering if it meant there replication and survival was significantly increased. In this blog we will discuss some evolutionary drives and how they can get in the way of us leading ‘better’ lives.

Children. Perhaps the strongest evolutionary drive is to make some cute little kids. Women start to get very broody at 30 and warm to the idea of having another person living inside of them for 9months and men start to imagine how great it would be if they had a son who was a professional footballer. Although the popular conception is that children = great joy in life, this isn’t necessarily accurate. One thing that children do seem to do is have a big negative effect on how happy one is in their marriage. And as spousal relationships have a big impact on general life satisfaction this is fairly significant. This isn’t particularly new news.

Walker and colleagues (1977) report data which shows that marital satisfaction drops dramtically once the stork makes his drop off and doesn’t tend to recover until they have buggered off to university and flown the nest. Furthermore, Kahneman and colleagues use a very clever method of sampling how much joy individuals feel moment by moment and show that women tend to be significantly less happier when caring for their children than when shopping or watching T.V for example! This thrown in with the tremendous financial strain and stress children cause is perhaps somewhat saddening news (I have even heard that childbirth is a little bit painful as well). What this might suggest is that for some people children mightn’t be that good an idea. Does this reduce the genetic drive to reproduce? And do our genes care about this? The answer is no to both.

A further drive that has been proposed is our need for social acceptance and belonging to those around us. Pin pointing whether this is a definite evolutionary drive is difficult. Baumeister & Leary (2000) believe there is good reason to think there may be, as achieving such things would be helpful in aiding survival. If magnified, the need to be accepted and respected by others can be problematic. Although only speculatively, Baumeister and Leary (2000) go on to suggest that the reoccurring pattern of victims of domestic violence returning to their abusers may be testament to this. In addition, there is thought that the now all too familiar appearance of individuals working ridiculously long hours in stressful jobs for money that they don’t even need may be due to a similar mechanism, as such positions are coupled with elevated social standing. Furthermore, the extra income that such jobs provides is likely to have little effect on life satisfaction and happiness. If you were to ask yourself: what is more important? My life satisfaction and happiness or the extent to which others think I am at the top of my game? I would guess that on the balance of things most people would be picking the first one.

The first two examples are quite interesting but perhaps difficult in knowing what to do about. Are children for me? is a difficult question to answer. Yet, the final example is perhaps a bit more practical and straight forward. Humans appear to be quite neophobic about food, when young. We are risk averse and sometimes don’t like new things that we try. This would seem sensible, as new things can be dangerous or be toxic and until we have learnt about them we shouldn‘t probably take the risk. A fine example of evolution in action is our pickiness over vegetables. Naturally occurring toxins and poisons often are bitter tasting and previously if we had come across such foods when foraging, eating them would have been potentially fatal. It is because of this, it is thought that we have inherited a dislike and avoidance for bitter tastes in general.

Yet, many vegetables are bitter tasting. Although I personally love vegetables, a lot of people don’t and choose to avoid them, children even more so. However, many studies have shown that eating vegetables might good for a lot of things; significantly reducing the risk of heart diseases and maybe even promoting longevity if enough are eaten. Although slightly less dramatic than the pacific salmon example, this shows how our inherited tendencies aren’t always so good for us. There is good news concerning vegetables though. Our evolutionary past has also left us with fairly useful memory systems, by which we can learn from our past experiences and use such information to guide behaviour in the future. For example, Lakkakula and colleagues (2010) have shown that repeated taste exposures to vegetables increases their acceptance in school children (eventually learning that veg isn’t all that bad), which suggests that we can overcome such inherited obstacles with enough persistence.

Application

Don’t bother with children; get a micro-pig instead. They are cheaper, cuter and have funny little curly tails.

Avoid bitter tasting foods when foraging, they may contain toxins.

Befriend a pacific salmon and have a serious chat.

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.