Friday, 9 November 2012

Link feast

In case you missed them - 10 of the best psychology links from the past week:

1. Sarah DeWeerdt for Nature takes a look at how cultural differences in social conventions affect the diagnosis of, and attitudes towards, people with autism.

2. The latest Neuropod podcast is a good'un with items on hallucinations and the replicability crisis in psychology. (see also the new special issue on replicability from Perspectives in Psychological Science; and for more on hallucinations, check out Oliver Sacks' new book. Sacks was also profiled recently in New York magazine).

3. More concerns have been raised about cognitive enhancing drugs and other forms of human enhancement, particularly in the workplace. (this is an issue that keeps coming up. For example, check out this poll by Nature from 2008).

4. How neuroscience is making its way into the courtroom (see also).

5. BBC Radio 4's All in the Mind continued this week, including discussion of an important new CBT trial for patients with psychosis (see also, and here).

6. Nate Silver ignored any hunches and used sophisticated number-crunching to predict the outcome of the US election with great accuracy. Over at 99U, I asked the question - Are there any judgments for which it's actually better to go with your gut instinct?

7. Brain region found that does absolutely nothing - can't beat psychology in-jokes.

8. Neuroskeptic reports on a fascinating study that caught up with adults who'd claimed as kids to have past-life memories.

9. Neurobonkers reports on a story about a US psychologist who is seeking to patent a basic method for treating anxiety. The case raises a number of ethical issues, says NB, including: "What are the effects of patents on scientific progress? Should a researcher be able to patent a method that they were not the first to develop?"

10. I love this topic - Pacific Standard has a story about when architecture meets neuroscience. (if you too are interested in this field, check out my Psychologist magazine article from 2006 "Is there a psychologist in the building?" and this new interview in the magazine with a psychologist who researches optimising work spaces.).
_________________________________
 
Post compiled by Christian Jarrett for the BPS Research Digest.

Thursday, 8 November 2012

Labs worldwide report converging evidence that undermines the low-sugar theory of depleted willpower

One of the main findings in willpower research is that it's a limited resource. Use self-control up in one situation and you have less left over afterwards - an effect known as "ego-depletion". This discovery led to a search for the underlying physiological mechanism. In 2007, Roy Baumeister, a pioneer in the field, and his colleagues reported that the physiological correlate of ego-depletion is low glucose. Self-control leads the brain to metabolise more glucose, so the theory goes, and when glucose gets too low, we're left with less willpower.

The breakthrough 2007 study showed that ego-depleted participants had low blood glucose levels, but those who subsequently consumed a glucose drink were able to sustain their self-control on a second task. In the intervening years the finding has been replicated and the glucose-willpower link has come to be stated as fact.

"No glucose, no willpower," wrote Baumeister and his journalist co-author John Tierney in their best-selling popular psychology book Willpower: Rediscovering Our Greatest Strength (Allen Lane, 2012). The claim was also endorsed in a guide to willpower published by the American Psychological Association earlier this year. "Maintaining steady blood-glucose levels, such as by eating regular healthy meals and snacks, may help prevent the effects of willpower depletion," the report claims.

But now two studies have come along at once (following another published earlier in the year) that together cast doubt on the idea that depleted willpower is caused by a lack of glucose availability in the brain. In the first, Matthew Sanders and his colleagues in the US report what they call the "Gargle effect". They had dozens of students look through a stats book and cross out just the Es, a tiresome task designed to tax their self-control levels. Next, they completed the famous Stroop task - naming the ink colour of words while ignoring their meaning. Crucially, half the participants completed the Stroop challenge while gargling sugary lemonade, the others while gargling lemonade sweetened artificially with Splenda. The participants who gargled, but did not swallow, the sugary (i.e. glucose-containing) lemonade performed much better on the Stroop task.

The participants in the glucose condition didn't consume the glucose and even if they had, there was no time for it to be metabolised. So this effect can't be about restoring low glucose levels. Rather, Sanders' team think glucose binds to receptors in the mouth, which has the effect of activating brain regions involved in reward and self-control - the anterior cingulate cortex and striatum.

The other study that's just come out was conducted by Martin Hagger and Nikos Chatzisarantis based in Australia and the UK. Their approach was similar to Sanders' except that participants gargled and spat out a glucose or artificially sweetened solution prior to performing a second taxing task, rather than during. Also, this research involved a series of 5 experiments involving many different ways of testing people's self-control, including: resisting delicious cookies; reading boring text in an expressive style; unsolvable puzzles; and squeezing hand-grips. But the take-home finding was the same - participants who gargled, but did not swallow, a glucose drink performed better on a subsequent test of their willpower; participants who gargled an artificially sweetened drink did not. So again, willpower was restored without topping up glucose levels. Moreover, the benefit of gargling glucose was displayed only by participants who'd had their self-control taxed in an initial task. It made no difference to participants who were already in an untaxed state.

Hagger and Chatzisarantis agree with the interpretation of the Sanders' group, except they make a distinction. The effect of glucose binding to receptors in the mouth could either stimulate activity in brain regions like the anterior cingulate that tend to show fatigue after a taxing task. Or they say that glucose in the mouth could trigger reward-related activity that prompts participants to interpret a task as more rewarding, thus boosting their motivation. The explanations are complementary and need not be mutually exclusive.

The key point is the new results suggest depleted willpower is about motivation and the allocation of glucose resources, not about a lack of glucose. These findings don't prove that consuming glucose has no benefit for restoring willpower, but they suggest strongly that it's not the principle mechanism. It's notable that the new findings complement previous research in the sports science literature showing that gargling (without ingesting) glucose can boost cycling performance.

"While our findings are consistent with the predictions of the resource-depletion account, they also contribute to an increasing literature that glucose may not be a candidate physiological analog for self-control resources," write Hagger and Chatzisarantis. "Instead ego-depletion may be due to problems of self-control resource allocation rather than availability." An important next step is to conduct brain-imaging and related studies to observe the physiological effects of gargling glucose on the brain, and on motivational beliefs. There are also tantalising applications from the new research - for example, could the gargle effect (perhaps in the form of glucose-infused chewing gum) be used as a willpower aid for dieters and people trying to give up smoking?

_________________________________ ResearchBlogging.org

Hagger, M., and Chatzisarantis, N. (2012). The Sweet Taste of Success: The Presence of Glucose in the Oral Cavity Moderates the Depletion of Self-Control Resources. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin DOI: 10.1177/0146167212459912

Sanders, M., Shirk, S., Burgin, C., and Martin, L. (2012). The Gargle Effect: Rinsing the Mouth With Glucose Enhances Self-Control. Psychological Science DOI: 10.1177/0956797612450034

--Further reading--
From The Psychologist: Roy F. Baumeister outlines intriguing and important research into willpower and ego depletion.

Post written by Christian Jarrett for the BPS Research Digest.

Wednesday, 7 November 2012

The Special Issue Spotter

We trawl the world's journals so you don't have to:

Clinicians respond to their clients' technology (Journal of Clinical Psychology). From the editorial: "Taken as a whole, these papers suggest that while technology can certainly contribute to and help create pathology, it can also contribute to growth, and that in either case technology interacts with fundamental human needs and developmental processes."

Time perspective in learning, developmental, and interpersonal contexts (Japanese Psychological Research).

Remembering the Future: The Influence of Past Experience on Future Behaviour (Learning and Motivation).

Contemporary Research on Youth Gangs (Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice).

The Neuroendocrine-Immune Axis in Health and Disease (Hormones and Behaviour).

Recent advances in EMDR research and practice (Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée).

Youth, Internet, and Wellbeing (Computers in Human Behaviour, special section).

On Defining Emotion (Emotion Review, special section).

Experimental contributions to cognitive neuroscience theories of memory. Special Issue in recognition of the contribution of Andrew Mayes (Neuropsychologia).

Celebrating JOOP's 85th Birthday (Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, virtual special issue).

Violent and Aggressive Behaviors in Women: Part II (Behavioural Sciences and the Law).

ADHD (Child and Adolescent Mental Health, virtual special issue).
_________________________________
   
Post compiled by Christian Jarrett for the BPS Research Digest.

Tuesday, 6 November 2012

Are 3D films more psychologically powerful than 2D?

The revival of 3D movies in recent years has prompted much debate among fans and critics. Some say it's gimmicky and too expensive. Others have heralded the return of the technology as the industry's saviour. A key claim in favour of 3D technology is that it makes for a more realistic, immersive experience. But does it really?

Brendan Rooney and his colleagues at University College Dublin showed 8 different movie clips (ranging from 13 to 68 seconds in length) to 27 participants (13 males; average age 27). The gory clips were chosen deliberately for their disgusting content and were taken from Bugs 3D, Friday 13th, Jaws 3-D and Frankenstein.

Each participant watched the clips alone in a mini-cinema on campus featuring a 2.5m x 2.5m screen. Crucially, half the participants viewed the clips in 3D, the others in 2D. To ensure any effects of the 3D format were not due to novelty, all the participants watched an abridged version of Journey to the Centre of the Earth in 3D, at least 24 hours prior to the study proper.

Participants in the 3D condition reported finding the film clips more realistic. They also had a higher heart rate whilst watching the clips compared with participants in the 2D condition. However, there was no difference in amount of skin conductance (another measure of arousal) between the two groups, and no difference in how much they said they enjoyed the clips.

Rooney and his colleagues explain that skin conductance - that is, the skin's sweatiness - is influenced only by the sympathetic nervous system (which triggers the fight or flight response) and not by the parasympathetic nervous system (which calms us down). By contrast, heart rate is influenced by both. This suggests to them that the calming parasympathetic nervous system is less active in viewers of 3D. Why? Well, one theory for how we calm our emotions during films is by reminding ourselves that they're not real. The 3D viewers said they found the viewing experience more realistic and it's possible that this made it more difficult for them to step outside of the experience, leaving their emotional response relatively unchecked. The researchers concede that the causal direction could also run the other way - the 3D viewers raised heart rate could cause them to perceive the experience as more realistic. Most likely the influences are bi-directional.

Is it a good thing that the 3D clips were rated as more realistic and triggered more physiological arousal? The 3D viewers didn't rate the clips as any more enjoyable, but then they only gave these ratings afterwards, which means they were relying on their memory of the experience. Also, they had no baseline to measure their ratings against. Finally, perhaps "enjoyment" is the wrong word when it comes to disgusting movie clips. If the study were repeated with a different genre, perhaps 3D viewers would give higher enjoyment ratings.

Rooney's team stressed that this was an exploratory study and that more research is clearly needed. For now they concluded the "suspension of disbelief is ... assisted by stereoscopic depth, with associated increases in reported perceived apparent reality and in heart-rate ... ".

_________________________________ ResearchBlogging.org

Rooney, B., Benson, C., and Hennessy, E. (2012). The apparent reality of movies and emotional arousal: A study using physiological and self-report measures Poetics, 40 (5), 405-422 DOI: 10.1016/j.poetic.2012.07.004

--Further reading--
Right-handers sit to the right of the movie screen to optimise neural processing of the film.

Post written by Christian Jarrett for the BPS Research Digest.

Monday, 5 November 2012

You think your first name is rarer than other people do

You think you're so special, you probably think this post is about you. And maybe it is, if you too succumb to what US researcher John Kulig calls the "name uniqueness effect" - believing that your first name is more unusual than other people do.

Kulig asked 153 female students and 94 male students to rate how common their first name was on a scale from 0 to 100. The scale featured nine "anchor" names placed at the appropriate places as a guide, based on actual name frequencies obtained from the university's registrar.

For comparison, a control group of the same number of men and women each provided an estimate of the popularity of one of the names from the first group (women rated a female name, and men rated one of the male names).

Participants consistently rated their own first name as rarer than the estimates provided by participants in the control group (and as rarer than they really were, although this wasn't tested statistically). This was the case for names that were common and rare, according to university records, although slightly exaggerated for rare names. "People are motivated to be different from others," Kulig said. The phenomenon wasn't explained by the fact that some people spell their names in unusual ways.

A follow-up study was similar with 86 women and 57 men rating the frequency of their own first names, and a control group of men and women rating the names that belonged to that first group. As before, the participants estimated their names to be rarer than members of the control group did.

A clue as to the cause of the effect came from the fact that participants with (genuinely) rarer names tended to be happier with their names, consistent with Kulig's idea that we have a subconscious motivation to feel special. Also, of those who'd contemplated changing their names, the most popular reason was to obtain a rarer name. Finally, participants seemed completely unaware of "the name uniqueness effect". When participants were asked to estimate how rare other people would rate their (i.e. the participant's) name, they guessed that other people would come up with just the same rating as they had.

The new results complement a study from 2004, in which Danny Oppenheimer found that people underestimate the frequency of their own and famous people's last names. He put this down to a "discounting heuristic". Usually we overestimate the frequency of phenomena that we're familiar with (known as the availability heuristic), but Oppenheimer thinks we cancel out this bias when we're aware of a single, obvious cause of the familiarity, as we are with our own names or famous names. It's over-compensation by this process that he suggested leads us to an underestimation of the frequency of our last names.

The way we overestimate the prevalence of our names actually represents an anomaly when considered against findings showing that we tend to assume other people indulge in behaviours with a similar frequency as we do - known as "the false consensus effect." Kulig said more research is needed to find out if the "name uniqueness effect is itself a unique finding."

More generally, these new findings add to a growing literature on the psychology of our names. For example, past research has shown that we have a bias towards liking our own name and initials, and related to that, there's evidence for "nominative determinism", whereby our names influence our life opportunities and choices. A study published earlier this year, for example, claimed that people with unpopular names suffer life-long prejudice.

_________________________________ ResearchBlogging.org

Kulig, J. (2012). What's in a name? Our false uniqueness! British Journal of Social Psychology DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12001

Post written by Christian Jarrett for the BPS Research Digest.

Friday, 2 November 2012

Link feast

In case you missed them - 10 of the best psychology links from the past week:

1. Sam McNerney published a thought-provoking essay about aesthetic judgments and expertise. Is the taste of a connoisseur in some way superior, more "correct" than the taste of a naive observer? I was reminded of the under-appreciation of Michael Jackson's later music by non-fans. I reckon this is because they weren't there for the journey, they can't feel the progression and maturation in his art.

2. Breaking habits with a flash of light - Ed Yong reports on a truly fascinating rat experiment. There are interesting insights about habits, AND you get the benefit of a handy intro to the revolutionary neuroscience technique of optogenetics!

3. We humans are not the only creatures that dance. Jason Goldman with a fun blog post that includes an assessment of Snowball, the cockatoo - is he really dancing to the Backstreet Boys?

4. We strive for the easy life, but sometimes harder is better - Ian Leslie surveys an intriguing mix of anecdotes and psych studies showing the benefits of a challenge (I also learned about the web service This is My Jam - going to check it out now!).

5. New Scientist features editor David Robson was impressed by a new book about the mental simulations triggered by language.

6. The Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths tested two mediums this week, using a procedure that all parties agreed was fair. Drum roll please ... did they prove their powers? Find out.

7. BBC Radio 4's wonderful All in the Mind programme returned for another series this week - you can catch the first episode on iPlayer, which includes a look at the work of the Anna Freud centre on its 60th anniversary, and an interview with Norman Lamb, the new government minister with specific responsibility for mental health.

8. There are a few days left to watch BBC Three's Stacey Dooley in the USA "Gay to Straight", in which we meet gay men going through "therapy programmes" that they hope will make them straight. The American Psychological Association published a detailed working party report in 2009 on so-called reparative or conversion therapies and found them to be ineffective and potentially harmful (pdf). Also, this week in New Scientist, psychologist Christopher Ferguson argues that, while these therapies clearly don't work, banning them would be unwise.

9. Labour leader Ed Miliband gave a high profile speech to the Royal College of Psychiatrists this week about mental illness, which he described as the "biggest unaddressed health challenge of our age" (full speech).

10. Podcast bonanza - Steven Pinker appeared on Social Science Bites this week, talking about violence and human nature; and Jon Ronson (author of The Psychopath Test) and Richard Wiseman appeared on Points of Inquiry (ht @vaughanbell).
_________________________________
   
Post compiled by Christian Jarrett for the BPS Research Digest.

Thursday, 1 November 2012

Introverts use more concrete language than extraverts

Your personality is revealed in the way you speak, according to new research. Introverts tend to use more concrete words and are more precise, in contrast to extraverts, whose words are more abstract and vague.

Many previous studies have looked at the links between personality and language, but usually this has been about the content of what different personalities choose to talk about. It's been shown, for example, that extraverts are more likely to talk about family and friends, and to use words like "drinks" and "dancing", which makes intuitive sense given that people matching that personality type are expected to spend more time socialising.

Camiel Beukeboom and his co-workers took a different tack, asking 40 employees (19 women; average age 34 years) at a large company in Amsterdam to describe out loud the same five photos depicting ambiguous social situations. Participants were told that "there are no right or wrong answers" and given as long as they wanted to describe each photo. Their answers were recorded and transcribed for later coding. Three days later, the participants also completed a personality questionnaire.

Participants who scored higher in extraversion tended to describe the photos in terms that were rated by an independent coder as more abstract. For example, they used more "state verbs" (e.g. Jack loves Sue) and adjectives, and they admitted to engaging in more interpretation - describing things that were not directly visible in the pictures. On the other hand, the higher a person scored in introversion, the more concrete and precise their speech tended to be, including more use of articles (i.e. "a", "the"), more mentions of numbers and specific people, and making more distinctions (i.e. use of words like "but" and "except").

The differences make sense in terms of what we know about social behaviour and the introvert-extravert personality dimension, with the introverted linguistic style being more cautious, and the extravert style being more casual and vague.

The researchers said their results have far-reaching implications because we know based on past research that the contrasting speech styles are interpreted differently. For instance, they said behaviour described in abstract terms, in the style of an extravert (e.g. Camiel is unfriendly), is usually attributed to personality, as opposed to the situation, and therefore interpreted as enduring, more likely to occur again, yet harder to verify. By contrast, behaviour described in more concrete terms, in the characteristic style of an introvert (e.g. Camiel yells at Martin), tends to be interpreted as situation-specific, and as more believable.

"Thus an introvert's linguistic style would induce more situational attributions and a higher perception of trustworthiness than an extravert's style," the researchers said.

The findings also complement past research showing how conversations between two introverts usually involve discussing one topic in more depth whereas two extraverts dance around more topics in less detail.

"By talking at different levels of abstraction, extraverts and introverts report information differently," the researchers concluded, "and induce different recipient inferences, memories, and subsequent representations of the information exchanged."

_________________________________ ResearchBlogging.org

Beukeboom, C., Tanis, M., and Vermeulen, I. (2012). The Language of Extraversion: Extraverted People Talk More Abstractly, Introverts Are More Concrete. Journal of Language and Social Psychology DOI: 10.1177/0261927X12460844

--Further reading--
The links between bloggers' personalities and their use of words.

Post written by Christian Jarrett for the BPS Research Digest.