People around the world often perform rituals as a way to cope with sad events. The rules can be contradictory - for instance, Tibetan Buddhists think it's disrespectful to cry near the deceased, while Catholic Latinos believe the opposite. Beneath this variety, a new paper by Michael Norton and Francesca Gino, suggests there is a shared psychological mechanism - a comforting sense of increased control. Moreover, the researchers report that even non-believers can benefit (pdf via author website).
Norton and Gino began by asking 247 participants recruited online (average age 33; 42 per cent were male) to write about a bereavement they'd experienced in the past, or a relationship that had ended. Half of them were additionally asked to write about a coping ritual they'd performed at the time. The main result here was that the participants who recalled their ritual reported feeling less grief about their loss. This was explained by their greater feelings of control, and wasn't to do with the simple fact they'd written more than the other participants.
Relying on reminiscence in this way is obviously problematic from a research perspective, so for a follow-up Norton and Gino invited 109 students to their lab. Groups of 9 to 15 students were told that one of them would win a $200 prize, and to intensify the situation they were asked to write about what it would mean to them to win, and how they'd use the cash. One student was duly awarded the money and left. Half the remaining participants were then instructed to perform a 4-stage ritual: they drew their feelings about losing on a piece of paper, sprinkled salt on the drawing, tore it up, then counted to ten. The others acted as controls and simply drew their feelings on the paper.
The key finding was that the ritual students subsequently reported experiencing less upset and anger than the controls at the fact they hadn't won the money, and this was largely explained by their greater feelings of control. Crucially, the comfort of the ritual was unaffected by how often participants reported conducting rituals in their lives or whether or not they believed in the power of rituals. It seems there's something about the process of going through a multi-stepped procedure that provokes in people feelings of control, above and beyond the role played by any associated religious or mystical beliefs.
A third and final study was similar and clarified some issues - reading that some people sit in silence after a loss, and then sitting in silence themselves, did not bring comfort to participants who lost out in a lottery for $200. Reading that some people perform rituals after a loss also brought no comfort, unless the participants then went on to perform a ritual themselves.
Norton and Gino said they did not mean to imply that human and monetary loss are equivalent, but they do think rituals may bring comfort in both situations via the shared mechanism of an increased sense of control. They added that more research was needed on the impact of specific forms of ritual in different contexts, but for now their results offered preliminary support "for Durkheim's contention that 'mourning is left behind, thanks to the mourning itself'; the rituals of mourning in which our participants engaged hastened the decline of the feeling of mourning that accompanies loss."
An important caveat the researchers mentioned is that this research was with participants who are mentally well and so it doesn't speak to the issue of rituals that become dysfunctional and all consuming, as can happen in obsessive compulsive disorder.
Norton and Gino's paper complements a study published last year that looked at people's beliefs about the factors likely to increase ritual efficacy, including repetition and number of procedural steps.
_________________________________
Norton MI, and Gino F (2013). Rituals Alleviate Grieving for Loved Ones, Lovers, and Lotteries. Journal of experimental psychology. General PMID: 23398180
--Further reading--
Superstitions can improve performance by boosting confidence.
Feature article in Nature "Praying, fighting, dancing, chanting — human rituals could illuminate the growth of community and the origins of civilization."
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Master Pcychology
Monday, 18 March 2013
Friday, 15 March 2013
Link Feast
In case you missed them - 10 of the best psychology links from the past week:
1. Fifteen psychology experts share their best productivity tips.
2. Last night, BBC Two's Horizon broadcast "The Creative Brain: How Insight Works" (more on creativity from the Digest archive).
3. Scientific American Mind have relaunched their blog network - long-time favourites are still there like Bering in Mind and The Scicurious Brain, but there are some new faces too, like Beautiful Minds by psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman, and PsySociety with Melanie Tannenbaum blogging "at the intersection of pop and psych culture."
4. Is psychology a science, can it be one, should it be? On BBC Radio 3's Nightwaves programme, cognitive psychologist Professor Keith Laws debated with philosopher of science Rupert Read [from 34.04 minutes in].
5. Creative ways researchers find to describe their non-significant results.
6. Psychologist Steven Pinker went on Reddit and invited readers to ask him anything they liked.
7. The new NeuroBol*ocks blog debunks the SPECT-based diagnostic brain scanning industry.
8. Your brain is more than a bag of chemicals - new TED talk by neurobiologist David Anderson.
9. Is it a good thing that psychological science is undergoing a form of public self-flagellation and rehabilitation? Post-doc Tal Yarkoni argues it is his blog post: "the truth is not optional: five bad reasons (and one mediocre one) for defending the status quo".
10. From the Wellcome Trust: ‘The Great Brain Experiment’ is a mobile phone app that will let you – and us – experiment on your brain!
--
Looking ahead to next week, Professor Ray Miller asks “Is everybody going mad?” on Thurs at Edinburgh Skeptics in the Pub.
_________________________________
Post compiled by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
1. Fifteen psychology experts share their best productivity tips.
2. Last night, BBC Two's Horizon broadcast "The Creative Brain: How Insight Works" (more on creativity from the Digest archive).
3. Scientific American Mind have relaunched their blog network - long-time favourites are still there like Bering in Mind and The Scicurious Brain, but there are some new faces too, like Beautiful Minds by psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman, and PsySociety with Melanie Tannenbaum blogging "at the intersection of pop and psych culture."
4. Is psychology a science, can it be one, should it be? On BBC Radio 3's Nightwaves programme, cognitive psychologist Professor Keith Laws debated with philosopher of science Rupert Read [from 34.04 minutes in].
5. Creative ways researchers find to describe their non-significant results.
6. Psychologist Steven Pinker went on Reddit and invited readers to ask him anything they liked.
7. The new NeuroBol*ocks blog debunks the SPECT-based diagnostic brain scanning industry.
8. Your brain is more than a bag of chemicals - new TED talk by neurobiologist David Anderson.
9. Is it a good thing that psychological science is undergoing a form of public self-flagellation and rehabilitation? Post-doc Tal Yarkoni argues it is his blog post: "the truth is not optional: five bad reasons (and one mediocre one) for defending the status quo".
10. From the Wellcome Trust: ‘The Great Brain Experiment’ is a mobile phone app that will let you – and us – experiment on your brain!
--
Looking ahead to next week, Professor Ray Miller asks “Is everybody going mad?” on Thurs at Edinburgh Skeptics in the Pub.
_________________________________
Post compiled by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Thursday, 14 March 2013
Embodying another person's face makes it easier to recognise their fear
An illusion that provokes a sense of ownership over another person's face has provided new clues about the way we process other people's emotions.
Lara Maister and her colleagues used the "enfacement" illusion, in which a person watches a two-minute video of a face being stroked with a cotton bud, while at the same time their own face is stroked in synchrony. People who experience this illusion tend to rate the face in the video as being more similar to their own, and, if they see the face cut, they show a physiological stress reaction as if the wound was theirs.
In the study, 15 female participants were challenged with identifying the emotional expression shown by a woman in a photo - either happy, fearful or disgusted. The photos had been morphed with neutral expressions to varying degrees, leading to seven different levels of task difficulty.
The key finding was that the participants were significantly better at recognising the facial expression of fear after they'd experienced the enfacement illusion for the face showing the fear. Simply watching a two-minute video of the person displaying fear didn't lead to this subsequent performance boost, neither did a "sham" version of the illusion in which the stroking of the model's and participant's face is out of synch. Another detail - the genuine version of the illusion led to enhancement of fear recognition only, with no effect on recognising happiness and disgust.
The main result is consistent with past research suggesting that we recognise emotions in other people by simulating their state in our brains. It's as if we temporarily embody the person we are empathising with. Related to this, people with a rare condition known as mirror-touch synaesthesia (they experience touch when they see someone else touched) show enhanced facial expression recognition.
It's curious that the enfacement illusion only enhanced the recognition of fear, but then previous studies have suggested that this emotion, more than others, is recognised through a process of embodying the person who is afraid. This makes evolutionary sense too. There are obvious advantages in responding to the sight of a fearful ally by preparing one's own body for a threat.
"Our results suggest that the way we represent the relationship between the bodies of self and other is an important factor in the somatosensory simulation of emotions," the researchers said, "and furthermore, demonstrate that such a process is sensitive to multisensory intervention."
_________________________________
Maister L, Tsiakkas E, and Tsakiris M (2013). I feel your fear: Shared touch between faces facilitates recognition of fearful facial expressions. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 13 (1), 7-13 PMID: 23356565
Image reproduced with permission of the first author.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Lara Maister and her colleagues used the "enfacement" illusion, in which a person watches a two-minute video of a face being stroked with a cotton bud, while at the same time their own face is stroked in synchrony. People who experience this illusion tend to rate the face in the video as being more similar to their own, and, if they see the face cut, they show a physiological stress reaction as if the wound was theirs.
In the study, 15 female participants were challenged with identifying the emotional expression shown by a woman in a photo - either happy, fearful or disgusted. The photos had been morphed with neutral expressions to varying degrees, leading to seven different levels of task difficulty.
The key finding was that the participants were significantly better at recognising the facial expression of fear after they'd experienced the enfacement illusion for the face showing the fear. Simply watching a two-minute video of the person displaying fear didn't lead to this subsequent performance boost, neither did a "sham" version of the illusion in which the stroking of the model's and participant's face is out of synch. Another detail - the genuine version of the illusion led to enhancement of fear recognition only, with no effect on recognising happiness and disgust.
The main result is consistent with past research suggesting that we recognise emotions in other people by simulating their state in our brains. It's as if we temporarily embody the person we are empathising with. Related to this, people with a rare condition known as mirror-touch synaesthesia (they experience touch when they see someone else touched) show enhanced facial expression recognition.
It's curious that the enfacement illusion only enhanced the recognition of fear, but then previous studies have suggested that this emotion, more than others, is recognised through a process of embodying the person who is afraid. This makes evolutionary sense too. There are obvious advantages in responding to the sight of a fearful ally by preparing one's own body for a threat.
"Our results suggest that the way we represent the relationship between the bodies of self and other is an important factor in the somatosensory simulation of emotions," the researchers said, "and furthermore, demonstrate that such a process is sensitive to multisensory intervention."
_________________________________
Maister L, Tsiakkas E, and Tsakiris M (2013). I feel your fear: Shared touch between faces facilitates recognition of fearful facial expressions. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 13 (1), 7-13 PMID: 23356565
Image reproduced with permission of the first author.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Wednesday, 13 March 2013
Please vote for the Research Digest
Friends, please consider voting for the BPS Research Digest in the inaugural Science Seeker Awards. Science Seeker is a fantastic website that aggregates all the world's science blogs in one place and organises them by topic.
A panel of judges will select the winners from among the most nominated blog posts in different categories. Here's how you can help the Research Digest win the psychology category:
Thanks so much for your support. 2013 marks ten years since the launch of the BPS Research Digest service, so it would be a wonderful anniversary present to be short-listed (or win!) a Science Seeker award. The deadline for nominations is March 31.
PS. If the Digest were lucky enough to win, as editor I would donate any potential cash prize to a mental health charity.
________________________________
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
A panel of judges will select the winners from among the most nominated blog posts in different categories. Here's how you can help the Research Digest win the psychology category:
- I self-nominated the popular Digest blog post Why Do Children Hide By Covering Their Eyes?. The more nominations it gets, the more likely it will get short-listed. You can add your nomination by visiting this page and clicking the little trophy icon in the top right-hand corner (or you can click the star to recommend it).
- If you'd like to nominate a different Digest blog post, there's an archive of Digest posts on the Science Seeker website. Find the one you like and click the little trophy icon - any posts published prior to February 1 2013 are eligible. [more details on the awards here].
Thanks so much for your support. 2013 marks ten years since the launch of the BPS Research Digest service, so it would be a wonderful anniversary present to be short-listed (or win!) a Science Seeker award. The deadline for nominations is March 31.
PS. If the Digest were lucky enough to win, as editor I would donate any potential cash prize to a mental health charity.
________________________________
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Tuesday, 12 March 2013
It's possible to be patronised by a helpful three-year-old
Although small children love to help, you might think the support they can offer is pretty basic - you ask them to do something and they do it. In fact, a new research paper reveals a remarkable level of sophistication in the helping behaviour of three-year-olds. They take your ultimate goal into a account, and if they think they know better than you how to reach that goal, they'll help you in their own way - a skill that the researchers call "paternalistic helping".
Nineteen three-year-olds took part in an initial study in which pairs of objects were within reach, one item functional (e.g. a cup), the other broken (e.g. a cup with a hole in the bottom). Whenever an experimenter pointed to and asked for the dysfunctional object in a pair (e.g. "Could you pass me that cup so that I can pour some water?"), the key test was whether the child would ignore the specific request and instead pass the functional equivalent.
Alia Martin and Kristina Olson at Yale university found that the children passed a requested object on 97.4 per cent of trials when the experimenter asked for the functional object in a pair. In the critical test, this dropped to 31.6 per cent when the experimenter requested a dysfunctional object. Stated differently, nearly 70 per cent of the time that an experimenter specifically requested a dud tool, the little children ignored what was asked for and instead provided a working alternative (and they often provided a spontaneous explanation for their actions).
What if kids just prefer working objects and are more likely to hand those over, regardless of the circumstances? To check this, a second study with more three-year-olds involved the experimenter requesting working or dud objects in order to place them in a rubbish bin (rather than for a specific purpose). In this case, the kids tended to pass along whatever the researchers asked for, broken or not.
A final study provided an even more impressive demonstration of three-year-olds' helping behaviour. This time, the experimenter sometimes asked for dud objects for unconventional uses - e.g. a cup to cut a circle in play dough (in which case the hole in its bottom doesn't matter). As before, the children usually ignored requests for dud objects for conventional uses, giving a working alternative instead. But if a requested dysfunctional item was perfectly useful for an unconventional task, they happily passed it over. The children seemed to be able to think in sophisticated fashion about the adult's ultimate goal and whether or not the object they wanted could be used in the service of that goal.
"Our results demonstrate that within the first few years of life children already have a remarkably advanced understanding of helping," Martin and Olson concluded. "One that distinguishes between immediate and end goals - and can select an appropriately helpful action even when it requires overriding an explicit request."
_________________________________
Martin, A., and Olson, K. (2013). When Kids Know Better: Paternalistic Helping in 3-Year-Old Children. Developmental Psychology DOI: 10.1037/a0031715
--Further reading--
How to increase altruism in toddlers
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Nineteen three-year-olds took part in an initial study in which pairs of objects were within reach, one item functional (e.g. a cup), the other broken (e.g. a cup with a hole in the bottom). Whenever an experimenter pointed to and asked for the dysfunctional object in a pair (e.g. "Could you pass me that cup so that I can pour some water?"), the key test was whether the child would ignore the specific request and instead pass the functional equivalent.
Alia Martin and Kristina Olson at Yale university found that the children passed a requested object on 97.4 per cent of trials when the experimenter asked for the functional object in a pair. In the critical test, this dropped to 31.6 per cent when the experimenter requested a dysfunctional object. Stated differently, nearly 70 per cent of the time that an experimenter specifically requested a dud tool, the little children ignored what was asked for and instead provided a working alternative (and they often provided a spontaneous explanation for their actions).
What if kids just prefer working objects and are more likely to hand those over, regardless of the circumstances? To check this, a second study with more three-year-olds involved the experimenter requesting working or dud objects in order to place them in a rubbish bin (rather than for a specific purpose). In this case, the kids tended to pass along whatever the researchers asked for, broken or not.
A final study provided an even more impressive demonstration of three-year-olds' helping behaviour. This time, the experimenter sometimes asked for dud objects for unconventional uses - e.g. a cup to cut a circle in play dough (in which case the hole in its bottom doesn't matter). As before, the children usually ignored requests for dud objects for conventional uses, giving a working alternative instead. But if a requested dysfunctional item was perfectly useful for an unconventional task, they happily passed it over. The children seemed to be able to think in sophisticated fashion about the adult's ultimate goal and whether or not the object they wanted could be used in the service of that goal.
"Our results demonstrate that within the first few years of life children already have a remarkably advanced understanding of helping," Martin and Olson concluded. "One that distinguishes between immediate and end goals - and can select an appropriately helpful action even when it requires overriding an explicit request."
_________________________________
Martin, A., and Olson, K. (2013). When Kids Know Better: Paternalistic Helping in 3-Year-Old Children. Developmental Psychology DOI: 10.1037/a0031715
--Further reading--
How to increase altruism in toddlers
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Monday, 11 March 2013
Smiling fighters are more likely to lose
The day before mixed martial artists compete in the Ultimate Fighting Championships (UFC), they pose with each other in a staged face-off. A new study has analysed photographs taken at dozens of these pre-fight encounters and found that competitors who smile are more likely to lose the match the next day (pdf via author website).
Michael Kraus and Teh-Way David Chen recruited four coders (blind to the aims of the study) to assess the presence of smiles, and smile intensity, in photographs taken of 152 fighters in 76 face-offs. Fighter smiles were mostly "non-Duchenne", with little or no crinkling around the eyes. Data on the fights was then obtained from official UFC statistics. The researchers wanted to test the idea that in this context, smiles are an involuntary signal of submission and lack of aggression, just as teeth baring is in the animal kingdom.
Consistent with the researchers' predictions, fighters who smiled more intensely prior to a fight were more likely to lose, to be knocked down in the clash, to be hit more times, and to be wrestled to the ground by their opponent (statistically speaking, the effect sizes here were small to medium). On the other hand, fighters with neutral facial expressions pre-match were more likely to excel and dominate in the fight the next day, including being more likely to win by knock-out or submission.
These associations between facial expression and fighting performance held even after controlling for betting behaviour by fans, which suggests a fighter's smile reveals information about their lack of aggression beyond what is known by experts. Moreover, the psychological meaning of a pre-match smile appeared to be specific to that fight - no associations were found between pre-match smiles and performance in later, unrelated fights. Incidentally, smaller fighters smiled more often, consistent with the study's main thesis, but smiling was still linked with poorer fight performance after factoring out the role of size (in other words, smiling was more than just an indicator of physical inferiority).
If fighters' smiles are a sign of weakness, there's a chance opponents may pick up on this cue, which could boost their own performance, possibly through increased confidence or aggression. To test the plausibility that smiles are read this way, Kraus and Chen asked 178 online, non-expert participants to rate head-shots of the same fighter either smiling or pulling a neutral expression in a pre-match face-off. As expected, smiling fighters were rated by the non-expert participants as less physically dominant, and this was explained by smiling fighters being perceived as less aggressive and hostile.
Of course, the researchers are only speculating about what's going on inside the minds of the fighters pre-match. It's even possible that some of them smile in an attempt to convey insouciance. If so, Kraus and Chen said "it is clear that this nonverbal behaviour had the opposite of the desired effect - fighters were more hostile and aggressive during the match toward their more intensely smiling opponents."
_________________________________
Kraus, M., and Chen, T. (2013). A Winning Smile? Smile Intensity, Physical Dominance, and Fighter Performance. Emotion DOI: 10.1037/a0030745
Image reproduced with permission from the first author.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Michael Kraus and Teh-Way David Chen recruited four coders (blind to the aims of the study) to assess the presence of smiles, and smile intensity, in photographs taken of 152 fighters in 76 face-offs. Fighter smiles were mostly "non-Duchenne", with little or no crinkling around the eyes. Data on the fights was then obtained from official UFC statistics. The researchers wanted to test the idea that in this context, smiles are an involuntary signal of submission and lack of aggression, just as teeth baring is in the animal kingdom.
Consistent with the researchers' predictions, fighters who smiled more intensely prior to a fight were more likely to lose, to be knocked down in the clash, to be hit more times, and to be wrestled to the ground by their opponent (statistically speaking, the effect sizes here were small to medium). On the other hand, fighters with neutral facial expressions pre-match were more likely to excel and dominate in the fight the next day, including being more likely to win by knock-out or submission.
These associations between facial expression and fighting performance held even after controlling for betting behaviour by fans, which suggests a fighter's smile reveals information about their lack of aggression beyond what is known by experts. Moreover, the psychological meaning of a pre-match smile appeared to be specific to that fight - no associations were found between pre-match smiles and performance in later, unrelated fights. Incidentally, smaller fighters smiled more often, consistent with the study's main thesis, but smiling was still linked with poorer fight performance after factoring out the role of size (in other words, smiling was more than just an indicator of physical inferiority).
If fighters' smiles are a sign of weakness, there's a chance opponents may pick up on this cue, which could boost their own performance, possibly through increased confidence or aggression. To test the plausibility that smiles are read this way, Kraus and Chen asked 178 online, non-expert participants to rate head-shots of the same fighter either smiling or pulling a neutral expression in a pre-match face-off. As expected, smiling fighters were rated by the non-expert participants as less physically dominant, and this was explained by smiling fighters being perceived as less aggressive and hostile.
Of course, the researchers are only speculating about what's going on inside the minds of the fighters pre-match. It's even possible that some of them smile in an attempt to convey insouciance. If so, Kraus and Chen said "it is clear that this nonverbal behaviour had the opposite of the desired effect - fighters were more hostile and aggressive during the match toward their more intensely smiling opponents."
_________________________________
Kraus, M., and Chen, T. (2013). A Winning Smile? Smile Intensity, Physical Dominance, and Fighter Performance. Emotion DOI: 10.1037/a0030745
Image reproduced with permission from the first author.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Friday, 8 March 2013
Link feast
In case you missed them - 10 of the best psychology links from the past week:
1. Neurocomic takes readers on an adventure in the brain - In this wonderful video blog, the Guardian tells the story of the collaboration between Artist Matteo Farinella and neuroscientist Hana Ros of University College London.
2. Twitter Is an Awful Predictor of Public Opinion
3. Living with voices in your head: Eleanor Longden at TED2013
4. Psychologist Brian Nosek opens new Center for Open Science. Ed Yong reports on a commendable initiative (see also). In related good news, APS journal Perspectives in Psychological Science launches new article format to encourage more multi-lab replications.
5. Bad news - New case of research fraud in psychology
6. New Human Zoo psychology series has started on BBC Radio 4 (you can catch up on iPlayer). There's a companion website with background info and demonstrations of the experiments.
7. Also on BBC Radio 4 - What do Europe's old "mad houses" tell us about the history of mental illness?
8. The rise of gratuitous and inaccurate brain references in everyday language - Vaughan Bell wrote about what he calls "folk neuroscience" for the Observer (inspired, I posted a 5-Step Self-Defence Programme Against Neuro-nonsense over at Psychology Today).
9. Enhancing one type of math skill with brain stimulation impairs another reports Maia Szalavitz for Time. The results suggest "any attempts at cognitive enhancement — whether with drugs or electric stimulation or other methods— should be studied carefully for their potential harms as well as their promise," she wrote.
10. The curious lives of the people who feel no fear (from New Scientist - free registration required to read the text). Related Digest posts here and here.
Shoot, I couldn't fit these ones in the list: The Benefits of optimism are real. Latest Neuropod podcast is online - including memory in the courtroom. The film that reacts to your emotions.
--
Looking ahead - it's Brain Awareness Week, next week. The Dana Foundation have a list of all the events planned in the UK.
_________________________________
Post compiled by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
1. Neurocomic takes readers on an adventure in the brain - In this wonderful video blog, the Guardian tells the story of the collaboration between Artist Matteo Farinella and neuroscientist Hana Ros of University College London.
2. Twitter Is an Awful Predictor of Public Opinion
3. Living with voices in your head: Eleanor Longden at TED2013
4. Psychologist Brian Nosek opens new Center for Open Science. Ed Yong reports on a commendable initiative (see also). In related good news, APS journal Perspectives in Psychological Science launches new article format to encourage more multi-lab replications.
5. Bad news - New case of research fraud in psychology
6. New Human Zoo psychology series has started on BBC Radio 4 (you can catch up on iPlayer). There's a companion website with background info and demonstrations of the experiments.
7. Also on BBC Radio 4 - What do Europe's old "mad houses" tell us about the history of mental illness?
8. The rise of gratuitous and inaccurate brain references in everyday language - Vaughan Bell wrote about what he calls "folk neuroscience" for the Observer (inspired, I posted a 5-Step Self-Defence Programme Against Neuro-nonsense over at Psychology Today).
9. Enhancing one type of math skill with brain stimulation impairs another reports Maia Szalavitz for Time. The results suggest "any attempts at cognitive enhancement — whether with drugs or electric stimulation or other methods— should be studied carefully for their potential harms as well as their promise," she wrote.
10. The curious lives of the people who feel no fear (from New Scientist - free registration required to read the text). Related Digest posts here and here.
Shoot, I couldn't fit these ones in the list: The Benefits of optimism are real. Latest Neuropod podcast is online - including memory in the courtroom. The film that reacts to your emotions.
--
Looking ahead - it's Brain Awareness Week, next week. The Dana Foundation have a list of all the events planned in the UK.
_________________________________
Post compiled by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)